Loading...
2010/12/07 City Council Resolution 2010-132RESOLUTION NO. 2010-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park proposes to amend the General Plan Circulation Element (the "Project "); WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project and concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared; WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law, the Negative Declaration were circulated for a period of no less than 30 days and a Notice of Intent was published prior to that circulation period in the Community Voice on September 17, 2010; WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing in the Community Voice; WHEREAS, on December 7, 2010, the City Council held a public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify regarding the Initial Study and Negative Declaration; WHEREAS, at the December 7, 2010 public meeting the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposal, both of which are attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Section 21000, et. seq., of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000, et. seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the "CEQA Guidelines "), which govern the preparation, content, and processing of Negative Declarations, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Negative Declaration for the proposed Project: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and all written documentation and public comments prior to making recommendations on the proposed Project; 3. An Initial Study was prepared for the project, and there was no evidence substantial that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared which reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. 4. The Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated, and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 5. The Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete Negative Declaration in compliance with all legal standards; and 6. The documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Council's resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that approval of the project will not result in any significant effects on the environment and no mitigation measures are identified in the Negative Declaration, thus a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is not necessary. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 7th day of December 2010. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Mayor ATTEST: �o.::��R� Clerk ft LNIA BELFORTE: AYE BREEZE: AYE CALLINAN: AYE MACKENZIE: AYE STAFFORD: AYE AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -132 Proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rohnert Park has prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City of Rohnert Park finds that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment without implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the City proposes to adopt this Negative Declaration. PROTECT TITLE: General Plan Transportation Element Amendments LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT: City of Rohnert Park Marilyn Ponton, Planning and Building Manager 130 Avram Avenue City of Rohnert Park, (707) 588 -2231 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 -3126 mp2nton@rl2c4.org PROTECT LOCATION: The proposed General Plan Amendments would remove three planned roadway improvements from the General Plan. These improvements would also be removed from the Public Facility Finance Plan. The improvements affect the following roadway segments: • Golf Course Drive, between Fairway and Country Club Drive, • Commerce Boulevard, between Copeland Creek and Arlen Road; and • The planned extension of Seed Farm Drive between Enterprise Drive and Rohnert Park Expressway. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The project would eliminate currently planned improvements at the above roadway segments. The currently planned improvements include: widening Golf Course Drive to four lanes, widening Commerce Boulevard to four lanes, and extending Seed Farm Drive as a two -lane road. CltyolRolinertPark GeneralP /an TraVjsaortation E/ementAmendments INTMDUCr10N The City of Rohnert Park is considering amending the Transportation Element of the City's General Plan to eliminate three planned roadway improvements. The improvements would also be eliminated from the City's Public Facilities Finance Plan. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rohnert Park is the Lead Agency and must analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments. PRoffia TmE: General Plan Transportation Element Amendments LEAD AGENCY: City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 -3126 CONTACT PERSON: Marilyn Ponton, Planning and Building Manager, City of Rohnert Park (707) 588 -2231 mRqnton ftscity.org PRoiECT LQc KrioN: The proposed amendments affect three roadways in the City of Rohnert Park: • Golf Course Drive - located in the northern portion of the City • Commerce Boulevard - located in the central portion of the City • Seed Farm Drive - located in the central portion of the City Each of the affected roadway segments are indicated in Figure 1 City Roadroay Nehoork. A&jH4 g12'S PARCEL NM1 E: n/a APPLtCAN i City of Rohnert Park OWNER , n/a ,C,F•NERAL PLAN: n/a [NC: n/a ExNG LAND USES: The affected segment of Golf Course Drive, between Fairway and Country Club Drive, is currently a two -lane road. The General Plan identifies a planned widening of this segment to four lanes. The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate this planned widening, leaving Golf Course Drive as a two -lane road. The affected segment of Commerce Boulevard, between Copeland Creek and Arlen Road, is currently a two -lane road. The General Plan identifies a planned widening of this segment to four lanes. The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate this planned widening, leaving Commerce Boulevard as a two -Iane road. The affected segment of Seed Farm Drive is currently vacant land reserved for roadway right -of -way. The General Plan identifies a planned extension of Seed Farm Drive as a two-lane road between Enterprise Drive and Rohnert. Park Expressway. The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate this planned extension. r North Fork Associates Rohnert Park General Plan T'ransparfaftmt Eteutent Autendutent Study 1 September 2010 0 t.0oo 2000 4.000 A', 1-1 O:.1 nl-CW t0 ^ ^, CCnVtl:n! WM— CI—I P— 01. 9— A.Yo.