HomeMy WebLinkAbout*March 3, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda PacketMarch 3, 2020 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 1 of 3
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Council Chamber, 100 Civic Plaza
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
A G E N D A
•Agendas and Staff Reports are posted on the City’s Internet Website (www.dublin.ca.gov)
•Agendas may be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office for no charge, or to request information on being placed on
the annual subscription list, please call 833-6650.
•A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports and exhibits relate to each item is available of public
review at least 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to City Council
members less than 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is
available in the City Clerk’s Office and also at the Dublin Library.
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 5:30 PM
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.1. Recognition of the 2019 Citizen, Young Citizens, and Organization of the Year
Recipients, and Mayor's Award and Mayor's Legacy Award Recipients
The City Council will recognize the 2019 Citizen, Young Citizens, and Organization of the
Year recipients, as well as the Mayor's Award and Mayor's Legacy Award recipients.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recognize the award recipients.
3.2. March for Meals Month Proclamation
The City Council will consider a proclamation honoring the national Meals on Wheels
programs, the seniors they serve, and the volunteers who care for them.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
3.3. Certificate Recognizing Christine Gouig, Executive Director of the Alameda County
Housing Authority
The City Council will present a certificate recognizing Christine Gouig, Executive Director
of the Alameda County Housing Authority.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the certificate.
3.4. Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and
clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with
State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may
respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the
matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a
future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not
appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).
4.CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with
one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.
March 3, 2020 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 2 of 3
4.1. Approval of the February 18, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 18, 2020 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the February 18, 2020 Regular City Council meeting.
4.2. Acceptance of Work - Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements Project (Part of CIP
Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215)
The City Council will consider the acceptance of the Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements
Project. The project installed wayfinding signs at the Heritage Park and Museums, Emerald
Glen Park, and Fallon Sports Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements Project as Part of
CIP Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215.
4.3. Authorization to Purchase Unmarked Police Vehicles
The City Council will consider authorizing the purchase of two 2020 Dodge Chargers for
investigations personnel and one 2020 Chevrolet Blazer for special investigations personnel.
Pricing has been obtained for all three vehicles by piggybacking on the current Alameda
County General Services Agency contract for vehicle purchases. Three unmarked police
vehicles were scheduled for replacement during Fiscal Year 2019 -20 based upon general
vehicle condition and history of maintenance and repair expenses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Authorizing Staff to Purchase Two Unmarked Police Vehicles from
My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram of Salinas and One Unmarked Police Vehicle from Dublin
Chevrolet and Declaring Replaced Vehicles as Surplus Property.
4.4. Update to Police Services Agreement with Alameda County Sheriff's Office
The City of Dublin contracts for Police Services with the Alameda County Sheriff's Office.
On November 19, 2019, the City approved a new 10-year agreement for the period July 1,
2020 through June 30, 2030. To ensure compliance with California law, an updated
agreement has been prepared with an initial five-year term and an automatic renewal for an
additional five-year term (10 years total).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the
City of Dublin Regarding the Enforcement of State Laws and City Ordinances in the City of
Dublin.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
6. PUBLIC HEARING
6.1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) (PLPA-2020-00001)
The City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to modify Chapter 8.84 (Sign
Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Off-Site Advertising Signs.
The proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and INTRODUC E an Ordinance
Approving Amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance
Related to Off-Site Advertising Signs.
March 3, 2020 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 3 of 3
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.1. Establish Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road Alignment Project
The City Council will review and consider an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum and will
consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to establish the precise alignment for the right-of-
way lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and the Alameda-Contra Costa County
Limit Line. The proposed alignment will revise the existing alignment in the northerly
segment of Tassajara Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for the Future Right-of-
Way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda-Contra Costa County
Limit Line.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. Designation of Two City Councilmembers as City Representatives to Discuss the
Contract and Compensation with the City Attorney
The City Council will discuss the appointment of two City Councilmembers to serve as the
City’s representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney’s contract, including
compensation, with the City Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Designate two City Councilmembers to discuss the contract and compensation with the City
Attorney.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports
and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).
10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)
If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation th ereof. To make
a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833 -
6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Mission
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, en sures a safe and secure environment, and fosters
new opportunities.
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Recognition of the 2019 Citizen, Young Citizens, and Organization of the
Year Recipients, and Mayor's Award and Mayor's Legacy Award
Recipients
Prepared by: Cierra Fabrigas, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will recognize the 2019 Citizen, Young Citizens, and Organization of
the Year recipients, as well as the Mayor's Award and Mayor's Legacy Award recipients.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recognize the award recipients.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
In February of each year, the City Council recognizes a Citizen, Young Citizen, and
Organization who made a significant contribution toward enhancing the quality of life for
residents of Dublin during the past year. Additionally, the Mayor presents two special
awards, the Mayor’s Award and the Mayor’s Legacy Award, to those he wishes to
recognize for their extraordinary dedication to the community. The winners in each
category received certificates at the City’s Volunteer Recognition Event on February 19,
2020.
The City Council will formally recognize the following 2019 award recipients:
•Citizen of the Year, Liz Crocker
•Young Citizen(s) of the Year, Emily Que and Haley Tjon
•Organization of the Year, Dublin 4-H
•Mayor’s Award, Vanessa Thomas and the Dublin Art Collective
•Mayor’s Legacy Award, GFWC Dublin San Ramon Women’s Club
3.1
Packet Pg. 4
Page 2 of 2
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
3.1
Packet Pg. 5
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: March for Meals Month Proclamation
Prepared by: Cierra Fabrigas, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider a proclamation honoring the national Meals on Wheels
programs, the seniors they serve, and the volunteers who care for them.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Since March 1972, Meals on Wheels programs have delivered nutritious meals to
homebound seniors in virtually every community across the country, via the dedication
of staff and volunteers who deliver the meals and provide a vital lifeline and connection
to the community.
Meals on Wheels programs have come together each March since 2002 to celebrate
March for Meals, a nationwide month-long celebration of Meals on Wheels and the
millions of seniors who rely on the nutritious meals, friendly visits, and safety checks to
remain independent at home.
The City’s recognition of, and involvement in, the national 2020 March for Meals will
honor the nationwide programs as well as our Meals on Wheels of Alameda County
programs, the seniors they serve, and the volunteers who care for them.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
3.2
Packet Pg. 6
Page 2 of 2
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. March for Meals Proclamation
3.2
Packet Pg. 7
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
“March for Meals Month – March 2020”
WHEREAS, on March 22, 1972, President Richard Nixon signed into law a measure that amended the Older Americans Act of 1965 and establi shed a
national nutrition program for seniors 60 years and older; and
WHEREAS, Meals on Wheels America established the March for Meals campaign in March 2002 to recognize the historic month and the importance of
the Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs, and to raise awareness about the escalating problem of senior hunger in America; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 observance of March for Meals celebrates 18 years of the collaboration of local community organizations, businesses, government
agencies, and compassionate individuals in supporting Meals on Wheels programs that deliver vital and critical services by donating, volunteering, and
raising awareness about senior hunger and isolation; and
WHEREAS, Meals on Wheels programs – both Congregate and Home-Delivered – in Dublin, have served our communities admirably for more than
40 years in California, and for 48 years in Dublin; and
WHEREAS, volunteers for Meals on Wheels programs in Dublin are the backbone of the program and they not only deliver essential meals to seniors
and individuals with disabilities who are at significant risk of hunger and isolation, but also demonstrate care for and attention to their welfare; and
WHEREAS, Meals on Wheels programs in Dublin provide nutritious meals to seniors throughout the city that help them maintain their health and
independence, thereby preventing unnecessary falls, hospitalizations and/or premature institutionalization; and
WHEREAS, Meals on Wheels of Alameda County’s program in Dublin provides a powerful socialization opportunity for millions of seniors to help
combat the negative health effects and economic consequences of loneliness and isolation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby proclaim March 2020 as March for Meals Month in the City of
Dublin and urge every citizen to take this month to honor our Meals on Wheels of Alameda County programs, the seniors they serve, and the volunteers
who care for them. Our recognition of, and involvement in, the national 2020 March for Meals can enrich our entire community and help combat senior
hunger and isolation in America.
Mayor David G. Haubert Vice Mayor Arun Goel
Councilmember Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Jean Josey Councilmember Shawn Kumagai
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
a
r
c
h
f
o
r
M
e
a
l
s
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
a
r
c
h
f
o
r
M
e
a
l
s
M
o
n
t
h
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Certificate Recognizing Christine Gouig, Executive Director of the
Alameda County Housing Authority
Prepared by: Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will present a certificate recognizing Christine Gouig, Executive
Director of the Alameda County Authority.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the certificate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On March 30, 2020, Christine ("Chris") Gouig, Executive Director of the Alameda
County Housing Authority, is planning to retire. The City Council will present a
certificate recognizing and thanking Ms. Gouig for her years of service.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Certificate of Recognition
3.3
Packet Pg. 9
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
Given to
CHRISTINE “CHRIS” GOUIG
In recognition of her contributions to Alameda County and the Dublin
community through her leadership with the Alameda County Housing Authority.
Presented by the
City Council of the City of Dublin
Dated: March 3, 2020
Mayor David G. Haubert Vice Mayor Arun Goel
Councilmember Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Jean Josey Councilmember Shawn Kumagai
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
(
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
C
h
r
i
s
G
o
u
i
g
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of the February 18, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 18, 2020 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the February 18, 2020 Regular City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 18, 2020 Regular
City Council meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Minutes of the February 18, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting
4.1
Packet Pg. 11
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING – FEBRUARY 18, 2020
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 18,
2020, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. by
Mayor Haubert.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Title Status
David Haubert Mayor Present
Arun Goel Vice Mayor Present
Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Present
Jean Josey Councilmember Present
Shawn Kumagai Councilmember Present
Pledge of Allegiance - The pledge of allegiance was recited by the City Council, Staff,
and those present at the meeting.
3. Oral Communications
3.1. Introduction of Visit Tri-Valley’s New President and CEO Tracy Farhad
The City Council received the presentation from Visit Tri-Valley CEO Tracy
Farhad.
3.2. Employee Introduction
The City Council welcomed the new Dublin Staff member.
3.3. 2020 St. Patrick's Day Celebration Festivities Report
The City Council received the report.
3.4. Public Comment
No public comment provided.
4. Consent Calendar
Item 4.2 was pulled from the consent calendar by Staff to be presented at a
future City Council meeting.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
4.1. Approved the minutes of the February 4, 2020 regular City Council meeting.
4.3. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 20
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-18 AND APPOINTING
DIRECTORS TO PLAN JPA ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
4.4. Received the City Treasurer's Informational Report of Investments for the quarter
ending December 31, 2019.
4.5. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 10 – 20
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 20
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SALARY PLAN FOR
MANAGEMENT POSITIONS EXEMPT FROM COMPETITIVE SERVICE
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 20
AMENDING THE SALARY PLAN FOR PART-TIME PERSONNEL
RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 20
AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT POSITIONS EXEMPT FROM
COMPETITIVE SERVICE RESOLUTION AND PRESCRIBING LEAVE BENEFITS
FOR THE DESIGNATED POSITIONS
4.6. Received the Payment Issuance Report for December 2019 and January 2020 .
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: David Haubert, Mayor
SECOND: Sean Kimagai, Councilmember
AYES: Goel, Haubert, Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai
5. Written Communication – None.
6. Public Hearing – None.
7. Unfinished Business
7.1 Shared Autonomous Vehicle Testing - Project Implementation
The City Council received the presentation on the implementation of the
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Shared Autonomous Vehicle testing
program in Dublin.
8. New Business
8.1 Informational Report on Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation
and Housing Element Update
The City Council received the report.
9. Other Business
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee
reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense
(AB1234).
By consensus, the City Council confirmed the March 3, 2020 City Council meeting
would be held at 5:30 p.m.
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to write a letter to the recent good
Samaritan and implement a program where members of the Community can submit
a request to the City to recognize a good Samaritan in Dublin. Those individuals will
have the option to be recognized at a quarterly meeting or receive a certificate in the
mail if they do not wish to be acknowledged publicly.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. in honor of Sean Diamond and all of our
fallen troops.
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
8
,
2
0
2
0
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Work - Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements Project (Part
of CIP Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215)
Prepared by: Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider the acceptance of the Park Wayfinding Signs
Improvements Project. The project installed wayfinding signs at the Heritage Park and
Museums, Emerald Glen Park, and Fallon Sports Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements Project as
Part of CIP Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Park Wayfinding Sign Improvements Project (part of Capital Improvement Program
Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215) is complete and the cost for construction was as
follows:
Construction Contract $142,900
Change Order #1 ($1,900)
Total Construction Contract $141,000
DESCRIPTION:
On May 21, 2019, the City Council awarded a contract to Frank and Son, Incorporated
dba Express Sign and Neon for the Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements Project. The
City Council awarded the contract for $142,900 and approved a construction
contingency amount of $30,000.
The project provided for the fabrication and installation of wayfinding, informational, and
regulatory signage at Heritage Park and Museums, Emerald Glen Park, and Fallon
Sports Park. Staff has determined that the project is complete and recommends that
the City Council accept the project and begin the warranty period.
4.2
Packet Pg. 16
Page 2 of 2
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A courtesy copy of this staff report was sent to Frank and Son, Incorporated dba
Express Sign and Neon.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Accepting the Park Wayfinding Signs Improvements Project as Part of
CIP Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215
4.2
Packet Pg. 17
ATTACHMENT #1
RESOLUTION NO. - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
ACCEPTING THE PARK WAYFINDING SIGNS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AS PART OF CIP
PROJECT NOS. PK0414 AND PK0215
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2019 the City of Dublin entered into a contract with Frank and Son,
Incorporated, dba Express Sign and Neon to complete the Park Wayfinding Signs improvements in
conjunction with the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Nos. PK0414 and PK0215; and
WHEREAS, said improvements have been completed in accordance with plans and specifications,
and any approved modifications thereof, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the contract, Frank and Son Incorporated, dba Express Sign and
Neon is required to warranty the improvements for a period of one year following acceptance of the work
by the City of Dublin and maintain a maintenance bond in the amount of 10% of the final contract value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby accept the Park Wayfinding Signs improvements as a part of CIP Project Nos. PK0414 and
PK0215 and authorizes Staff to file a Notice of Completion with Alameda County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize
the City Manager or designee to release the retention, if after 35 days of filing the Notice of
Completion there are no subcontractor claims.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize
the City Manager or designee to release the maintenance bond at the end of the one-year warranty
period.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
W
a
y
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
s
P
a
r
t
o
f
C
I
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
s
.
P
K
0
4
1
4
a
n
d
P
K
0
2
1
5
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Purchase Unmarked Police Vehicles
Prepared by: Nate Schmidt, Captain Dublin Police Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider authorizing the purchase of two 2020 Dodge Chargers for
investigations personnel and one 2020 Chevrolet Blazer for special investigations
personnel. Pricing has been obtained for all three vehicles by piggybacking on the
current Alameda County General Services Agency contract for vehicle purchases.
Three unmarked police vehicles were scheduled for replacement during Fiscal Year
2019-20 based upon general vehicle condition and history of maintenance a nd repair
expenses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Authorizing Staff to Purchase Two Unmarked Police Vehicles
from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram of Salinas and One Unmarked Police Vehicle from
Dublin Chevrolet and Declaring Replaced Vehicles as Surplus Property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year 2019-20 Internal Service Fund Budget includes funding for the
purchase of three unmarked police vehicles. Any revenue generated from the auction of
the retired vehicles is also deposited into the fund to offset future replacement costs.
DESCRIPTION:
The City currently has 12 unmarked vehicles which are used by Dublin Police Services
administration, the investigations unit, and the special investigations unit. In order to
ensure reliability and to minimize repair expenses, the City reviews replacement of
these vehicles after five years of service and/or 75,000 miles.
Based upon general vehicle condition and the age of units currently in the fleet, Staff
has identified three existing unmarked police vehicles for replacement during Fiscal
Year 2019-20: a 2014 Ford Explorer with over 134,000 miles (Vehicle #14D32), a 2014
4.3
Packet Pg. 19
Page 2 of 2
Ford Taurus with over 89,000 miles (Vehicle #14D33) and a 2011 Ford Taurus with over
109,000 miles (Vehicle #11D34).
On October 4, 2017, Alameda County General Services Agency approved a contract
identifying My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram of Salinas and Dublin Chevrolet as approved
vehicle vendors for Alameda County. The contract has an expiration date of September
24, 2020.
Staff conducted research to determine which available unmarked police vehicles would
best meet the needs of Dublin Police Services and is recommending the purchase of
one 2020 Dodge Charger Unmarked Police Sedan, one 2020 Dodge Charger SXT, and
one 2020 Chevrolet Blazer.
Utilizing the aforementioned contract, Staff has obtained the following pricing:
- 2020 Dodge Charger from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram: $27,518.02
- 2020 Dodge Charger SXT from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram: $28,995.67
- 2020 Chevrolet Blazer from Dublin Chevrolet: $35,116.45
The current Internal Service Fund Budget contains funding to purchase these vehicles.
Staff is also requesting that the City Council authorize the disposal of the replaced
vehicles by transferring them to a professional auction company for sale. Any revenue
generated from the auction of the retired vehicles will be deposited into the fund to
offset future replacement costs.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Two Unmarked Vehicles from My Jeep
Chrysler Dodge Ram and One Unmarked Police Vehicle from Dublin Chevrolet
2. 2020 Dodge Charger Quotes from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram of Salinas
3. 2020 Chevrolet Blazer Quote from Dublin Chevrolet
4. Alameda County General Services Agency Contract for Vehicle Purchasing
4.3
Packet Pg. 20
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. xx - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO UNMARKED POLICE VEHICLES FROM MY JEEP
CHRYSLER DODGE RAM OF SALINAS AND ONE UNMARKED POLICE VEHICLE FROM
DUBLIN CHEVROLET AND DECLARING REPLACED VEHICLES AS SURPLUS PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City requires unmarked vehicles for Dublin Police Services operations; and
WHEREAS, the City follows a process of periodically replacing unmarked police vehicles
based upon the age of the vehicle and its condition; and
WHEREAS, in the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Internal Service Fund Budget funding was included for
the replacement of three unmarked vehicles; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2017, Alameda County General Services Agency approved a
contract identifying My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram of Salinas and Dublin Chevrolet as approved
vehicle purchasing vendors for Alameda County with an expiration date of September 24, 2020; and
WHEREAS, utilizing the Alameda County General Services Agency contract, Staff has
obtained pricing for a 2020 Dodge Charger Police Sedan from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram at a
cost of $27,518.02, a 2020 Dodge Charger SXT Sedan from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram at a cost
of $28,995.67, and a 2020 Chevrolet Blazer from Dublin Chevrolet at a cost of $35,116.45.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby
authorizes the City Manager, as Purchasing Agent, to procure two replacement unmarked police
vehicles from My Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram of Salinas and one replacement unmarked police vehicle
from Dublin Chevrolet as described to the City Council on March 3, 2020.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon placing the new vehicles in service, the replaced
vehicles are declared surplus property to be sold at auction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and/or her designee shall be authorized
to arrange for the auction of surplus City property in accordance with state and local laws and
regulations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Clerk
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
T
w
o
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
f
r
o
m
M
y
J
e
e
p
C
h
r
y
s
l
e
r
D
o
d
g
e
R
a
m
a
n
d
O
n
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
2
0
2
0
D
o
d
g
e
C
h
a
r
g
e
r
Q
u
o
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
M
y
J
e
e
p
C
h
r
y
s
l
e
r
D
o
d
g
e
R
a
m
o
f
S
a
l
i
n
a
s
(
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
2
0
2
0
D
o
d
g
e
C
h
a
r
g
e
r
Q
u
o
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
M
y
J
e
e
p
C
h
r
y
s
l
e
r
D
o
d
g
e
R
a
m
o
f
S
a
l
i
n
a
s
(
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
DUBLIN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
CHEVROLET GMC BUSINESS ELITE DEPT
GM FLEET & COMMERCIAL
QUOTE # 511024
City of Dublin
2020 CHEVROLET BLAZER
STOCK # TBD
MSRP $35,905
Using Alameda County BID Assistance $33,355
AGREEMENT IS (500 OVER) $500
DOC FEE $85.00
TIRE FEE $7.00
EXEMPT PLATE FEE $30
TAXES $3,139.45
REBATE -$2,000
TOTAL DUE $35,116.45
QUOTED BY: CHRIS SIMS, FLEET&COMMERCIAL SALES MGR
925-330-9115, CSIMS@CACARGROUP.COM
4.3.c
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
2
0
2
0
C
h
e
v
r
o
l
e
t
B
l
a
z
e
r
Q
u
o
t
e
f
r
o
m
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
h
e
v
r
o
l
e
t
(
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
f
r
o
m
V
e
n
d
o
r
)
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
g
e
n
c
y
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
(
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
g
e
n
c
y
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
(
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
g
e
n
c
y
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
(
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Update to Police Services Agreement with Alameda County Sheriff's
Office
Prepared by: Lauren E. Quint, Assistant City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Dublin contracts for Police Services with the Alameda County Sheriff's
Office. On November 19, 2019, the City approved a new 10 -year agreement for the
period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2030. To ensure compliance with California law,
an updated agreement has been prepared with an initial five-year term and an
automatic renewal for an additional five-year term (10 years total).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Agreement Between the County of Alameda and
the City of Dublin Regarding the Enforcement of State Laws and City Ordinances in the
City of Dublin.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Costs for Police Services are estimated on an annual basis and are budgeted as part of
the City's two-year budget process. The cost of services varies from year-to-year based
on labor agreements negotiated by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office with its labor
units, as well as when the City requires additional staffing to meet the needs of the
community.
Police Services within the City of Dublin are estimated to be $20.9 million for Fiscal
Year 2019-20.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City began contracting with ASCO for Police Services on July 1, 1982. Over the
past 38 years, the City and ACSO have ren ewed/extended the agreement between the
4.4
Packet Pg. 28
Page 2 of 2
two organizations a total of 10 times. The contract has proven to be a valuable asset to
the community as the City has been able to gain an economy of scale in contracting
with a larger organization. Importantly, the ACSO has provided a high level of service
while acting on a day-to-day basis as the City's own police force. The current contract
has a term of five years and expires on June 30, 2020.
On November 19, 2019, the City approved a new 10-year agreement, for the period
July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2030. After such approval, legal counsel recommended
that the 10-year term be updated to a five-year term with one automatic five-year
renewal. This change ensures compliance with Government Code section 51203.
The proposed agreement has an effective date of July 1, 2020 and an expiration date of
June 30, 2025, with one automatic five-year renewal to expire on June 20, 2030. After
such date, the contract may be extended on a year-to-year basis.
Staff feels that the Alameda County Sheriff's Office provides excellent safety services to
our community and is recommending that the City Council approve the proposed
contract for law enforcement services.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving the Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the City of
Dublin Regarding the Enforcement of State Laws and City Ordinances in the City of
Dublin
2. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the City
of Dublin
4.4
Packet Pg. 29
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY
OF DUBLIN REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS AND CITY ORDINANCES
IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda and the City of Dublin entered into an agreement for
Law Enforcement Services commencing July 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the current agreement will expire on June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, the City Council approved a new agreement, for the period
July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2030; and
WHEREAS, after such approval, legal counsel recommended that the 10-year term be
updated to a five-year term with one automatic five-year renewal to ensure compliance with
Government Code section 51203; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin wishes to continue contracting for Law Enforcement Services
with the County of Alameda.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
approve the agreement by and between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda for Law
Enforcement Services as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City of Dublin.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF
STATE LAWS AND CITY ORDINANCES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
THIS AGREEMENT ("the Agreement") is made and entered into this ___ day of ______
2020 by and between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and
the CITY OF DUBLIN, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." CITY and COUNTY are from time to
time referred to individually as a "Party'' and collectively as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. The Parties are parties to that certain "Agreement Between The County Of Alameda
and the City of Dublin Regarding the Enforcement of State Laws and City Ordinances In The City
Of Dublin,” dated June 2, 2015, and expiring on June 30, 2020, under which the COUNTY,
through its Sheriff’s Office (the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, "ACSO") contracts to enforce
State laws and CITY ordinances within the City of Dublin.
B. The CITY is desirous of once again contracting with the COUNTY for the
enforcement by ACSO of State laws and CITY ordinances within the CITY until June 30, 2025,
and the COUNTY is willing to provide such services, pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth herein.
C. In so contracting with the COUNTY, the CITY is desirous of achieving sufficient
integration between the CITY and COUNTY that, to the extent possible, the performance of said
services by COUNTY is perceived to be substantially the same as if the CITY has a traditional
Police Department, and is conducted in a manner consistent with the City of Dublin Mission,
Vision and Values, which document is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
D. The CITY and COUNTY desire, during the term of the Agreement, to review
annually, prior to March 31 of each year, the level of service provided under the agreement and
associated costs and mutually agree on appropriate adjustments. This agreement shall consist of
this Agreement and Exhibits A to F, which are hereby attached to, incorporated, and made a part
of this Agreement by this reference.
THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
A. ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCES. The COUNTY
agrees, through ACSO, to enforce CITY ordinances and State laws within the corporate limits of
CITY to the extent and in the manner hereinafter set forth. Services performed hereunder shall not
include the supplying of crossing guards.
B. BASIC LEVEL OF SERVICE. The basic level of service, in terms of
organizational structure and number of personnel, shall be as shown on the organization chart
attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereto by this reference.
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2
C. ANNUAL REVIEW OF LEVEL OF SERVICE. Prior to March 31 of each year,
the City Manager and ACSO representatives shall review whether the basic level of services set
forth in Exhibit B is adequate for the City’s needs for the coming fiscal year. Upon completion of
such review, and no later than May 15 of said year, the City Manager may propose modifications
to the basic level of services, which shall take the form of an amendment to Exhibit B and which
shall become effective on July 1 of said year, provided that both the Sheriff and City Council,
through the adoption of the City's budget, approve the amendment to Exhibit B.
D. OTHER REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO LEVEL OF SERVICE. The
City Manager may at any time request modifications in the basic service levels set forth in Exhibit
B. If a modification to Exhibit B would require COUNTY to provide additional personnel, upon
agreement of the Sheriff, the COUNTY shall make every effort to provide such personnel within
ninety days of the effective date of the modification to Exhibit B. If the COUNTY will be unable
to provide such additional personnel within the 90 day period, COUNTY shall notify the CITY of
the anticipated date such personnel will be assigned. If a modification to Exhibit B would require
COUNTY to reduce the number of personnel assigned to the CITY, the CITY shall provide the
COUNTY with ninety (90) days’ notice prior to a proposed reduction in police personnel and with
ten (10) days' notice prior to a proposed reduction in civilian personnel.
E. SELECTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL. Upon
request by the CITY, the Sheriff or his designated representative shall meet with the City Manager
who may provide input on the selection of the Chief of Police as well as any classification at the
rank of Lieutenant or above assigned to the CITY. The input shall focus on the type of background,
experience and other factors that are pertinent to the provision of services pursuant to this
Agreement. The selection and assignment of such personnel shall be mutually agreed to by the
City Manager and the Sheriff. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY may request, and the
COUNTY shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate, (subject to what is allowable under
existing labor agreements and/or State law), that individual management personnel be reassigned
if that individual demonstrates a lack of understanding or commitment to serving the needs of the
CITY under the terms of this Agreement.
F. SUPERVISION. The Sheriff shall have the responsibility for supervision of law
enforcement services, hiring of personnel, establishing employee standards of performance for
individual personnel, assignment of personnel, determining and effecting discipline, determining
required training, maintaining personnel files, and other matters relating to the performance of
employee services and control of personnel. In the event of a dispute between the parties as to the
manner of performance by personnel of required services, the CITY shall be consulted and a
mutual determination thereof shall be made by the Sheriff and the City Manager. In recognition of
the Sheriff's professional expertise in the area of law enforcement, it is agreed that, in any
unresolved dispute related to personnel, the Sheriff shall have the final and conclusive
determination as between the parties.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY may request, and the COUNTY shall make reasonable
efforts to accommodate, (subject to what is allowable under existing labor agreements and/or State
law), that individual personnel at the rank of Sergeant or below be reassigned if that individual
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
3
demonstrates a lack of understanding or commitment to serving the needs of the CITY under the
terms of this Agreement.
G. PROVISION OF LABOR, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT. For the purpose of
performing the services hereunder, COUNTY shall furnish and supply all necessary labor,
supervision, equipment, communication facilities, and supplies necessary to maintain the level of
service to be rendered hereunder. As required under this Agreement, the CITY is obligated to
provide certain supplies and equipment, including but not limited to, office furnishings and
equipment as described in Section I.H below. Where not so obligated, the CITY may, in its sole
discretion, furnish and supply any other supplies and equipment. With the express exception of
personnel files, all files, records and other data, whether stored electronically or in a physical
location, collected or produced by COUNTY in the course of providing services under this
Agreement shall belong to CITY, to the extent permissible under federal and state law.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, and unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties, the
Party providing such supplies and equipment shall be the owner of such supplies and equipment
and shall be responsible for the prompt maintenance of such. Said duty to maintain supplies and
equipment shall include, but not be limited to, maintenance of any and all computers and related
hardware and software. It is recognized that computer related equipment and network services may
require integration between systems maintained individually by the CITY and the COUNTY. The
Parties shall each assign technical Staff who maintain such systems to meet on a quarterly basis,
or more frequently if necessary, to identify any operational issues.
CITY shall be responsible for the purchase of computer systems utilized in patrol vehicles owned
by CITY, unless an alternate agreement for the purchase of such computer systems is made
between the Parties. CITY shall be responsible for any repair and maintenance costs associated
with computer systems utilized in patrol vehicles owned by CITY.
H. CITY-SUPPLIED ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS. The Parties have
determined that it is necessary for the Sheriff to maintain administrative headquarters in the CITY
in order for the Sheriff to provide adequate services to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement. CITY
shall furnish at its own cost and expense all necessary office space, furniture, and furnishings,
office supplies, janitorial service, telephone, light, water, and other utilities necessary for the
Sheriff to maintain the administrative headquarters in the CITY. In all instances where special
supplies, stationary, notices, forms and the like must be issued in the name of the CITY, the same
shall be supplied by the CITY at its expense. It is expressly understood that the Sheriff may use
the administrative headquarters supplied by the CITY in connection with the performance of his
duties in territory outside of the CITY and adjacent thereto; provided, however, that the
performance of such outside duties shall not be at any additional cost to the CITY. The COUNTY
shall reimburse the CITY for the cost of providing such facilities to the extent that such facilities
are used for activities outside the City of Dublin. (This paragraph is not operative under mutual
aid response.)
I. COUNTY-SUPPLIED VEHICLES. The COUNTY agrees to provide three (3)
unmarked vehicles equipped with police communications and safety equipment, if requested by
the CITY. The age and condition of the cars shall be comparable to vehicles used by the Sheriff
for similar duties in the unincorporated area of the COUNTY. The CITY shall pay to the COUNTY
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
4
a monthly lease cost for such vehicles, which shall be established by the COUNTY on an annual
basis. Also, there shall be an additional charge to and payment by CITY for maintenance based on
the number of miles of service the vehicle is used. The CITY may, at its sole discretion, terminate
the lease of the vehicles at any time during the term of this Agreement, upon written notification
from the CITY to the COUNTY.
J. REPLACEMENT OF PERSONNEL. The COUNTY agrees to replace police or
civilian personnel assigned to the CITY who have been absent from duty for more than ten (10)
consecutive working days as a result of illness or injury. Replacement shall occur at the end of the
ten (10) day period during which the employee was absent. In no event shall the CITY be
responsible for any costs relating to the continued employment of police or civilian personnel who
have been absent from duty for more than ten (10) consecutive working days.
In the event of absences due to the use of vacation leave, compensatory time off, retirement,
or other excused absence (including extended training), the COUNTY also agrees to replace police
or civilian personnel when such an absence extends beyond twenty (20) consecutive working days.
Replacement of personnel in such circumstances may be waived for an agreed upon time period
with written approval by the City Manager. The replacement in such situations shall occur at the
end of the twenty (20) day period in which the employee was absent. In no event shall the CITY
be responsible for any costs relating to the continued employment of police or civilian personnel
who have been absent from duty for more than twenty (20) consecutive working days.
K. TRAINING. The COUNTY shall provide all necessary and mandatory training
required to ensure that employees assigned to the CITY comply with all state and agency mandated
training. The CITY agrees to provide training for assignments that are specific to the CITY's needs.
L. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER. The COUNTY shall provide, at no cost
to the CITY, use of the Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”) at the Alameda County Office of
Emergency Services in the event of a local activation, provided that the CITY’S existing EOC at
the Dublin Civic Center is unable to be occupied during such an event. CITY understands that a
countywide activation would preclude the CITY’S sole use of the COUNTY’S EOC facility.
M. COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL. The Parties agree to establish a
communications protocol to be used in the event of crisis situations including, but not limited to,
situations where the provision of services pursuant to this Agreement results in serious injury or
death. At a minimum, said protocol shall enable the CITY to communicate in a timely manner
with the public while ensuring that the substance of such communications does not detrimentally
impact the COUNTY's ability to defend itself and the CITY from any claims arising out of the
provision of services.
II. LIABILITY
A. PERSONNEL ARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES. All persons employed in the
performance of the services and functions for CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be and shall
remain COUNTY employees, and no person hereunder shall have any CITY pension, civil service,
or other status or right. The COUNTY is not a member of the California Public Employees
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
5
Retirement System ("PERS"), and therefore the COUNTY employees providing services under
this Agreement are not enrolled in PERS. Instead, COUNTY employees providing services under
this Agreement are enrolled in the COUNTY's retirement system. The CITY indirectly makes
contributions to the COUNTY's retirement system on behalf of the COUNTY employees
providing services pursuant to this agreement by virtue of its obligation under section III.A of this
Agreement to pay the COUNTY’S actual costs of providing services, as shown in Exhibit C. The
CITY is a member of PERS, and its employees are enrolled in PERS. Notwithstanding any other
City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, COUNTY agrees
that employees providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled
to, and hereby agree to waive on behalf of such employees any and all claims to, any compensation,
benefit, or any incident of employment by CITY, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll
in PERS as an employee of CITY and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by CITY for
employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
B. CITY NOT LIABLE FOR COMPENSATING COUNTY EMPLOYEES. CITY
shall not be liable for any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wages, or other
compensation to COUNTY personnel performing services hereunder for CITY, or any liability
other than that provided in this Agreement. CITY shall not be directly liable for compensation or
indemnity to any COUNTY employee for injury or sickness arising out of his employment, except
as part of CITY’S payment of indirect costs and Risk Management costs to COUNTY.
C. COUNTY’S DUTY TO INDEMNIFY CITY. With the exception of any claims
arising from CITY or CITY’S officers, agents, and employees’ negligence or wrongful acts or
omissions, the COUNTY will assume liability and pay the cost of defense and hold the CITY
harmless from any loss, costs, or expenses arising out of, or resulting from, performance of services
pursuant to this Agreement, including negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of COUNTY
officers, agents, and employees. It is the intent of the Parties that, where negligence is determined
to have been contributory, principles of comparative fault will be followed and each Party shall
bear the proportionate costs of any loss, damage, expense and liability attributable to the Party’s
negligence.
In the event that any COUNTY employee providing services under this Agreement is
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or PERS to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as
an employee of CITY, COUNTY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY for the
payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of COUNTY
employees, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which
would otherwise be the responsibility of CITY.
D. INSURANCE. The CITY and the COUNTY each acknowledge that the Parties are
self-insured entities and that they require their individual departments to contribute a specified
amount annually for the costs of maintaining self-insurance. Both the CITY and the COUNTY'S
self-insurance currently provide, and each Party agrees to continue to provide, the following self-
insurance coverage: workers' compensation as required by law, general commercial and
automobile liability, and professional liability.
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
6
The scope, limits, and forms of the COUNTY’S self-insurance coverage are as set forth in
the certificates of self-insurance attached hereto as Exhibit E. The scope, limits, and forms of the
CITY’s self-insurance coverage are as set forth in the certificates of self-insurance attached hereto
as Exhibit F.
The CITY and the COUNTY each agree to provide the other Party with written notification
of any changes in coverage applicable to this Agreement and shall do so within thirty (30) days of
the change or within ten (10) days in the event the change results in the termination of coverage(s)
applicable to this Agreement. In the event either Party determines that it is unable to maintain the
insurance coverage at the scope, limits, and forms set forth in Exhibit E or Exhibit F, the Parties
shall confer, and if either Party determines that the coverages are inadequate, they shall have the
right to immediately terminate this Agreement. COUNTY and CITY agree to waive any rights of
subrogation for all of the above self-insurance coverages.
III. COST AND BILLING PROCEDURES
A. CITY TO PAY COUNTY ITS ACTUAL COSTS OF SERVICES. CITY shall pay
the COUNTY'S actual costs of providing services under this Agreement. The COUNTY'S actual
costs of services may include an indirect charge to cover that portion of the COUNTY'S indirect
or overhead costs that are attributable to the provision of services pursuant to this Agreement.
The indirect charge shall be a percentage of all the COUNTY'S actual cost of providing
services under this Agreement, but shall not apply to the Risk Management Cost Allocation
(currently appropriated as an Internal Service Fund). The Sheriff shall maintain his discretion on
an annual basis to waive or not waive the indirect charges for dispatch services. The indirect charge
percentage shall not exceed eight percent (8%) during the term of this Agreement.
B. ANNUAL BUDGET. For the purposes of allowing the CITY to budget for the costs
of services under this Agreement, the Sheriff or his designated representative shall prepare and
submit to the City Manager a budget for the succeeding fiscal year that estimates the COUNTY's
actual costs of providing services under this Agreement, including the indirect charges. The budget
shall be submitted in the general form set forth in Exhibit C and in accordance with CITY’s budget
instructions and required deadlines. The CITY agrees that the operating budget may be amended
upon written notice to the CITY whenever the Board of Supervisors adjusts the salaries and/or
benefits of the personnel assigned to the CITY under this Agreement. In the event that such an
ordinance results in a requirement to make retroactive payments or other adjustments to the
compensation of said personnel, the amount of such retroactive payment or other adjustment shall
be evenly allocated over three (3) bi-monthly billing cycles. The COUNTY shall use its best efforts
to provide service under the Agreement within the approved budget. Should COUNTY determine
that, in any budget item, expenditures will exceed the original estimate, the COUNTY shall
promptly notify the CITY so that a mutually acceptable resolution can be made to correct the
situation.
C. BILLING AND PAYMENT. Effective July 1, 2020, the COUNTY shall deliver to
CITY a bi-monthly, itemized invoice that covers the actual costs of all services performed under
this Agreement during the preceding bi-monthly period, and CITY shall pay COUNTY therefore
within thirty (30) days after the date of delivery of said invoice. The invoices shall be submitted
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
7
in a format similar to Exhibit D and be delivered according to the schedule contained in Exhibit
D. In conjunction with said invoices, the COUNTY shall provide to the CITY all supporting
documentation reasonably requested by the CITY, in a form acceptable to the CITY, and in
sufficient detail to allow the CITY to audit, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, costs and expenses incurred by the COUNTY in the performance of its obligations under
this Agreement. Said supporting documentation shall include, but not be limited to: electronic files
of payroll and benefit records for the relevant bi-monthly period, and service hours and daily
schedules of staff deployment, including positions vacant for any reason. CITY acknowledges that
the final bill of each year may not reflect the final and complete actual costs of that final bi-monthly
period, and that the final and complete actual costs will be included as an adjustment with the first
bi-monthly bill of the next year. If such payment is not received by COUNTY at the office
described on said invoice within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt of said invoice, including
all required supporting documentation, COUNTY is entitled to recover interest thereof. Said
interest shall be at the rate of one percent (1%) per calendar month or any portion thereof calculated
from the last day of the month in which the services were performed.
D. BILLING DISPUTES. In the event that CITY disputes any portion of the bi-
monthly invoice submitted by COUNTY pursuant to section III.C, the Sheriff shall meet with the
City Manager, and the Sheriff and the City Manager shall attempt to resolve the dispute. If the
dispute is not resolved to the satisfaction of the CI'TY or COUNTY, either Party may seek any
available legal or equitable remedies.
IV. FINES & FORFEITURES
The distribution of fines and forfeitures under Section 1463 et. seq. of the Penal Code shall be
made to the CITY.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS
In performing the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, COUNTY and CITY shall
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to laws
and regulations relating to discrimination and laws requiring injury and illness prevention
programs.
VI. FORFEITED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
A. Any unclaimed property coming under the control of COUNTY personnel
performing the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be disposed of pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 2.40 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
B. When property described in Health and Safety Code Section 11470 is seized by
COUNTY personnel performing the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement on behalf
of and for the benefit of CITY, COUNTY shall take such actions as are necessary to forfeit such
property to CITY and where property is forfeited to CITY, the proceeds shall be distributed
pursuant to the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 11489.
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8
VII. EFFECTIVE DATE; TERM; TERMINATION
A. This Agreement shall have an effective date of July 1, 2020 and shall run for a
period of five (5) years ending June 30, 2025 (the “Original Term”). Upon expiration of the
Original Term, the Agreement shall be automatically renewed for one (1) additional five (5) year
term, ending June 30, 2030, unless either Party earlier terminates the Agreement in accordance
with Section VII(B) below.
B. The Agreement may be supplemented, amended or modified at any time by mutual
written consent by authorized representatives of both Parties or terminated upon eighteen (18)
months prior written notice by either Party. For the purposes of this paragraph regarding
amendments or termination, the Sheriff is the COUNTY’S authorized representative.
C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall be extended from month to
month following June 30, 2030 (for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months) under the terms of
the Agreement in existence on that date, if neither Party has provided eighteen (18) months’ notice
to the other Party of its intent to terminate this Agreement on June 30, 2030.
VIII. NOTICES
All required notices shall be in writing and shall be sent by the U.S. mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
To County: Sheriff Gregory Ahern
County of Alameda
1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
To City: Linda Smith, City Manager
City Manager’s Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
EXECUTION PAGE FOLLOWS
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
9
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By: ___________________________
Richard Valle
President, Board of Supervisors
Date: __________________________
By: ___________________________
Gregory J. Ahern
Sheriff-Coroner
Date: _________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Donna Zeigler, County Counsel
By: __________________________
Deputy County Counsel
Clay J. Christianson
Alameda County Risk Manager
By: __________________________
3483372.1
CITY OF DUBLIN
By: ___________________________
David Haubert
Mayor
Date: __________________________
By: ___________________________
Linda Smith
City Manager
Date: _________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John D. Bakker, City Attorney
By: __________________________
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Exhibit A
City of Dublin Mission, Vision, and Values
Page 1 of 2
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Exhibit A
City of Dublin Mission, Vision, and Values
Page 2 of 2
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Administrative Aide (City)
Laura Jammal
Patrol
Lieutenant ( 1)
Patrol Sergeants (5)
Officers (28)
Traffic
Sergeant (1)
Officers (4)
Technician (1)
Property/Evidence Technician (1)
Dublin Police Services
Contract Staffing Chart•
Chief of Police
Cmdr. Garrett Holmes
Operations/Administration
Captain Nate Schmidt
Crime Prevention
Se rgeant (1)
Officers (2)
Technicians (2)
School Reso urce Officer
Officers (2)
Administration/
Training Se rgeant (1)
Police Records (City)
Supervisor (1)
Office Assistants (2)
Investigations
Lieutenant ( 1)
Investigations
Sergeant (1)
Detective ( 4)
Narcotics Investigation
Se rgeant (1)
Detectives (2)
Special Duty Officers (2)
Exhibit B: FY 2019-20
Exhibit B
Basic Level of Services
Page 1 of 1
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Exhibit C
Form of Annual Budget
Page 1 of 1
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Exhibit D
Form of Invoice and Schedule
Page 1 of 2
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Exhibit D
Form of Invoice and Schedule
Page 2 of 2
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Exhibit E
Alameda County Certificate of Self-Insurance
(To be provided by County)
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pooled Liability Assurance Network JPA
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833
916-244-1100
Liability Certificate of Coverage
Additional Covered Party
Certificate Number: 49639151
Certificate Holder:County of Alameda
Risk Management Unit
Attn: Barbara M. Lubben, Director of Risk Mgmt.
125 12th Street, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94507
Covered Party:City of Dublin
Description of
Covered Activity:
As respects the Service Agreements between the County of Alameda and the City of Dublin for the
following program areas: EMS/FRALS; Fire Department Administrative Office Lease at 6363 Clark Ave.;
County Library Services; CDBG Urban County CDBG City/County Agreement; and Santa Rita Jail Call of
EMS Services. The County of Alameda is an additional covered party with regard to any negligent acts or
omissions of the City of Dublin, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers.
Memorandum of
Coverage Number:GAL 2019-20 Effective Date:7/1/2019 Expiration Date:7/1/2020
Limits:$5,000,000 (per occurrence)
The Following
Coverage is in
effect:
General and automobile liability as defined in the Memorandum of Coverage on file with the covered party
named above.
This is to certify that the coverage listed above has been issued to the Covered Party named above for the coverage
period indicated, notwithstanding any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with respect
to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain. The coverage afforded as described herein is subject to all
the terms, exclusions, and conditions of the Memorandum of Coverage of the PLAN, which is available for your
review upon request.
Coverage is in effect from 12:01 a.m. Pacific Time of effective date to 12:01 a.m. Pacific Time of expiration date as
stated above and will not be canceled, limited, or allowed to expire except upon 30-day notice to the certificate
holder.
Date Issued:6/27/2019
Renewal:Yes Excess Certificate Issued:No
Authorized Representative Signature:
49639151 | PLAN | 19/20 GL $5MM LIMITS | Paul Cross | 6/27/2019 12:01:56 PM (PDT) | Page 1 of 1
This certificate cancels and supersedes ALL previously issued certificates.
Exhibit F
City Certificate of Self-Insurance
Page 1 of 1
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) (PLPA-
2020-00001)
Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City has initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to modify Chapter 8.84
(Sign Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Off-Site
Advertising Signs. The proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and INTRODUCE an
Ordinance Approving Amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Zoning
Ordinance Related to Off-Site Advertising Signs.
DESCRIPTION:
Signs on private property within the City of Dublin are regulated by the Dublin Municipal
Code (DMC) Sign Regulations (Chapter 8.84). Off-Site Advertising Signs are any signs
which advertise or inform the public about a business organization, event, goods,
products, services, or uses, not available on the property upon which the sign is
located. Off-Site Advertising Signs are currently prohibited (Section 8.84.150);
Community Identification Signs, Off-Site Residential Development Directional Signs,
Open-House Signs, and Special Easement Signs, and signs within shopping centers
are not considered Off-Site Advertising Signs.
Staff is proposing to amend the Sign Regulations (Chapter 8.84) to allow Off-Site
Advertising Signs in the Scarlett Court Overlay District.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project would amend the Sign Regulations (Chapter 8.84) of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish regulations for Off-Site Advertising Signs. Please refer to
Attachment 1 for a redlined version of the proposed amendments where underlined text
6.1
Packet Pg. 48
Page 2 of 4
is proposed to be added and text with a strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Please
refer to Attachment 2 for the draft Ordinance.
Staff proposes regulations that would balance economic development goals with
aesthetic concerns. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would allow Off-Site
Advertising Signs in the Light Industrial (M-1) zoning district within the Scarlett Court
Overlay, would require a 500-foot buffer from the centerline of the Iron Horse Trail, and
would require a 1,000-foot buffer between parcels with Off-Site Advertising Signs.
Please refer to Figure 1 for the boundary of the Scarlett Court Overlay. The prop osed
amendment would restrict the signs to a limited geographic area where there are a
number of existing businesses that have limited public visibility and could benefit from
increased advertising opportunities.
Figure 1: Scarlett Court Overlay
Federal law limits a local government’s ability to regulate sign content, otherwise known
as sign copy, based upon the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Reed v. Town of
Gilbert, Arizona case. The Reed ruling makes regulation of signs according to its
message subject to review under the standards of strict scrutiny. Despite this ruling,
case law still permits local governments to distinguish between on-site and off-site
signs.
The California Business and Professions Codes outlines regulations for Off-Site
Advertising Signs and includes a provision where sign copy may be limited to “not
display products, goods, or services related to tobacco, firearms, or explicit material” in
a limited geographic area within Los Angeles. The regulations in the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment are modeled after Section 5272.2, subdivision (a)(3) of the
California Business and Professions Code, relying on this precedent.
Furthermore, local governments are granted police power to protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The proposed regulations recognize the unavoidable
visibility of prospective Off-Site Advertising Signs by youth in Dublin and surrounding
6.1
Packet Pg. 49
Page 3 of 4
communities who are transported along I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and Dougherty Road.
There are multiple studies that reflect the potential negative impacts of tobacco,
firearms, and sexually explicit material on youth, such as the Population Assessment of
Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study and the US Department of Justice’s Report on
Reducing Youth Gun Violence. Based on case law, California Business and Professions
Code precedent, and youth impact studies, the proposed regulations prohibit Off-Site
Advertising Signs to display products, goods, or services related to tobacco, firearms, or
sexually explicit material. Based upon consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, the
City has limited ability to further restrict sign copy for Off-Site Advertising Signs.
On January 31, 2020, Staff presented this recommendation to the Economic
Development Committee. The Committee was in full support and unanimously
recommended that Staff bring the item before the City Council for consideration. This
recommendation falls under the Committee's purview to provide policy guidance and
direction on economic development activities.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, & ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan
and all applicable Specific Plans. General Plan Implementing Policy 2.7.6.B.3 “requires
all redevelopment and improvements relating to site planning, architectural design,
lighting, signage and landscaping to be consistent with the adopted Scarlett Court
Design Guidelines.” The proposed amendments are consistent with the Scarlett Court
Design Guidelines by designating freeway-oriented signs as appropriate signage
(Guidelines 3.3.3 and 3.3.7), limiting the number of signs (Guideline 3.3.11), and
supporting the economic health of the light industrial and auto -oriented businesses
within the district (Guideline 2.2).
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
On February 11, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the
draft ordinance, and by a 3-2 vote, adopted a resolution recommending that the City
Council deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments (Attachment 3). The
Planning Commission expressed concern regarding: 1) potential aesthetic impacts of
“billboard signs,” and 2) concerns with inability to regulate sign copy which could result
in promotion of businesses located outside of Dublin rather t han Dublin-based
businesses and advertisement of products, goods, or services that do not adhere to
community values.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times and
posted at several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3)
6.1
Packet Pg. 50
Page 4 of 4
as there is no possibility that the proposed regulations would have a significant effect on
the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments in Underlined and Strikethrough Format
2. Ordinance Approving Amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Zoning
Ordinance Related to Off-Site Advertising Signs
3. Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Denial
6.1
Packet Pg. 51
Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 8.84 SIGN REGULATIONS
Page 1/2
CHAPTER 8.84
SIGN REGULATIONS
Matrix A of Section 8.84.030 (Sign Approvals and Decisionmaker Authority by Zoning District) of
Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as follows:
Sign Type A
R-1,
R-2,
R-M
C-N C-O C-1 C-2 DDZD M-P, M-1, M-
2
Off-Site Advertising
Sign
X X X X X X X X
MSP/SDR****
Notes for Matrix A:
**** Permitted in M-1 zoning district within the Scarlett Court Overlay with approval of a
MSP/SDR. Not permitted in the M-P and M-2 zoning districts, nor in the M-1 districts outside of
the Scarlett Court Overlay.
Matrix B of Section 8.84.040 (Matrix B, Sign Development Regulations) of Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is proposed to be amended to add the following:
Sign Type
Section
No.
Maximum
Number
of Signs
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Area per
Side in
Sq. Ft.
Location
Requirements*
Copy
Restrictions*
Additional
Regulations*
Off-Site
Advertising
Sign
1 per
parcel
Per
MSP/SDR
Per
MSP/SDR
Section
8.84.030 and
8.84.125 B-E
Section
8.84.125 H
Section
8.84.125
Section 8.84.050 (Signs Subject to Permits) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is proposed to
be amended to add the following in alphabetical order and renumber the section and references
to this section accordingly:
Off-Site Advertising Signs. Off-Site Advertising Signs shall be permitted per Section 8.84.125.
Section 8.84.125 (Off-Site Advertising Signs) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is proposed
to be added as follows:
8.84.125 Off-Site Advertising Signs
A. Number of Off-Site Advertising Signs. One (1) Off-Site Advertising Sign may be
permitted per parcel.
B. Location. Signs shall be located in the M-1 zoning district within the Scarlett Court Overlay.
C. Interstate Freeway Proximity.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
U
n
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
S
t
r
i
k
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
F
o
r
m
a
t
(
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
(
P
L
P
A
-
2
0
2
0
-
Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 8.84 SIGN REGULATIONS
Page 2/2
1. Signs shall be located no less than fifty (50) and no more than one-hundred (100) feet
from the right-of-way of an Interstate Freeway and located on properties along Scarlett
Court and Interstate 580.
2. Signs shall be visible from the right-of-way of an Interstate Freeway.
3. Signs shall satisfy applicable California Department of Transportation standards for
freeway-oriented signs, as amended from time to time.
D. Public Trail Proximity. Signs shall be located five-hundred (500) feet or more from the
centerline of the Iron Horse Trail.
E. Separation Between Signs. Signs shall be located on parcels one thousand (1,000) feet
or more from another parcel with an Off-Site Advertising Sign.
E. Public Safety. Signs shall not significantly impair public safety.
F. Other Regulations. Signs shall satisfy the applicable requirements of the Outdoor
Advertising Act (Business and Professions Code Section 5200, et. seq.), as amended from
time to time.
G. Copy Restrictions. Signs shall not display products, goods, or services related to tobacco,
firearms, or sexually explicit material.
Section 8.84.150 (Prohibited Signs) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is proposed to be
amended as follows:
F. Off-Site Advertising Signs. Off-site advertising signs except for Community
Identification Sign, Off-Site Residential Development Directional Sign, Open-House Sign, and
Special Easement Sign, and Off-Site Advertising Signs in accordance with Section 8.84.125.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
U
n
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
S
t
r
i
k
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
F
o
r
m
a
t
(
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
(
P
L
P
A
-
2
0
2
0
-
ORDINANCE NO. XX-20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATED TO OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS
PLPA-2020-00001
WHEREAS, the City-initiated amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Zoning
Ordinance are proposed to establish regulations for off-site advertising signs that balance the City’s
interest in protecting the health and safety of the public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the said application
on February 11, 2020, during which all interested persons were heard, and the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 20-02 recommending City Council denial of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments based upon the following reasons: 1) potential aesthetic impacts of “billboard signs,” and
2) concerns with inability to regulate sign copy which could result in promotion of businesses located
outside of Dublin rather than Dublin-based businesses and advertisement of products, goods, or services
that do not adhere to community values; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council recommending approval of
the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments on March 3, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds that the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans.
General Plan Implementing Policy 2.7.6.B.3 “requires all redevelopment and improvements relating to site
planning, architectural design, lighting, signage and landscaping to be consistent with the adopted Scarlett
Court Design Guidelines.” The proposed amendments are consistent with the Scarlett Court Design
Guidelines by designating freeway-oriented signs as appropriate signage (Guidelines 3.3.3 and 3.3.7),
limiting the number of signs (Guideline 3.3.11), and supporting the economic health of the light industrial
and auto-oriented businesses within the district (Guideline 2.2).
SECTION 2:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA
Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council hereby finds the project
exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
8
.
8
4
(
S
i
g
n
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
o
f
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
O
f
f
-
S
i
t
e
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
SECTION 3:
Matrix A of Section 8.84.030 (Sign Approvals and Decisionmaker Authority by Zoning District) of Title
8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Sign Type A
R-1,
R-2,
R-M
C-N C-O C-1 C-2 DDZD M-P, M-1, M-
2
Off-Site Advertising
Sign
X X X X X X X X
MSP/SDR****
Notes for Matrix A:
**** Permitted in the M-1 zoning district within the Scarlett Court Overlay with approval of an
MSP/SDR. Not permitted in M-P and M-2 zoning districts, nor in the M-1 districts outside of the
Scarlett Court Overlay.
SECTION 4:
Matrix B of Section 8.84.040 (Matrix B, Sign Development Regulations) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal
Code is amended to add the following:
Sign Type
Section
No.
Maximum
Number
of Signs
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Area per
Side in
Sq. Ft.
Location
Requirements*
Copy
Restrictions*
Additional
Regulations*
Off-Site
Advertising
Sign
1 per
parcel
Per
MSP/SDR
Per
MSP/SDR
Section
8.84.030 and
8.84.125 B-E
Section
8.84.125 H
Section
8.84.125
SECTION 5:
Section 8.84.050 (Signs Subject to Permits) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the
following in alphabetical order and renumber the section and references to this section accordingly:
Off-Site Advertising Signs. Off-Site Advertising Signs shall be permitted per Section 8.84.125.
SECTION 6:
Section 8.84.125 (Off-Site Advertising Signs) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is added as follows:
8.84.125 Off-Site Advertising Signs
Off-Site Advertising Signs are subject to the following regulations:
A. Number of Off-Site Advertising Signs. One (1) Off-Site Advertising Sign may be permitted
per parcel.
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
8
.
8
4
(
S
i
g
n
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
o
f
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
O
f
f
-
S
i
t
e
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
B. Location. Signs shall be located in the M-1 zoning district within in the Scarlett Court Overlay.
C. Interstate Freeway Proximity.
1. Signs shall be located no less than fifty (50) and no more than one-hundred (100) feet
from the right-of-way of Interstate 580 and located on properties along Scarlett Court
and Interstate 580.
2. Signs shall be visible from the right-of-way of Interstate 580.
3. Signs shall satisfy applicable California Department of Transportation standards for
freeway-oriented signs, as amended from time to time.
D. Public Trail Proximity. Signs shall be located five-hundred (500) feet or more from the
centerline of the Iron Horse Trail.
E. Separation Between Signs. Signs shall be located on parcels one thousand (1,000) feet or
more from another parcel with an Off-Site Advertising Sign.
F. Public Safety. Signs shall not significantly impair public safety.
G. Other Regulations. Signs shall satisfy the applicable requirements of the Outdoor
Advertising Act (Business and Professions Code Section 5200, et. seq.), as amended from
time to time.
H. Copy Restrictions. Signs shall not display products, goods, or services related to tobacco,
firearms, or sexually explicit material.
SECTION 7:
Section 8.84.150 (Prohibited Signs) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended as follows:
F. Off-Site Advertising Signs. Off-Site Advertising Signs except for Community Identification
Sign, Off-Site Residential Development Directional Sign, Open-House Sign, Special Easement
Sign, and Off-Site Advertising Signs in accordance with Section 8.84.125.
SECTION 8:
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof
is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality,
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons
or circumstances.
SECTION 9: Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final adoption.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this ___ day of _______
2020, by the following votes:
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
8
.
8
4
(
S
i
g
n
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
o
f
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
O
f
f
-
S
i
t
e
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
6.1.b
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
8
.
8
4
(
S
i
g
n
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
o
f
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
O
f
f
-
S
i
t
e
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
RESOLUTION NO. 20-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENY AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENDING CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN
REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS
PLPA-2020-00001
WHEREAS, the City-initiated amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Zoning
Ordinance are proposed to establish regulations for off-site advertising signs that balance the City’s
interest in protecting the health and safety of the public; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and
City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find this project exempt
from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen
with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ord inance) will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance on February 11, 2020; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 11, 2020, was submitted to the Planning Commission
recommending City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made
a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the
City Council deny an Ordinance based upon the following reasons: 1) potential aesthetic impacts of
“billboard signs,” and 2) concerns with inability to regulate sign copy which could result in promotion of
businesses located outside of Dublin rather than Dublin-based businesses and advertisement of products,
goods, or services that do not adhere to community values.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Kothari, Mittan, Benson
NOES: Thalblum, Grier
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________________
6.1.c
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
D
e
n
i
a
l
(
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
(
P
L
P
A
-
2
0
2
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
)
2 of 2
Assistant Community Development Director
6.1.c
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
D
e
n
i
a
l
(
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
(
P
L
P
A
-
2
0
2
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
)
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Establish Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road Alignment Project
Prepared by: Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will review and consider an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum and will
consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to establish the precise alignment for the
right-of-way lines for Tassajara Road between Palisad es Drive and the Alameda-Contra
Costa County Limit Line. The proposed alignment will revise the existing alignment in
the northerly segment of Tassajara Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for the Future Right-
of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa
County Limit Line.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening Project, included in the City’s approved
2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (ST0116), is part of the larger multi-
jurisdictional Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Realignment Project that extends from
Palisades Drive in the City to Windemere Parkway in Contra Costa County. This project
will be a joint effort between the City and Contra Costa County.
The City’s share of the total project’s estimated cost is $12.5 million, which Staff
anticipates being funded by State Gas Tax, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account (SB-1) funds, and Traffic Impact Fees. There is no impact to the General Fund.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identify Tassajara Road as a six - to
eight-lane arterial roadway linking several developments in Eastern Dublin with Contra
Costa County (County) to the north, where the roadway name changes to Camino
Tassajara, and the I-580 freeway and City of Pleasanton to the south. In 1999 and
7.1
Packet Pg. 60
Page 2 of 4
2004, the City adopted right-of-way lines for Tassajara Road, between I-580 and the
northern boundary of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 as Ordinance No. 20-99 and between the
northern boundary of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 to Alameda - Contra Costa County limit line
as Ordinance No. 21-04.
In coordination with the Contra Costa County, a revised alignment of Tassajara
Road/Camino Tassajara was proposed between Palisades Drive in the City and
Windemere Parkway in the County, to improve the existing horizontal alignment and to
improve traffic safety. A conceptual alignment was included as an alternative within the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Moller Ranch (now Tassajara Hills) development
project, which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2012, as
Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-45.
On February 16, 2016, the City Council approved the addition of the Tassajara Road
Realignment and Widening Project into the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
and directed staff to proceed with the preliminary design of a revised alignment of
Tassajara Road, which includes four lanes, instead of six lanes, north of North Dublin
Ranch Drive. The reduction from six lanes to four lanes was supported by a study
initiated by the City and Contra Costa County, “Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis” (“Traffic Analysis”), which was based on up -to-date land-use
estimates along with refined street network data anticipated in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) and in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Traffic Analysis concluded
that reducing Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from six to four lanes (two in each
direction) between North Dublin Ranch Drive in the City and Windemere Parkway in the
County (Figure 1) would result in similar levels-of-service at intersections, minimal traffic
diversion to other roads, and minimal increase in travel times compared to a six -lane
configuration.
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.68 - Establishing Right-of-Way Lines allows for
establishment of right-of-way lines for purposes of future roadway extension, widening,
or creation of space for future utilities, pedestrian pathways, fire and police emergency
access to property, and all public rights-of-way. The Municipal Code requires the
Planning Commission hold at least one public hearing on any proposed establishment
of right-of-way lines. Upon completion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall
submit its report and recommendation to the City Council.
Furthermore, in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law, a planning local
agency (Planning Commission) must report on the project’s conformity to the General
Plan as to the location, purpose, and intent of t he future right-of-way prior to the
establishment of said right-of way lines. Additionally, an environmental analysis in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed
for the proposed right-of-way alignment.
On February 11, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
adopted a Resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the City Council consider an
Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (Attachment 5) and recommending that the City Council
adopt a Resolution of Intention to establish precise alignment for the future Right-of-
Way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and the Alameda -Contra Costa
County Limit Line.
7.1
Packet Pg. 61
Page 3 of 4
The Planning Commission also reviewed and recommended the adoption of a General
Plan amendment and an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) amendment related to
the Tassajara Road Alignment Project. The General Plan amendment and EDSP
amendment did not include any land use changes, but instead proposed modifying the
number of lanes on Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive to the Alameda -
Contra Costa County Limit from six lanes to four lanes.
If the City Council adopts the Resolution of Intention, a public hearing date of March 17,
2020, will be set. At the public hearing, City Coun cil will hear public testimony, review
the proposed right-of-way lines, and then consider the Initial Study/CEQA Addendum
and consider establishing the right-of-way lines by the first reading of an ordinance. On
this same public hearing date, City Council will also consider approving the General
Plan amendment and EDSP amendment.
This agenda item was originally scheduled for February 18, 2020 but was moved to
ensure that the CEQA documents reflected in the packet were accurate.
ANALYSIS:
The establishment of right-of-way lines are intended to reserve sufficient right-of-way for
future road construction. Adoption of an ordinance to establish such lines will not result
in the immediate acquisition of any property but will preclude property owners from
constructing structures within the right-of-way area. The process of acquiring right-of-
way will not begin until after the project’s final design has been completed to ensure that
the required right-of-way has been accurately determined. Land use designations and
density of development surrounding the proposed revised alignment for Tassajara Road
are not modified through the proposed creation of the right -of-way lines. The existing
land uses in General Plan and EDSP will remain as they currently exist.
The Municipal Code requires that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to
establish right-of-way lines (Attachment 2). The legal description and plat map
(Attachment 4) for the proposed right-of-way lines show the right-of-way that will be
required. Only one property will be affected by the proposed revised alignment and the
impact on this property is approximated in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
Assessor’s Parcel
Number
Property Owner Right-of-way Acquisition
in Square Feet (SF)
986-0004-001-00 Singh Family Properties LP 28,696 SF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Potential environmental impacts of the project were previously assessed in the EDSP
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #91103064) in 1993, which analyzed the
future development of all of Eastern Dublin, including the future widening of Tassajara
Road from two to six lanes. In 2004, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH #2004042008) for a precise alignment of Tassajara
Road for the ultimate widening to six lanes from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
Alameda-Contra Costa County limit line.