�bna.0""I.W to J!hor mqa mar 0C—, t con:APnq. a." tlalo Iron C- ,,' >� Snrcmn GAS 4?panm ^ni. CPY of P--f P.Y: pMSMd: Sryteinb(r 9, 20t0 Rohnert Park City Limits ,•'. Areas Affected by General Plan Amendment Figure 1 Site & Vicinity Rohmd Pak Sonoma County, CA USGS Base Map: COWL CA 75 mfnWe topogroph"uadnngle Project Description The proposed project is an amendment to the City of Rohnert Park General Plan Transportation Element. The Transportation Element identifies improvements to roadways within the City necessary to accommodate traffic volumes associated with buildout of the General Plan in order to maintain acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). In conjunction with the processing of several development applications, the City has completed detailed analysis of roadway network operations throughout the city and reviewed recent traffic operation analysis completed by Sonoma County. As discussed in the Transportation and Circulation section of this Initial Study, this analysis has shown that current traffic volumes and volumes projected for year 2035 do not warrant construction of three improvements identified in the General Plan. Specifically, the City of Rohnert Park proposes to amend the General Plan Transportation Element to eliminate the following: ❖ Widen Golf Course Drive between Fairway and Country Club, d• Widen Commerce Boulevard from Copeland Creek to Arlen; and Extend Seed Farm Drive from Enterprise to Rohnert Park Expressway. These improvements would also be eliminated from the City's Public Facilities Finance Plan. To implement this General Plan Amendment, the following changes to General Plan text and figures are necessary: -0• Revise Figure 4.1-1 Master Street Plan to eliminate "Proposed" roadway designations for each of the affected segments. This revision is shown on Figure 2 of this Initial Study. ,o Revise Figure 4.1 -2 Traffic Levels of Service Under General PIan Buildout to reflect projected 2035 LOS C for Golf Course Drive (currently shown as LOS A in 2020). This revision is shown on Figure 3 of this Initial Study. •: Revise Table 4.1-4: Roadway Improvements to omit the three improvements that are the subject of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The revised table is shown on Figure 4 of this Initial Study. As discussed in the Initial Study, analysis of future traffic volumes and circulation patterns demonstrates that acceptable LOS will be maintained without construction of these improvements. The affected segment of Golf Course Drive includes existing on- street bicycle lanes on both sides of the street and a six -foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the street. The City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan includes a planned Class I Multi -Use path adjacent to the planned extension of Seed Farm Drive, a planned sidewalk on the west (southbound) side of Commerce Boulevard, an existing Class I Multi-Use path on the west side of Commerce Boulevard, and an existing Class II Bicycle Lane on the east (northbound) side of Commerce Boulevard. The existing and planned paths and sidewalks would not be affected by the proposed elimination of roadway improvements. Required Approvals: The City of Rohnert Park City Council has the authority and discretion to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment. No other permits or approvals from the City or any other agency are required. City of Itoluiert 1'aik General Iilan Transportation Element AmenrfnrcrtI North Fork Associates Initial Study 3 September 20I0 p0' --- Rohncrt Park City Limits �' 'c7• •••••••• Sphere, of Influcllu Rp 20 Year Urban Grtmrth Boundary hNIII, 0 /.aoO 2000 .AW Au mlpr w^ �nlnnUtU ton^ comltlCnt w;m mo G—.I Pfau (1 77- �Utl�lbnd O:I,JaImCn�i 10 O'nCr mops mirytC 1-10 10/ —W—Y. SOM tl:llo I— C—:Y 71 $Jnom -] G'S Ci,y of 7oRnnn Pv:_ P,I.s•e: Spt—w 9. 1010 Exhting(Proposed —•'.• Major Arterial .(4- 6lancs) — ........ Minor Arterial (2 lanes) — ..... Major Collector (4 lanes) . - I - Minor Collector (21ancs) Figure 4.1 -1 Master Street Plan Oiagrom Reviswrm 6n6n0 9/9/10 a Low Um 4.000 Figure 4.1-2 Traffic Levels Of Service Under General Plan Buildout DjogroM RoVsiom: 6116110 919170 [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 4 -151 Table 4.1-4 Roadway Improvements Segment From To Improvement Infill Rohnert Park Expwy Commerce Blvd Redwood Or Widen to 6 lanes US 101 US 101 Crossing State Farm Or Business Park Or New Minor Arterial US 101 Underpass Golf Course Or Wilfred Or New Major Arterial Snyder Ln Southwest Blvd Hinebaugh Creek Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 Seed FaFrA Br EnteFiDdse 9F lanes) Gemmeme Blvd Gelf GeuF se BF Copeland Greek Faipmay BF Arlen Br GeuntFy-GIub DF Meade te'Ma}eF AFteNal- (YAden to 4 F3dG�1@ ♦44 j8F lages4 Eastside Snyder Ln North side of South side of G Upgrade to Major Creekside Middle Section Neighborhood Arterial (widen to 4 School lanes) Rohnert Park Expwy Snyder Ln Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) Petaluma Hill Rd 1,500 feet north of Railroad Avenue Upgrade with Keiser Ave Intersection improvements and turn lanes (remains as 2 lanes, with designation as Minor Arterial). Eleanor Ave 1999 City Limits Rohnert Park Expwy New Minor Collector Keiser Ave Snyder Ln Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Minor Arterial or Major Collector New Linear Park Rd Eleanor Rd North side of SSU New Minor Collector Canon Manor and Southeast East Cotati Ave Bodway Pkwy Petaluma Hill. Rd Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) Bodway Pkwy Camino Collegio Railroad Ave New Major Collector Alice Or Bodway Pkwy Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Minor Collector Sturdevant Or Valley House Rd East Cotati Ave Upgrade to Minor Collector (north of Alice Or) New Minor Collector (south of Alice Or) Initial Study Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Rohnert Park is the Lead Agency preparing this Initial Study to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with elimination of three planned roadway improvements from the General Plan. Eav1roam6wM1F,vclors Pols*�!a //y.4fiecteu! The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards& Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/ Water Emissions Materials Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance ® None Ea vino n m e � ta! D e I e rm In a ti o n. On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 01 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed fn an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. City of R'dmri 11arh Gee ad Plan Tmnslmrtatinnr Elvilent Muerutnient North Fork Dissociates Initial study 7 Serternber 2010 ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measur s that are imp ed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date: Printed Name: Mari t n P n For: Ci!y of Rohnert Park Eva1Z6M0n 0fE17Y1r0nmen&1h77j Cis- Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I. AESTHETICS — Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views (] ❑ ❑ in the area? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. No scenic vistas or scenic resources would be affected. No changes to visual character of the areas surrounding each roadway would occur. No new sources of light or glare would be created. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES — Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning ❑ ❑ ❑ Cihj of Rohnert Park General Plan Transportation Element Amendment North Fork Associates Initial Study 8 September 2010 of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non - forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the City of Rohnert Park, and the proposed amendment would have no effect on agricultural or forestry resources and activities. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less. Than signifkant Mitigation signiticam No III. AIR QUALITY — impact ineorperated impact impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? ' b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. Analysis of the effect elimination of these improvements would have on city traffic circulation and LOS was prepared by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans). The analysis, which is attached to this Initial Study, found that acceptable LOS would be maintained on city roadway segments and at city intersections. The W Trans analysis is discussed in more detail in Section XVI Transportation and Circulation of this Initial Study. City of Rolnrert Hark Cmnwt Plon 77ransportation Element Amendment North Fork Associates What Study 9 September 20]0 The City's General Plan establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable LOS for most roadways and intersections within the City. The W Trans analysis projects traffic volumes for year 2035 and finds that none of the three improvements are necessary to ensure future acceptable operations for vehicular travel. Specific findings of the W -Trans analysis include: y LOS C would be maintained on Golf Course Drive in its, current two -lane configuration.. Vehicle speeds in 2035 would be less than the 2020 projections for buildout of the General Plan, which anticipates LOS A on this roadway segment. :• LOS C would be maintained on Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Arlen Drive in its current two -lane configuration, consistent with the 2020 projections for buildout of the General Plan. Vehicle speeds would decrease slightly compared to existing conditions (from 22.4 miles per hour to 21.9 miles per hour). LOS at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard at Enterprise Drive would also be maintained at acceptable Ievels. LOS C or better would be maintained on roadway segments and at intersections in the vicinity of the Seed Farm Drive extension that is proposed to be eliminated from the General Plan. The analysis included the intersections of State Farm Drive at Rohnert Park. Expressway, State Farm Drive at Enterprise Drive and Seed Farm Drive at Southwest Boulevard. Delay at each intersection would decrease compared to existing conditions, the LOS at one intersection would decrease in the PM peak hour while the LOS at the other intersections would not change from existing conditions. Elimination of the three affected improvements would not substantially increase traffic congestion in the City compared to existing conditions and compared to roadway LOS projected at buildout of the General Plan. The proposed General PIan Amendment does not include any construction of land uses or infrastructure and the project would not generate any new traffic trips. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in substantial increases in air pollutant emissions from motor vehicle use or any permanent or temporary increase in air pollutant emissions associated with construction or energy use, would not generate substantial pollutant concentrations affecting sensitive receptors, and would not generate any odors. 4 Less Than Significant potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Impact incorporated Impact impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish City,!fRohne ParkCencmlt' Ian' rrnnsportationT :kumntArrrendrrrent North Fork Associates initial Study 70 Seplendw 2010 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. No biological resources,.including habitats, special - status species, and federally protected wetlands, would be affected. Wildlife movement and nursery sites would not be affected. The proposed Amendments would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any conservation plans. Less Than Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Significant Mitigation Significant No IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Impact Incorporated impact impact Would the project: Less Than and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑. No protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CULTURAL RESOURCES — Impact Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, Impact marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other a) means? ❑ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, c) regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. No biological resources,.including habitats, special - status species, and federally protected wetlands, would be affected. Wildlife movement and nursery sites would not be affected. The proposed Amendments would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any conservation plans. City of &4n 7t Paik Genera! Plan Tmn,s ,vtation Eicnzent Arneiuhmnt North Fork Associates Initial Study 11 September 2070 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Significant E No V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Impact incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064:5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? City of &4n 7t Paik Genera! Plan Tmn,s ,vtation Eicnzent Arneiuhmnt North Fork Associates Initial Study 11 September 2070 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. No historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources would be affected. No human remains would be disturbed. Less Than Significant Potentially with less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Impact Incorporated impact Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist -Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ topsoil? z c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ❑ or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table98- ❑ 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (9994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? =N —JEWN ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑. 0. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. The project would not expose people or structures to any risks associated with seismic activity, landslides, soil stability, or expansive soils. The project would have no effects related to loss of topsoil, increased erosion, or use of septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. ���I�Ii�I�IYgM��f City of Rohnert Park General Plan Transportation Element Amendment WV rlh Fork Associates h:itinl Study 72 September 2010 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. As discussed in Section III Air Quality of this Initial Study, elimination of the three affected improvements would not substantially increase traffic congestion in the City and would not generate any new traffic trips. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle use or any permanent or temporary increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction or energy use. Lass Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Vill. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Significant Would the project: a) Potentially with Less Than environment through the routine transport, use, or VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Significant impact MINgation incorporated significant impact No impact Would the project: environment through reasonably foreseeable upset . a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials into the environment? or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, emissions of greenhouse gases? the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. As discussed in Section III Air Quality of this Initial Study, elimination of the three affected improvements would not substantially increase traffic congestion in the City and would not generate any new traffic trips. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle use or any permanent or temporary increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction or energy use. stud,/ Ainernhnunt 13 Fork Associates Sc,phniher 2010 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Vill. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — significant Mitigation significant I Npoct Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ Cl ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset . and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed d) school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, stud,/ Ainernhnunt 13 Fork Associates Sc,phniher 2010 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. The project would not result in any use, transport, storage, or emissions of hazardous materials. No construction would occur on any site included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The project would not have any effect on air travel or safety related to airports and airstrips. As discussed above in Section III Air Quality and below in Section XVI Transportation and Circulation, acceptable traffic operations would be maintained in the City without construction of the three improvements, therefore the project would have no effect on implementation of any emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would have no effect on potential risks associated with wildland fires. Less Than Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant No Significant Mitigation Significant pa Impact incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: Potentially With Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Significant mp t pa Impact impact Would the project: such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer would the project result in a safety hazard for level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby people residing or working in the project area? existing land uses or planned uses for which g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or the course of a stream or river, in a manner which emergency evacuation plan? off -site? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, North Fork Associates What Study 14 Selrtenrher 2010 including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment. The project would not result in any use, transport, storage, or emissions of hazardous materials. No construction would occur on any site included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The project would not have any effect on air travel or safety related to airports and airstrips. As discussed above in Section III Air Quality and below in Section XVI Transportation and Circulation, acceptable traffic operations would be maintained in the City without construction of the three improvements, therefore the project would have no effect on implementation of any emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would have no effect on potential risks associated with wildland fires. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IX. — No Significant Mitigation Significant pa Impact incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ❑ ED the site or area, including through the alteration of City of Rohnert Park General Plan Trenstrortation Etrurerrt Miendrn+ent North Fork Associates What Study 14 Selrtenrher 2010 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment, and there is no potential for a.violation of waste discharge requirements associated with the project. The project would have no effect on water quality, wastewater treatment and disposal, stormwater runoff and drainage, flooding, and risks of seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Potentially Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY = Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated significant ik No Impact Impart Would the project: the course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ 0 1Z increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a ❑ ❑ ❑ manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment, and there is no potential for a.violation of waste discharge requirements associated with the project. The project would have no effect on water quality, wastewater treatment and disposal, stormwater runoff and drainage, flooding, and risks of seiche, tsunami or mudflow. City pf Rohnert Perk Ceneral Plan Tmns)>ormd nr Element Anienthneirt North Fork Associates Initial Study 1s September 2010 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ 0 1Z b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? City pf Rohnert Perk Ceneral Plan Tmns)>ormd nr Element Anienthneirt North Fork Associates Initial Study 1s September 2010 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No changes to existing or planned land uses would occur as a result of the General Plan Amendment and no construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur. The project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations related to avoiding or mitigating environmental effects and would not conflict with any conservation plans. Less Than significant Potentially sig��nt With Mitigation Less Than ��� No XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. The project would have no effect related to mineral resources. Less Than significant Potentlally With Less Than No significant XII. NOISE— mpact incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ ❑ ❑ in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ED groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels. in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,. ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 61yof Rol�nert park Genera! Plea "1'ranslwrtation Element Amendment North fierk Assecintes initial Study 16 September 2010 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The project would not increase traffic generation in the City and would not increase noise Ievels in the area. Lass Than Significant Potentially With Less Than significant Imp XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Impact Mitigation incorporated significant impa No Impact Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ Cl either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed General PIan Amendment. The project would have no effect on population and housing in the City of Rohnert Park. } Less Than significant Potentially With Less Than s t PUBLIC SERVICES — Impact co pSif i poraWd paXIV. impact Impact Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire protection? Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of Cityof ttokr:ert Park Certera! P1ati Tmasjvrtation Element Axrendinent Norttt Fork Associates Initial Study 17 September 2010 the proposed General Plan Amendment. As discussed above in Section III Air Quality and Less Than below in Section XVI Transportation and Circulation, acceptable traffic operations would be significant maintained in the City without construction of the three improvements, therefore the project Potentially with Less Than would not affect response times for public service providers. The project would have no effect Significant orpo t significant pa Impact Incorporated Impact Impact on provision of public services in the City of Rohnert Park. Less Than ❑ ❑ ❑ significant Potentiatty with Less Than XV. RECREATION — significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The project would have no effect on existing or planned recreation facilities or the demand for recreation facilities in the City of Rohnert Park. Ciiy of Rohneri Park Genera! Plan Transtartation Efeurent An+endruent North Fork Associates Initki Study is Sepfankr 2010 Less Than significant Potentially with Less Than XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — Significant orpo t significant pa Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy ❑ ❑ ❑ establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ ® ❑ program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ Cl ® . either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Ciiy of Rohneri Park Genera! Plan Transtartation Efeurent An+endruent North Fork Associates Initki Study is Sepfankr 2010 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Q Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ion The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. The City's General Plan establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable LOS for most roadways and intersections within the City. The W -Trans analysis projects traffic volumes for year 2035 and finds that none of the three improvements are necessary to ensure future acceptable operations for vehicular travel. Table 1 identifies the projected traffic operations in the vicinity of each of the improvements proposed to be eliminated from the General Plan and the Public Facilities Finance Plan. The table uses available data and the W -Trans analysis to compare traffic operations under existing conditions, projected at buildout of the General Plan in 2020, and projected under the proposed General Plan Amendment in 2035. All traffic operations under the proposed General Plan Amendment would meet the General Plan standard of maintaining LOS C. W Trans did not calculate existing LOS for Golf Course Drive. Projected 2020 LOS for the intersections evaluated in the W -Trans analysis is not provided in the General Plan. LOS for State Farm Drive was not calculated in the W -Trans analysis but the average daily traffic (ADT) were evaluated under existing and 2035 conditions. Current ADT for this roadway is 8,150 vehicles. The projected ADT in 2035 is 10,550. This volume is "considered appropriate for a two -lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections" (W Trans 2010). In addition, the existing segments of Seed Farm Drive and State Farm Drive "would be expected to operate acceptable under future conditions without the Seed Farm Drive extension because all of the study intersections in the vicinity are projected to operate at acceptable LOS (W Trans 2010). Table 1: Proiected Traffic Operations Location Less Than Existing Conditions General Plan Buildout 2020 Significant Roadway Segments Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation ' Significant Irnpact incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl ion The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. The City's General Plan establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable LOS for most roadways and intersections within the City. The W -Trans analysis projects traffic volumes for year 2035 and finds that none of the three improvements are necessary to ensure future acceptable operations for vehicular travel. Table 1 identifies the projected traffic operations in the vicinity of each of the improvements proposed to be eliminated from the General Plan and the Public Facilities Finance Plan. The table uses available data and the W -Trans analysis to compare traffic operations under existing conditions, projected at buildout of the General Plan in 2020, and projected under the proposed General Plan Amendment in 2035. All traffic operations under the proposed General Plan Amendment would meet the General Plan standard of maintaining LOS C. W Trans did not calculate existing LOS for Golf Course Drive. Projected 2020 LOS for the intersections evaluated in the W -Trans analysis is not provided in the General Plan. LOS for State Farm Drive was not calculated in the W -Trans analysis but the average daily traffic (ADT) were evaluated under existing and 2035 conditions. Current ADT for this roadway is 8,150 vehicles. The projected ADT in 2035 is 10,550. This volume is "considered appropriate for a two -lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections" (W Trans 2010). In addition, the existing segments of Seed Farm Drive and State Farm Drive "would be expected to operate acceptable under future conditions without the Seed Farm Drive extension because all of the study intersections in the vicinity are projected to operate at acceptable LOS (W Trans 2010). Table 1: Proiected Traffic Operations Location PM Peak Hour LOS (Delay) Existing Conditions General Plan Buildout 2020 Amended General Plan 2035 Roadway Segments Golf Course Drive between Fairway and Country Club Drive _ A C Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest C C C City of Rohnert Park Qneral Pion 77i'Por1a1ion Fleeter t Awndnrent North Fork Associates Initial Study 79 Soptemher 2010 EIimination of the three affected improvements would not substantially increase traffic congestion in the City compared to existing conditions and compared to roadway LOS projected at buildout of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not include any construction of land uses or infrastructure and the project would not generate any new traffic trips. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not alter air traffic patterns, create roadway PM Peak Hour LOS (Delay) Location Existing General Plan Amended General Conditions Buildout 2020 Plan 2035 Boulevard Significant Seed Farm Drive between potentially with Enterprise and Rohnert Park n/a A n/a Expressway Would the project: Intersections Commerce Boulevard /Enterprise B (10.2) __ B (10.8) Drive Rohnert Parts Expressway /State C (30.4) -- C (34.3) Farm Drive Enterprise Drive/State Farm Drive B (13.4) -- C(19.5) Seed Farm Drive/Southwest B (18.8) B (19.2) Boulevard ❑ ❑ ❑ EIimination of the three affected improvements would not substantially increase traffic congestion in the City compared to existing conditions and compared to roadway LOS projected at buildout of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not include any construction of land uses or infrastructure and the project would not generate any new traffic trips. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not alter air traffic patterns, create roadway safety hazards, interfere with emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. toss Than Significant potentially with Less Than XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated significant impact Impact Would the project: a} Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ Q wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the City of Rohnert Park General hhm Transportation Eleulenf AweniWent North Fork Associates Initial stu'ty 20 September 2070 The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment, and the project would not increase demands for wastewater treatment or water supply. The project would also not increase stormwater runoff in. the City, thus it would not require construction of any new stormwater drainage facilities. The project would not increase solid waste generation or alter current solid waste disposal practices or facilities. Less Than Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than XV1II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Significant a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the Potentially with Less Than wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining XViI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact impact Would the project: important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? project that it has adequate capacity to serve the b) Does the project have impacts that are individually Cl ❑ ❑ z limited, but cumulatively considerable? projects projected demand in addition to the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past provider's existing commitments? projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? The proposed General Plan Amendment would eliminate three planned roadway improvements. No construction of any land uses or infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed amendment, and the project would not increase demands for wastewater treatment or water supply. The project would also not increase stormwater runoff in. the City, thus it would not require construction of any new stormwater drainage facilities. The project would not increase solid waste generation or alter current solid waste disposal practices or facilities. The analysis presented in sections I through XVII of this Initial Study indicate that the project would slightly increase traffic congestion in the vicinity of each of the three improvements City of Kohnert Pork Cnaeral plan T'.=M tation 86ent Amendment North Fork Associates Initial Study 21 September 2070 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than XV1II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Impact Significant Incto cant Significant Ip t Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually Cl ❑ ❑ z limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The analysis presented in sections I through XVII of this Initial Study indicate that the project would slightly increase traffic congestion in the vicinity of each of the three improvements City of Kohnert Pork Cnaeral plan T'.=M tation 86ent Amendment North Fork Associates Initial Study 21 September 2070 proposed to be eliminated from the General Plan and the Public Facilities Finance PIan. However, acceptable LOS would be maintained on all area roadways and at all intersections. While the increased congestion may slightly degrade the existing environment, this impact would be less than significant. The project would have no effect on biological, archeological, or historic resources, would have no effects that are cumulatively considerable, and would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Gity ojRolrnert Park Cenral Plan Tran.-portation Element Amendment North Foci: Jlssociat�s initial Stu'f11 22 Sephinber 2010 REFERENCES All reference materials are available for review at the City of Roltnert Park. Dyett and Bhatia, City of Rohnert Park General Plan, July 2000. Dyett and Bhatia, Rohnert Park General Plan Final EIR, July 2000. Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans), Analysis of the Need for Future Widening of Golf Course Drive, June 25, 2009. Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans), Review of Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Road Projects, March 19, 2010. A77A01AONTS Attachment A: W -Trans Analysis of the Need for Future Widening of Golf Course Drive Attachment B: W -Trans Review of Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Road Projects City of Roloreit Park nterahnertf North Fork Associates tnitial Shutt' 23 September 2010 w -trans Analysis of the Need for Future Widening of Golf Course Drive Dear Mr. Bendorff; As requested, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans) has completed an evaluation to determine the need to provide four lanes on the entire length of Golf Course Drive to maintain acceptable operation under future volumes. The corridor currently includes four through lanes (two lanes in each direction) along most of its length, with the exception of a 0.65 -mile segment along Foxtail Golf Club between Fern Place and Country Club Drive, where the street includes one travel lane in each direction. The Rohnert Park General Plan indicates that Golf Course Drive will be widened to become a continuous four -lane Major Arterial. Methodology The performance of Golf Course Drive was measured by considering the anticipated future traffic volumes on the street upon buildout of the Rohnert Park and Sonoma County General Plans, comparing these to the calculated capacity of the roadway assuming that no widening takes place, translating these values into a roadway level of service (LOS), and determining whether or not the projected LOS meets the City's minimum standard of LOS C. The Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 (HCM), contains several analysis methodologies for roadways. The planning application of the "Urban Streets" methodology was determined to be most appropriate for the Golf Course Drive capacity analysis. The HCM indicates that the planning methodology is most appropriate when estimates of capacity and LOS are needed for longer -term planning horizons. The method bases urban street LOS on average travel speeds considering the length of the corridor and number of lanes, characteristics of traffic signals on the study segment, and whether turn pockets exist at intersections. The study segment of Golf Course Drive would be considered a Class it Arterial according to HCM criteria. Class II arterials include suburban arterials with a relatively low density of driveways and access points, free - flow speeds of 35 to 45 mph, paved shoulders, no parking, medium density development, and between one and five traffic signals per mile. As described in the HCM, different arterial classifications have different free flow travel speeds and, hence, different Level of Service speeds. For a Class II arterial to be operating at LOS C or better, the average travel speed must be greater than 22 miles per hour (mph). Average speeds greater than 17 mph indicate LOS D operation. VVWdodc & wdnbergor Tramporudm Inc. June 25, 2009 490 Mendocino Avenue she 201 Santa Rosa, CA 85401 Mr. Ron Bendorff voice 707.54z9M fax City of Rohnert Park wen www.w•tr�s.cwn we www.w.tnm.com 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Analysis