7.1
Packet Pg. 62
Page 4 of 4
The current project would reduce the number of travel lanes within the same area as
previously studied, from six lanes to four lanes. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City
completed an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (Attachment 5) which analyzed the
proposed project including its footprint and the proposed permanent right -of-way lines
for Tassajara Road, and concluded that the project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts
identified in the 1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. No further environmental review is required for the
project.
The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (Attachment 1) on February 11, 2020,
recommending the City Council review and consider the Tassajara Road Alignment
IS/Addendum and to adopt a Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for
the Future Right-of-way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and the
Alameda-Contra Costa County Limit Line. Prior to introducing an ordinance establishing
the right-of-way lines, the City Council will first consider the IS/Addendum for the project
and then consider approving the GP and EDSP amendments.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A copy of this report has been provided to all property owners abutting the proposed
revised alignment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution Recommending that the City Council Consider an
IS/CEQA Addendum and Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment
for Tassajara Road
2. Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for the Future Right-Of-Way
Lines for Tassajara Road
3. Exhibit 1 to Resolution of Intention
4. Exhibit A to Resolution of Intention - Legal Description and Plat Map
5. Initial Study/CEQA Addendum
6. CIP ST0116 Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening
7.1
Packet Pg. 63
RESOLUTION NO. 20-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN INITIAL STUDY/CEQA
ADDENDUM PREPARED FOR THE TASSAJARA ROAD ALIGNMENT PROJECT AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR THE
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD BETWEEN PALISADES DRIVE
AND ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIMIT LINE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road by
Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Re solution No. 51-93,
certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the “1993 EIR”)
that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six-lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of-Way Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the “2004 IS/MN”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has
proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the alignment
previously approved in May 2004 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel
lanes from six lanes to four lanes for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1,
attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the
Alameda-Contra Costa County limit line; and
WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right-Of-Way Lines on Tassajara
Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the Right-Of-Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and
planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right-Of-Way Lines pass are within
the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and consistent
with, the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right-Of-Way Lines will not have a substantial
adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvements; and
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
I
S
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
a
n
d
A
d
o
p
t
a
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR
or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. 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 previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
c. 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
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial
Study/CEQA Addendum (the “Addendum”) for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA
Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of-Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry
Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in 1993
EIR or the 2004 IS/MN and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2020
on the proposed establishment of the Right-Of-Way Lines, for which proper notice of the public
hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
I
S
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
a
n
d
A
d
o
p
t
a
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the
1993 EIR and 2004 IS/MN referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning
Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony
hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, all of the above Resolutions and Ordinances are incorporated by reference and
are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, on the
basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 1993 EIR, the
2004 IS/MN, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the Planning Commission, that
the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum
is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts
or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA
documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to establish Right -Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road
between Palisades Drive and Alameda-Contra Costa County.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mittan, Benson, Thalblum, Kothari, Grier
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
3476044.2
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
I
S
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
a
n
d
A
d
o
p
t
a
RESOLUTION NO. XX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CONSIDER AN INITIAL STUDY/CEQA ADDENDUM AND ADOPT A
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR THE FUTURE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD BETWEEN PALISADES DRIVE AND
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNY LIMIT LINE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road by
Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51 -93,
certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the “1993 EIR”)
that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six-lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of-Way Alignment Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the “2004 IS/MN”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has
proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the alignment
previously approved in May 2004 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel
lanes from six lanes to four lanes for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1,
attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the
Alameda-Contra Costa County limit line; and
WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right-Of-Way Lines on Tassajara
Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the Right-Of-Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and
planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right-Of-Way Lines pass are within
the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and consistent
with, the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right-Of-Way Lines will not have a substantial
adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvements; and
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
P
r
e
c
i
s
e
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR
or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. 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 previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
c. 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
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial
Study/CEQA Addendum (the “Addendum”) for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA
Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of-Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry
Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the
1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/MN and no other CEQA standards for supplemental revisions are met;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after hearing and considering all said reports,
recommendations and testimony at a public hearing on February 11, 2020, adopted Resolution 20-
04, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention .
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
P
r
e
c
i
s
e
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
on the basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 1993
EIR, the 2004 IS/MN, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the City Council, that
the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum
is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts
or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA
documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts this Resolution of
Intention and calls for a public hearing pursuant to Sections 7.68.080 through 7.68.100 of the
Dublin Municipal Code, at 7:00 p.m. on March 17, 2020, in the City of Dublin City Council
Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, to hear protests and objections to the establishment
of the proposed Right-Of-Way lines as depicted on the legal description and plat map attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to post this Resolution of
Intention in accordance with Section 7.68.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code at least 10 days before
the public hearing.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 2020 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3476237.1
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
P
r
e
c
i
s
e
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
g
a
l
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
P
l
a
t
M
a
p
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
g
a
l
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
P
l
a
t
M
a
p
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
g
a
l
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
P
l
a
t
M
a
p
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassa
Capacit
Final Re
By
1970 Broadw
Oakland, CA
(510) 763‐20
March 19, 20
jara R
ty Analy
eport
way, Suite 740
94612
61
015
Road/C
ysis
0
Caminno Tasssajaraa
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Client
DKS Projec
Project Na
Related Ta
Document
File Path
Date Docu
Versi
Numb
0‐1
0‐2
0‐3
0‐4
1‐0
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ct Number
me
sk / WBS Num
Name
ment Issued
ion
ber
11/
11/
11/
2/1
3/1
no Tassajara
aft Report
City of D
14112‐0
Tassaja
mber N/A
Tassaja
p:\p\14
tassajar
March 1
Date
/18/2014 I
/19/2014 R
/21/2014 D
18/2015 U
19/2015 F
Docume
Dublin
001
ra Road/Camin
ra Road/Camin
4\14112‐001 ci
ra capacity ana
19, 2015
Versi
D
nitial Documen
Reviewed and u
Draft Report
Updated with c
Final Report
i
nt Descr
no Tassajara Ca
no Tassajara Ca
ty of dublin on
alysis draft tech
ion Contr
Description o
nt
updated
comments from
iption
apacity Analys
apacity Analys
n‐call tassajara
hnical report.d
rol
of Change
m City of Dubli
is
is Draft Report
rd\07 delivera
docx
in
March
t
ables\camino
Author
JMP
JMP
JMP
JMP/DCM
JMP/DCM
19, 2015
r
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Table o
TABLE OF
APPENDIC
LIST OF FI
LIST OF TA
EXECUTIV
STUDY
SUMMA
CONCLU
EXISTING
STUDY
STUDY
ANALYSIS
STUDY
Scena
Scena
Mode
LEVEL O
Signa
Road
CCTA TR
ROADW
INTERS
CCTA TR
SIGNIFI
Contr
City o
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
of Conten
F CONTENTS ..
CES ...............
IGURES .........
ABLES ..........
VE SUMMARY
APPROACH ..
ARY OF RESU
USIONS ........
ROADWAY S
INTERSECTIO
ROADWAY SE
S METHODOL
SCENARIOS ..
ario #1 – Fou
ario #2 – Six‐l
el Adjustmen
OF SERVICE M
alized Intersec
way Segment
RAVEL DEMA
WAY SEGMEN
ECTION VOLU
RAVEL DEMA
CANT IMPAC
ra Costa Coun
of Dublin ......
no Tassajara
aft Report
nts
....................
....................
....................
....................
Y ..................
.....................
LTS ...............
.....................
SETTING .......
ONS ................
EGMENTS .....
LOGY ............
.....................
r‐lane Capaci
lane Capacity
ts .................
METHODOLOG
ctions ...........
ts ..................
AND MODEL ..
T VOLUME FO
UME FORECAS
AND MODEL R
T CRITERIA ...
nty and Tri‐Va
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
ty on Tassaja
y on Tassajara
.....................
GIES AND PAR
.....................
.....................
.....................
ORECAST MET
ST METHODO
REVIEW .........
.....................
alley Transpo
.....................
i
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
......................
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
....................
......................
ra Road/Cam
a Road/Camin
......................
RAMETERS.....
......................
......................
......................
THODOLOGY
OLOGY ...........
......................
......................
rtation Counc
......................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
mino Tassajara
no Tassajara .
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Y ....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
cil .................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
a ...................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
March
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
......................
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
19, 2015
....... I
...... II
..... III
..... III
...... 1
....... 1
....... 2
....... 5
...... 6
....... 6
....... 6
...... 8
....... 8
....... 8
....... 8
....... 8
....... 9
....... 9
..... 10
..... 11
..... 11
..... 12
..... 12
..... 13
..... 13
..... 13
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Town
Caltra
EXISTING
EXISTIN
INTERS
ROADW
FUTURE C
2040 LA
2040 SE
INTERS
ROADW
FINDINGS
STUDY PA
Appen
APPEND
APPEND
APPEND
APPEND
APPEND
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
n of Danville .
ans ...............
CONDITIONS
NG TRAFFIC VO
ECTION PEAK
WAY PEAK HO
CUMULATIVE
AND USE DES
ELECT‐LINK A
ECTION PEAK
WAY PEAK HO
S AND CONCL
ARTICIPANTS
dices
DIX A INTERSE
DIX B ROADW
DIX C MODEL
DIX D LANE AS
DIX E SELECT‐
no Tassajara
aft Report
.....................
.....................
S ..................
OLUMES AND
K HOUR LEVEL
UR LEVEL OF
E (2040) COND
CRIPTION .....
NALYSIS .......
K HOUR LEVEL
UR LEVEL OF
LUSIONS .......
...................
ECTION LEVE
WAY SEGMENT
LINK VOLUM
SSUMPTIONS
‐LINK ANALYS
.....................
.....................
....................
D LANE CONF
L OF SERVICE
SERVICE ANA
DITIONS .......
.....................
.....................
L OF SERVICE
SERVICE ANA
....................
....................
L OF SERVICE
T LEVEL OF SE
MES
S
SIS
ii
......................
......................
....................
IGURATIONS
ANALYSIS (EX
ALYSIS (EXIST
....................
......................
......................
ANALYSIS (CU
ALYSIS (CUMU
....................
....................
E ANALYSIS
ERVICE ANALY
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
XISTING CON
TING CONDITI
....................
.....................
.....................
UMULATIVE 2
ULATIVE 2040
....................
....................
YSIS
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
DITIONS) ......
ONS) ............
....................
.....................
.....................
2040 CONDIT
0 CONDITION
....................
....................
March
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
TIONS) ...........
NS) .................
....................
....................
19, 2015
..... 14
..... 14
.... 14
..... 14
..... 18
..... 19
.... 20
..... 20
..... 20
..... 24
..... 29
.... 31
.... 32
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
List of
Figure 1 ‐
Figure 2 ‐
Figure 3 ‐
Figure 4 ‐
Figure 5 ‐
Figure 6 ‐
Figure 7 ‐
Figure 8 ‐
List of
Table 1 –
Table 2 –
Table 3 –
Table 4 –
Table 5 –
Table 6 –
Table 7 –
Table 8 –
Table 9 –
Table 10 –
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
Figures
Study Area ..
Lane Configu
Existing Cond
Existing Cond
4‐Lane Cumu
6‐Lane Cumu
4‐Lane Cumu
6‐Lane Cumu
Tables
Study Interse
List of Deficie
Signalized Int
Roadway Seg
Existing Cond
Existing Cond
2040 Select‐L
Cumulative 2
Cumulative 2
– Cumulative
no Tassajara
aft Report
.....................
urations ........
dition Traffic
dition Link Vo
ulative 2040 C
ulative 2040 C
ulative 2040 C
ulative 2040 C
ections and Ju
ent Intersecti
tersection LO
gment LOS Th
ditions Interse
dition Roadwa
Link Analysis
2040 Conditio
2040 Conditio
2040 Conditi
.....................
.....................
Volumes ......
olumes ..........
Condition Lin
Condition Lin
Condition Tra
Condition Tra
urisdiction .....
ons under Fu
OS Thresholds
hresholds and
ection Level o
ay Segment L
Volumes.......
ons Intersectio
ons Intersectio
ions Roadway
iii
......................
......................
......................
......................
k Volumes ....
k Volumes ....
affic Volumes
affic Volumes
......................
uture 2040 Tra
and Definitio
d Definitions ..
of Service ......
Level of Servic
......................
on Level of Se
on Level of Se
y Segment Le
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
.....................
affic Conditio
ons ...............
.....................
.....................
ce .................
.....................
ervice – AM P
ervice – PM P
evel of Service
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ons ................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Peak Hour .....
Peak Hour .....
e ...................
March
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
19, 2015
....... 7
..... 15
..... 16
..... 17
..... 22
..... 23
..... 27
..... 28
....... 3
....... 4
....... 9
..... 10
..... 18
..... 19
..... 21
..... 24
..... 25
..... 30
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Execut
The City o
Tassajara
Route of
future gr
developm
lanes and
standards
Tri Valley
Tassajara
Town of D
staff, Alam
County Tr
Study A
Key inters
Dublin, D
determine
operate t
to evalua
traffic imp
Scenario #
With an a
City of Du
the study
expected
Avenue, C
via Highla
six lanes
existing tr
Scenario #
With an
whether
between
demand f
expected
1 Dougher
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
tive Summ
of Dublin and
Road/Camin
Regional Sig
rowth in tra
ments in the p
d intersection
s of Contra Co
y Transportat
is from Dubl
Danville in Co
meda County
ransportation
Approach
sections and
Danville and
e if two or th
he roadway a
te the numb
pact on local
#1 – Four‐lan
assumed cap
ublin in Alame
assessed wh
to divert to
Collier Canyon
and Road. Wh
were assume
ravel lanes alo
#2 – Six‐lane
assumed cap
relevant stan
I‐580 and I‐
forecast and L
to attract ad
rty Valley Sett
no Tassajara
aft Report
mary
d Contra Cos
o Tassajara R
nificance in t
affic along t
proximate reg
n configuratio
osta County,
tion Plan/Act
in Boulevard
ontra Costa C
y staff, San R
n Authority st
roadway seg
San Ramon,
hree travel la
acceptably un
er of lanes n
roadways in t
e Capacity on
acity of four
eda County to
hether relevan
use local ro
n Road, and N
hile the majo
ed south of D
ong the roadw
Capacity on T
pacity of six
ndards would
680 to avoid
LOS analysis t
ditional traffi
tlement Agre
sta County ar
Road corridor
the Tri‐Valley
the study ro
gion. The pur
on needed to
the City of D
tion Plan1. T
in the City of
County. This
Ramon and D
aff.
gments in th
and Contra
anes per direc
nder future (2
eeded to me
the Tri‐Valley
n Tassajara Ro
lanes on Tas
o Sycamore V
nt standards
oadways such
North Liverm
ority of Tassaj
Dublin Boulev
way segment
Tassajara Roa
lanes on Ta
d be met and
d congestion
that widening
ic of approxim
eement (1994
1
re planning t
r to meet fut
y Transportat
oadway will
rpose of this
o operate Ta
Dublin, the Ci
The study ro
f Dublin in Ala
study was co
Danville staff,
e study area
Costa Coun
ction are nee
2040) traffic c
eet the releva
y area from po
oad/Camino T
ssajara Road/
Valley Road in
would be me
h as El Charr
ore Road to a
jara Road/Ca
vard along Ta
t.
ad/Camino Ta
assajara Road
d whether so
on I‐580 an
g Tassajara Ro
mately 100 ve
4)
to improve tr
ture multi‐mo
tion Plan/Act
result prim
study was to
assajara Road
ty of Danville
adway segm
ameda Count
onducted in
, and Contra
a were select
ty staff. The
eded on Tass
conditions. Tw
ant standards
ossible traffic
Tassajara
/Camino Tass
n the Town of
et and wheth
ro Road/Fallo
access Tassaj
mino Tassaja
assajara Road
assajara
d and Camin
ome traffic w
nd I‐680. It w
oad/Camino T
ehicles per ho
ransportation
odal transpo
tion Plan and
marily from
o determine t
d/Camino Ta
e, the City of
ment of Tassa
ty to Sycamor
collaboration
Costa Count
ted in consult
e objective o
sajara Road/
wo traffic sce
s and to dete
c diversions d
sajara from G
f Danville in C
her traffic to/f
on Road, Isa
jara Road/Cam
ara was mode
d consistent
o Tassajara,
would use thi
was determin
Tassajara fro
our each duri
March
n facilities alo
rtation needs
d it is expect
planned res
the number o
ssajara to m
San Ramon
ajara Road/
re Valley Roa
n with City of
ty and Contr
tation with C
of the study
/Camino Tass
enarios were
ermine the p
described as f
Gleason Drive
Contra Costa
from I‐580 w
bel Avenue,
mino Tassaja
eled with fou
with the num
the study a
is roadway a
ned from the
m four to six
ing both the A
19, 2015
ong the
s. It is a
ted that
sidential
of travel
eet the
and the
Camino
d in the
f Dublin
ra Costa
Cities of
was to
ajara to
studied
otential
ollows:
e in the
County,
would be
Portola
ra Road
ur lanes,
mber of
assessed
as a link
e travel
lanes is
AM and
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
PM. This
Road, Wi
areas sou
insignifica
area. It is
arterials i
Road is e
Doughert
The study
traffic con
including
The CCTA
because i
Alameda
travel dem
link analy
area that
lanes. The
Capacity M
Summa
This is an
Road/Cam
analysis i
study area
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
is the traffic
ndemere Par
uth of Contra
ant (less than
s also not ex
in Contra Cos
expected to
y Road/Dubli
y roadway seg
nditions. The
the Mollar Ra
A countywide
t produced a
countywide t
mand model i
ysis was cond
may result f
e intersection
Manual analy
ary of Resu
n investigativ
mino Tassaja
ncluded leve
a as listed in T
no Tassajara
aft Report
c that would
rkway and Bo
a Costa Coun
n 1 percent) a
xpected to s
sta County a
relieve traff
n Boulevard
gments and in
existing con
anch Traffic Im
e travel dema
a more conse
travel deman
is included in
ducted to det
from widenin
n and roadwa
ysis methodol
ults
ve study to d
ra acceptabl
l of service a
Table 1.
have otherw
ollinger Cany
nty. The shif
and does not
significantly i
nd Alameda
ic congestion
intersection.
ntersections w
ditions were
mpact Study
and model w
ervative traffi
nd model. The
the Analysis
termine trave
g Tassajara R
ay segment le
logy.
determine th
y according
analysis for 1
2
wise used oth
on Road, Air
ft in traffic f
t affect the o
mpact other
County. How
n along Dou
were analyze
analyzed us
and the 2014
was used to f
ic forecast th
e detailed dis
Methodology
el patterns an
Road/Camino
evel of servic
he number o
to establish
12 intersectio
her arterials
rway Parkway
from the var
overall travel
r intersection
wever, a sligh
ugherty Road
ed under exist
ing recent tr
4 Tri‐Valley Tr
forecast the
han the Dubl
scussion on t
y section of t
nd the extent
o Tassajara fro
e analysis we
of travel lane
ed and app
ons and six (6
such as Dou
y and I‐680 t
rious listed a
distribution
ns and roadw
ht shift in tra
d and particu
ting and cum
affic data fro
ransportation
cumulative 2
in travel dem
the reason fo
his report. Fu
t of traffic di
om four trav
ere conducte
es needed to
licable signif
6) roadway s
March
ugherty Road
to and from j
arterials is re
pattern in th
way segment
affic from Do
ularly at the
ulative (futur
om multiple s
n/Action Plan
2040 traffic v
mand model a
or selecting th
urthermore, a
iversion in th
vel lanes to si
d using the H
o operate Ta
ficance criter
segments wit
19, 2015
d, Fallon
job rich
elatively
he study
ts along
ugherty
critical
re 2040)
sources,
.
volumes
and the
he CCTA
a select‐
he study
ix travel
Highway
assajara
ria. The
thin the
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Table 1 – S
No
1 San
2 San
3 Tass
4 Tass
5 Fall
6 Cam
7 El C
8 El C
9 Fall
10 Fall
11 Cam
12 Cam
Study Roa
The appl
significan
1. Ta
2. Ta
3. Ta
4. C
5. C
6. C
Assumptio
For the p
optimized
consisten
Level of S
Intersecti
intersecti
hours. Th
hour but
Fallon Ro
peak hou
The Cami
County G
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
Study Intersect
Inte
ta Rita Rd/I‐58
ta Rita Rd/Tas
sajara Rd/Dub
sajara Rd/Glea
on Rd/Camino
mino Tassajara/
Charro Rd/I‐580
Charro Rd/Fallo
on Rd/Dublin B
on Rd/Silvera
mino Tassajara/
mino Tassajara
adway Segme
icable level
ce is LOS E.
assajara Road
assajara Road
assajara Road
amino Tassaj
amino Tassaj
amino Tassaj
on
urpose of the
d by the var
t basis to asse
ervice Analys
ions LOS Res
ons currently
e Tassajara R
operates una
ad/Camino T
r but operate
no Tassajara/
eneral Plan s
no Tassajara
aft Report
tions and Juris
ersection Name
80 EB off‐ramp
sajara Rd/I‐580
lin Blvd
ason Dr
o Tassajara/Tas
/Highland Rd
0 EB off‐ramp
on Rd/I‐580 WB
Blvd
Ranch Dr
/Windemere P
and Crow Can
ents
of services s
d between Gl
d between No
d/Camino Tas
ara from Win
ara from Lusi
ara from Crow
e analysis, it w
ious agencie
ess the impac
sis (Existing Tr
sults – Based
y operate acc
oad/Dublin B
acceptably at
Tassajara/Tas
es unacceptab
/Highland Ro
standard duri
sdiction
e
p
0 WB off‐ramp
ssajara Rd
B ramps
Pkwy
nyon Rd
standard for
eason Drive a
orth Dublin R
ssajara from F
ndemere Park
itano Street t
w Canyon Ro
was assumed
s under cum
ct of the two
raffic Conditio
d on the LOS
eptably acco
Boulevard inte
LOS E under
sajara Road
bly at LOS F u
ad intersectio
ng the AM pe
3
Owne
Caltrans
p Caltrans
City of Dub
City of Dub
City of Dub
Contra Cos
Caltrans
Caltrans
City of Dub
City of Dub
Contra Cos
Town of Da
r Tassajara R
and North Du
anch Drive to
Fallon Road to
kway to Lusita
o Crow Canyo
ad to Sycamo
d that the sig
mulative (futu
study scenar
ons)
S results und
rding to appl
ersection ope
the City of D
intersection o
nder the City
on operates u
eak hour and
rship
Ci
Ci
blin Ci
blin Ci
blin Ci
ta County Co
Ca
Ca
blin Ci
blin Ci
ta County Co
anville To
Road/Camino
ublin Ranch D
o Fallon Road
o Windemere
ano Street
on Road; and
ore Valley Roa
nalized study
ure 2040) tra
rios.
der Existing C
icable LOS st
erates accept
Dublin standa
operates acc
y of Dublin sta
unacceptably
d operates ac
Signal Opera
ity of Pleasanto
ity of Pleasanto
ity of Dublin
ity of Dublin
ity of Dublin
ontra Costa Co
altrans
altrans
ity of Dublin
ity of Dublin
ontra Costa Co
own of Danvill
o Tassajara, a
rive
e Parkway
d
ad
y intersection
affic conditio
Conditions, n
tandards duri
ably at LOS C
ard during the
ceptably at LO
andard durin
y at LOS E und
cceptably at L
March
tor
Appli
LO
Stan
on D
on D
D
D
D
ounty C
D
D
D
D
ounty C
e D
a regional ro
ns will be pro
ons. This pro
ine of the 1
ng AM and P
C during the A
e PM peak ho
OS D during
g the AM pea
der the Contr
LOS C during
19, 2015
icable
OS
ndard
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
D
oute of
oactively
ovides a
2 study
PM peak
AM peak
our. The
the PM
ak hour.
ra Costa
the PM
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
peak hou
operates
Roadway
during AM
faster dur
Level of S
Intersecti
located u
peak hou
intersecti
Table 2 – L
Defic
Tassajar
Tassajar
Fallon
Source:
Notes:
a. Delay
b. LOS =
c. Analy
analysis
BOLD in
During th
than the
Fallon Ro
scenario.
During th
intersecti
E standar
operate w
Roadway
Drive ope
6‐lane sc
expected
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
r. Only the i
worse than th
LOS Results
M and PM pe
ring the AM p
ervice Analys
ions LOS Res
nder the City
r or PM peak
ons expected
List of Deficien
cient Intersect
a Rd and Dubl
ra Rd and Glea
Rd and Dublin
: DKS Associate
y is in seconds
= Level of Serv
ysis performed
s
ndicates unacc
e AM peak h
2014 Tri‐Vall
ad/Dublin Bo
he PM peak
ons are expe
rd under both
worse than LO
LOS Results
erate at LOS C
enarios the
to operate a
no Tassajara
aft Report
ntersection o
he 2014 Tri‐V
– Under Exis
ak hours in b
peak hour.
sis (Cumulativ
sults – Under
y of Dublin ju
k hour or bot
d to operate u
nt Intersections
ion (#1
Del
in Blvd 39
son Dr 97
Blvd 59
es, 2014
per vehicle an
ice
d using Synchro
ceptable LOS
hour, the Tas
ey Transport
oulevard inte
k hour, the
cted to opera
h scenarios. A
OS E under th
– Under Cum
C or better du
segment of
at LOS C or LO
of Fallon Rd/
Valley Transpo
ting Conditio
both the nort
ve/Future 204
r Cumulative
urisdiction ar
th according
unacceptably
s under Future
AM Peak
1) 4‐Lane
lay LOS D
.9 D
.8 F
.5 E
nd is based on a
o 8.0 HCM 200
ssajara Road/
ation Plan/Ac
rsection is ex
Tassajara R
ate worse tha
Also, the Tas
e six‐lane sce
mulative 2040
uring AM and
Tassajara Ro
OS D during t
4
Camino Tass
ortation Plan/
ons, all study
hbound and
40 Traffic Con
2040 Condit
e expected t
to the City o
are listed in T
e 2040 Traffic C
k Hour
(#2) 6‐Lane
Delay LOS
40.2 D
90.4 F
52.1 D
average stoppe
0 based on lim
/Gleason Driv
ction Plan LO
xpected to op
Road/Gleason
an the 2014 T
ssajara Road/
enario.
0 Conditions,
d PM peak ho
oad between
the AM peak
ajara/Tassaja
/Action Plan
roadway seg
southbound
nditions)
tions, three (
o operate un
of Dublin sign
Table 2.
Conditions
PM
(#1) 4‐Lan
Delay LO
96.9
73.9
168.1
ed delay.
mitations in HCM
ve intersectio
OS E standard
perate worse
n Drive and
Tri‐Valley Tra
/Dublin Boule
, all roadway
ours in both d
n Gleason D
k hour in both
ara Rd during
LOS E standa
ments operat
directions. G
(3) of the 12
nacceptably u
nificant impac
M Peak Hour
ne (#2) 6‐
OS Delay
F 136.5
E 101.5
F 188
M 2010
on is expecte
d under both
e than LOS D
Fallon Roa
nsportation P
evard interse
segments no
directions. Un
Drive and Du
h directions.
March
g the AM pea
rd.
te at LOS C o
Generally, spe
2 study inters
under either
ct criteria. Th
App
L
Sta
‐Lane
LOS
F
F
F
ed to operate
scenarios w
under the fo
d/Dublin Bo
Plan/Action P
ection is expe
orth of Dublin
nder both 4‐la
ublin Ranch D
During the P
19, 2015
ak hour
r better
eeds are
sections
the AM
he three
plicable
LOS
ndard
D
D
D
e worse
hile the
our‐lane
oulevard
Plan LOS
ected to
n Ranch
ane and
Drive is
M peak
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
hour it op
lane Scen
scenarios
Select‐lin
there is n
travel lan
the study
Road/Cam
during the
Conclus
The selec
both four
overall tra
intersecti
The result
similar le
However,
scenario p
delay per
time, the
southbou
10% to 15
It can the
scenarios
any signif
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
perates at LO
nario than the
.
k Analysis –
no significant
es on Tassaja
y roadway fr
mino Tasssaja
e AM and PM
sions
t‐link analysi
r lane and six
avel distribut
ons and road
ts of the Cum
evel of servic
for intersec
provides less
r vehicle duri
travel time s
nd segment
5% travel time
erefore be co
that widenin
icant benefit
no Tassajara
aft Report
OS F in the no
e six lane sce
The results o
difference in
ara Road/Cam
rom four lan
ra by less tha
M peak hours.
s results indi
x lane scenar
tion pattern
way segment
mulative Cond
ce with sligh
ctions that a
than 10 seco
ng the PM p
savings is gen
along Tassaja
e savings dur
oncluded from
ng Tassajara R
to motorists.
orthbound dir
enario; howev
of the select
n the traffic d
mino Tasssaja
nes to six lan
an 100 vehicle
icate that the
io. The shift
in the study
ts along arter
ditions analys
ht improveme
re expected
onds of saving
peak hour. Ad
nerally under
ara Road bet
ing the PM pe
m the similar
Road/Camino
.
5
rection. The t
ver there is v
link analysis
distribution p
ara is increas
nes is expec
es per hour in
ere are no si
in traffic is re
area. It is als
rials in Contra
ses for the fo
ents at som
to experien
gs per vehicle
dditionally, w
r 5% of the se
tween Gleaso
eak hour.
ity in results
Tassajara fro
travel time is
very little dif
for roadway
attern in the
ed from four
cted to slight
n both northb
gnificant diff
elatively insig
so not expec
a Costa Count
our‐lane and s
e intersectio
ce intolerab
e during the A
while the six‐l
egment trave
on Drive and
of the analy
om four to six
s consistently
fference in LO
ys in the stud
e study area w
r to six lanes.
tly increase
bound and so
ferences in tr
gnificant and
cted to signif
ty and Alame
six‐lane scena
ons under th
le delays at
AM peak hou
ane scenario
el time with t
North Ranch
ysis for the fo
x lanes is not
March
longer unde
OS between t
dy area indica
when the num
. However, w
traffic on Ta
outhbound dir
ravel pattern
does not aff
icantly impac
eda County.
arios general
he six‐lane sc
LOS F, the
r, and an inc
o shows lowe
the exception
h Drive which
our‐lane and
expected to r
19, 2015
er the 4‐
the two
ate that
mber of
widening
assajara
rections
s under
fect the
ct other
ly show
cenario.
six‐lane
rease in
er travel
n of the
h shows
six‐lane
result in
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Existin
Study In
Figure 1 s
All of the
synchroni
are opera
ramp inte
Rd/I‐580
Camino T
intersecti
Study R
Tassajara
concrete
access lim
directions
Tassajara
of unsigna
center‐tu
roadway
bike lane
Tassajara
with a low
side of the
Camino T
density of
roadway.
posted sp
Camino T
concrete
speed lim
Camino T
raised con
limit of 45
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ng Roadwa
ntersectio
shows the stu
study interse
ized. The Cam
ated by Contr
ersections are
WB off‐ramp
assajara/Crow
ons are all op
Roadway S
Road betwee
median and
mited to only
s of travel.
Road betwee
alized access
rn lane that
for the majo
between Nor
Road/Camin
w density of
e roadway. It
Tassajara bet
f unsignalized
The roadwa
peed limit of 4
Tassajara betw
median betw
it of 45 mph
Tassajara from
ncrete media
5 mph with ac
no Tassajara
aft Report
ay Setting
ons
udy area and l
ections are sig
mino Tassajar
ra Costa Cou
e operated b
p intersection
w Canyon Ro
perated by th
Segments
en Gleason D
curbs on eit
y signalized in
en North Dub
points. The
continues no
rity of the se
rth Dublin Ra
no Tassajara b
unsignalized
t has a posted
tween Winde
d access poin
y segment h
45 mph.
ween Lusitan
ween signalize
with access li
m Crown Can
an between s
ccess limited
g
locations of t
gnalized and
ra/Highland R
nty. The El C
by Caltrans. T
ns are owned
ad intersectio
e City of Dub
Drive and Nor
her side of t
ntersections a
blin Ranch Dri
segment has
orth until Sh
egment. It ha
nch Drive and
between Fall
access point
d speed limit o
emere Parkw
nts. The roadw
has striped le
no Street and
ed intersectio
imited to only
nyon Road a
signalized inte
to only signa
6
he 12 study in
operating “fr
Road and Cam
Charro Road/
The Santa Rit
d by Caltrans
on is operate
lin.
th Dublin Ran
the roadway.
along the roa
ive and Fallon
striped left‐t
hadow Hill Dr
as a posted s
d Shadow Hill
on Road and
s. The roadw
of 45 mph.
way and Lusit
way segment
eft turn lanes
d Crow Canyo
ons and curbs
y signalized in
nd Sycamore
ersections an
lized intersec
ntersections.
ree”. In other
mino Tassajar
/I‐580 EB off‐
ta Road/I‐580
but operate
ed by the Tow
nch Drive is a
. It has a pos
adway. There
n Road is a tw
turn lanes at
rive and has
peed limit of
l Drive.
d Windemere
way segment
tano Street i
t has no med
s at Highland
on Road is a
s on both side
ntersections a
e Valley Road
nd curbs on e
ctions along t
r words the t
ra/Windemer
‐ramp and Fa
0 EB off‐ram
d by the City
wn of Danville
a four‐lane ro
sted speed li
e are Class II
wo‐lane roadw
t major acces
a curb on t
f 45 mph. Th
e Parkway is
has no media
is a two‐lane
dian or curb o
d Road and F
four‐lane roa
es of the road
along the roa
d is a four‐la
either side. It
the roadway.
March
traffic signals
e Road inters
allon Road/I‐5
p and the Ta
y of Pleasant
e. The remain
oadway with a
mit of 45 m
bike lanes f
way with low
ss points as w
the east side
ere is a nort
a two‐lane r
an or curb on
e roadway w
on either side
Finley Road.
adway with a
dway. It has a
adway.
ane roadway
has a posted
19, 2015
are not
sections
580 WB
assajara
on. The
ning five
a raised
ph with
for both
density
well as a
e of the
hbound
oadway
n either
with low
e of the
It has a
a raised
a posted
y with a
d speed
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
NO SCALE
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
405 205
8 26
512
99W
SPEED
20
1Figure
205
This symbol has white
hairline edge for placing
over darker backgounds
00%
11 Howard St/Boone Av
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
11.0 B 0.28
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
RTTHLT
LTTHRT
- Signalized Study Intersection & Number
LEGEND
00
V/CLOS*Delay**
00.0 X 0.00
- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
- Volume Turn Movement
RightThruLeft
LTTH RT
- Lane Configuration
- Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
000
*A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS
**Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay
126
105
217
5 84
Study Area
Ca
m
i
n
o
Tas
s
a
j
a
r
a
P:
\
P
\
1
4
\
1
4
1
1
2
-
0
0
1
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
O
n
-
C
a
l
l
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
\
0
6
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
A
l
c
o
s
t
a
B
l
v
d
Dublin Blvd
Gleason DrVil
l
a
g
e
P
k
w
y
Ama
d
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
O
w
e
n
s
D
r
W Las
P
o
s
i
t
a
s
B
l
v
d
Stoneridge Dr
E
B
r
a
n
c
h
P
k
w
y
Pimlico
Dr
B
l
a
c
k
h
a
w
k
R
d
Silve
r
a
Ran
c
h
D
r
Westminster Pl
Tassajara Ranch Dr
Tassajara Village Dr
Buckingham Pl
Parkhaven Dr
Jasmine Wy
Lawrence Wy
Hansen Ln
Shadow Creek Dr
Knollview Dr
Charbray St
Lusitano St
12
6
11
5
10
4
3
2
9
8
71
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
N. Dublin
Ranch Rd
Antone Wy
S Dublin
Ranch Rd
Signal Hill Dr
Turnberry Dr
- Signalized Intersection
- Danville/Dublin City
Boundary
- Contra Costa County
Boundary
City of Danville
City of D
u
b
l
i
n
Contra
C
o
s
t
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Alamed
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
a
m
i
n
o
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Cami
n
o
Tassaj
a
r
a
Windemere P
k
w
y
Fa
l
l
o
n
R
d
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
AM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Analys
Study S
In order t
traffic div
Scenario
With an a
City of Du
the study
Charro Ro
to access
Road/Cam
Boulevard
segment.
Scenario
With assu
roadway t
model as
lanes from
Plan.
Model Ad
During th
more accu
adjustme
R
p
A
C
V
C
Pa
Appendix
future sce
In additio
scenarios
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
sis Method
Scenarios
o determine
ersions, the f
o #1 – Four‐l
assumed cap
ublin in Alame
y assesses wh
oad/Fallon Ro
s Tassajara R
mino Tassajar
d along Tassa
o #2 – Six‐lan
umed capacity
to access Cam
sumes six la
m Windemer
djustments
e model scen
urately the ex
nts were mad
evised the nu
lanned roadw
dded a centro
oded Tassaja
alley Road fo
oded Tassaja
arkway for Sc
x C contains a
enarios.
on, key roadw
were revie
no Tassajara
aft Report
dology
the potentia
following two
lane Capacit
acity of four
eda County to
hether traffic
oad, Isabel Av
Road/Camino
ra is modeled
ajara Road co
ne Capacity
y of six lanes
mino Tassajar
nes from the
e Parkway to
nario develop
xisting and fu
de to the netw
umber of lane
way improvem
oid connecto
ara Road/Cam
r Scenario #1
ara Road/Cam
cenario #2.
a table and m
way improve
ewed to en
l of traffic im
o scenarios ar
ty on Tassaj
lanes on Tas
o Sycamore V
c to/from I‐58
venue, Portol
Tassajara Ro
with four lan
onsistent wit
on Tassajar
on Tassajara
ra in Danville
e Tassajara R
o Tassajara R
pment proces
uture roadwa
work:
es along Tassa
ments,
r from Silvera
mino Tassajar
1, and
mino Tassajar
maps showing
ments were
nsure that
8
pact on local
e analyzed:
ara Road/C
ssajara Road/
Valley Road in
80 is expecte
a Avenue, Co
oad via High
nes, the upda
h the numbe
ra Road/Cam
Road, there
to avoid cong
Road/I‐580 in
anch Drive a
ss the CCTA t
ay network co
ajara Road, Sa
a Ranch Drive
ra as a 4‐lan
a as a 6‐lane
g the number
identified an
the models
roadways in
Camino Tass
/Camino Tass
n the Town of
ed to divert t
ollier Canyon
hland Road.
ated CCTA Mo
er of existing
mino Tassaj
is the possib
gestion on I‐5
nterchange to
ccording to t
travel deman
onfiguration i
anta Rita Roa
e to Tassajara
ne facility fro
e facility from
r of travel lan
nd the future
accurately
the Tri‐Valle
sajara
sajara from G
f Danville in C
to use local r
Road, and No
While the m
odel has six la
g travel lanes
jara
ility that som
580 and I‐680
o Windemere
the Contra Co
nd model wa
in the project
ad and El Cha
a Rd,
om Gleason D
m Gleason Dr
nes assumed
e model netw
reflect the
March
ey area from p
Gleason Drive
Contra Costa
roadways suc
orth Livermo
majority of Ta
anes south of
s along the r
me traffic will
0. The update
e Parkway a
osta County G
s adjusted to
t area. The fo
rro Road to r
Drive to Syca
rive to Winde
for the exist
works for th
planned r
19, 2015
possible
e in the
County,
ch as El
re Road
assajara
f Dublin
oadway
use this
ed CCTA
nd four
General
o reflect
ollowing
reflect
amore
emere
ting and
e study
oadway
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
improvem
Costa Cou
C
Jo
Ex
H
Ex
Fa
Sa
Level o
Signalize
A Level of
the avera
represent
LOS A is c
Valley Tra
capacity.
Table 3 – S
According
capacity a
during the
Highway C
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ments. Some o
unty’s Compre
onstruction o
oaquin Count
xtension of D
acienda Drive
xtension of D
allon Rd/El Ch
anta Rita Roa
f Service M
ed Intersect
f Service (LOS
age delay p
ting free‐flow
considered ex
ansportation
LOS definitio
Signalized Inte
L
Sou
Boa
g to the City o
analysis were
e weekday A
Capacity Man
no Tassajara
aft Report
of the key pr
ehensive Tran
of HOV lanes
y
Dublin Bouleva
e widening
Dougherty Roa
harro Road in
ad interchang
Methodolo
tions
S) evaluation
er vehicle e
w conditions t
xcellent, whi
Plan/Action
ns, considerin
rsection LOS T
Level of
Service
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
urce: 2000 High
ard, 2000.
of Dublin, Mo
e conducted
M peak hour
nual (HCM) op
ojects that ar
nsportation P
s on I‐580 fr
ard from Fallo
ad
nterchange im
e improveme
ogies and P
is a qualitat
experienced
to “F” repres
le LOS E is co
Plan; and L
ng vehicle de
Thresholds and
Average Cont
(seconds/v
≤ 10
> 10 and ≤ 2
> 20 and ≤ 3
> 35 and ≤ 5
> 55 and ≤ 8
> 80
hway Capacity
oller Ranch Tr
on April 19,
(7:00 to 9:00
perations me
9
re included in
Project List ar
rom Tassajara
on Road to Ai
mprovements
ents
Parameter
ive descriptio
during peak
senting conge
onsidered sat
LOS F repres
lay for signali
d Definitions
trol Delay
vehicle)
F
In
0 S
M
5 S
A
5 A
T
0 U
S
F
E
y Manual, Tran
raffic Impact
2012. Inters
0 AM) and PM
thodology an
n the model n
re:
a Road to V
irway Boulev
rs
on of an inte
k travel peri
ested conditi
tisfactory op
sents unacce
ized intersect
Descr
Free flow/
nsignificant De
Stable Operatio
Minimal Delay
Stable Operatio
Acceptable Del
Approaching U
Tolerable Delay
Unstable Opera
Significant Dela
Forced Flow/
Excessive Delay
nsportation Re
Study interse
sections were
M peak hour
nd Synchro 8.
networks acc
Vasco Road a
ard
rsection’s pe
iods. LOS ca
ions with lon
erating cond
eptable cond
tions, are sho
ription
elay
on/
on/
ay
nstable/
y
ation/
ay
y
esearch
ection vehicle
e evaluated f
(4:00 to 6:00
0 software.
March
ording to the
nd further to
rformance ba
an range fro
ng delays. Ge
itions under
ditions, at or
own in Table 3
e counts used
for traffic con
0 PM) using th
19, 2015
e Contra
o San
ased on
om “A”
enerally,
the Tri‐
r above
3.
d for the
nditions
he 2000
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
For signal
intersecti
the inters
intersecti
Roadway
Measures
performa
used to c
reflects th
including
congested
while LOS
Plan; and
vehicle tr
As there
calculated
delay for
Table 4 – R
The above
done by c
2 According
Transporta
Capacity M
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ized intersect
on. The LOS
section. A com
on.
y Segments
s of effective
nce measure
characterize v
he factors tha
control dela
d conditions
S E is consider
LOS F repre
avel speeds a
is no coord
d as the sum
study interse
Roadway Segm
Level
Servic
A
B
C
D
E
F
Source: 20
e MOEs for e
comparing the
g to the 2013 C
ation/Action Pl
Manual for ana
no Tassajara
aft Report
tions, this me
is then based
mbined avera
ness (MOE)
es as signal d
vehicular LOS
at influence r
y. LOS can r
with long de
red satisfacto
esents unacce
as a percenta
ination betw
of free flow
ctions within
ment LOS Thres
of
ce
Tr
Perce
010 Highway C
xisting condit
e results of th
CCTA Technica
lan for Routes
lyses of impact
ethodology de
d on average
age delay, we
for roadway
elay, travel t
S for a given
unning time a
range from “
elays and ext
ory operating
eptable cond
age of free flo
ween signals
travel time a
each study s
sholds and De
ravel Speed a
entage of Fre
Speed
>85
> 67 and ≤ 8
> 50 and ≤ 6
> 40 and ≤ 5
> 30 and ≤ 4
> 30
Capacity Manu
tions provide
he each propo
l Procedures (p
of Regional Sig
ts of developm
10
etermines the
e delay (in se
eighted by ap
segments re
ime, and ave
direction of
along each lin
A” represent
ensive queui
conditions un
ditions, at or
ow speed, are
along the st
long each stu
segment.
finitions
as a
ee Flow
5
7
0
0
ual2
e a basis for e
osed scenario
p.26) and spec
gnificance, “an
ment or benefit
e capacity of
conds per ve
pproach volum
eported in th
erage speeds
travel along
nk and the de
ting free‐flow
ing. Generally
nder the Tri‐V
above capac
e shown in Ta
tudy roadwa
udy segment
Desc
Primarily Free
Reasonably un
operation
Stable Operati
Less stable op
Unstable Oper
Significant Del
Extremely low
Extensive que
evaluating the
o.
cified in the 20
nalysts are enco
ts from transpo
each lane gro
ehicle) for the
me, and LOS
his analysis in
. Through ve
a roadway s
elay incurred
w conditions
y, LOS A is c
Valley Transp
city. LOS def
able 4 and m
y segments,
and the aver
ription
flow operatio
nimpeded
ion
eration
ration/
lay
w speed/
uing
e proposed sc
14 Tri‐Valley
ouraged to use
ortation impro
March
oup approach
e movements
is presented
nclude such c
ehicle travel s
segment. Thi
by through v
to “F” repre
onsidered ex
portation Plan
finitions, cons
meet CCTA sta
travel time
rage through
n
cenarios. This
e the 2010 Hig
ovements”.
19, 2015
hing the
s within
for the
corridor
speed is
s speed
vehicles,
esenting
xcellent,
n/Action
sidering
andards.
will be
‐vehicle
s will be
hway
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
CCTA T
To estima
version of
also make
interim d
5‐year in
environm
that set h
land use
analysis. I
the result
Different
horizon y
years bet
Projection
land use s
The curre
• A
• A
• P
• P
• O
For this ef
• 20
• 20
For each
procedure
Roadwa
The volum
general, o
Instead, c
produced
illustrated
Horizon
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
Travel Dem
ate the future
f the CCTA tra
es use of 201
raft land use
ncrements. I
ental review
as not been r
distributions
In general, th
ts of this analy
highway net
years. The cu
tween 2000 a
n, the model
set for the sce
nt countywid
M Peak hour
M Peak perio
M peak hour,
M Peak perio
Off‐Peak perio
ffort, the follo
013 (represen
040 (represen
scenario, th
es are further
ay Segmen
me forecasts
outputs from
changes in for
by the trav
d in the follow
Year Volume
no Tassajara
aft Report
mand Mode
e year traffic
avel demand
0 count data
Projections 2
t should be
is currently
reviewed and
and therefo
he land use e
ysis more con
works are av
rrent version
and 2040. Fo
interpolates
enario year.
de travel dem
,
od (6‐10 AM),
,
od (3‐7 PM), a
od, covering a
owing model
nting the “exi
nting Scenario
he AM peak
r described in
nt Volume
for the stud
m the travel
recast deman
vel demand
wing equation
es = Existing (
el
demand inpu
model was u
. The land us
2011 (Curren
e noted tha
underway an
d approved by
ore not appro
stimates in P
nservative co
vailable in the
n of the trave
or scenario ye
the land use
and model in
and
ll remaining h
datasets wer
isting year” m
os 1 and 2 in
k hour and
n the followin
e Forecast
y segments w
demand mo
nd volumes b
model, were
n:
(Observed) V
Mo
11
uts for the tra
used. This mo
e and socio‐d
nt Regional Pl
at the Cont
nd will be bas
y the local jur
opriate for th
Projections 20
mpared to re
e model to r
el demand m
ears that are
e between th
ncludes the fo
hours.
re used:
model scenari
horizon year
PM peak ho
g sections.
Methodol
were develop
odel were no
etween the e
e added to
Volumes + (Ho
odel Forecast
affic operatio
odel set is cali
demographics
lans) which c
tra Costa C
sed on ABAG
risdictions, it
he Tassajara
011 are highe
esults based o
represent net
model can ge
e not directly
he nearest tw
ollowing analy
io),
2040).
our assignme
logy
ped using the
ot used direc
existing year a
observed tr
orizon Year M
t)
onal analysis,
ibrated to 200
s information
over years 20
ountywide T
G’s Projection
includes an a
Road/Camin
er than Proje
on Projections
twork improv
enerate scena
y included in
wo years in o
ysis periods:
ents were u
e CCTA trave
ctly in the o
and each futu
affic volume
Model Forecas
March
the latest ap
00 traffic cou
n is based on
010 through
Transportatio
s 2013, but b
approximatio
o Tassajara c
ections 2013,
s 2013.
vements at d
ario networks
the ABAG la
order to deve
tilized. The
el demand m
operational a
ure scenario
es. This appr
st – “Existing
19, 2015
pproved
unts and
ABAG’s
2040 in
on Plan
because
n of the
capacity
making
different
s for all
and use
elop the
specific
odel. In
analysis.
year, as
roach is
g Year”
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
For new f
used dire
adjustme
The 2013
used to fo
growth w
existing p
volumes f
The appro
approach
Interse
For the i
procedure
then appl
Following
intersecti
This proce
• G
• C
• A
ex
• A
CCTA T
As the lar
demand m
model by
travel dem
area, incl
Parkway,
Road, El C
The CCTA
model vo
compariso
similar re
being slig
models a
facilities b
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
facilities and
ectly for inp
nts described
model datas
orecast grow
will be determ
peak hour vol
for both exist
oach describ
and departu
ection Volu
ntersection a
es described
ying the Furn
g this proced
ons.
ess may be su
enerate 2013
ompute the m
pply Furness
xisting turn m
pply manual
Travel Dem
rgest part of
model for the
y comparing i
mand model.
uding but no
Fallon Road
Charro Road a
A travel dema
olumes, as th
on showed th
sults with re
ghtly more co
long Tassajar
being coded d
no Tassajara
aft Report
movements t
put to the o
d below.
set was used
wth for the fu
mined using th
ume for each
ing and futur
ed above wa
re links for th
ume Forec
analysis, an
above to det
ness methodo
dure, manua
ummarized as
3 and 2040 m
model growth
methodolog
movement de
adjustments
mand Mode
the study co
e roadway ca
t with a) the
. The compar
ot limited to
, Gleason Dr
and Stoneridg
and model vo
he City of D
hat the two m
spect to the
onservative.
ra Road and
differently in
that do not e
operational
d for the “exi
uture traffic c
he respective
h link. Appen
re year scenar
as used to de
he study inter
cast Metho
expanded ap
termine appr
ology to dete
al adjustmen
s follows:
model forecast
h for each link
gy to comput
mands and fo
to balance de
el Review
rridor is in Co
apacity analy
e City of Dub
rison mostly
the following
rive, Central
ge Drive.
olumes were
Dublin and th
models (both
trip allocatio
There were
Fallon Road,
the two mod
12
exist today, t
analysis, sub
isting year” m
conditions. Fo
peak hour m
dix D contain
rios.
evelop foreca
rsections.
odology
pproach was
oach‐link and
ermine individ
ts were ma
ts for each int
k (2040 mode
e individual t
orecast appro
emands betw
ontra Costa C
ysis. However
lin travel dem
focused in th
g facilities: Ta
Parkway, Du
e compared w
he Tri‐Valley
based on lan
on in the stud
certain signi
, but that di
dels; the two
he horizon‐ye
bject to the
model foreca
or AM and P
models. This g
ns maps of th
asts for the a
used. This
d departure‐l
dual turning
de to balan
tersection ap
el output min
turning move
oach and dep
ween adjacent
County, it wa
r, DKS took a
mand model
he estimated
assajara Roa
ublin Bouleva
with the Alam
y are incorpo
d use forecas
dy area, with
ificant volum
d not raise c
models have
ear model fo
reasonablen
ast. The 2040
PM analysis p
growth volum
he study area
arterial segm
approach inv
ink growth fo
movements a
nce demands
pproach and d
nus 2010 mod
ement dema
arture link gr
t intersection
s decided to
a first step in
and b) the A
peak hour v
d/Camino Ta
ard, Dougher
meda county
orated in Ala
sts of Project
the volumes
me difference
concerns as
e different ass
March
orecast outpu
ness and ba
0 model data
periods, the f
me was added
a showing mo
ments, as wel
volved apply
or each inter
at each inter
s between a
departure link
del output);
nd forecasts
rowth; and
ns.
use the CCTA
n assessing th
Alameda coun
volumes in th
assajara, Win
rty Road, San
wide travel d
ameda Coun
ions 2011) pr
s in the CCTA
es between t
it was due t
sumptions ab
19, 2015
uts were
alancing
set was
forecast
d to the
odel link
l as the
ying the
section,
section.
adjacent
k;
using
A travel
he CCTA
ntywide
he study
demere
nta Rita
demand
nty. The
roduced
A model
the two
o those
bout the
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
number o
case.
Having co
the Alam
segment
analysis. T
produced
“gateway
Signific
Contra C
The Tri‐Va
such as in
is an acce
area rega
evaluated
50 or mor
The stan
Plan/Actio
At the int
LOS stand
intersecti
threshold
Project.
City of D
An impac
project w
significant
previously
that the C
already op
uses HCM
with the H
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
of lanes of the
ompared the
eda countyw
is located in
The model s
more conse
capacity con
cant Impac
Costa County
alley Transpo
ntersections a
ptable level o
ardless of ho
d under CCTA
re project trip
dard set for
on Plan is LOS
tersections of
dard is LOS C
ons are regar
as outlined
ublin
t would be s
ould exceed a
t if a new inte
y identified in
City strive fo
perating belo
M 2000 metho
HCM 2000 me
no Tassajara
aft Report
e two facilitie
CCTA travel d
wide model, a
Contra Costa
cenarios wer
rvative traffic
straints”.
ct Criteria
y and Tri‐Va
ortation Coun
along Camino
of traffic oper
ow the inter
A requiremen
ps in a peak p
rth for Rout
S E. All study
f Camino Tas
based on the
rded as a sem
in the Count
ignificant if a
acceptable le
ersection is id
n the Eastern
or LOS D at in
ow an accepta
od for interse
ethod
es, and that re
demand mod
as well as tak
a County, it w
re developed
c volumes in
alley Transp
cil set maxim
Tassajara. Ac
ration at inte
rsections are
ts include sig
eriod when u
tes of Regio
intersections
ssajara/Highla
e standard se
mi‐rural inter
ty’s comment
an intersectio
evels with the
dentified as e
Dublin EIR a
ntersections.
able threshold
ection LOS ca
13
esulted in the
del volumes w
king into acc
was decided t
using the “u
the study are
portation Co
mum levels of
ccording to th
rsections on t
e currently o
gnalized inter
used to assess
onal Significa
s are on Route
and Road and
et forth in in
section and t
ts in the Add
on operating
e addition of p
xceeding acce
as a study inte
An impact w
d and the pro
lculations. Th
ese facilities a
with those fro
count the fac
to use the CC
unconstraine
ea compared
ouncil
f congestion f
he CCTA requ
the routes of
operating. Fu
rsections tha
s the potentia
ance in the
es of Regiona
d Camino Tas
the Contra C
therefore hav
dendum to th
at an accept
project traffic
eptable level
ersection. Th
would also b
oject worsens
he remaining
attracting trip
om the City o
ct that the m
CTA travel dem
ed” version o
to the versio
for routes of
uirements, lev
f regional sign
urthermore,
t are expecte
al impact of n
2014 Tri‐Va
al Significance
ssajara/Wind
Costa County
ve a more str
he Proposed
table level of
c. In addition,
s and if such
e General Pla
e significant
s the conditio
intersections
March
ps differently
of Dublin mo
majority of th
mand model
of the model
on that incorp
regional sign
vel of service
nificance in th
intersections
ed to be affe
new developm
alley Transpo
e.
emere Parkw
General Plan
ringent perfo
Creekside Ce
f service with
, an impact w
intersection w
an standard r
if an interse
on. The City of
s were also a
19, 2015
in each
odel and
e study
for this
as that
porated
ificance
E (LOS)
he study
s to be
ected by
ment.
ortation
way, the
n. These
ormance
emetery
hout the
would be
was not
requires
ection is
f Dublin
nalyzed
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Town of
The Tri‐V
Regional S
are:
• D
m
• Sy
• C
Intersecti
Capacity
intersecti
Caltrans
Caltrans e
highway f
that the l
highway f
maintaine
Existin
Existing
The lane
Condition
condition
3 Town of D
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
Danville3
Valley Council
Significance i
anville Boule
missing segme
ycamore Valle
row Canyon R
ons on the f
Manual (HCM
on of Crow C
endeavors to
facilities, how
ead agency c
facility is ope
ed.
ng Conditi
g Traffic V
configuration
ns traffic volu
s.
Danville Gener
no Tassajara
aft Report
l has establis
nclude two co
vard/San Ram
ent through D
ey Road and
Road (south o
first two of t
M) Operation
anyon Road a
o maintain a
wever, Caltran
consult with
erating at less
ions
Volumes an
ns for each o
umes are pre
ral Plan, Chapt
shed LOS sta
orridors with
mon Valley Bo
Downtown Da
Camino Tassa
of Camino Tas
these corrido
nal Method.
and Camino T
target LOS a
ns acknowled
Caltrans to d
s (worse) tha
nd Lane Co
of the study
sented in Fig
er 4, 2013
14
andards for “
in Danville an
oulevard sout
anville in the c
ajara (a single
ssajara)
ors are subje
The Town o
Tassajara.
at the transit
dges that this
determine th
n the approp
onfigurati
intersections
gure 3. Figure
“Routes of R
nd one corrid
th of Sycamo
center)
e corridor com
ect to an LOS
of Danville h
tion between
may not alw
e appropriat
priate target
ions
s are presen
e 4 shows lin
Regional Sign
dor on the edg
ore Valley (a s
mprised of tw
S E standard
as a standar
n LOS “C” an
ways be feasib
e target LOS
LOS, the exis
ted in Figure
nk volumes u
March
ificance.” Ro
ge of Danville
single corrido
wo roads)
d using the H
rd of LOS D
nd LOS “D” o
ble and recom
. If an existin
sting MOE sh
e 2 and the
under existing
19, 2015
outes of
e. These
or with a
Highway
for the
on State
mmends
ng State
ould be
Existing
g traffic
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Figure 2
Existing Lane Configuration
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
A A CDE
LEGEND
JJ
L
N
A CD P A C
JJ
N
A A C
JL
L
N
N
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd
DE
A
D
A
A
A
C
D
JLL N JL KL JLL N N
JL
N
A CE D
JJ
N
N
CDE
5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
A A CCE
A
C
E
O A
B
E
E
JL N L N JKL JLL
JL
N
N
CCCE
CCE
JJ
L
L
N
N
A A A CCE
JL
N
N
A
A
D
JLL N
1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps
2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr
A
A
E
E
A
A
E
E
A
A
A
C
D
JLL N
JJLLL
JJLLLL N N
P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
RT
RT TH LT LT
LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT
RT TH LT
TH RT
RT
TH
RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT
TH
RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT RT RT
TH TH
RT TH LT LT TH LT LT RT TH RT TH LT
LT LT TH RT TH RT LT TH RT TH RT
TH
RT RT
RT RT
TH TH
RT TH LT RT TH RT TH RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT LT LT TH LT LT TH LT LT TH RT
TH TH
RT RT RT RT
Traffic Signal
AM(PM)
25
8
(3
0
7
)
0 (0
)
18
1
(1
8
9
)
40
8
(4
0
2
)
15
(4
6
)
36
4
(5
1
6
)
75
(3
3
)
21
(1
5
8
)
71 (128)
282 (1017)
19
3
(1
8
3
)
99 (184)
12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd
78
(7
2
)
28 (13)
434 (438)
252 (172)
74
(3
2
)
82
(2
1
4
)
192 (514)182 (182)
5 (1)
21
(6
)
42
(1
2
7
)
88
(1
)
21 (18)71 (19)
17
0
(4
1
5
)
2 (4
7
)
2 (3) 97 (5)58 (22)
0 (1) 264 (43)198 (314)
3 (3)2 (6)27
0
(4
2
5
)
59
(1
5
7
)
34
7
(1
9
6
)
27
4
(5
7
1
)
5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
68
1
(2
3
5
)
12
0
(7
9
)
0 (1
)
44
3
(2
0
8
)
53
(2
1
5
)
86
(1
9
1
)
41
6
(7
0
3
)
17
2
(1
9
1
)
665 (338)
181 (477)
33 (66)
10
0
9
(1
4
3
3
)
55
3
(6
7
7
)
63 (551)
32
9
(4
0
2
)
55
3
(7
1
4
)
11
7
(3
9
4
)
114 (192)
48 (213)
23
0
(7
1
)
92
0
(4
6
6
)
59
(2
3
)
252 (151)
374 (479)
315 (298)
15 (34)
51 (22)
191 (147)
155 (67)
77
9
(1
2
8
8
)
39
8
(5
3
7
)
1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps
2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr
22
8
(2
9
8
)
10
1
3
(1
0
2
1
)
17
5
(2
8
8
)
84
4
(6
4
7
)
86
6
(1
1
0
4
)
163 (179)
544 (509)
384 (233)
538 (434)
59 (306)
147 (226)
17
0
(9
9
)
10
9
4
(6
5
4
)
16
(5
5
)
14
8
(4
2
8
)
287 (124)
10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr
3 (1
9
)
13
8
(7
8
)
1 (5)
11
(9
)
65
(1
2
8
)
29 (10)
11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy
62
(3
5
)
50
1
(1
8
8
)
Volume Turning
Movements
Figure 3
LEGEND
87 (329)
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
29
(2
0
)
51
2
(3
6
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (1)
18 (88)
Existing Condition Turn Movement Volumes
20 (30)
0 (1)
56
(7
9
)
12
4
(4
6
8
)
P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
NO SCALE
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
405 205
8 26
512
99W
SPEED
20
4Figure
205
This symbol has white
hairline edge for placing
over darker backgounds
00%
11 Howard St/Boone Av
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
11.0 B 0.28
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
RTTHLT
LTTHRT
- Signalized Study Intersection & Number
LEGEND
00
V/CLOS*Delay**
00.0 X 0.00
- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
- Volume Turn Movement
RightThruLeft
LTTH RT
- Lane Configuration
- Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
000
*A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS
**Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay
126
105
217
5 84
Existing Condition Link Volumes
P:
\
P
\
1
4
\
1
4
1
1
2
-
0
0
1
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
O
n
-
C
a
l
l
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
\
0
6
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
- Signalized Intersection
- Danville City Boundary
- Dublin City Boundary
- Contra Costa County
BoundaryAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Voumes
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Interse
Table 5 su
and PM p
Table 5 – E
No
1 Sa
I‐5
2 Sa
Rd
3 Ta
4 Ta
5 Fa
Ta
6 Ca
Hig
7 El
I‐5
8 El
58
9 Fa
10 Fa
Sil
11 Ca
W
12 Ca
Cr
Source:
Notes:
a. Delay
b. LOS =
BOLD in
Appendix
Condition
standards
acceptabl
standard
at LOS C d
during the
E under th
at LOS C
during the
standard.
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ection Peak
ummarizes th
eak hours.
Existing Condit
Intersection
nta Rita Rd/
580 EB off‐ram
nta Rita Rd/Ta
d/I‐580 WB off‐
ssajara Rd/Du
ssajara Rd/Gle
llon Rd/Camin
ssajara/Tassaj
amino Tassajar
ghland Rd
Charro Rd/
580 EB off‐ram
Charro Rd/Fall
80 WB ramps
llon Rd/Dublin
llon Rd/
vera Ranch Dr
amino Tassajar
indemere Pkw
amino Tassajar
ow Canyon Rd
: DKS Associate
y is in seconds
= Level of Serv
ndicates unacc
x A contains t
ns, nine of th
s during AM
y at LOS D du
during the AM
during the AM
e PM peak ho
he Contra Co
during the P
e AM peak h
no Tassajara
aft Report
k Hour Lev
he results of t
tions Intersect
Name
p
assajara
‐ramp
blin Blvd
eason Dr
o
ara Rd
a/
p
lon Rd/I‐
n Blvd
a/
wy
a and
es, 2014
per vehicle an
ice
ceptable LOS
the LOS analy
e 12 study in
and PM pea
uring the PM
M peak hour.