of the Need for Future Widening of Golf Course Drive Dear Mr. Bendorff; As requested, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans) has completed an evaluation to determine the need to provide four lanes on the entire length of Golf Course Drive to maintain acceptable operation under future volumes. The corridor currently includes four through lanes (two lanes in each direction) along most of its length, with the exception of a 0.65 -mile segment along Foxtail Golf Club between Fern Place and Country Club Drive, where the street includes one travel lane in each direction. The Rohnert Park General Plan indicates that Golf Course Drive will be widened to become a continuous four -lane Major Arterial. Methodology The performance of Golf Course Drive was measured by considering the anticipated future traffic volumes on the street upon buildout of the Rohnert Park and Sonoma County General Plans, comparing these to the calculated capacity of the roadway assuming that no widening takes place, translating these values into a roadway level of service (LOS), and determining whether or not the projected LOS meets the City's minimum standard of LOS C. The Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 (HCM), contains several analysis methodologies for roadways. The planning application of the "Urban Streets" methodology was determined to be most appropriate for the Golf Course Drive capacity analysis. The HCM indicates that the planning methodology is most appropriate when estimates of capacity and LOS are needed for longer -term planning horizons. The method bases urban street LOS on average travel speeds considering the length of the corridor and number of lanes, characteristics of traffic signals on the study segment, and whether turn pockets exist at intersections. The study segment of Golf Course Drive would be considered a Class it Arterial according to HCM criteria. Class II arterials include suburban arterials with a relatively low density of driveways and access points, free - flow speeds of 35 to 45 mph, paved shoulders, no parking, medium density development, and between one and five traffic signals per mile. As described in the HCM, different arterial classifications have different free flow travel speeds and, hence, different Level of Service speeds. For a Class II arterial to be operating at LOS C or better, the average travel speed must be greater than 22 miles per hour (mph). Average speeds greater than 17 mph indicate LOS D operation. Mr. Ron Bendorff Page 2 June 25, 2009 Traffic Projections Future traffic volume projections were obtained from the Sonoma County Travel Model (SCTM /07), which is maintained by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). The SCTA provided W -Trans with the most recently available modeling data as of May 2009. The SCTM/07 model includes traffic projections for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours upon buildout of all development anticipated to take place by the year 2035 throughout the City of Rohnert Park and Sonoma County. The SCTM /07 model projections were checked and adjusted as necessary to ensure that traffic associated with the Graton Rancheria Casino and Hotel, Northeast Specific Plan, Wilfred - Dowdell Specific Plan, Stadium Area Specific Plan, and proposed Walmart expansion (all located within 1.5 miles of the Golf Course Drive study segment) are accurately represented. By the year 2035, traffic volumes on the study segment are projected to increase by approximately 31 percent over levels present in 2009. Factors Affecting Capacity The capacity of an urban street is heavily influenced by the intersections along its length. Corridors with numerous intersections and driveways have lower capacities than corridors with few access points. On streets with one through lane in each direction, the presence of turn pockets also plays a major role in capacity. streets without turn pockets (particularly left turn pockets) and frequent turn activity have substantially lower capacities since turning vehicles can temporarily block through movements. Finally, the number and efficiency of signalized intersections on an urban street will also affect capacity. Arterial streets with numerous traffic signals, and in particular streets that cross other arterials at signals, typically have lower capacities than corridors with fewer signals. The existing two -lane segment of Golf Course Drive is situated in a favorable environment to maintain through traffic capacity. The presence of the Foxtail Golf Club course along the south side of the street permanently limits the amount of cross - traffic that can be expected. Further, only two streets intersect the northern side of the two -lane study segment, and both intersections include 150 -foot long left turn pockets that remove left- turning vehicles from the through traffic stream. Additional access points on the north side of the street are unlikely since the area is already built -out with single - family homes. The two -lane segment of Golf Course Drive includes no traffic signals, and widens to four through lanes (two lanes in each direction) at the signals flanking the segment at Fairway Drive and Country Club Drive. This pattern conforms to the "wide nodes, narrow roads' philosophy, which highlights the fact that roadway capacity is generally needed at intersections rather than on the connecting links. Operational Analysis Operating conditions on the two-lane study segment of Golf Course Drive were assessed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in the year 2035. Consideration was given in the analysis to the highest - volume travel direction, which is westbound during the a.m. peak hour and eastbound during the p.m. peak hour. A summary of the projected travel speeds and levels of service is provided in the following table. Mr. Ron Sendorff Page 3 June 25, 2009 Year 2035 Level of Service Summary for Golf Course Drive Note: Results based on "Urban Streets" planning methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual. 2000 The analysis indicates that the current configuration of Golf Course Drive can adequately accommodate future traffic volumes at LOS C during both peak hours. The City's LOS C standard would therefore be met. While acceptable LOS C operation is expected in the future, the projected travel speeds are near to the LOS CID threshold of 22.0 mph. For this reason, the City may wish to adopt a standard of LOS D for Golf Course Drive as part of the General Plan Amendment process. The revised LOS standard would allow the City greater flexibility in balancing the need to widen the street with the associated costs, potential side - effects of higher vehicle speeds, and potential effects on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation The two -lane segment of Golf Course Drive includes continuous on- street bicycle lanes that link to the regional bicycle network Pedestrian circulation is accommodated by a six -foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the street, which is separated from travel lanes by a landscaped buffer. The Foxtail Golf Club course is located on the south side of the street