M peak hour
our. The Cam
sta County G
PM peak hou
our operates
vel of Serv
the intersect
tion Level of Se
Control
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
nd is based on a
ysis and calcu
ntersections
k hours. The
peak hour bu
. The Tassajar
but operates
ino Tassajara
eneral Plan st
ur. Only the
s worse than
18
vice Analy
ion LOS analy
ervice
AM peak ho
Average
Delaya LO
55.9
10.3
35.8
27.8
16.0
65.8
4.0
6.0
11.2
5.6
21.6
24.3
average stoppe
lation worksh
currently ope
Santa Rita R
ut operates u
ra Road/Dubl
s unacceptab
a/Highland Ro
tandard durin
intersection
the 2014 Tri‐
ysis (Existi
ysis conducte
our PM p
OSb Averag
Delaya
E 38.1
B 12.1
D 57.8
C 36.5
D 46.4
E 24.1
A 7.5
A 8.4
B 18.3
A 4.9
C 23.5
C 39.3
ed delay.
heets. Based
erate accepta
Road/I‐580 EB
unacceptably
in Boulevard
bly at LOS E u
oad intersecti
ng the AM pe
of Fallon Rd
‐Valley Trans
ing Condit
ed for the Exi
peak hour
ge
a LOSb
D
B
E
D
D
C
A
A
B
A
C
D
on the LOS r
ably accordin
B off‐ramp in
at LOS E und
intersection
under the City
ion operates
eak hour and
d/Camino Tas
portation Pla
March
tions)
isting Conditi
esults under
ng to applica
ntersection o
der the City of
operates acc
y of Dublin st
unacceptably
operates acc
ssajara/Tassa
an/Action Pla
19, 2015
ons AM
Existing
ble LOS
operates
f Dublin
ceptably
tandard
y at LOS
ceptably
ajara Rd
n LOS E
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Roadwa
Table 6
condition
for throu
determine
factors us
median, a
speeds as
LOS analy
As shown
both direc
Table 6 – E
Tassajara R
North Dub
Tassajara R
Ranch Dr a
Tassajara R
between F
Parkway
Camino Ta
parkway a
Camino Ta
Street and
Camino Ta
Canyon Ro
Road
Notes: Fr
Trave
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ay Peak H
summarizes
s. Average tra
ugh traffic at
ed using free
sed to calcul
access point d
s a percentag
ysis and calcu
n in Table 6, a
ctions. Gener
Existing Condit
Roadway Segm
Rd between Gl
lin Ranch Dr
Rd between No
and Fallon Road
Rd/Camino Tas
Fallon Rd and W
ssajara betwee
nd Lusitano St
ssajara betwee
Crow Canyon
ssajara betwee
oad and Sycam
ree flow Speed is
el Time (sec) = T
no Tassajara
aft Report
our Level
the average
avel time was
t study inter
‐flow speeds
late free flow
density and n
ge of free flow
lation worksh
all roadway s
rally, speeds a
tion Roadway
ment
eason Dr and
orth Dublin
d
ssajara
Windemere
en Windemere
reet
en Lusitano
Rd
en Crow
ore Valley
s defined by HCM
he average time
of Service
travel time
s calculated a
rsections wit
calculated fr
w speed incl
number of lan
w speed as d
heets.
segments ope
are faster dur
Segment Leve
Approach
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
e Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
M 2010 method
e taken for a veh
19
e Analysis
e and roadw
as the sum of
hin each roa
rom the 2010
ude posted s
nes. Roadway
efined in Tab
erate at LOS
ring the AM p
el of Service
Peak Hour
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
d AM
PM
ology
hicle to travel the
(Existing
way segment
free‐flow tra
adway segm
0 Highway Ca
speed limit,
y Segment LO
ble 4. Appen
C or better d
peak hour.
r Average T
e segment.
Condition
level of ser
avel time and
ent. Free flo
pacity Manua
existence an
OS is determin
dix B provide
during AM an
Travel Time (se
69.6
82.6
63.2
79.7
86.2
86.2
95.2
111.0
98.5
109.8
87.8
88.6
329.2
325.4
325.4
325.8
213.9
213.9
237.6
244.4
278.8
301.6
250.8
250.8
March
ns)
rvice under
average sign
ow travel tim
al methodolo
nd type of cu
ned by vehicl
es roadway s
nd PM peak h
ec) Segme
C
C
B
C
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
19, 2015
existing
al delay
me was
ogy. The
urb and
e travel
segment
hours in
ent LOS
C
C
B
C
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Future
2040 La
According
significant
Livermore
CCTA Cou
2040 Se
Select‐link
peak‐hou
Tassajara/
Tassajara
Turnberry
Road for b
Appendix
Tassajara
the level
summariz
when the
However,
on Tassaj
southbou
significant
Figure 5 a
traffic con
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
e Cumulat
and Use D
g to the volu
t new develo
e and Pleasan
untywide Mod
elect‐Link
k analyses we
r traffic cond
/Tassajara Ro
Road betwee
y Drive. Table
both scenario
x E contains p
Road/Camin
of traffic dis
zed in Table 6
e number of t
widening th
jara Road/Ca
nd directions
t differences
and Figure 6 s
nditions.
no Tassajara
aft Report
tive (2040
escription
ume forecast
opment and g
nton. Growth
del, which is d
k Analysis
ere conducte
itions to dete
oad. The links
en Fallon Roa
e 7 shows av
os and peak h
plots of the se
o Tassajara in
stribution alo
6, there is no
travel lanes o
e study road
amino Tassaj
s during the A
in travel patt
show link vol
0) Conditi
n
s for year 20
growth in all
h in trip gene
described mo
d for both Sc
ermine the tra
s selected for
ad and Winde
verage flows
hours.
elect‐link ana
n the study a
ng the vario
significant dif
on Tassajara R
way from fou
jara by less
AM and PM p
terns under b
umes for the
20
ions
040, as I‐580
of the Bay A
eration was b
ore in detail u
cenario 1 and
avel patterns
the analysis
emere Parkwa
along severa
lysis with traf
rea. The thick
us routes in
fference in th
Road/Camino
ur lanes to si
than 100 v
eak hours. Th
both four lane
4‐lane and 6
0 gets more
Area, traffic d
based on land
nder the Ana
d Scenario 2 u
s of vehicles u
are Camino T
ay, and Fallon
l segments a
ffic volumes
kness of the v
the study ar
he traffic dist
o Tassajara is
ix lanes is ex
vehicles per
herefore it ca
es and six lane
6‐lane scenari
congested in
diverts to loc
d use project
alysis Method
under the AM
using various
Tassajara nort
n Road betwe
along Camino
along various
various links
rea. As show
ribution patte
increased fro
pected to slig
hour in bot
an be conclud
es scenario.
ios respective
March
n the future
cal streets in
tions included
dology section
M peak hour
segments of
th of Highlan
een Antone W
o Tassajara/Ta
s roadways in
graphically in
n in the figu
ern in the stu
om four to si
ghtly increase
th northbou
ded that there
ely under cum
19, 2015
due to
Dublin,
d in the
n.
and PM
Camino
d Road,
Way and
assajara
ncluding
ndicates
res and
udy area
ix lanes.
e traffic
nd and
e are no
mulative
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Table 7 – 2
Tassajara
and North
Tassajara
Ranch Dr
Tassajara
between
Parkway
Camino T
Windeme
Street
Camino T
Street and
Camino T
Canyon R
Road
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
2040 Select‐Lin
Roadway Segm
Rd between G
h Dublin Ranch
Rd between N
and Fallon Roa
Rd/Camino Ta
Fallon Rd and
Tassajara betwe
ere parkway an
Tassajara betwe
d Crow Canyon
Tassajara betwe
Road and Sycam
no Tassajara
aft Report
nk Analysis Vo
ment
Gleason Dr
h Dr
North Dublin
ad
assajara
Windemere
een
nd Lusitano
een Lusitano
n Rd
een Crow
more Valley
lumes
Approach
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
21
Peak Hour
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
d
AM
PM
r
Scenario
Average
Volume
422
75
75
272
500
150
175
300
670
320
603
495
670
200
400
475
300
150
600
200
20
30
350
40
1
e
e
Scenario
Averag
Volum
490
75
72
332
550
150
150
390
750
315
660
550
735
200
400
530
400
150
600
200
30
30
350
50
March
o 2
ge
me
19, 2015
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
NO SCALE
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
405 205
8 26
512
99W
SPEED
20
5Figure
205
This symbol has white
hairline edge for placing
over darker backgounds
00%
11 Howard St/Boone Av
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
11.0 B 0.28
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
RTTHLT
LTTHRT
- Signalized Study Intersection & Number
LEGEND
00
V/CLOS*Delay**
00.0 X 0.00
- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
- Volume Turn Movement
RightThruLeft
LTTH RT
- Lane Configuration
- Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
000
*A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS
**Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay
126
105
217
5 84
4-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition
Link VolumesP:
\
P
\
1
4
\
1
4
1
1
2
-
0
0
1
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
O
n
-
C
a
l
l
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
\
0
6
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
- Signalized Intersection
- Danville City Boundary
- Dublin City Boundary
- Contra Costa County
BoundaryAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
NO SCALE
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
405 205
8 26
512
99W
SPEED
20
6Figure
205
This symbol has white
hairline edge for placing
over darker backgounds
00%
11 Howard St/Boone Av
A
A
A
A A A
A A A
A
A
A
11.0 B 0.28
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
RTTHLT
LTTHRT
- Signalized Study Intersection & Number
LEGEND
00
V/CLOS*Delay**
00.0 X 0.00
- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
- Volume Turn Movement
RightThruLeft
LTTH RT
- Lane Configuration
- Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
000
*A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS
**Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay
126
105
217
5 84
6-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition
Link VolumesP:
\
P
\
1
4
\
1
4
1
1
2
-
0
0
1
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
O
n
-
C
a
l
l
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
\
0
6
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
- Signalized Intersection
- Danville City Boundary
- Dublin City Boundary
- Contra Costa County
BoundaryAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Interse
Conditi
Table 8 c
during the
Table 8 – C
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sourc
Notes
a. De
b. LOS
BOLD
During th
following
condition
Sa
Ta
The inters
worse tha
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ection Peak
ions)
compares the
e AM peak ho
Cumulative 204
Intersecti
Santa Rita Rd
EB off‐ramp
Santa Rita Rd
Rd and I‐580
ramp
Tassajara Rd
Blvd
Tassajara Rd
Gleason Dr
Fallon Rd/Ca
Tassajara an
Rd
Camino Tass
Highland Rd
El Charro Rd
EB off‐ramp
El Charro Rd/
and I‐580 W
Fallon Rd/Du
Fallon Rd/Sil
Dr
Camino Tass
Windemere
Camino Tass
Crow Canyon
ce: DKS Associa
s:
lay is in second
S = Level of Se
D indicates una
he AM Peak
two interse
s:
anta Rita Rd a
assajara Road
sections of Ta
an the 2014
no Tassajara
aft Report
k Hour Lev
e results of th
our between
40 Conditions
ion Name
d and I‐580
d/Tassajara
0 WB off‐
and Dublin
and
amino
d Tassajara
ajara and
and I‐580
/Fallon Rd
B ramps
ublin Blvd
vera Ranch
ajara and
Pkwy
ajara and
n Rd
ates, 2014
ds per vehicle a
rvice
cceptable LOS
hour, the in
ections are
and I‐580 EB o
d and Gleason
assajara Road
Tri‐Valley Tr
vel of Serv
he intersectio
the 4‐lane an
Intersection L
Control
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
and is based on
ntersection L
expected to
off‐ramp (und
n Drive (unde
d and Gleaso
ransportation
24
vice Analy
on LOS analy
nd 6‐lane scen
Level of Service
W
4‐Lane Scen
Average
Delaya
94.5
29.4
40.4
87.8
18.6
11.5
6.3
6.1
33.4
6.0
28.2
25.7
n average stop
OS is genera
o operate u
der both 4‐la
er both 4‐lane
n Drive and S
n Plan/Action
ysis (Cumu
ysis conducte
narios.
e – AM Peak H
With Optimizat
nario 6‐L
LOSb Aver
Del
F 95
C 29
D 39
F 80
B 16
B 9.
A 6.
A 9.
C 33
A 5.
C 27
C 26
pped delay.
ally similar b
nacceptably
ne and 6‐lane
e and 6‐lane s
Santa Rita Rd
n Plan LOS E
ulative 204
ed for the Cu
Hour
ion
Lane Scenario
rage
aya LOSb
5.8 F
9.2 C
9.5 D
0.1 F
6.9 B
.0 A
.3 A
.7 A
3.4 C
.9 A
7.4 C
6.0 C
between the
under cumu
e scenarios)
scenarios)
d and I‐580 E
standard un
March
40
umulative Con
Applicable
LOS
Standard
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
D
two scenari
ulative 2040
B off‐ramp o
nder both sce
19, 2015
nditions
e
os. The
0 traffic
operates
enarios.
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Table 9 c
during the
Table 9 – C
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sourc
Notes
a. De
b. LOS
BOLD
During th
following
condition
Ta
Ta
Fa
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
compares the
e PM peak ho
Cumulative 204
Intersecti
Santa Rita Rd
EB off‐ramp
Santa Rita Rd
Rd and I‐580
ramp
Tassajara Rd
Blvd
Tassajara Rd
Gleason Dr
Fallon Rd/Ca
Tassajara an
Rd
Camino Tass
Highland Rd
El Charro Rd
EB off‐ramp
El Charro Rd/
and I‐580 W
Fallon Rd/Du
Fallon Rd/Sil
Dr
Camino Tass
Windemere
Camino Tass
Crow Canyon
ce: DKS Associa
s:
lay is in second
S = Level of Se
D indicates una
he PM Peak
three inter
s:
assajara Road
assajara Road
allon Road an
no Tassajara
aft Report
e results of th
our between t
40 Conditions
ion Name
d and I‐580
d/Tassajara
0 WB off‐
and Dublin
and
amino
d Tassajara
ajara and
and I‐580
/Fallon Rd
B ramps
ublin Blvd
vera Ranch
ajara and
Pkwy
ajara and
n Rd
ates, 2014
ds per vehicle a
rvice
cceptable LOS
hour, the in
sections are
d and Dublin
d and Gleason
nd Dublin Bou
he intersectio
the 4‐Lane an
Intersection L
Control
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized
and is based on
ntersection LO
expected t
Boulevard (un
n Drive (unde
ulevard (unde
25
on LOS analy
nd 6‐Lane sce
Level of Service
W
4‐Lane Scen
Average
Delaya
39.2
12.9
91.2
65.4
16.8
11.6
11.4
7.4
132.7
6.1
20.9
44.2
n average stop
OS is genera
o operate u
nder both 4‐l
er both 4‐lane
er both 4‐lane
ysis conducte
enarios.
e – PM Peak H
With Optimizat
nario 6‐L
LOSb Aver
Del
D 47
B 17
F 133
E 87
B 17
B 12
B 11
A 4.
F 174
A 6.
C 20
D 42
pped delay.
ally similar b
unacceptably
ane and 6‐lan
e and 6‐lane s
e and 6‐lane s
ed for the Cu
Hour
ion
Lane Scenario
rage
aya LOSb
7.7 C
7.8 B
3.5 F
7.9 F
7.1 B
2.3 B
1.3 B
.4 A
4.9 F
.1 A
0.6 C
2.5 D
between the
under cum
ne scenarios)
scenarios)
scenarios)
March
umulative Con
Applicable
LOS
Standard
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
D
two scenari
ulative 2040
19, 2015
nditions
e
os. The
0 traffic
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
The inters
Road and
standard
Figure 5 a
under cum
on the LO
at LOS E o
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
sections of T
Dublin Boule
under both s
and Figure 6 s
mulative 2040
OS results und
or better duri
no Tassajara
aft Report
assajara Road
evard operate
cenarios.
show the fore
0 traffic cond
der Cumulativ
ng both the A
d and Dublin
e worse than
ecasted traffi
ditions. Appen
ve Conditions
AM and PM p
26
Boulevard, T
the 2014 Tri
ic volumes fo
ndix A provid
s, nine of the
eak hours for
Tassajara Roa
i‐Valley Trans
or the 4‐lane
des LOS analy
e twelve stud
r both the 4‐L
ad and Gleas
sportation Pla
and 6‐lane sc
ysis and calcu
dy intersectio
Lane and 6‐La
March
on Drive, and
an/Action Pla
cenarios resp
ulation sheets
ns currently o
ane scenarios
19, 2015
d Fallon
an LOS E
pectively
s. Based
operate
s.
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
RT
RT TH LT LT
LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT
RT TH LT
TH RT
RT
TH
RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT
TH
RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT RT RT
TH TH
RT TH LT LT TH LT LT RT TH RT TH LT
LT LT TH RT TH RT LT TH RT TH RT
TH
RT RT
RT RT
TH TH
RT TH LT RT TH RT TH RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT LT LT TH LT LT TH LT LT TH RT
TH TH
RT RT RT RT
Traffic Signal
AM(PM)
LEGEND
Figure 7
Volume Turning
Movements 4‐Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes
353 (1264)
15
3
(1
2
0
)
60
9
(6
8
5
)
21
3
(5
2
2
)
36 (94) 4 (9)24 (103)87 (189)
568 (2486)
56
(0
)
24
1
(1
7
1
5
)
26
7
(0
)
44
(6
1
)
149 (0) 102 (72) 400 (315) 49 (79)
59
5
(5
9
5
)
57
0
(3
6
6
)
22
1
(5
8
1
)
762 (1099)298 (109)
884 (0)82 (28)
954 (0)599 (472)39
0
(4
7
)
76
9
(1
4
7
)
11
4
(1
6
6
)
50
9
(5
4
7
)
47
(1
8
0
)
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd
73
(6
9
4
)
10
2
8
(1
9
8
)
7 (4
4
)
65
9
(4
8
1
)
57
8
(1
7
5
4
)
74
(3
4
)
97 (182)206 (798)
23
2
(6
7
4
)
12
(5
9
)
27
7
(1
6
6
3
)
63
6
(9
4
9
)
455 (854)429 (264)
1 (1)
14
4
(5
8
)
46
8
(5
5
3
)
92
(2
)
3 (5) 266 (10)292 (380)
0 (0) 80 (103)50 (27)
2 (2)17 (102)74
7
(6
0
2
)
16
9
2
(7
3
9
)
13
3
6
(3
4
2
)
64
0
(1
0
0
8
)
5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
99
1
(4
0
5
)
55
2
(3
7
6
)
0 (0
)
84
9
(2
3
4
)
50
(2
3
5
)
348 (150)
86 (514)
110 (304)
12
4
(1
0
4
)
89
2
(1
5
4
2
)
19
8
(2
7
5
)
13 (39)
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr
83
8
(1
6
7
)
11
0
1
(1
0
8
7
)
17
1
(1
4
3
)
318 (89)
652 (67)
223 (509)
159 (670)
189 (1893)
44
0
(4
6
3
)
10
3
3
(1
0
3
9
)
24
4
(8
9
9
)
844 (253)
72 (76)
658 (259)
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
32
5
(2
4
2
)
13
3
2
(9
8
5
)
48
(2
6
7
)
14
8
3
(2
2
3
7
)
61
1
(6
7
7
)
1318 (346)
536 (373)
2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
19
5
0
(1
1
4
7
)
58
4
(9
2
3
)
992 (590)
705 (256)
183 (325)
85
4
(9
4
6
)
41
4
(9
6
3
)
208 (453)
420 (409)
1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps
55
7
(1
2
0
7
)
11
3
4
(9
4
)
16
3
(2
2
)
P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
RT
RT TH LT LT
LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT
RT TH LT
TH RT
RT
TH
RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT
TH
RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT
TH
RT
RT RT RT
TH TH
RT TH LT LT TH LT LT RT TH RT TH LT
LT LT TH RT TH RT LT TH RT TH RT
TH
RT RT
RT RT
TH TH
RT TH LT RT TH RT TH RT TH LT LT
LT LT TH RT LT LT TH LT LT TH LT LT TH RT
TH TH
RT RT RT RT
Traffic Signal
AM(PM)
LEGEND
Figure 8
Volume Turning
Movements 6‐Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes
347 (1271)
10
8
(1
3
2
)
59
0
(6
5
7
)
23
9
(5
1
5
)
44 (20) 4 (9)16 (102)73 (185)
633 (2473)
67
(0
)
25
9
(1
5
5
1
)
26
3
(0
)
45
(5
7
)
199 (0) 101 (73) 401 (309) 35 (84)
65
1
(5
4
9
)
59
1
(3
7
1
)
23
8
(6
3
4
)
782 (1133)384 (104)
826 (0)126 (25)
984 (0)671 (477)23
8
(4
5
)
76
5
(1
5
2
)
89
(1
7
4
)
45
7
(5
4
0
)
59
(1
7
0
)
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd
72
(7
8
1
)
10
0
7
(1
5
3
)
6 (4
5
)
60
6
(4
8
4
)
57
8
(1
6
6
3
)
74
(3
4
)
64 (163)208 (789)
25
4
(7
2
7
)
3 (5
9
)
25
7
(1
6
4
6
)
63
6
(9
3
1
)
411 (940)427 (252)
1 (1)
12
8
(4
0
)
55
0
(5
2
5
)
92
(2
)
3 (5) 135 (9)222 (366)
0 (0) 183 (103)75 (0)
2 (2)11 (95)73
4
(6
0
5
)
17
2
0
(7
4
5
)
12
9
2
(3
3
8
)
73
5
(1
0
3
7
)
5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
99
4
(3
8
3
)
53
1
(3
9
8
)
0 (0
)
83
0
(2
3
7
)
44
(2
3
8
)
423 (191)
83 (391)
111 (232)
12
0
(1
0
5
)
90
2
(2
0
6
8
)
21
1
(3
7
0
)
16 (24)
4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr
82
7
(1
5
4
)
14
1
6
(1
0
6
7
)
18
7
(1
7
5
)
312 (140)
609 (80)
174 (458)
160 (992)
232 (1844)
37
2
(3
4
8
)
10
1
1
(1
4
7
7
)
29
1
(8
4
1
)
788 (315)
86 (155)
680 (281)
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
39
4
(2
1
1
)
14
6
2
(9
8
8
)
82
(2
8
9
)
14
8
6
(2
3
5
1
)
58
8
(6
7
7
)
1335 (337)
494 (515)
2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps
20
0
8
(1
1
4
7
)
55
0
(9
3
0
)
953 (611)
727 (285)
194 (330)
83
2
(1
0
0
7
)
41
5
(9
3
6
)
192 (438)
416 (426)
1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps
58
9
(1
2
1
3
)
10
7
8
(8
6
)
17
2
(2
0
)
P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Roadwa
Table 10
Average t
through t
As shown
during AM
between
in both d
time is lo
between t
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
ay Peak H
compares the
travel time w
raffic at study
in Table 10,
M and PM pe
Gleason Drive
irections. Du
nger in almos
the scenarios
no Tassajara
aft Report
our Level
e estimated a
was calculate
y intersection
all roadway s
eak hours in
e and North D
ring the PM p
st all cases un
s.
of Service
average trave
ed as the su
ns within each
segments nor
both directio
Dublin Ranch
peak hour it
nder the 4‐La
29
e Analysis
el times and s
m of free flo
h roadway se
rth of North D
ons. Under bo
Drive operat
operates at L
ane Scenario;
(Cumulat
segment LOS
ow travel tim
egment.
Dublin Ranch
oth scenarios
tes at LOS C o
LOS E in the
; however the
tive 2040 C
under each o
me and avera
h Drive operat
s, the segmen
or LOS D durin
northbound
ere is very lit
March
Conditions
of the two sce
age signal de
te at LOS C o
nt of Tassaja
ng the AM pe
direction. Th
tle difference
19, 2015
s)
enarios.
elay for
r better
ra Road
eak hour
e travel
e in LOS
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Table 10 –
Road
Segm
Tassajara Rd
Gleason Dr a
Dublin Ranch
Tassajara Rd
North Dublin
and Fallon Ro
Tassajara Rd/
Tassajara bet
Rd and Wind
Parkway
Camino Tass
between Win
parkway and
Street
Camino Tass
between Lus
and Crow Ca
Camino Tass
between Cro
Road and Syc
Valley Road
Notes:
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
– Cumulative 20
dway
ment A
between
nd North
h Dr
between
n Ranch Dr
oad
/Camino
tween Fallon
demere
ajara
ndemere
d Lusitano
ajara
sitano Street
nyon Rd
ajara
ow Canyon
camore
Free flow Spee
Travel Time (se
no Tassajara
aft Report
040 Condition
Approach Pe
Ho
SB
A
P
NB
A
P
SB
A
P
NB
A
P
SB
A
P
NB
A
P
SB
A
P
NB
A
P
SB
A
P
NB
A
P
SB
A
P
NB
A
P
d is defined by H
ec) = The average
s Roadway Se
eak
our
4‐La
Avera
Travel T
(sec
AM 79.7
M 70.0
AM 89.1
M 137.
AM 86.0
M 86.0
AM 93.4
M 98.3
AM 103.
M 103.
AM 89.2
M 90.4
AM 352.
M 330.
AM 326.
M 327.
AM 213.
M 213.
AM 237.
M 240.
AM 280.
M 307.
AM 250.
M 250.
HCM 2010 meth
e time taken for
30
gment Level o
ane Scenario
age
Time
c)
Segme
LOS
7 C
0 C
1 D
3 E
0 A
0 A
4 A
3 A
1 B
8 B
2 A
4 A
3 A
5 A
7 A
6 A
9 A
9 A
8 A
7 A
6 A
1 B
8 A
8 A
odology
a vehicle to trav
of Service
6‐Lan
ent
S
Averag
Travel Ti
(sec)
78.4
61.6
86.2
135.1
85.9
85.9
93.2
98.4
101.9
104.1
88.9
90.4
346.0
329.9
324.6
326.9
213.5
213.5
237.0
241.5
281.1
305.4
250.3
250.3
vel the segment
ne Scenario
ge
ime Segmen
LOS
C
B
C
E
A
A
A
A
9 B
B
A
A
0 A
9 A
6 A
9 A
5 A
5 A
0 A
5 A
A
4 B
A
A
t.
March
Diff
nt Average
Travel Tim
(sec)
‐1.3
‐8.4
‐2.9
‐2.2
‐0.1
‐0.1
‐0.2
0.1
‐1.2
0.3
‐0.3
0
‐6.3
‐0.6
‐2.1
‐0.7
‐0.4
‐0.4
‐0.8
0.8
0.5
‐1.7
‐0.5
‐0.5
19, 2015
ference
e Segment
LOS
No change
CB
DC
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 209
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Finding
The CCTA
the adequ
generated
Livermore
with the m
City of D
demand m
roadway
volumes t
The level
unincorpo
The exist
Road/Cam
similar int
under fut
difference
The result
similar le
However,
scenario p
delay per
time, the
and five m
It can the
scenarios
any signif
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
gs and Co
A Countywide
uate number
d from propo
e, San Ramon
model output
ublin Model.
models, the C
segments ar
than the ACTC
of service w
orated Contra
ting CCTA m
mino Tassajar
tersection an
ture traffic c
es in travel pa
ts of the Cum
evel of servic
for intersec
provides less
r vehicle duri
travel time sa
minutes.
erefore be co
that widenin
icant benefit
no Tassajara
aft Report
onclusion
e Travel Dema
of lanes alon
osed future d
n, Danville a
t with forecas
While there
CCTA Travel
re in Contra
C and Dublin
was conducted
a Costa Count
model shows
ra and this st
nd roadway s
conditions. T
atterns under
mulative Cond
ce with sligh
ctions that a
than 10 seco
ng the PM p
avings is gene
oncluded from
ng Tassajara R
to motorists.
s
and Model w
ng Tassajara R
development
nd unincorpo
sts from the A
e is consisten
Demand Mod
Costa Coun
travel deman
d for key inte
ty to assess a
s variable la
tudy determi
segment LOS
The select‐lin
r both four la
ditions analys
ht improveme
re expected
onds of saving
peak hour. Ad
erally two sec
m the similar
Road/Camino
.
31
was executed
Road/Camino
s in the vicin
orated Contr
Alameda CTC
ncy in travel
del was used
nty and the
nd models.
ersections in
ny possible tr
nes (i.e. 2‐3
ned that eith
results along
k analysis re
nes and six la
ses for the fo
ents at som
to experien
gs per vehicle
dditionally, w
conds or less
ity in results
Tassajara fro
for future 20
Tassajara to
nity of the C
ra Costa Cou
C’s Countywid
distribution
d for the stud
model conse
Dublin, Live
raffic impacts
3 lanes in e
her two or th
g Tassajara R
esults indicat
anes scenario
our‐lane and s
e intersectio
ce intolerab
e during the A
while the six‐l
for segments
of the analy
om four to six
040 traffic vo
accommoda
amino Tassaj
nty. The resu
de Travel Dem
pattern amo
dy because m
ervatively for
rmore, San R
s due to traffi
each directio
hree lanes pe
Road and Cam
te that there
.
six‐lane scena
ons under th
le delays at
AM peak hou
ane scenario
s with travel t
ysis for the fo
x lanes is not
March
olumes to det
te traffic that
jara Road in
ults were co
mand Model
ong the three
majority of th
recast higher
Ramon, Danv
ic diversions.
on) along Ta
er direction p
mino Tassaja
e are no sig
arios general
he six‐lane sc
LOS F, the
r, and an inc
o shows lowe
times betwee
our‐lane and
expected to r
19, 2015
termine
t will be
Dublin,
mpared
and the
e travel
he study
r traffic
ville and
assajara
produce
ra Road
gnificant
ly show
cenario.
six‐lane
rease in
er travel
en three
six‐lane
result in
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 210
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Tassajara
Capacity A
Study P
DKS Perso
Bill Loudo
David Ma
Joshua Pil
Adonis Ga
Garnet W
Deserae M
Others
Obaid Kha
Gary Huis
Angela Vi
Nancy We
John Cunn
Reference
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a Road/Camin
Analysis –Dra
Participan
onnel
on, P.E.
hama, P.E.
lachowski, Ph
arefalakis, E.I
Wing, E.I.T.
Mallori
an, P.E.
sing
llar, P.E.
eir
ningham
es
. Mollar
. Green
. Tri‐Val
. Compr
(Contr
. Highw
no Tassajara
aft Report
nts
hD, P.E.
.T.
r Ranch Traffi
Traffic ADSEI
lley Transpor
rehensive Agr
ra Costa Coun
way Capacity M
Principa
Project
Transpo
Transpo
Associat
Word P
City of D
City of D
Contra C
Contra C
Contra C
ic Impact Stud
IR, Kittleson A
tation Plan/A
reement to S
nty Case No. C
Manual, 2000
32
al‐In‐Charge
Manager
ortation Engin
ortation Plann
te Transporta
rocessing and
Dublin
Dublin
Costa County
Costa County
Costa County
dy Final Repo
Associates 10/
Action Plan, D
Settle Litigati
C‐02‐02250; S
0 and 2010 Tr
neer
ner
ation Enginee
d Graphic Des
y Public Work
y Public Work
y Public Work
ort, Kimley‐Ho
0/2013
DKS, 2014
ion, Town of
San Joaquin C
ransportation
er
signer
ks Departmen
ks Departmen
ks Departmen
orn & Associa
f Danville v. C
County Case N
n Research Bo
March
nt
nt
nt
ates, 09/10/20
Contra Costa
No. CV‐020073
oard
19, 2015
012
a, et al.,
3)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Appendix A
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
APPENDIX A1
Existing Condition
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)538 147 665 163 0 374 0 779 398 175 1013 228
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)578 158 715 175 0 402 0 838 428 188 1089 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 19 0 0 316 0 0 134
Lane Group Flow (vph) 578 158 631 175 0 383 0 838 112 188 1089 111
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 30.5 30.5 9.9 38.4 26.7 26.7 15.4 46.1 46.1
Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 30.5 30.5 9.9 33.9 26.7 26.7 15.4 46.1 46.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.45 0.45
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 739 558 474 334 928 1334 415 268 1603 717
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.16 0.11 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0.07 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.28 1.33 0.52 0.41 0.63 0.27 0.70 0.68 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 37.7 27.3 35.6 43.7 26.3 33.2 29.8 41.0 22.0 16.4
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 5.0 0.1 163.0 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.4 6.6 1.2 0.1
Delay (s)42.7 27.4 198.6 44.4 26.4 34.1 30.2 47.6 23.2 16.5
Level of Service D C F D C CCDCB
Approach Delay (s)117.9 31.8 32.8 25.1
Approach LOS F C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 55.9 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.8 Sum of lost time (s)16.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 544 0 315 0 1009 553 0 866 844
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 567 0 328 0 1051 576 0 902 917
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001250025600407
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 567 0 203 0 1051 320 0 902 510
Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)15.1 15.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1
Effective Green, g (s)15.1 15.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)871 707 1969 881 2829 1550
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.30 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.20 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.29 0.53 0.36 0.32 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 17.9 8.3 7.3 7.1 7.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1
Delay (s)21.2 18.0 8.6 7.6 7.2 7.3
Level of Service C B A A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 20.0 8.3 7.2
Approach LOS ABAA
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 10.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.5 Sum of lost time (s)11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 215
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)59 63 181 384 191 15 329 553 117 16 1094 170
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 2787 4990 3502 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 2787 4990 3502 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)61 65 187 396 197 15 339 570 121 16 1128 175
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 03000350053
Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 65 156 396 209 0 339 570 86 16 1128 122
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 32.4 17.1 17.1 16.4 88.5 88.5 5.9 78.0 78.0
Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 32.4 17.1 17.1 16.4 88.5 88.5 5.9 78.0 78.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 379 604 571 401 547 2095 937 135 3343 1454
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.02 0.03 c0.08 c0.06 c0.07 0.16 0.00 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.05 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.69 0.52 0.62 0.27 0.09 0.12 0.34 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 60.7 60.7 48.6 63.7 62.4 63.6 14.8 13.2 69.3 20.8 17.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.9 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1
Delay (s)60.8 60.9 48.7 66.6 63.6 65.0 15.2 13.4 69.4 21.0 18.0
Level of Service E E D E E EBBECB
Approach Delay (s)53.6 65.6 31.4 21.2
Approach LOS D E C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 35.8 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.5 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 216
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)48 114 33 252 155 51 86 416 172 59 920 230
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)58 137 40 304 187 61 104 501 207 71 1108 277
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0800011600115
Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 137 6 304 240 0 104 501 91 71 1108 162
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 15.2 15.2 13.6 23.3 8.0 43.6 43.6 7.7 43.3 43.3
Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 15.2 15.2 13.6 23.3 8.0 43.6 43.6 7.7 43.3 43.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.44 0.44
Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 190 285 242 470 421 276 1552 694 137 1542 690
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.09 c0.13 0.03 0.14 c0.04 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.06 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.48 0.03 0.65 0.57 0.38 0.32 0.13 0.52 0.72 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 45.1 38.5 35.8 40.6 33.6 43.3 18.2 16.6 44.1 23.0 17.6
Progression Factor 1.00 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 2.2 0.1 2.7 2.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.5 1.7 0.2
Delay (s)45.8 40.7 35.9 43.3 36.1 44.0 18.4 16.7 46.5 24.8 17.9
Level of Service DDDDD DBBDCB
Approach Delay (s)41.1 40.1 21.3 24.5
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.4 Sum of lost time (s)14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)192 5 21 2 3 0 21 42 88 0 120 681
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1863 1583 1863 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1863 1583 1863 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)206 5 23 2 3 0 23 45 95 0 129 732
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 000005400486
Lane Group Flow (vph) 206 572302345410129246
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 16.8 16.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 24.0 24.0 18.5 18.5
Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 16.8 16.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 24.0 24.0 18.5 18.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 544 569 484 32 30 29 813 691 627 532
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.00 0.00 c0.00 c0.01 0.02 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 c0.16
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.79 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 14.9 13.3 13.3 26.5 26.7 27.0 9.0 9.0 13.0 14.3
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 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.0 79.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9
Delay (s)15.5 13.3 13.3 27.7 28.6 106.5 9.0 9.0 13.2 15.2
Level of Service B B B C C F A A B B
Approach Delay (s)15.3 28.2 22.7 14.9
Approach LOS B C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)97 264 170 2 53 443
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1657 1860 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1657 1860 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)102 278 179 2 56 466
RTOR Reduction (vph) 65 00000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 0 181 0 56 466
Turn Type NA NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 92.2 7.5 103.7
Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 92.2 7.5 103.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.68 0.06 0.76
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 1264 98 1424
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.10 c0.03 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.17 0.14 0.57 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 7.7 62.5 5.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 109.9 0.2 4.9 0.6
Delay (s)166.7 8.0 67.5 5.6
Level of Service F A E A
Approach Delay (s) 166.7 8.0 12.3
Approach LOS F A B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 65.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 135.7 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)182 0 71 00007521059270
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3378 1441 3037 1441
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3378 1441 3037 1441
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)202 0 79 00008323066300
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0000100940
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 0 18 000084210122150
Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 4.4 7.4 19.8 7.4 19.8
Effective Green, g (s) 4.4 4.4 7.4 19.8 7.4 19.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.37 1.00 0.37 1.00
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 763 619 1262 1441 1135 1441
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 0.01 c0.10
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 6.4 6.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Delay (s)6.4 6.0 4.0 0.0 4.1 0.1
Level of Service A A A A A A
Approach Delay (s)6.3 0.0 3.2 2.5
Approach LOS AAAA
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.15
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 19.8 Sum of lost time (s)4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 58 2 198 0 181 74 0 274 347
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1690 2787 1759 1504 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1690 2787 1759 1504 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 64 2 220 0 201 82 0 304 386
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000013301000184
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 33 87 0 208 74 0 304 202
Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 18.2 11.8 37.0 19.4 19.4
Effective Green, g (s)10.1 10.1 14.7 11.8 37.0 19.4 19.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.40 0.32 1.00 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)459 461 1107 561 1504 1856 830
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 c0.03 0.05 c0.13
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.37 0.05 0.16 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 10.0 6.9 9.7 0.0 4.6 4.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Delay (s)10.0 10.0 6.9 9.9 0.1 4.6 4.9
Level of Service A A A A A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 7.7 7.3 4.7
Approach LOS AAAA
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)18 0 87 0 0 0 56 258 0 0 512 29
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 1770 3539 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 1770 3539 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)19 0 92 0 0 0 59 272 0 0 539 31
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 75 0000000011
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 0 17 0 0 0 59 272 0 0 539 20
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 14.4 5.7 56.8 45.8 52.5
Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 14.4 5.7 56.8 45.8 52.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.71 0.57 0.66
Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 501 126 2510 2024 1142
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.08 c0.15 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.03 0.47 0.11 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 27.1 35.7 3.7 8.7 4.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.0
Delay (s)34.1 27.1 36.7 3.8 9.0 4.8
Level of Service C C D A A A
Approach Delay (s)28.3 0.0 9.6 8.8
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.2 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.1 Sum of lost time (s)14.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)1 29 11 65 138 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1616 1770 1863 1863 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1616 1770 1863 1863 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)1 39 15 88 186 4
RTOR Reduction (vph) 38 00002
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 0 15 88 186 2
Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 1.1 28.3 23.2 23.2
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 1.1 28.3 23.2 23.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.73 0.60 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)42 50 1366 1120 951
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 0.05 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.06 0.17 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 18.4 1.4 3.4 3.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.1 0.0
Delay (s)18.5 21.7 1.5 3.6 3.1
Level of Service B C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 18.5 4.4 3.5
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 5.6 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.17
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 38.6 Sum of lost time (s)13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 223
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)20 287 82 148 501 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 1863 3481
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 1863 3481
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)22 312 89 161 545 67
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 270 0020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 42 89 161 610 0
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 17.4 7.7 104.1 92.4
Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 17.4 7.7 104.1 92.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.14 0.06 0.81 0.72
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)55 379 207 1518 2517
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.02 c0.03 0.09 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 60.7 48.4 57.9 2.4 5.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2
Delay (s)62.5 48.5 58.5 2.5 6.2
Level of Service E D E A A
Approach Delay (s) 49.4 22.5 6.2
Approach LOS D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 21.6 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.8 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)71 282 99 252 434 28 193 364 124 15 408 78
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3507 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3507 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 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)77 307 108 274 472 30 210 396 135 16 443 85
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 87 03001760051
Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 307 21 274 499 0 210 409 45 16 443 34
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.4 14.6 14.6 12.2 21.4 10.2 28.7 28.7 1.9 20.4 20.4
Effective Green, g (s) 5.4 14.6 14.6 12.2 21.4 10.2 28.7 28.7 1.9 20.4 20.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.28 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.02 0.27 0.27
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 676 303 797 982 458 1267 541 85 945 423
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.09 0.05 c0.14 c0.06 0.12 0.00 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.45 0.07 0.34 0.51 0.46 0.32 0.08 0.19 0.47 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 33.7 27.4 25.3 28.5 23.1 30.6 16.9 15.4 36.5 23.5 21.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1
Delay (s)34.0 28.0 25.5 28.6 23.7 30.8 17.1 15.5 36.9 24.0 21.1
Level of Service CCCCC CBBDCC
Approach Delay (s)28.4 25.4 20.7 23.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.4 Sum of lost time (s)20.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)434 226 338 179 0 479 0 1288 537 288 1021 298
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)452 235 352 186 0 499 0 1342 559 300 1064 310
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 89 0 0 15 0 0 326 0 0 143
Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 235 263 186 0 484 0 1342 233 300 1064 167
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 28.1 28.1 11.8 47.5 37.1 37.1 23.1 64.2 64.2
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 28.1 28.1 11.8 43.0 37.1 37.1 23.1 64.2 64.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
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) 575 438 373 339 1004 1580 492 342 1903 851
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.13 0.05 0.17 c0.26 c0.17 0.30
v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.15 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.54 0.71 0.55 0.48 0.85 0.47 0.88 0.56 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 40.0 41.9 51.3 29.6 38.5 33.3 46.8 18.2 14.3
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 7.0 1.3 6.0 1.8 0.4 5.9 3.2 21.4 1.2 0.5
Delay (s)54.6 41.2 47.8 53.1 29.9 44.4 36.5 68.2 19.4 14.8
Level of Service DDDD C DDEBB
Approach Delay (s)49.3 36.2 42.1 27.3
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 38.1 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.4 Sum of lost time (s)14.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WEB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 509 0 298 0 1433 677 0 1104 647
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 530 0 310 0 1493 705 0 1150 703
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000430026600266
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 267 0 1493 439 0 1150 437
Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)17.3 17.3 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1
Effective Green, g (s)17.3 17.3 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)785 637 2202 985 3164 1734
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.42 0.23
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.28 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.42 0.68 0.45 0.36 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 24.9 9.3 7.5 7.0 6.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.4 1.7 1.5 0.3 0.3
Delay (s)28.9 25.4 11.0 8.9 7.3 6.8
Level of Service C C B A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 27.6 10.4 7.1
Approach LOS A C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 12.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.7 Sum of lost time (s)11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 227
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)306 551 477 233 147 34 402 714 394 55 654 99
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 2787 4990 3440 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 2787 4990 3440 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)319 574 497 243 153 35 419 744 410 57 681 103
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 060001620080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 319 574 426 243 182 0 419 744 248 57 681 23
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 81.5 102.7 16.5 75.5 21.2 47.0 47.0 15.1 40.9 40.9
Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 81.5 102.7 16.5 75.5 21.2 47.0 47.0 15.1 40.9 40.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.56 0.09 0.41 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 424 1584 1572 452 1426 581 913 409 285 1439 626
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.16 0.03 0.05 0.05 c0.08 c0.21 0.02 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.16 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.36 0.27 0.54 0.13 0.72 0.81 0.61 0.20 0.47 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 77.1 33.2 20.4 79.2 32.9 77.6 63.5 59.4 77.9 61.3 55.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 3.7 5.7 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.0
Delay (s)83.7 33.8 20.5 79.8 33.1 81.3 69.1 61.9 78.0 61.5 55.2
Level of Service F C C E C F EEEEE
Approach Delay (s)40.5 59.4 70.5 61.9
Approach LOS D E E E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 57.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 182.1 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)213 192 66 151 67 22 191 703 191 23 466 71
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph)234 211 73 166 74 24 210 773 210 25 512 78
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 060001440059
Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 211 27 166 92 0 210 773 66 25 512 19
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 40.7 40.7 10.9 38.6 12.3 34.8 34.8 4.5 27.0 27.0
Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 40.7 40.7 10.9 38.6 12.3 34.8 34.8 4.5 27.0 27.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.35 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.25
Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
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) 405 688 585 340 628 383 1118 500 72 867 388
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.11 0.05 0.05 c0.06 c0.22 0.01 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.31 0.05 0.49 0.15 0.55 0.69 0.13 0.35 0.59 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 24.7 22.3 47.0 24.5 46.3 33.0 26.9 51.4 36.7 31.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.5 1.6 1.9 0.1 2.9 1.1 0.1
Delay (s)48.0 25.9 22.4 48.1 25.0 47.9 34.9 27.0 54.3 37.8 31.8
Level of Service DCCDC DCCDDC
Approach Delay (s)35.4 39.5 35.8 37.7
Approach LOS DDDD
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 36.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.2 Sum of lost time (s)14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)514 1 18 33161271179235
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 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 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 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)559 1 20 33171381186255
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 00100100146
Lane Group Flow (vph) 559 1633071380186109
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 47.5 44.5 44.5 15.0 12.0 12.0 1.8 59.6 59.6 1.8 59.5 59.5
Effective Green, g (s) 47.5 44.5 44.5 15.0 12.0 12.0 1.8 59.6 59.6 1.8 59.5 59.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 607 598 508 192 161 137 23 801 681 23 800 680
v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.00 0.00 c0.00 c0.00 c0.07 0.00 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.30 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 43.7 32.0 32.1 55.2 57.9 57.8 67.8 24.3 22.5 67.5 23.7 24.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5
Delay (s)65.3 32.0 32.1 55.4 58.1 57.8 70.5 24.8 22.5 67.8 23.9 24.8
Level of Service E C C EEEECCECC
Approach Delay (s)64.1 56.9 27.0 24.7
Approach LOS E E C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 46.4 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.6 Sum of lost time (s)13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)5 43 415 47 215 208
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1629 1837 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1629 1837 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)5 44 428 48 222 214
RTOR Reduction (vph) 42 02000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 0 474 0 222 214
Turn Type NA NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.7 92.3 19.8 116.1
Effective Green, g (s) 4.7 92.3 19.8 116.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.71 0.15 0.89
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)59 1296 268 1654
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.26 c0.13 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.37 0.83 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 61.0 7.6 53.9 0.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.8 17.8 0.2
Delay (s)61.3 8.4 71.7 1.1
Level of Service E A E A
Approach Delay (s) 61.3 8.4 37.0
Approach LOS E A D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.8 Sum of lost time (s)14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)182 0 19 0000331580157425
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3032 1441 3098 1441
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3032 1441 3098 1441
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)198 0 21 0000361720171462
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0000212105656
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 030000101650346175
Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.1 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 8.1 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 421 342 2293 1090 2343 1090
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.03 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 c0.12
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 27.0 25.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Delay (s)27.3 25.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s)27.1 0.0 2.1 2.4
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 7.5 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.1 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 22 6 314 0 189 32 0 571 196
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1718 2787 1766 1504 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1718 2787 1766 1504 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 23 6 334 0 201 34 0 607 209
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000026500110052
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 14 15 69 0 204 20 0 607 157
Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 1 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)10.0 10.0 18.0 45.0 45.0 52.5 52.5
Effective Green, g (s)10.0 10.0 14.5 45.0 45.0 52.5 52.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.64 0.64 0.75 0.75
Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)240 245 577 1135 967 2654 1187
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 c0.02 0.01 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.02 0.23 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 25.9 22.6 5.0 4.5 2.6 2.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)26.0 26.0 22.6 5.4 4.6 2.8 2.7
Level of Service C C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 22.9 5.3 2.8
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 8.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)88 1 329 1 0 0 79 307 0 0 360 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 2787 1770 1770 3539 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 2787 1770 1770 3539 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)91 1 339 1 0 0 81 316 0 0 371 21
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 286 000000007
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 1 53 1 0 0 81 316 0 0 371 14
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 12.8 12.8 0.8 6.7 54.5 42.5 53.2
Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 12.8 12.8 0.8 6.7 54.5 42.5 53.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.08 0.66 0.52 0.65
Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 290 433 17 144 2344 1828 1125
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.00 0.00 c0.05 0.09 c0.10 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.56 0.13 0.20 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 29.4 29.9 40.4 36.4 5.2 10.8 5.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 3.0 0.1 0.3 0.0
Delay (s)33.2 29.4 30.1 40.9 39.4 5.3 11.0 5.2
Level of Service CCCD DA BA
Approach Delay (s)30.8 40.9 12.2 10.7
Approach LOS C D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 18.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.3 Sum of lost time (s)14.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)5 10 9 128 78 19
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1671 1770 1863 1863 1583
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1671 1770 1863 1863 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Adj. Flow (vph)6 11 10 147 90 22
RTOR Reduction (vph) 11 00005
Lane Group Flow (vph) 6 0 10 147 90 17
Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 1.3 64.8 59.5 59.5
Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 1.3 64.8 59.5 59.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.86 0.79 0.79
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)24 31 1605 1474 1253
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 c0.08 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.32 0.09 0.06 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 36.6 36.5 0.8 1.7 1.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 6.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s)38.7 42.5 0.9 1.8 1.7
Level of Service D D A A A
Approach Delay (s) 38.7 3.5 1.8
Approach LOS D A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)30 124 214 428 188 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 1863 3456
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 1863 3456
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph)32 132 228 455 200 37
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 110 0040
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 22 228 455 233 0
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.7 22.5 13.3 109.8 92.5
Effective Green, g (s) 4.7 22.5 13.3 109.8 92.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.10 0.82 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)62 469 342 1530 2391
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.01 c0.07 c0.24 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.05 0.67 0.30 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 63.4 46.6 58.1 2.8 6.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.1
Delay (s)66.4 46.6 61.8 3.3 6.9
Level of Service E D E A A
Approach Delay (s) 50.5 22.9 6.9
Approach LOS D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 23.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)128 1017 184 172 438 13 183 516 468 46 402 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3524 3433 3268 1441 3433 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3524 3433 3268 1441 3433 3539 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)139 1105 200 187 476 14 199 561 509 50 437 78
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 75 0100152090053
Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 1105 125 187 489 0 199 724 122 50 437 25
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 39.0 39.0 9.8 38.7 12.0 43.0 43.0 5.9 36.9 36.9
Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 39.0 39.0 9.8 38.7 12.0 43.0 43.0 5.9 36.9 36.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.32 0.32
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
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) 297 1183 529 419 1169 353 1204 531 174 1119 501
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.31 0.04 c0.14 c0.06 c0.22 0.01 0.12
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.93 0.24 0.45 0.42 0.56 0.60 0.23 0.29 0.39 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 50.7 37.6 28.1 50.9 30.3 49.9 29.9 25.4 53.4 31.1 27.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 13.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 2.1 2.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.2
Delay (s)51.9 50.8 28.3 51.6 30.5 51.9 32.1 26.4 54.3 32.2 27.9
Level of Service DDCDC DCCDCC
Approach Delay (s)47.8 36.3 33.7 33.5
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.7 Sum of lost time (s)9.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
APPENDIX A2
Cumulative Conditions 4-Lane Scenario
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)705 183 992 208 0 420 0 854 414 163 1134 557
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)758 197 1067 224 0 452 0 918 445 175 1219 599
RTOR Reduction (vph)00700320031800336
Lane Group Flow (vph) 758 197 1060 224 0 420 0 918 127 175 1219 263
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.4 47.6 47.6 5.5 31.0 31.3 31.3 6.3 41.6 41.6
Effective Green, g (s) 28.4 47.6 47.6 5.5 31.0 31.3 31.3 6.3 41.6 41.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 886 806 685 172 785 1007 793 101 1338 599
v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 0.11 c0.07 0.15 0.26 c0.10 c0.34
v/s Ratio Perm c0.67 0.05 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.24 1.55 1.30 0.54 0.91 0.16 1.73 0.91 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 38.8 19.8 31.2 52.2 33.4 38.0 29.5 51.9 32.4 25.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.61 0.16
Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 0.1 253.7 171.8 0.4 13.7 0.4 349.2 5.9 1.2
Delay (s)46.7 19.9 284.9 224.0 33.8 51.7 29.9 387.7 25.7 5.3
Level of Service D B F F C D C F C A
Approach Delay (s)169.8 96.8 44.6 51.4
Approach LOS F F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 94.5 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.0% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 1318 0 536 0 1483 611 0 584 1950
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.90 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4863 4348 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4863 4348 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 1373 0 558 0 1545 636 0 608 2120
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001206600282559
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 1373 0 546 0 2115 0 0 1386 501
Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s)46.7 46.7 52.0 52.0 52.0
Effective Green, g (s)46.7 46.7 52.0 52.0 52.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.47
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1457 1183 2299 2055 644
v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 c0.43 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.46 0.92 1.07dr 0.78
Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 22.7 27.1 22.4 24.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.2 0.1 5.1 1.8 9.0
Delay (s)42.6 22.8 24.9 24.2 33.2
Level of Service D C C C C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 36.9 24.9 27.7
Approach LOS A D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 29.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane.
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)159 189 223 844 658 72 440 1033 244 48 1332 325
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 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 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)164 195 230 870 678 74 454 1065 252 49 1373 335
RTOR Reduction (vph)00400590014800201
Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 195 226 870 678 15 454 1065 104 49 1373 134
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 33.0 26.8 26.8 26.8 17.0 53.7 53.7 11.8 48.5 48.5
Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 33.0 26.8 26.8 26.8 17.0 53.7 53.7 11.8 48.5 48.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 422 624 706 1026 1046 326 651 2641 1149 311 2385 1037
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.04 0.04 c0.17 c0.13 c0.09 0.17 0.01 c0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.31 0.32 0.85 0.65 0.05 0.70 0.40 0.09 0.16 0.58 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 52.6 52.1 39.5 49.8 47.4 41.5 54.2 27.0 23.4 54.7 32.7 27.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.1 6.4 1.4 0.1 2.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3
Delay (s)52.9 52.4 39.6 56.2 48.8 41.6 56.8 27.5 23.5 54.8 33.7 27.2
Level of Service D D D E D D E CCDCC
Approach Delay (s)47.5 52.4 34.4 33.1
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 40.4 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.3 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)86 110 13 348 652 318 124 892 198 171 1101 838
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3365 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3365 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)104 133 16 419 786 383 149 1075 239 206 1327 1010
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 41 0 0 0 130 0 0 72
Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 133 4 419 1128 0 149 1075 109 206 1327 938
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 37.0 37.0 14.5 46.5 5.5 54.6 54.6 19.6 68.7 68.7
Effective Green, g (s) 5.0 37.0 37.0 14.5 46.5 5.5 54.6 54.6 19.6 68.7 68.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.32 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.47 0.47
Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 903 404 343 1079 130 1333 596 239 1677 750
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.04 c0.12 c0.34 0.04 0.30 c0.12 0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 c0.59
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.15 0.01 1.22 1.05 1.15 0.81 0.18 0.86 0.79 1.25
Uniform Delay, d1 69.7 41.8 40.3 65.2 49.2 69.8 40.5 30.3 61.4 32.1 38.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 48.0 0.1 0.0 123.1 40.1 123.6 3.9 0.2 25.6 2.8 123.7
Delay (s)117.7 41.9 40.3 188.4 89.4 193.3 44.3 30.5 87.0 34.9 161.8
Level of Service F D D F F F D C F C F
Approach Delay (s)73.0 115.5 57.3 89.5
Approach LOS E F E F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 87.8 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.16
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)455 1 97 3 2 0 144 468 92 0 552 991
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)489 1 104 3 2 0 155 503 99 0 594 1066
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 000004000659
Lane Group Flow (vph) 489 1 22 3 2 0 155 503 59 0 594 407
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 16.5 16.5 1.5 4.5 11.9 46.0 46.0 29.5 29.5
Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 16.5 16.5 1.5 4.5 11.9 46.0 46.0 29.5 29.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 873 756 338 34 109 273 2109 943 1352 1065
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 c0.09 0.14 c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 0.04 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.57 0.24 0.06 0.44 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 23.9 24.2 37.2 34.3 30.3 7.3 6.5 17.7 17.3
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 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Delay (s)30.1 23.9 24.3 38.7 34.4 31.9 7.4 6.6 18.0 17.6
Level of Service CCCDC CAA BB
Approach Delay (s)29.1 37.0 12.3 17.7
Approach LOS C D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 18.6 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.2 Sum of lost time (s)13.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)266 80 232 12 50 849
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1738 3512 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1738 3512 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)280 84 244 13 53 894
RTOR Reduction (vph) 31 08000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 333 0 249 0 53 894
Turn Type NA NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 12.8 1.8 18.6
Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 12.8 1.8 18.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.47
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 470 1147 81 1679
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.07 0.03 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.22 0.65 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 9.6 18.4 7.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.4 13.5 1.2
Delay (s)16.9 10.0 31.9 8.5
Level of Service B B C A
Approach Delay (s) 16.9 10.0 9.8
Approach LOS B B A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.2 Sum of lost time (s)10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)429 0 206 000027763601692 747
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4420 1362 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4420 1362 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)477 0 229 000030870701880 830
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 00001340000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 477 0 211 000052835301880 830
Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 10.9 31.1 50.0 31.1 50.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 31.1 50.0 31.1 50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 1.00 0.62 1.00
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 748 608 2749 1362 3163 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.08 0.26 c0.52
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.35 0.19 0.26 0.59 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 16.5 4.1 0.0 5.7 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2
Delay (s)19.1 16.7 4.2 0.5 6.0 1.2
Level of Service B B A A A A
Approach Delay (s)18.3 0.0 2.9 4.5
Approach LOS BAAA
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.3 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 292 17 50 0 578 74 0 640 1336
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1694 2787 5085 1583 4438 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1694 2787 5085 1583 4438 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 324 19 56 0 642 82 0 711 1484
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000440000233233
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 172 171 12 0 642 82 0 1220 509
Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)8.2 8.2 14.2 28.8 50.0 34.3 34.3
Effective Green, g (s)8.2 8.2 10.7 28.8 50.0 34.3 34.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.58 1.00 0.69 0.69
Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)276 278 596 2929 1583 3044 934
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.27
v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 c0.37
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.22 0.05 0.40 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 19.4 15.5 5.1 0.0 3.4 3.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.3
Delay (s)22.6 22.3 15.5 2.2 0.1 3.8 6.2
Level of Service C C B A A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 21.5 1.9 4.6
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)36 568 149 762 954 884 56 241 267 667 1028 73
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 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 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)38 598 157 802 1004 931 59 254 281 702 1082 77
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 119 0 0 505 0 0 245 0 0 38
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 598 38 802 1004 426 59 254 36 702 1082 39
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8462
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 20.9 20.9 25.6 43.4 43.4 3.0 13.2 13.2 23.7 33.9 37.0
Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 20.9 20.9 25.6 43.4 43.4 3.0 13.2 13.2 23.7 33.9 37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.33 0.36
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 1033 566 1241 2145 668 145 652 358 791 1675 569
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.12 0.16 0.20 0.01 c0.05 c0.20 c0.21 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.27 0.01 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.58 0.07 0.65 0.47 0.64 0.41 0.39 0.10 0.89 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 48.9 37.0 33.1 34.6 21.4 23.5 49.1 41.2 39.6 38.3 29.4 21.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.2 2.3 0.7 1.8 0.6 11.5 1.9 0.0
Delay (s)49.8 38.0 33.2 35.5 21.7 25.8 49.8 42.9 40.2 49.8 31.3 21.6
Level of Service DDCDCCDDDDCC
Approach Delay (s)37.6 27.1 42.3 37.9
Approach LOS DCDD
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.9 Sum of lost time (s)15.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 247
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)4 102 44 595 659 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)5 138 59 804 891 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 124 00004
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 0 59 804 891 5
Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 3.2 32.9 25.7 25.7
Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 3.2 32.9 25.7 25.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.70 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 121 3575 2792 869
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.16 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.22 0.32 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 21.0 2.5 5.8 4.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s)19.4 24.1 2.5 5.9 4.8
Level of Service B C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 19.4 4.0 5.9
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.8 Sum of lost time (s)13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 248
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)24 400 570 221 769 390
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3361
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3361
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)26 435 620 240 836 424
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 99 0 0 45 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 336 620 240 1215 0
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 36.2 21.1 67.2 42.1
Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 36.2 21.1 67.2 42.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.39 0.22 0.72 0.45
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)30 1074 771 2533 1507
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 c0.18 0.07 c0.36
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.31 0.80 0.09 0.81
Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 20.2 34.4 4.1 22.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 105.7 0.1 5.8 0.1 4.7
Delay (s)151.7 20.2 40.2 4.1 27.1
Level of Service F C D A C
Approach Delay (s) 27.6 30.1 27.1
Approach LOS C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 28.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.9 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 249
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)87 353 49 298 599 82 153 609 213 47 509 114
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3475 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3475 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 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)95 384 53 324 651 89 166 662 232 51 553 124
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 43 0 11 0 0 2 135 0 0 87
Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 384 10 324 729 0 166 683 74 51 553 37
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 26.0 6.3 28.1 28.1 1.6 23.4 23.4
Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 26.0 6.3 28.1 28.1 1.6 23.4 23.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.33 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.30 0.30
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 697 312 939 1141 273 1197 511 69 1046 468
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.11 0.06 c0.21 c0.05 c0.20 0.01 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.03 0.35 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.15 0.74 0.53 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 28.6 25.7 27.9 22.6 35.3 20.7 17.4 38.6 23.3 20.1
Progression Factor 1.00 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 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.6 0.8 0.2 29.5 0.6 0.1
Delay (s)36.9 29.8 25.8 28.0 23.9 37.9 21.5 17.6 68.1 23.9 20.2
Level of Service DCCCC DCBECC
Approach Delay (s)30.7 25.2 23.3 26.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 25.7 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.2 Sum of lost time (s)15.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 250
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)256 325 590 453 0 409 0 946 963 22 94 1207
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)275 349 634 487 0 440 0 1017 1035 24 101 1298
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 473 0 0 48 0 0 511 0 0 582
Lane Group Flow (vph) 275 349 161 487 0 392 0 1017 524 24 101 716
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 24.7 24.7 15.9 35.9 41.9 41.9 3.0 48.9 48.9
Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 24.7 24.7 15.9 31.4 41.9 41.9 3.0 48.9 48.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.03 0.47 0.47
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 439 373 521 835 1415 1114 51 1651 739
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.19 c0.14 c0.14 0.29 0.01 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.19 c0.45
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.79 0.43 0.93 0.47 0.72 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.97
Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 37.7 34.1 43.9 29.9 26.5 23.2 50.1 15.3 27.2
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 3.9 9.0 0.3 23.9 0.2 1.8 0.3 2.5 0.0 25.3
Delay (s)48.4 46.7 34.4 67.8 30.1 28.3 23.6 52.6 15.4 52.5
Level of Service D D C E C C C D B D
Approach Delay (s)40.8 49.9 25.9 49.9
Approach LOS DDCD
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 39.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.8 Sum of lost time (s)19.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 346 0 373 0 2237 677 0 923 1147
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.94 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4908 4522 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4908 4522 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 360 0 389 0 2330 705 0 961 1247
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001308300179209
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 360 0 376 0 2952 0 0 1406 414
Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s)10.4 10.4 43.1 43.1 43.1
Effective Green, g (s)10.4 10.4 43.1 43.1 43.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.67 0.67 0.67
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)551 447 3264 3008 906
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.60 0.31
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.30
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.84 0.90 0.47 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 26.4 9.1 5.3 5.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 12.9 4.0 0.1 0.4
Delay (s)27.6 39.3 13.1 5.4 5.6
Level of Service C D B A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 33.7 13.1 5.4
Approach LOS A C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 12.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.8 Sum of lost time (s)11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)670 1893 509 253 259 76 463 1039 899 267 985 242
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 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 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)691 1952 525 261 267 78 477 1071 927 275 1015 249
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 19 0 0 54 0 0 280 0 0 173
Lane Group Flow (vph) 691 1952 506 261 267 24 477 1071 647 275 1015 76
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 47.0 47.0 15.0 46.0 46.0
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 47.0 47.0 15.0 46.0 46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.31 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 458 1695 1226 532 1559 485 532 2008 873 343 1965 855
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.38 0.04 0.05 0.05 c0.10 0.17 0.08 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.02 c0.23 0.03
v/c Ratio 1.51 1.15 0.41 0.49 0.17 0.05 0.90 0.53 0.74 0.80 0.52 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 50.0 28.7 63.2 38.1 36.6 66.2 42.5 46.1 66.0 42.8 37.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 240.0 75.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 17.2 1.0 5.6 12.0 1.0 0.2
Delay (s)305.0 125.5 28.8 63.4 38.1 36.6 83.4 43.5 51.7 78.0 43.8 37.3
Level of Service F F C E D D F D D E D D
Approach Delay (s)148.7 48.8 54.2 48.9
Approach LOS F D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 91.2 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)514 304 39 150 67 89 104 1542 275 143 1087 167
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3237 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3237 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)619 366 47 181 81 107 125 1858 331 172 1310 201
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 39 0 96 0 0 0 91 0 0 78
Lane Group Flow (vph) 619 366 8 181 92 0 125 1858 240 172 1310 123
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 20.9 20.9 11.1 12.5 7.9 55.8 55.8 11.5 59.4 59.4
Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 20.9 20.9 11.1 12.5 7.9 55.8 55.8 11.5 59.4 59.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.50 0.50
Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 564 624 279 321 341 229 1665 745 172 1772 793
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.10 0.05 0.03 0.04 c0.52 c0.10 c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.08
v/c Ratio 1.10 0.59 0.03 0.56 0.27 0.55 1.12 0.32 1.00 0.74 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 49.5 44.9 40.5 51.4 48.9 53.6 31.4 19.6 53.5 23.5 16.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 67.3 1.9 0.1 1.8 0.7 2.1 61.1 0.3 68.6 1.8 0.1
Delay (s)116.9 46.8 40.5 53.3 49.6 55.7 92.5 19.9 122.2 25.2 16.1
Level of Service F DDDD EFBFCB
Approach Delay (s)88.5 51.4 80.1 34.1
Approach LOS F D F C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 65.4 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.6 Sum of lost time (s)19.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)854 1 182 5 2 0 58 553 2 0 376 405
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)918 1 196 5 2 0 62 595 2 0 404 435
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 00000100307
Lane Group Flow (vph) 918 1 66 5 2 0 62 595 1 0 404 128
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.1 22.0 22.0 1.3 1.2 5.0 28.8 28.8 19.2 19.2
Effective Green, g (s) 22.1 22.0 22.0 1.3 1.2 5.0 28.8 28.8 19.2 19.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1689 1192 533 35 34 136 1561 698 1041 819
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.00 c0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.17 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.46 0.38 0.00 0.39 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 17.5 14.4 15.0 31.5 31.5 28.8 12.3 10.2 18.4 17.1
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 0.0 0.1 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
Delay (s)18.0 14.4 15.1 34.0 32.5 29.7 12.3 10.2 18.7 17.2
Level of Service B B B C C C B B B B
Approach Delay (s)17.5 33.6 14.0 17.9
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.3 Sum of lost time (s)8.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)10 103 674 59 235 234
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1627 3497 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1627 3497 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)11 108 709 62 247 246
RTOR Reduction (vph) 102 0 14 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 0 757 0 247 246
Turn Type NA NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 16.6 8.3 28.9
Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 16.6 8.3 28.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.40 0.20 0.70
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)95 1406 356 2476
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.22 c0.14 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.69 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 9.4 15.3 2.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.5 4.7 0.1
Delay (s)18.9 10.9 20.0 2.1
Level of Service B B B A
Approach Delay (s) 18.9 10.9 11.1
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.6 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.3 Sum of lost time (s)14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 256
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)264 0 798 00001663 949 0 739 602
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4677 1362 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4677 1362 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)293 0 887 00001848 1054 0 821 669
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 186 0000590000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 293 0 701 00002190 653 0 821 669
Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.3 14.3 27.7 50.0 27.7 50.0
Effective Green, g (s) 14.3 14.3 27.7 50.0 27.7 50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.55 1.00 0.55 1.00
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 982 797 2591 1362 2817 1583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.47 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.25 0.48 0.42
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.88 0.85 0.48 0.29 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 13.9 17.0 9.4 0.0 5.9 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 10.8 3.6 1.2 0.2 0.8
Delay (s)14.0 27.8 13.0 1.2 4.9 0.8
Level of Service B C B A A A
Approach Delay (s)24.4 0.0 10.3 3.0
Approach LOS C A B A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.4 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 380 102 27 0 1754 34 0 1008 342
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1720 2787 5085 1583 4777 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1720 2787 5085 1583 4777 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 422 113 30 0 1949 38 0 1120 380
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000300008127
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 266 269 27 0 1949 38 0 1158 207
Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)11.5 11.5 16.1 26.4 50.0 31.0 31.0
Effective Green, g (s)11.5 11.5 16.1 26.4 50.0 31.0 31.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.32 0.53 1.00 0.62 0.62
Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)387 396 897 2685 1583 2962 844
v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.68 0.03 0.73 0.02 0.39 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 17.6 11.6 9.0 0.0 4.8 4.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 3.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.7
Delay (s)21.6 21.2 11.6 5.4 0.0 5.2 4.9
Level of Service C C B A A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 20.9 5.3 5.1
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)94 2486 0 1099 0 0 0 1715 0 0 198 694
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)99 2617 0 1157 0 0 0 1805 0 0 208 731
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000056
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 2617 0 1157 0 0 0 1805 0 0 208 675
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8462
Actuated Green, G (s) 90.7 58.1 27.7 39.0 37.7 128.4
Effective Green, g (s) 90.7 58.1 27.7 39.0 37.7 128.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.42 0.20 0.28 0.27 0.92
Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2240 2125 994 1427 1379 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.51 c0.23 c0.35 0.04 0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.04 1.23 1.16 1.26 0.15 0.43
Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 40.5 55.6 50.0 38.5 0.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 108.5 85.0 124.9 0.2 0.1
Delay (s)8.6 149.0 140.6 174.9 38.7 0.7
Level of Service A F F F D A
Approach Delay (s)143.8 140.6 174.9 9.1
Approach LOS F F F A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 132.7 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.23
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 139.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.6% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)9 72 61 595 481 44
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)12 97 82 804 650 59
RTOR Reduction (vph) 87 000029
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 0 82 804 650 30
Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 3.8 29.9 22.1 22.1
Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 3.8 29.9 22.1 22.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.09 0.68 0.51 0.51
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 154 3479 2572 801
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.05 c0.16 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.23 0.25 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 19.1 2.6 6.1 5.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s)18.0 22.6 2.7 6.2 5.5
Level of Service B C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 18.0 4.5 6.2
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 43.7 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)103 315 366 581 147 47
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3411
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3411
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)112 342 398 632 160 51
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 249 0 0 22 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 93 398 632 189 0
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.68 0.47
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 761 525 2392 1610
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.03 c0.12 c0.18 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.12 0.76 0.26 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 21.4 31.8 5.0 11.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 31.2 0.0 5.5 0.3 0.1
Delay (s)66.9 21.5 37.3 5.3 11.7
Level of Service E C D A B
Approach Delay (s) 32.7 17.7 11.7
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 20.9 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)189 1264 79 109 472 28 120 685 522 180 547 166
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3510 3433 3298 1441 3433 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3510 3433 3298 1441 3433 3539 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)205 1374 86 118 513 30 130 745 567 196 595 180
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0400172600121
Lane Group Flow (vph) 205 1374 42 118 539 0 130 892 377 196 595 59
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9 39.8 39.8 3.0 34.9 7.4 34.9 34.9 6.0 33.5 33.5
Effective Green, g (s) 7.9 39.8 39.8 3.0 34.9 7.4 34.9 34.9 6.0 33.5 33.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.34 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 1371 613 146 1193 247 1121 490 201 1154 516
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.39 c0.02 0.15 0.04 c0.27 c0.06 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.26 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.78 1.00 0.07 0.81 0.45 0.53 0.80 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 31.5 19.8 49.6 26.4 46.0 30.7 30.3 48.3 28.0 24.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.2 24.8 0.1 25.6 0.4 0.9 4.2 7.6 55.6 0.5 0.1
Delay (s)58.8 56.3 19.9 75.2 26.8 46.9 34.9 37.8 103.9 28.5 24.3
Level of Service EEBEC DCDFCC
Approach Delay (s)54.7 35.5 36.8 43.0
Approach LOS DDDD
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 44.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.7 Sum of lost time (s)13.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
APPENDIX A3
Cumulative Conditions 6-Lane Scenario
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)727 194 953 192 0 416 0 832 415 172 1078 589
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)782 209 1025 206 0 447 0 895 446 185 1159 633
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 42 0 0 314 0 0 382
Lane Group Flow (vph) 782 209 1013 206 0 405 0 895 132 185 1159 251
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.8 40.5 40.5 4.5 17.2 29.7 29.7 6.0 39.7 39.7
Effective Green, g (s) 33.8 40.5 40.5 4.5 17.2 29.7 29.7 6.0 39.7 39.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.40 0.40
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1160 755 641 154 479 1051 828 106 1405 628
v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 0.11 c0.06 0.15 0.25 c0.10 c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm c0.64 0.05 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.28 1.58 1.34 0.85 0.85 0.16 1.75 0.82 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 19.9 29.8 47.8 40.1 33.1 25.9 47.0 27.0 21.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.46
Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 268.2 189.1 12.4 8.7 0.4 352.7 2.7 0.9
Delay (s)29.6 20.0 298.0 236.9 52.5 41.8 26.4 399.8 21.5 32.3
Level of Service C C F F D D C F C C
Approach Delay (s)165.1 110.7 36.6 60.4
Approach LOS F F D E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 95.8 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.24
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.6% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 1335 0 494 0 1486 588 0 550 2008
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.90 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4869 4333 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4869 4333 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 1391 0 515 0 1548 612 0 573 2183
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001107100342584
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 1391 0 504 0 2089 0 0 1323 507
Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s)42.2 42.2 46.5 46.5 46.5
Effective Green, g (s)42.2 42.2 46.5 46.5 46.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.46
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1449 1176 2264 2015 633
v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.43 0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.43 0.92 1.05dr 0.80
Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 20.4 25.1 20.6 22.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 14.9 0.1 5.3 1.7 10.3
Delay (s)42.9 20.5 25.8 22.3 33.1
Level of Service D C C C C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 36.9 25.8 26.6
Approach LOS A D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 29.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane.
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 265
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)160 232 174 788 680 86 372 1011 291 82 1462 394
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 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 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)165 239 179 812 701 89 384 1042 300 85 1507 406
RTOR Reduction (vph)00400720018500221
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 239 175 812 701 17 384 1042 115 85 1507 185
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 32.2 24.6 24.6 24.6 16.2 48.0 48.0 15.0 46.8 46.8
Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 32.2 24.6 24.6 24.6 16.2 48.0 48.0 15.0 46.8 46.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.37 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 648 715 977 996 310 644 2449 1065 410 2388 1038
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.05 0.03 c0.16 c0.14 c0.08 0.16 0.02 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.37 0.25 0.83 0.70 0.06 0.60 0.43 0.11 0.21 0.63 0.18
Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 50.2 37.1 48.5 47.1 41.1 51.6 28.6 25.0 49.9 32.3 26.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 0.1 5.8 2.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.4
Delay (s)50.4 50.5 37.1 54.3 49.4 41.1 52.6 29.2 25.2 50.0 33.6 26.8
Level of Service DDDDDDDCCDCC
Approach Delay (s)46.4 51.4 33.7 32.9
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 39.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 125.6 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 266
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)83 111 16 423 609 312 120 902 211 187 1416 827
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3359 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3359 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)100 134 19 510 734 376 145 1087 254 225 1706 996
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 0 45 0 0 0 169 0 0 83
Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 134 5 510 1065 0 145 1087 85 225 1706 913
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 36.6 36.6 17.5 48.8 5.5 48.5 48.5 22.7 65.7 65.7
Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 36.6 36.6 17.5 48.8 5.5 48.5 48.5 22.7 65.7 65.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.34 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.45 0.45
Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 896 401 415 1134 131 1706 531 278 2310 719
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.04 c0.15 c0.32 c0.04 0.21 0.13 0.34
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 c0.58
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.15 0.01 1.23 0.94 1.11 0.64 0.16 0.81 0.74 1.27
Uniform Delay, d1 69.1 41.9 40.5 63.5 46.5 69.5 40.6 33.7 58.9 32.4 39.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 27.3 0.1 0.0 122.6 14.6 110.2 0.9 0.2 15.4 1.4 132.0
Delay (s)96.4 42.1 40.5 186.1 61.1 179.7 41.5 33.9 74.2 33.7 171.4
Level of Service F D D F E F D C E C F
Approach Delay (s)63.4 100.4 53.7 83.7
Approach LOS E F D F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 80.1 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 144.6 Sum of lost time (s)14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 267
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)411 1 64 3 2 0 128 550 92 0 531 994
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)442 1 69 3 2 0 138 591 99 0 571 1069
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 55 000003900644
Lane Group Flow (vph) 442 1 14 3 2 0 138 591 60 0 571 425
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 15.7 15.7 1.5 1.3 11.2 46.3 46.3 30.5 30.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 15.7 15.7 1.5 1.3 11.2 46.3 46.3 30.5 30.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40
Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1034 724 324 35 32 258 2136 956 1407 1108
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.00 c0.00 0.00 c0.08 0.17 c0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.53 0.28 0.06 0.41 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 24.3 24.5 36.9 37.1 30.3 7.2 6.3 16.6 16.4
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 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Delay (s)26.8 24.3 24.6 38.4 38.2 31.4 7.3 6.3 16.9 16.7
Level of Service CCCDD CAA BB
Approach Delay (s)26.5 38.3 11.2 16.8
Approach LOS C D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.7 Sum of lost time (s)13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 268
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)135 183 254 3 44 830
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1682 3533 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1682 3533 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)142 193 267 3 46 874
RTOR Reduction (vph) 143 01000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 0 269 0 46 874
Turn Type NA NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 13.9 1.8 19.7
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 13.9 1.8 19.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.37 0.05 0.52
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 357 1303 85 1849
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.08 0.03 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.21 0.54 0.47
Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 8.1 17.5 5.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 3.7 0.9
Delay (s)14.0 8.5 21.3 6.6
Level of Service B A C A
Approach Delay (s) 14.0 8.5 7.3
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.7 Sum of lost time (s)10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 269
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)427 0 208 000025763601720 734
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4407 1362 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4407 1362 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)474 0 231 000028670701911 816
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 00001330000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 474 0 215 000050735301911 816
Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 10.8 31.2 50.0 31.2 50.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.8 10.8 31.2 50.0 31.2 50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 1.00 0.62 1.00
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 742 602 2750 1362 3173 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.08 0.26 c0.52
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.36 0.18 0.26 0.60 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 16.6 4.0 0.0 5.7 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.2
Delay (s)19.2 16.8 4.1 0.5 5.8 1.2
Level of Service B B A A A A
Approach Delay (s)18.4 0.0 2.8 4.4
Approach LOS BAAA
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.3 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 270
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 222 11 75 0 578 74 0 735 1292
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1693 2787 5085 1583 4469 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1693 2787 5085 1583 4469 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 247 12 83 0 642 82 0 817 1436
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000660000223223
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 128 131 17 0 642 82 0 1312 495
Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)8.0 8.0 14.0 29.0 50.0 34.5 34.5
Effective Green, g (s)8.0 8.0 10.5 29.0 50.0 34.5 34.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.58 1.00 0.69 0.69
Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)269 271 585 2949 1583 3084 940
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.05 c0.36
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.03 0.22 0.05 0.43 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 19.1 15.7 5.0 0.0 3.4 3.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.22 7.72
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.7
Delay (s)19.6 19.6 15.7 2.9 0.1 1.1 30.9
Level of Service B B B A A A C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 18.7 2.5 10.6
Approach LOS ABAB
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.7 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 271
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)44 633 199 782 984 826 67 259 263 544 1007 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 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 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)46 666 209 823 1036 869 71 273 277 573 1060 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 141 0 0 386 0 0 234 0 0 34
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 666 68 823 1036 483 71 273 43 573 1060 42
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8462
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.5 22.3 22.3 23.0 41.8 41.8 3.5 15.4 15.4 19.8 31.7 35.2
Effective Green, g (s) 3.5 22.3 22.3 23.0 41.8 41.8 3.5 15.4 15.4 19.8 31.7 35.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.32 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 120 1134 622 1148 2126 662 175 783 429 680 1612 557
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.13 c0.16 0.20 0.01 0.05 c0.17 c0.21 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.30 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.59 0.11 0.72 0.49 0.73 0.41 0.35 0.10 0.84 0.66 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 47.2 34.7 30.9 35.5 21.3 24.4 47.2 37.8 36.3 38.6 29.5 21.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.58 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.9 0.1 1.8 0.2 4.3 0.6 1.2 0.5 9.0 2.1 0.0
Delay (s)47.9 35.7 31.1 37.3 21.5 28.7 43.0 29.6 57.9 47.6 31.6 21.6
Level of Service DDCDCCDCEDCC
Approach Delay (s)35.2 28.5 43.8 36.5
Approach LOS DCDD
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 272
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)4 101 45 651 606 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)5 136 61 880 819 8
RTOR Reduction (vph) 122 00004
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 0 61 880 819 4
Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 3.2 31.6 24.4 24.4
Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 3.2 31.6 24.4 24.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.69 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 124 3532 2727 849
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.17 c0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.25 0.30 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 20.4 2.6 5.8 4.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s)18.7 23.4 2.6 6.0 4.9
Level of Service B C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 18.7 4.0 6.0
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 5.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.5 Sum of lost time (s)13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 273
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)16 401 591 238 765 238
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3413
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3413
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)17 436 642 259 832 259
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 0 0 20 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 344 642 259 1071 0
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 36.6 21.7 67.3 41.6
Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 36.6 21.7 67.3 41.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.39 0.23 0.72 0.45
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)13 1098 802 2564 1528
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 c0.19 0.07 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.31 0.31 0.80 0.10 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 46.1 19.5 33.6 3.8 20.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 363.0 0.1 5.4 0.1 2.7
Delay (s)409.1 19.5 39.0 3.9 23.3
Level of Service F B D A C
Approach Delay (s) 34.1 28.9 23.3
Approach LOS C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 27.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.9 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 274
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)73 347 35 384 671 126 108 590 239 59 457 89
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3455 3433 3370 1441 3433 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3455 3433 3370 1441 3433 3539 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)79 377 38 417 729 137 117 641 260 64 497 97
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 0 15 0 0 3 157 0 0 69
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 377 7 417 851 0 117 664 77 64 497 28
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 15.7 15.7 17.5 29.5 5.3 26.9 26.9 2.2 23.8 23.8
Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 15.7 15.7 17.5 29.5 5.3 26.9 26.9 2.2 23.8 23.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.36 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 683 306 1074 1254 224 1115 477 93 1036 463
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.11 0.08 c0.25 c0.03 c0.20 0.02 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.55 0.02 0.39 0.68 0.52 0.60 0.16 0.69 0.48 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 29.6 26.6 27.3 21.9 36.8 22.7 19.2 39.2 23.7 20.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.2 15.5 0.5 0.1
Delay (s)38.9 30.8 26.6 27.4 23.5 37.8 23.7 19.5 54.7 24.1 20.8
Level of Service DCCCC DCBDCC
Approach Delay (s)31.8 24.8 24.3 26.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 26.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.3 Sum of lost time (s)20.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 275
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)285 330 611 438 0 426 0 1007 936 20 86 1213
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)306 355 657 471 0 458 0 1083 1006 22 92 1304
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 452 0 0 44 0 0 590 0 0 587
Lane Group Flow (vph) 306 355 205 471 0 414 0 1083 416 22 92 717
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.8 24.8 24.8 13.7 20.8 36.1 36.1 6.1 46.2 46.2
Effective Green, g (s) 23.8 24.8 24.8 13.7 20.8 36.1 36.1 6.1 46.2 46.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.46 0.46
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 817 462 393 470 580 1278 1006 108 1635 731
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.19 c0.14 0.15 0.31 0.01 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.15 c0.45
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.77 0.52 1.00 0.71 0.85 0.41 0.20 0.06 0.98
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 34.9 32.5 43.1 36.8 29.4 24.0 44.6 14.9 26.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 0.86 1.92
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 6.8 0.6 42.0 3.5 7.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 27.3
Delay (s)32.0 41.7 33.1 85.2 40.3 36.5 25.2 54.1 12.9 78.2
Level of Service C D C F D D C D B E
Approach Delay (s)35.1 63.1 31.1 73.6
Approach LOS D E C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 47.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 276
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 337 0 515 0 2351 677 0 930 1147
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.94 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4915 4524 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4915 4524 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 351 0 536 0 2449 705 0 969 1247
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001005100115196
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 351 0 526 0 3103 0 0 1478 427
Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s)20.2 20.2 68.5 68.5 68.5
Effective Green, g (s)20.2 20.2 68.5 68.5 68.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.68 0.68 0.68
Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)693 563 3367 3099 933
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.63 0.33
v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.31
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.93 0.92 0.48 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 39.2 13.5 7.4 7.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 22.4 5.1 0.5 1.6
Delay (s)35.7 61.7 15.0 7.9 8.8
Level of Service D E B A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 51.4 15.0 8.2
Approach LOS A D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 277
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)992 1844 458 315 281 155 348 1477 841 289 988 211
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 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 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)1023 1901 472 325 290 160 359 1523 867 298 1019 218
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 111 0 0 279 0 0 151
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1023 1901 459 325 290 49 359 1523 588 298 1019 67
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 46.2 46.2 15.8 46.0 46.0
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 46.2 46.2 15.8 46.0 46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 458 1695 1226 532 1559 485 532 1974 858 362 1965 855
v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 c0.37 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.07 c0.24 c0.09 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.21 0.02
v/c Ratio 2.23 1.12 0.37 0.61 0.19 0.10 0.67 0.77 0.69 0.82 0.52 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 50.0 28.2 64.0 38.2 37.2 64.5 47.1 45.5 65.7 42.9 36.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 562.2 63.2 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 2.7 3.0 4.4 13.4 1.0 0.2
Delay (s)627.2 113.2 28.2 65.5 38.3 37.3 67.2 50.1 50.0 79.1 43.9 37.1
Level of Service F F C E D D E D D E D D
Approach Delay (s)256.2 49.5 52.3 49.7
Approach LOS F D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 133.5 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.2% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 278
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)391 232 24 191 80 140 105 2068 370 175 1067 154
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3201 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3201 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph)471 280 29 230 96 169 127 2492 446 211 1286 186
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 101 0 0 0 177 0 0 105
Lane Group Flow (vph) 471 280 5 230 164 0 127 2492 269 211 1286 81
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 13.1 13.1 6.4 13.0 5.0 33.5 33.5 5.5 34.0 34.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 13.1 13.1 6.4 13.0 5.0 33.5 33.5 5.5 34.0 34.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.44 0.44
Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 287 596 267 282 535 221 2190 682 125 2222 692
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 c0.49 c0.12 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.17 0.05
v/c Ratio 1.64 0.47 0.02 0.82 0.31 0.57 1.14 0.40 1.69 0.58 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 29.2 27.0 35.1 28.4 35.4 22.1 15.2 36.1 16.5 13.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 303.8 1.0 0.0 16.0 0.6 2.9 68.2 0.5 341.6 0.4 0.1
Delay (s)339.4 30.2 27.0 51.2 29.0 38.3 90.4 15.7 377.8 16.9 13.1
Level of Service F CCDC DFBFBB
Approach Delay (s)216.8 39.3 77.4 61.8
Approach LOS F D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 87.9 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s)14.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 279
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)940 1 163 5 2 0 40 525 2 0 398 383
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)1011 1 175 5 2 0 43 565 2 0 428 412
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 115 00000100291
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1011 1 60 5 2 0 43 565 1 0 428 121
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2684
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 22.7 22.7 1.3 1.2 4.9 29.0 29.0 19.5 19.5
Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.7 22.7 1.3 1.2 4.9 29.0 29.0 19.5 19.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1719 1214 543 35 34 131 1550 693 1042 821
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.00 c0.00 0.00 0.02 c0.16 0.12
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.33 0.36 0.00 0.41 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 14.3 14.9 31.9 31.9 29.1 12.4 10.5 18.7 17.2
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 0.6 0.0 0.1 2.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
Delay (s)18.5 14.3 15.0 34.5 32.9 29.6 12.5 10.5 19.1 17.3
Level of Service B B B C C C B B B B
Approach Delay (s)17.9 34.0 13.7 18.2
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 17.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 280
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)9 103 727 59 238 237
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1624 3499 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1624 3499 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)9 108 765 62 251 249
RTOR Reduction (vph) 102 0 13 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 0 814 0 251 249
Turn Type NA NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 17.1 7.8 28.9
Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 17.1 7.8 28.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.41 0.19 0.70
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)94 1449 334 2476
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.23 c0.14 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.56 0.75 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 9.2 15.8 2.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.6 8.2 0.1
Delay (s)18.8 10.8 24.0 2.1
Level of Service B B C A
Approach Delay (s) 18.8 10.8 13.1
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.3 Sum of lost time (s)14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 281
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)252 0 789 00001646 931 0 745 605
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4681 1362 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4681 1362 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)280 0 877 00001829 1034 0 828 672
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 148 0000550000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 280 0 729 00002157 651 0 828 672
Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 26.5 50.0 26.5 50.0
Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 26.5 50.0 26.5 50.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.53 1.00 0.53 1.00
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1064 864 2481 1362 2695 1583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.26 0.48 0.42
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.84 0.87 0.48 0.31 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 16.1 10.2 0.0 6.6 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 7.2 4.5 1.2 0.3 0.8
Delay (s)13.0 23.4 14.7 1.2 5.6 0.8
Level of Service B C B A A A
Approach Delay (s)20.9 0.0 11.7 3.4
Approach LOS C A B A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 282
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)0 0 0 366 95 0 0 1663 34 0 1037 338
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1719 5085 1583 4783 1362
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1719 5085 1583 4783 1362
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 407 106 0 0 1848 38 0 1152 376
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000006128
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 252 261 0 0 1848 38 0 1184 210
Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)11.4 11.4 31.1 50.0 31.1 31.1
Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 31.1 50.0 31.1 31.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.62 1.00 0.62 0.62
Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)383 392 3163 1583 2975 847
v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.67 0.58 0.02 0.40 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 17.5 17.6 5.6 0.0 4.7 4.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.20 0.03
Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.5
Delay (s)20.6 20.9 2.7 0.0 1.3 0.7
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 20.7 2.7 1.1
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 283
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)20 2473 0 1133 0 0 0 1551 0 0 153 781
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)21 2603 0 1193 0 0 0 1633 0 0 161 822
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000087
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 2603 0 1193 0 0 0 1633 0 0 161 735
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8462
Actuated Green, G (s) 68.7 34.1 29.7 22.0 20.7 89.4
Effective Green, g (s) 68.7 34.1 29.7 22.0 20.7 89.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.34 0.30 0.22 0.21 0.89
Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2358 1734 1482 1119 1053 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.51 c0.24 c0.32 0.03 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.01 1.50 0.80 1.46 0.15 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 4.9 33.0 32.5 39.0 32.5 1.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 228.6 3.1 210.8 0.3 0.1
Delay (s)4.9 261.5 35.6 242.4 32.8 1.0
Level of Service A F D F C A
Approach Delay (s)259.5 35.6 242.4 6.2
Approach LOS F D F A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 174.9 HCM Level of Service F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 110.8% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 284
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)9 73 57 549 484 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph)12 99 77 742 654 61
RTOR Reduction (vph) 89 000030
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 0 77 742 654 31
Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 3.8 30.2 22.4 22.4
Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 3.8 30.2 22.4 22.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.09 0.69 0.51 0.51
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 153 3490 2589 806
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.04 0.15 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.50 0.21 0.25 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 19.2 2.5 6.1 5.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s)18.1 21.8 2.6 6.2 5.4
Level of Service B C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 18.1 4.4 6.1
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 44.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 285
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)102 309 371 634 152 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3418
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3418
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)111 336 403 689 165 49
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 244 0 0 20 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 92 403 689 194 0
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.68 0.47
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 761 525 2392 1613
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.03 c0.12 c0.19 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.12 0.77 0.29 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 21.4 31.9 5.1 11.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 30.2 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.2
Delay (s)65.9 21.5 37.9 5.4 11.7
Level of Service E C D A B
Approach Delay (s) 32.5 17.4 11.7
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 20.6 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 286
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)185 1271 84 104 477 25 132 657 515 170 540 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3513 3433 3291 1441 3433 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3513 3433 3291 1441 3433 3539 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)201 1382 91 113 518 27 143 714 560 185 587 189
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0300192700128
Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 1382 45 113 542 0 143 869 359 185 587 61
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 40.1 40.1 3.0 33.4 7.5 34.5 34.5 6.0 33.0 33.0
Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 40.1 40.1 3.0 33.4 7.5 34.5 34.5 6.0 33.0 33.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.33 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.32 0.32
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 1383 619 146 1144 251 1107 485 201 1138 509
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.39 c0.02 0.15 0.04 c0.26 c0.05 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.25 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.62 1.00 0.07 0.77 0.47 0.57 0.78 0.74 0.92 0.52 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 44.7 31.2 19.6 49.5 27.6 46.0 30.7 30.1 48.1 28.3 24.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 23.9 0.1 20.4 0.4 1.8 3.9 6.2 41.2 0.5 0.1
Delay (s)47.1 55.1 19.7 69.9 28.0 47.8 34.6 36.3 89.3 28.8 24.7
Level of Service D E B E C D C D F C C
Approach Delay (s)52.2 35.2 36.4 39.7
Approach LOS DDDD
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 42.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.6 Sum of lost time (s)13.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 287
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Appendix B
Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 288
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Roadway Segment
Segment
Length
(mi)
Speed
Limit
Speed
Constant
Median/
Curb
Cross
Section
Adj
Access
Points
Access
Density Lanes Access Adj
Base Freeflow
Speed 1 (mph)
Distance
between
Signals
Signal
Spacing
Adj
Freeflow
Speed
(mph)
Freeflow
Travel Time
(sec)
Approach Peak
Hour
Signal
delay
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Speed
Ratio
Segment
LOS
AM 24.8 69.6 26 65% C
PM 37.8 82.6 22 55% C
AM 18.4 63.2 28 70% B
PM 34.9 79.7 23 57% C
AM 86.2 46 100%A
PM 86.2 46 100%A
AM 9.0 95.2 42 91%A
PM 24.8 111.0 36 78% B
AM 13.2 98.5 40 86%A
PM 24.5 109.8 36 78% B
AM 2.5 87.8 45 97%A
PM 3.3 88.6 45 97%A
AM 11.8 329.2 45 97%A
PM 8.0 325.4 45 97%A
AM 8.0 325.4 45 97%A
PM 8.4 325.8 45 97%A
AM 213.9 40 99%A
PM 213.9 40 99%A
AM 23.7 237.6 36 89%A
PM 30.5 244.4 35 87%A
AM 28.0 278.8 37 89%A
PM 50.8 301.6 35 84% B
AM 250.8 42 101%A
PM 250.8 42 101%A
Existing Conditions
40.4
1600 0.9 41.62
1100 0.9 40.2
5800 1.0 45.9
5800 1.0 46.4
5
5
4
0
0
2
1 -0.3
6 -0.3
18 -0.3
0 -0.2
1
1
2
Southbound
Northbound
45 46.8 -2.7
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
Camino Tassajara between
Lusitano Street and Crow
Canyon Rd
2.4 43.9 213.9
Southbound
Northbound
46.8 -2.7
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
45
Camino Tassajara between
Crow Canyon Road and
Sycamore Valley Road
2.9 43.9 250.80-0.2
1150 0.9
Southbound
Northbound
46.8 0No Median,
No Curb 21600
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
between Fallon Rd and
Windemere Parkway
1.1 46.5 85.3
Southbound
Northbound
46.8 0
No Median,
No Curb45
45
Camino Tassajara between
Windemere parkway and
Lusitano Street
4.1 46.5 317.41.0 46.5
Southbound
Northbound
46.8 -0.5
Non-
restrictive
Median,
Curb
5
Tassajara Rd between Gleason
Dr and North Dublin Ranch
Dr
0.5 43.9 44.8
Southbound
Northbound
46.8 -2.7
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
2 -0.245
45
Tassajara Rd between North
Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon
Road
1.1 46.0 86.2
4
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 289
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Roadway Segment
Segment
Length
(mi)
Speed
Limit
Speed
Constant
Median/
Curb
Cross
Section
Adj
Access
Points
Access
Density Lanes Access
Adj
Base Freeflow
Speed 1
(mph)
Distance
between
Signals
Signal
Spacing
Adj
Freeflow
Speed
(mph)
Freeflow
Travel Time
(sec)
Approach Peak
Hour
Signal
delay
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Segment
LOS
AM 34.9 79.7 C
PM 25.2 70.0 C
AM 44.3 89.1 D
PM 92.5 137.3 E
AM 86.0 A
PM 86.0 A
AM 7.4 93.4 A
PM 12.3 98.3 A
AM 18.0 103.1 B
PM 18.7 103.8 B
AM 4.1 89.2 A
PM 5.3 90.4 A
AM 35.6 352.3 A
PM 13.8 330.5 A
AM 10.0 326.7 A
PM 10.9 327.6 A
AM 213.9 A
PM 213.9 A
AM 23.9 237.8 A
PM 26.8 240.7 A
AM 29.8 280.6 A
PM 56.3 307.1 B
AM 250.8 A
PM 250.8 A
Cumulative Conditions 4‐Lane Scenario
41.6 250.8
Southbound
Northbound
-2.7 0 0 2 -0.2 43.9
0.9 40.4 213.9
Southbound
Northbound
Camino Tassajara between
Crow Canyon Road and
Sycamore Valley Road
2.9 45 46.8
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
0 0 2 -0.2 43.9 1150
Camino Tassajara between
Lusitano Street and Crow
Canyon Rd
2.4 45 46.8
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
-2.7
1600 0.9
46.6 316.7
Southbound
Northbound
0 18 4 2 -0.2 46.6
1.0 46.5 85.1
Southbound
Northbound
Camino Tassajara between
Windemere parkway and
Lusitano Street
4.1 45 46.8
No Median,
No Curb
6 5 2 -0.2 46.6 5800
Tassajara Rd/Camino
Tassajara between Fallon Rd
and Windemere Parkway
1.1 45 46.8
No Median,
No Curb 0
21600 1.0
46.0 86.0
Southbound
Northbound
-0.5 5 5 2 -0.2 46.1
0.9 40.2 44.8
Southbound
Northbound
Tassajara Rd between North
Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon
Road
1.1 45 46.8
Non-
restrictive
Median,
Curb
2 4 2 -0.2 43.9 1100
Tassajara Rd between Gleason
Dr and North Dublin Ranch
Dr
0.5 45 46.8
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
-2.7
5800 1.0
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 290
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Roadway Segment
Segment
Length
(mi)
Speed
Limit
Speed
Constant
Median/
Curb
Cross
Section
Adj
Access
Points
Access
Density Lanes Access Adj
Base Freeflow
Speed 1 (mph)
Distance
between
Signals
Signal
Spacing
Adj
Freeflow
Speed
(mph)
Freeflow
Travel Time
(sec)
Approach Peak
Hour
Signal
delay
Average
Travel Time
(sec)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Speed
Ratio
Segment
LOS
AM 33.7 78.4 23 57% C
PM 16.9 61.6 29 72% B
AM 41.5 86.2 21 52% C
PM 90.4 135.1 13 32%E
AM 85.9 46 100%A
PM 85.9 46 100%A
AM 7.3 93.2 42 91%A
PM 12.5 98.4 40 87%A
AM 16.9 101.9 39 84% B
PM 19.1 104.1 38 82% B
AM 3.9 88.9 45 97%A
PM 5.4 90.4 44 94%A
AM 29.9 346.0 43 92%A
PM 13.8 329.9 45 96%A
AM 8.5 324.6 45 96%A
PM 10.8 326.9 45 96%A
AM 213.5 40 99%A
PM 213.5 40 99%A
AM 23.5 237.0 36 89%A
PM 28.0 241.5 36 89%A
AM 30.8 281.1 37 89%A
PM 55.1 305.4 34 82% B
AM 250.3 42 101%A
PM 250.3 42 101%A
Cumulative Conditions 6‐Lane Scenario
41.7 250.3
Southbound
Northbound
-2.7 0 0 3 -0.1 44.0
0.9 40.5 213.5
Southbound
Northbound
Camino Tassajara between
Crow Canyon Road and
Sycamore Valley Road
2.9 45 46.8
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
0 0 3 -0.1 44.0 1150
Camino Tassajara between
Lusitano Street and Crow
Canyon Rd
2.4 45 46.8
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
-2.7
1600 0.9
46.7 316.1
Southbound
Northbound
0 18 4 3 -0.1 46.7
1.0 46.6 85.0
Southbound
Northbound
Camino Tassajara between
Windemere parkway and
Lusitano Street
4.1 45 46.8
No Median,
No Curb
6 5 3 -0.1 46.7 5800
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
between Fallon Rd and
Windemere Parkway
1.1 45 46.8
No Median,
No Curb 0
21600 1.0
46.1 85.9
Southbound
Northbound
-0.5 5 5 3 -0.1 46.2
0.9 40.3 44.7
Southbound
Northbound
Tassajara Rd between North
Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon
Road
1.1 45 46.8
Non-
restrictive
Median,
Curb
2 4 3 -0.1 44.0 1100
Tassajara Rd between Gleason
Dr and North Dublin Ranch
Dr
0.5 45 46.8
Restrictive
Median,
Curb
-2.7
5800 1.0
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 291
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Appendix C
Lane Assumptions
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 292
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Original Model Inputs
(NB/SB)
Modified based on Existing
Conditions (NB/SB)
Model Adjustment?Lane Assumptions
(NB/SB)
Change from Modified
Existing?
Lane Assumptions
(NB/SB)
Change from Modified
Existing?
Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara
I‐580 WB Ramps to Dublin Blvd 3/3 3/3 No 3/3 No 3/3 No
Dublin Blvd to Central Pkwy 2/2 2/3 Yes 2/3 No 3/3 Yes
Central Pkwy to S Dublin Ranch Cir 2/2 2/2 No 2/2 No 3/3 Yes
S Dublin Ranch Cir to N Dublin Ranch Cir 2/2 2/3 Yes 2/3 No 3/3 Yes
N Dublin Ranch Cir to Fallon Dr 2/2 1/1 Yes 2/2 Yes 3/3 Yes
Fallon Dr to Windemere Pkwy 1/1 1/1 No 2/2 Yes 3/3 Yes
Windemere Pkwy to Lucitano St 1/1 1/1 No 2/2 Yes 2/2 Yes
Lucitano St to Tassajara Ranch Dr 2/2 2/2 No 2/2 No 2/2 No
Tassajara Ranch Dr to Crow Canyon Rd 2/2 3/3 Yes 3/3 No 3/3 No
Fallon Dr
I‐580 WB Ramps to Central Pkwy 1/1 2/2 Yes 3/3 Yes 3/3 No
Central Pkwy to Gleason Dr 1/1 3/3 Yes 3/3 No 3/3 No
Gleason Dr to Signal Hill Dr 1/1 2/2 Yes 3/3 Yes 3/3 No
Signal Hill Dr to Tassajara Rd 1/1 3/3 Yes 3/3 No 3/3 No
Other modifications to the model ‐ added a second centroid connector to represent Silvera Ranch Dr connecting to Tassajara Rd in addition to Fallon Rd to better model traffic assignment stemming from that residential
development.
Segment
Existing Conditions Scenario 1 Scenario 2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 293
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Lane Assumptions
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Fa
l
l
o
n
Rd
Dublin Blvd
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Fa
l
l
o
n
Rd
Dublin Blvd
Original 2013 Final 2013
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 294
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Lane Assumptions (cont’d)
Camino Tassajara
Cr
o
w
Ca
n
y
o
n
Rd
Windemere Pkwy
Highland Rd
Windemere Pkwy
Highland Rd
Cr
o
w
Ca
n
y
o
n
Rd
Camino Tassajara
Original 2013 Final 2013
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 295
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Lane Assumptions (cont’d)
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Fa
l
l
o
n
Rd
Dublin Blvd
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Fa
l
l
o
n
Rd
Dublin Blvd
Scenario 1
(2040)
Scenario 2
(2040)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 296
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Lane Assumptions (cont’d)
Camino Tassajara
Cr
o
w
Ca
n
y
o
n
Rd
Windemere Pkwy
Highland Rd
Windemere Pkwy
Highland Rd
Cr
o
w
Ca
n
y
o
n
Rd
Camino Tassajara
Scenario 1
(2040)
Scenario 2
(2040)
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 297
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Appendix D
Model Link Volumes
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 298
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Link Volumes
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
2013 AM
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 299
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Link Volumes (cont’d)
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
2013 PM
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 300
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Link Volumes – AM Peak Hour
Windemere Pkwy
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Windemere Pkwy
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 301
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Link Volumes – PM Peak Hour
Windemere Pkwy
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Windemere Pkwy
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 302
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
Appendix E
Select‐link Analysis
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 303
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
3
1
628
80
517
0
5
8
9
3 312
2475
420
248
510
168
00
170
3419
02
3112
209
1 3 4
6 7 1
561
2
00
00
17
22
5
0
1
1 3
1
1
75
03
36
470
5606
0 1
0
6
0
3
6
7
9
2 0
5890
33
188
0
0
57
35
3643
813
1
2 3 8
10
2 1 6
1 7 5
186
106
00
470
36
561
2
51
432
13
1 1
0
589
01
674
110
3373
2
1
1
2
0
7
5
24
00
02
00
63
2 7 2
05
11
35
74
625
0 0
1231
247 270
1 0
45 6
98103
0
0
577
659
132
1 0
0
00
7524
1 0 3677
63
6
8
3
668
00
2
30
3
5
2
3
00
057
3
0
139
29
676
629
0
1
0
1
2
33
0
0
1 43
0000
00
4
5
6
2
81
0
13
6
31
00
34
1 2 7
1
0
10
22
6
4
8 03 6
53
05
33
81
00
123
125220
241
46
2
561
1 036 33100
314
00
00
16
5
00
21 33
1 536
11
1522
28
00
151 00
00
00
9
50
3
0
00
0
13
5254
12
00
00
30
20
0 0
00
3047
814
10
100
00
220
1
5
1017
1541
20
8
5
1
5
2
01
00
1
25
00
264
1 1
51
1 0
81
343
75
413
684687
0
54
47
171
513
00
227
1 1 0117
92
2
46
6
1
0
14
10
2 6
0
0
3 1
00
4570
11
82
677
103
13
2
47
5
03
2 0
133
168
22
00
22 0 34
11
0
14
00
00
32
814
00
00
40
4570
4 0
5452
2413
5921
315
01
12
372
61
0
0011273
117
03
2 0
00
1 07
1
0
97
65
4
4
8
05 6
7
00
00
0 0
15
25
1
5
612
20
3423
00
3
0 0
139
77
11
4118
0
12
0
0
0 0
00
230
247
00
33
188
1837
213
13
647
1322
00
8
45
0
00
117
75
1 68
7 157
02
1
070
150
10
00
0 0
12
131
159
1
2
1
1 3
37
13
6
77 81
0 0
00
414
0 0
0
33
188
00
77
0
3718
00
03
00
1
0
02
519
10
22
10
00
00
69
3
0
05
00
0
713
00
2534
1611
156
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1 0
1
0
1
5
1
00
6 1
0 0
00
0
0
3
591
2
1324
12
5602
0 0
525
1116
14
30
3
0
25
15
00
1 2
70
2
0
02
00
2
159
3 0
97
071
64
3126
1 429
01
00
2 0
4
3
0
2 916
52
0107
0
0
5
0
10
1
33
1
0 2
125
453
1498
103
02
01
00
813
01
2
0
10
5726
220
00
00
1 4 7
05
618
202400
31
1
9
90
32
00 11
5
0 0
141
71
20
9
6
6
2
00
5
2
20
251
595
04
00
88
24
1
13
0
0
1
0
665
00
09
43
74
1
0
00
05
2019
35
00
0
0
312
00
2
111
0
0
0
5
1
5
6
3
5
1
9
8
6
9
8
142
471
0
2
33
2
0
00
8
00
8
217
0
00
00
2 9
1 3 6
11
00
00
01
1 58
00
00
1
2
9
1
1
0
0
10
1
9 629
4 5 1
1
0
0
4113
2
7
0
0 0
0
0
20
6
15
02
2102
01
0
0
00 227
247
0
00
10
22
00
10
93
21
0
1
7
0 010
0
21
2
06
2
00
2416
5
00
125
77 76
12
5
23
1
67
00
0
247
227
10
2 0
0
2134
00
6 71
1
9
3
0
9 0
143
90
03
85
00
1 08
3
014 575
50 11
00
019 0
00 34
0
1 62
14
10
31
00
53
00
00
00
0
0
00
0
0
1
12
17
0
0
00
143
1611
20
7
0
0
00
0
6
0
0
9 8
58
872 1 1 0
21
0
0
00
32
4
1
9
8
0
1 1
0
2
1
00
0
1
055
30
20
0
6779
1
1
6
37
0 0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
6
11
1
9
4
5
1
2
6
1
80
3718
14
3 1
1 58
00
532
0
0
1
2
1
1
3 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
131
14
0
0
0
0
0
00
7
13
0
0
1
40 1
02
2
7
4
0
55
0
00
0
0
6
8
3
0
1 430
6
13
111
7 7
0
0
4
0
16
0
32
0
1
0
3
014
0
23
1
10
0
5
0
13
14
8
00
03
5
3
0
10
6
8
3
0
5 9 7
0
0
63
5
0
5
352
12
1
2 7
0
0
071
00
90
159
0
427
82
01
1 0
1
7
1
7
3 7
3
1
9
60
53
1
82
332
2413
21
00
0
0
08
0
0
1
0
0
5
000
0
3 0
12
02
1
0
02
9
677
1
0
1
70
0
1
0
0
0 0
3
01
38
00
11
0
0
1
6
1
0
1
8
00
3
1
0
9
0
555
1
1 0
0
0
2
0
1
5
2
8
5
0
0
0
0 4
4 1
0
76
1
1 41
0
6
3 0
0
1
0
2
3 31 1
5
4
6
3
00
1
45
02
5
4
7
0
4
0
1 3
35
11
63
0
0
581
0
24
0
0
1
13
0
1928
01
0
0
1
0
251
53
4 9
00
0
0
2
8
00
0
110
0
21
3
0
0
0
0
00
2 0
71
45
0
8
1
0
1
0
0
606
12
0 0
0
6
0
00
2475
0
5
0
6
0
8
1
6
32
3 0 0
0
0
1
00
2
17
202
1
98
3
1
2
1016
1
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
1
19
2
0
20
0
0
00
00
0
0
1
2
0
103
0
0
1
55
0
10
0
0
0
00
0
0
10
103
3
00
00
0
0
62
10
1
12
1
27
0
0
0
0
00
1
0
1
17
8
88
0
0
0
12
40
0
0
00
03
5
0
1
00
00
0
0000
5
00
33
3
Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
AM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 1
1,000 500 250
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 304
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
2
2
98
88
913
4
6
3
2 640
3083
1 66
135
41
215
00
251
2842
10
1065
66
2 8 6
1 6 3
6318
00
00
22
1
95
1
0
1 8
1
1
47
00
152
38
1376
0 0
0
4
9
9
3
1
4
1 3
634
9448
0
0
01
193
3343
187
0
1 3 0
00
2 6 4
1 8 8
256
722
00
38
152
6318
26
384
8
463
10
165
433
5734
5
3
3
9
8
4
3
1
00
11
00
319
1 7 4
20
8
62
83
93
0 0
5106
115 171
0 1
1135
56104
0
0
527
717
53
1 0
0
00
8330
4 3 4154
58
2
5
1
529
00
5
01
6
2
0
5
00
491
0
3
4372
490
254
1
1
1
1
5
3
0
0
08
0000
00
2
3
4
2
1
42
6
26
3
62
00
34
1 11 2
0
0
01
32
5
8
6 4
7 5
45
30
49
05
00
97
106130
241
54
1863
1 215 0150
80
00
00
9
21
00
03 32
1 811
15
1114
42
00
23 00
00
00
6
05
0
1
00
0
11
4454
10
00
01
03
35
0 0
00
4628
128
00
16
00
130
4
3
78
4425
01
1
7
5
1
0
7
00
00
0
0
00
63
8
13
0 0
15
2715
10
1 16
536268
0
26
147
59
27
00
51
9 680
38
2
58
3
0
1
4
7
6 2
0
0
1 3
00
080
11
56
154
434
00
3
18
4
10
0 1
89
164
74
00
1 0 301
03
0
10
00
00
33
7
4
00
00
00
080
1 2
5444
1819
3866
99
5
00
31
437
26
0
0017632
715
10
0 2
00
1 18
0
0
85
55
2
2
5
00 1
3
1
0
00
00
0 0
113
0
6
31
8
01
3043
00
0
0 0
1 11
18
21
3235
6
31
0
0
0 0
00
141
252
00
9448
3715
8
5
32
717
1918
00
1
45
0
00
1111
12
98
2018
00
0
007142
00
00
0 0
2623
4218
0
0
5
1 7
0
2
22
81 86
0 0
00
116
0 0
0
94
48
00
18
0
3235
00
10
00
0
0
11
54
00
32
00
00
00
63
8
0
30
01
0
511
00
4430
1111
153
0
0
1
0
4
00
0 1
3
1
8
3
00
4 5
0 0
00
0
0
0
150
28
1918
11
654
0 0
1943
1412
28
25
0
1
0
00
00
1 5
00
1
1
10
00
1863
131
183
1 1
7
1
0
491
16
54
9620
2 010
11
00
0 0
4
6
0
1 929
44
004
80
0
0
2
00
2
92
4
0
280
97
1926
434154
10
00
00
187
00
0
0
0
01
4650
01
00
0
2 1 5
10
68
191500
24
1
2
58
33
00 6
14
0 0
75
0
24
00
2
5
5
5
00
3
3
01
145
239
11
00
1
2
14
3
11
0
0
1
1
563
00
11
18
73
0
0
00
10
1915
27
00
0
0
012
00
3
414
0
0
0
4
7
7
6
3
9
2
4
1
5
1
5
6
281
130
1
0
23
0
1
00
8
00
34
211
0
00
00
5 3
2 1 0
0
1 2
00
00
00
78
00
11
2
1
0
0
0
0
00
3 254
2 1 4
0
0
0
5732
33
1
53
0
0 0
0
0
03
12
11
10
281
00
0
0
00 141
252
0
00
00
23
00
10
21
11
00
2
1
1 85
0
13
0
06
28
00
2933
20
00
20
73
01
1
12
1
01
7
00
0
252
141
00
4 0
0
4329
00
163
1
29
4 1
08
00
00
9
00
611
6
00
502
01 20
00
30 0
00 18
1
01
4
7
2
00
42
00
00
00
0
0
00
8
0
0
2
1
1
31
42
0
0
00
08
1214
0
0
4
8
00
0
0
0
1 3 4
258
1 0 1 0
13
0
1
00
34
0
2
4
0
3 2
1 7 7
1
281
4
00
1
1
480
01
00
3
11499
0
2 5
15
0 0
1
0
1 01
650
0
0
0
21
2
2
2
1
2
2
00
1537
0
1 1
78
00
183
0
1
1
0
1 3
0
0
0
0
48
0
2426
0
0
0
0
0
00
18
13
0
0
0
00 4
10
1
3
1
27
2
42
0
00
0
48
5
2
8
0
2 5 00
145
6 3
0
0
2
14
0
56
1
0
1
6
00
0
12
1
01
0
0
1
11
4
7
00
03
0
0
00
2
5
1
0
2 4 9
0
0
1
0
0
1
11
0
5 7
0
0
11
00
00
28
0
80
273
00
0 0
2
2
1
0 0 2
1
8
26
2
843
1819
110
00
0
0
00
0
4
1
0
0
18
0000
0
0
2
0
31
0
0
00
0
492
0
1
0
4 7
1
0
1
1
0
0 0
0 4
3
27
00
11
0
50
4
2
0
3
00
0
7
1
0
2
0
1
0 0
0
1
0
1
0
7
1
7
5
0
0
0
0 0
1 2
0
0
2325
97
0
2 01
0
0
11
1 0
0
2
19
0
1
0
3 1 7
0
1
4
0
00
0
00 0
1
6
3
8
5
4
8
1 1
2
23
57
0
0
1
0
14
0
1
1
11
10
1519
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
1
00
0
0
2
11
0
00
2 5
0
00
0
0
10
33
1
00
0
0
00
28
801
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
483
31
0 0
0
0
0
0
00
3083
2
0
0
0
7
2 10
33
4 2 0
0
0
1
00
00 01
2
56
94
0
2
78
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
2
17
497
0
0
0 00
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
42
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
00
00
0
0
00
27
0
0
0
0
0
00
4
0
0
5
2
0
1
0
9
127
0 00
00
4
8
1
0
43
00
00
00
0
1
00
1
0
6
00
94
6
Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
PM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 1
750 375 188
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 305
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
3
1
669
72
518
0
6
2
7
3 014
2567
420
211
510
197
00
185
3120
03
2912
192
1 3 1
7 2 8
596
1
00
00
17
22
6
0
1
1 4
1
1
65
02
34
527
5645
0 1
0
6
6
0
7
4
6
3 0
6270
31
203
0
0
67
39
3347
79
1
2 0 2
10
2 4 9
2 0 4
187
144
00
527
34
596
1
51
412
11
1 0
0
627
01
737
103
32
77
2
1
1
1
7
6
7
25
00
02
00
103
2 3 1
05
10
35
66
665
0 0
1229
210 229
0 0
46 6
10592
0
0
510
727
140
1 1
0
00
6725
9 7742
33
7
25
68
8
00
3
30
2
5
2
4
01
071
3
0
150
28
696
669
0
91
3
36
0
0
1 94
0000
00
4
2
7
3
4
9
13
5
31
00
25
1 3 5
1
0
10
22
55
8 63 4
59
06
32
81
00
114262
202
46
1
596
944 3670
219
00
00
17
5
00
11 33
1 240
13
1323
30
00
151 00
00
01
9
50
4
0
00
0
12
4758
12
00
01
30
20
0 0
00
2652
814
10
90
00
262
1
6
918
1541
20
8
5
1
0
1
01
01
1
33
00
164
1 0
51
1 0
91
363
76
416
704729
0
53
47
178
412
00
226
1 0 0157
102
2
55
8
2
0
13
11
2 5
0
0
3 1
00
6162
11
82
742
97
13
2
56
7
04
2 0
175
150
21
01
2 2 1 29
01
0
14
00
00
32
913
00
00
1
00
6162
3 0
5847
2711
5922
295
01
12
352
51
0
0011311
87
03
2 1
00
1 05
0
0
87
73
4
5
3
05 5
6
00
00
0 0
13
26
1
5
961
20
3125
00
3
0 0
141
67
11
4917
1
11
0
0
0 0
00
272
208
00
31
203
1641
213
12
714
1125
00
11
36
0
00
117
83
1 77
7 205
02
0
070
152
10
00
0 0
13
179
168
2
2
1
1 0
71
14
3
77 83
1 0
00
415
0 0
0
31
203
00
67
0
3917
00
04
00
1
0
02
522
10
23
10
00
00
59
3
0
05
00
714
00
2731
1411
146
0
0
9
2
00
1 0
8
1
5
1
00
7 0
0 0
00
0
0
2
721
2
1127
12
5902
0 0
527
1016
13
33
4
0
33
14
00
1 3
60
2
0
02
00
1
159
3 0
87
078
64
3142
1 230
01
00
0 0
4
3
0
2 916
47
0107
7
0
5
1
20
1
33
3
0 1
114
521
1978
97
02
01
00
79
01
1
0
5
20
6624
230
00
0
1 8 4
07
518
232100
33
1
7
90
32
00 9
5
0 0
141
71
00
8
5
9
3
00
5
2
20
267
616
04
00
97
22
1
120
0
0
1
3
00
42
96
1
0
00
03
2317
37
0
0
0
372
00
2
141
0
0
0
4
4
9
7
0
3
2
3
0
6
118
538
0
2
33
2
0
00
7
00
7
117
0
00
00
3 2
1 5 8
13
9
00
00
01
1 37
00
0
1
4
4
0
1
0
0
10
2
1
669
4 7 1
1
0
0
4412
2
7
0
0
0
0
10
6
13
02
294
01
0
0
00
208
0
00
1
22
00
10
82
20
0
1
1
2
0 1 4
0
11
2
062
00
2216
5
00
140
69
13
5
34
1
57
00
0
208
262
10
2 0
0
2331
00
72 8
1
7
3
2
1 01
194
120
03
8
00
98
3
012 510
70 11
00
022 0
01 31
0
1 82
13
11
56
10
62
00
00
00
0
0
00
0
0
12
12
18
0
0
00
194
1610
21
7
7
0
00
0
6
1
0
9 8
3
57
822 1 2 0
11
0
2
00
2
3
2
3
0
0
1 1
0
2
1
00
0
0
057
30
20
0
6778
1
1
6
41
0 0
1
0
1
0
0
0
6
11
5
1
1
6
40
4116
12
3 1
1 37
00
557
0
0
2
0
1
2 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
179
14
0
0
0
0
0
00
6
13
0
0
5
30 1
02
2
2
3
8
45
0
00
0
0
7
0
2
0
32
6
13
214
7 7
0
0
4
0
17
0
35
0
1
0
3
012
0
34
0
10
0
0
13
13
9
0 2
5
2
0
10
7
2
5
0
6 1 8
1
0
62
5
0
4
552
12
1
2 6
0
0
078
00
0
168
494
81
01
2 0
1
6
1
7
3 1
3
1
8
59
53
2
156
2711
21
00
0
0
07
0
1
5
000
1
2
74
0
12
03
1
0
00
11
697
0
0
1
70
0
1
0
0
0 0
3
97
0
11
0
0
1
7
1
0
1
0
7
0
1
2 0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
8
5
0
0
0
0 5
3 1
0
0
75
2
1 21
0
5
3 0
00
2
0
3 6 9
5
5
6
2
0
1
0
6
0
4
0
4
0
1 3
37
12
65
0
0
71
0
22
0
0
14
0
1729
01
0
0
1
228
53
6 7
00
0
00
2
9
00
0
110
0
31
2
0
0
0
0
00
6362
219
0
8
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
662
11
0 0
0
6
0
176
00
2567
0
4
8
0
8
1
8
32
3 1 0
2
00
2
4
212
1
105
3
1
2
917
1
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
16
91
0
2
0
0
0
0
00
00
0
1
7
0
97
0
0
1
4
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
92
00
00
0
0
10
1
13
0
1
0
00
1
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
38
0 10
02
4
01
00 00
00
0000
3
00
31
3
Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
AM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 2
750 375 188
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 306
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
2
2
99
89
913
4
6
4
2 740
3085
1 66
133
31
207
00
239
2942
00
1026
67
2 8 2
1 6 7
6421
00
00
22
2
05
1
0
1 4
1
1
46
00
151
40
1377
0 0
0
5
5
5
3
1
1
1 3
644
133
48
0
0
01
223
3339
127
0
1 2 9
00
2 5 0
1 8 2
245
725
00
40
151
6421
26
384
8
464
10
166
484
6334
5
1
3
9
8
5
3
1
00
11
00
322
1 7 6
20
8
62
85
94
0 0
6102
117 174
0 0
1135
55104
0
0
529
667
53
8
0
00
8530
4 8 5154
53
25
2
5
81
00
3
01
6
2
0
5
00
791
0
4
43
109
542
256
1
1
1
1
4
3
0
0
08
0000
00
2
4
3
8
1
32
6
25
3
52
00
34
1 01 2
0
0
01
32
57
6 4
7 6
41
30
55
06
00
93
105125
240
54
2164
1 214 0160
80
00
00
9
22
00
02 32
1 910
12
1114
31
00
23 00
00
00
6
05
0
1
00
0
11
4450
10
00
00
03
25
0 0
00
4526
128
00
16
00
125
4
3
78
4425
01
1
5
8
1
0
7
00
00
0
0
00
53
8
13
0 0
15
2615
10
1 16
587270
0
26
152
59
17
00
61
9 577
38
2
58
4
0
1
4
7
6 2
0
0
1 3
00
081
11
46
154
485
00
3
18
5
10
0 1
87
164
73
00
1 0 251
02
0
00
00
00
33
74
00
00
00
081
1 1
5044
1619
39
67
95
6
00
11
435
26
0
0022532
710
10
0 2
00
1 08
0
0
86
53
2
3
5
00 1
3
9
00
00
0 0
110
0
6
421
01
3043
00
0
0 0
1 41
17
11
3235
5
21
0
0
0 0
00
135
251
00
133
48
3714
8
4
32
667
1916
00
4
45
0
00
1011
8
88
1915
00
0
007173
00
00
0 0
2520
5218
0
0
5
1 8
0
2
42
81 88
0 0
00
116
0 0
0
13348
00
18
0
3235
00
10
00
0
0
11
54
00
32
00
00
00
54
8
0
30
01
510
00
4331
1110
143
0
0
1
0
4
00
0 1
3
1
7
3
00
4 5
0 0
00
0
0
0
180
12
1916
11
663
0 0
1941
1512
29
25
0
1
0
0
00
1 2
00
1
1
10
0
2164
133
1 1
6
1
0
791
16
54
10821
2 09
11
0
0 0
4
3
0
1 929
43
007
80
0
0
2
00
2
92
4
0 5
340
96
1625
485154
10
00
00
127
00
0
0
0
01
4650
01
00
0
2 0 7
20
68
191500
24
1
2
58
33
00 6
13
0 0
74
0
24
00
1
5
5
8
00
3
3
01
146
242
11
00
1
2
14
3
110
0
0
1
1
00
19
73
0
0
00
10
1915
26
00
0
0
013
00
3
313
0
0
0
4
7
9
5
9
2
2
5
1
9
5
5
5
341
105
1
23
0
1
00
8
00
35
211
0
00
00
4 4
2 9
150
00
00
00
68
00
1
2
1
1
0
0
00
3 256
2 1 7
0
0
0
5432
3
19
8
0
0
0
0
02
1
2
11
10
121
00
0
0
00 135
251
0
00
0
22
00
10
11
11
00
3
1
1 5
0
12
0
06
12
00
2933
0
00
20
7214
01
1
22
1
01
6
00
0
251
135
00
3 0
0
4330
00
16 7
1
2
1
0
4 1
08
00
00
7
00
610
9
00
505
02 20
00
30 0
00 19
1
11
5
7
2
00
41
00
00
00
0
0
00
8
0
0
2
11
42
0
0
00
08
1214
0
0
7
8
00
1
0
0
1 3 2
2
333
1 0 1 0
12
0
1
00
4
0
2
5
0
3 2
2 2 5
1
121
4
00
1
1
480
01
00
2
11199
0
2 2
14
0 0
1
0
1 21
660
0
0
11
2
3
2
1
2
3
00
1437
0
1 1
68
00
363
0
1
0
1 1
0
0
0
0
78
2125
0
0
0
0
0
00
18
12
0
0
0
00 4
10
1
4
1
1
6
2
32
0
00
0
78
5
8
0
0
25 00
135
6 2
0
0
14
0
53
1
0
1
3
00
0
22
1
01
0
1
21
4
7
0
02
0
0
00
2
5
2
0
2 5 8
0
1
1
0
0
1
11
0
5 8
0
11
00
0
28
0
80
00
0 0
2
1
8
0 2
1
8
26
43
1619
113
00
0
0
0
0
4
0
36
0000
0
0
2
0
11
0
0
00
0
545
0
0
0
7 6
1
0
0
0
0 0
0 4
3
7
0
11
0
3
8
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0 0
0
1
0
1
0
7
1
5
8
0
0
0
0 0
1 1
0
24
96
0
2 01
0
11
1 0
0
2
19
0
1
0
3 1 8
0
1
4
0
0
0
00 0
1
5
9
8
3
1 0
2
20
57
0
0
1
0
14
0
1
1
10
10
1619
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
1
00
0
0
2
11
0
0
5
0
0
01
0
0
10
2
8
00
1
0
0
00
12
811
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
538
21
0 0
0
0
0
0
00
3085
2
9
0
6
2 9
33
3 1 0
0
0
1
00
00 01
2
55
0
2
78
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
1
2
18
0
0 00
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
1 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
00
00
0
0
00
25
1
0
0
0
00
4
0
0
5
0
3
2
0
1
0
9
0 00
00
3
00
41
00 00
00
000
1
0
3
00
6
Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
PM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 2
750 375 188
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 307
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
/
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
Number ST0116 Program STREETS
ESTIMATED COSTS
PRIOR
YEARS
2018-2019
BUDGET 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
FUTURE
YEARS
ESTIMATE TOTALS
9100 $11,280 $91,458 $89,360 $108,440 $300,538
9200 $116,096 $1,214,206 $454,110 $145,050 $1,929,462
9300 $1,980,000 $1,980,000
9400 $48,589 $7,751,411 $7,800,000
9500 $490,000 $490,000
$127,376 $1,305,664 $592,059 $10,474,901 $12,500,000
FUNDING SOURCE
PRIOR
YEARS
2018-2019
BUDGET 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
FUTURE
YEARS
ESTIMATE TOTALS
2201 $200,000 $200,000
2220 $15,254 $84,746 $592,059 $692,059
4301 $112,122 $108,638 $220,760
Road Maint. & Rehab.
Account (RMRA)
TASSAJARA ROAD REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING -
FALLON ROAD TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
2018-2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Salaries & Benefits
Contract Services
Land/Right of Way
Improvements
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
State Gas Tax
Traffic Impact Fee -
Category 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the planning and preliminary engineering to define a new roadway alignment, design cross-section,right-of-way, and environmental clearance for
Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City and Contra Costa County limit. The project also provides for the design and construction of a realigned
Tassajara Road from Fallon Drive to the northern City limit. The design and construction of the southerly Tassajara Road segment, down to North Dublin Ranch Drive, is
included in another Capital Improvement Program, project, Tassajara Road Improvements - North Dublin Ranch Drive to Quarry Lane School.
The project will improve Tassajara Road to a four-lane arterial standard with bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaped median, stormwater treatment areas, and other associated
street improvements. Portions of the existing roadway have been improved by adjacent development projects and this project will complete the street improvements and
realign a portion of existing roadway to improve safety and achieve good circulation while adhering to the Complete Streets Policy. The roadway segment is a project within
both the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan (Project B-8) and the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact (Category 1) Fee Program. Design and
construction of the realigned roadway will be coordinated with Contra Costa County.
ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT:TBD
MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 308
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
C
I
P
S
T
0
1
1
6
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
FUNDING SOURCE
PRIOR
YEARS
2018-2019
BUDGET 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
FUTURE
YEARS
ESTIMATE TOTALS
4303 $409,263 $409,263
4306 $503,017 $2,000,000 $2,503,017
9998 $8,474,901 $8,474,901
$127,376 $1,305,664 $592,059 $10,474,901 $12,500,000
ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT
TOTAL
Traffic Impact Fee -
Category 3
TVTD
Unidentified
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 309
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
6
.
C
I
P
S
T
0
1
1
6
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y
L
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 3, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Designation of Two City Councilmembers as City Representatives to
Discuss the Contract and Compensation with the City Attorney
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss the appointment of two City Councilmembers to serve as
the City’s representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney’s co ntract, including
compensation, with the City Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Designate two City Councilmembers to discuss the contract and compensation with the
City Attorney.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6, this item provides for the designation of
two members of the City Council as the City’s representatives to discuss terms of the
City Attorney’s contract, including compensation, with the City Attorney. They will report
their recommendation to the City Council in an open session following meetings with the
City Attorney. The last time such a committee was convened was in 2019, and the two
representatives were Cms. Hernandez and Kumagai.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.1
Packet Pg. 310