and has limited pedestrian traffic other than those playing on the course. The current cross - section of Golf Course Drive effectively accommodates all users including bicyclists and pedestrians. No additional roadway widening is necessary to accommodate these modes of travel. The two -lane configuration of the street helps to regulate vehicle speeds since slower drivers effectively set the pace of vehicle travel. As long as significant traffic congestion does not occur, this regulation of vehicle speeds may be considered a safety benefit to bicyclists and pedestrians. Conclusions and Recommendations The two-lane segment of Golf Course Drive is projected to adequately accommodate future traffic volumes, with operation anticipated to be in the low LOS C range during both the am. and p.m. peak hours. • As part of a General Plan Amendment changing the designation of Golf Course Drive to a minor arterial the City may wish to adopt an LOS D standard for the corridor in order to maintain maximum design flexibility into the future. •, The two -lane segment of Golf Course Drive includes on- street bicycle lanes and a sidewalk separated from the street by a landscaped buffer. Additional roadway widening is not needed to accommodate bicycle or pedestrian circulation. Direction Volume Average Travel Speed LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Westbound Eastbound 908 1.068 22.7 22.1 C C Note: Results based on "Urban Streets" planning methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual. 2000 The analysis indicates that the current configuration of Golf Course Drive can adequately accommodate future traffic volumes at LOS C during both peak hours. The City's LOS C standard would therefore be met. While acceptable LOS C operation is expected in the future, the projected travel speeds are near to the LOS CID threshold of 22.0 mph. For this reason, the City may wish to adopt a standard of LOS D for Golf Course Drive as part of the General Plan Amendment process. The revised LOS standard would allow the City greater flexibility in balancing the need to widen the street with the associated costs, potential side - effects of higher vehicle speeds, and potential effects on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation The two -lane segment of Golf Course Drive includes continuous on- street bicycle lanes that link to the regional bicycle network Pedestrian circulation is accommodated by a six -foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the street, which is separated from travel lanes by a landscaped buffer. The Foxtail Golf Club course is located on the south side of the street and has limited pedestrian traffic other than those playing on the course. The current cross - section of Golf Course Drive effectively accommodates all users including bicyclists and pedestrians. No additional roadway widening is necessary to accommodate these modes of travel. The two -lane configuration of the street helps to regulate vehicle speeds since slower drivers effectively set the pace of vehicle travel. As long as significant traffic congestion does not occur, this regulation of vehicle speeds may be considered a safety benefit to bicyclists and pedestrians. Conclusions and Recommendations The two-lane segment of Golf Course Drive is projected to adequately accommodate future traffic volumes, with operation anticipated to be in the low LOS C range during both the am. and p.m. peak hours. • As part of a General Plan Amendment changing the designation of Golf Course Drive to a minor arterial the City may wish to adopt an LOS D standard for the corridor in order to maintain maximum design flexibility into the future. •, The two -lane segment of Golf Course Drive includes on- street bicycle lanes and a sidewalk separated from the street by a landscaped buffer. Additional roadway widening is not needed to accommodate bicycle or pedestrian circulation. Mr. icon Bendorff Page 4 June 25, 2009 We hope this information will useful to Staff and decision makers as the City considers adoption of a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of Golf Course Drive. Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this work. Sincer y, ck Matley, AICP Senior Transportation Planner JZMIRPA05611 Enclosure: LOS Calculation Worksheets HCS +: Urban Streets Release 5.4 W -Trans 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Phone: (707) 542-9500 Fax: (707} 592 -9590 E -Mail: Analyst: Agency /Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Urban Street: Direction of Travel: Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: Project ID: RPA056 PLANNING ANALYSIS zm W -Trans 6/23/2009 AM Peak Hour Golf Course Drive Westbound Rohnert Park 2035 Buildout Traffic Characteristics Annual average daily traffic, AADT 17640 vpd Planning analysis hour factor, K 0.092 Directional distribution factor, D 0.560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.920 Adjusted saturation flow rate 1760 pcphgpl Percent turns from exclusive lanes 65 % Roadway Characteristics___ Number of through lanes one direction, N 1 Free flow speed, FFS 40 Urban class 2 Section length 0.71 Median No Left -turn bays Yes Signal Characteristics Signalized intersections 2 Arrival type, AT 3 Signal type (k = 0.5 for planning) Actuated Cycle length, C 90.0 Effective green ratio, g/C 0.420 Results sec mph miles Annual average daily traffic, AADT 17640 vpd Two -way hourly volume 1622 vph Hourly directional volume 908 vph Through - volume 15 -min. flow rate 345 v Running time 70.1 sec v/c ratio 0.49 Through capacity 701 vph Progression factor, PF 1.000 Uniform delay 19.1 sec Filtering /metering factor, I 0.864 Incremental delay 2.1 sec Control delay 21.2 sec /v Total travel speed, Sa 22.7 mph Total urban street LOS C HCS +: Urban Streets Release 5.4 W -Trans 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Phone: (707) 542 -9500 Fax: (707) 542 -9590 E -Mail: PLANNING ANALYSIS Analyst: Agency /Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Urban Street: Direction of Travel: Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: Project ID: RPA056 zm W -Trans 6/23/2009 PM Peak Hour Golf Course Drive Eastbound Rohnert Park 2035 Buildout Traffic Characteristics Annual average daily traffic, AADT 17640 vpd Planning analysis hour factor, K 0.101 Directional distribution factor, D 0.600 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.920 Adjusted saturation flow rate 1760 pcphgpl Percent turns from exclusive lanes 65 % _Roadway Characteristics Number of. through lanes one direction, N 1 Free flow speed, FFS 40 mph Urban class 2 Section length 0.71 miles Median No Left -turn bays Yes Signal Characteristics________ Signalized intersections 2 Arrival type, AT 3 Signal type (k = 0.5 for planning) Actuated Cycle length, C 90.0 sec Effective green ratio, g/C 0.420 - -- _— --------- - - - - -- Results - - - —_ _ Annual average daily traffic, AADT 17640 vpd Two -way hourly volume 1.781 vph Hourly directional volume 1068 vph Through - volume 15 -min. flow rate 406 v Running time 70.1 sec v/c ratio 0.58 Through capacity 701 vph Progression factor, PF 1.000 Uniform delay 20.0 sec Filtering /metering factor, I 0.789 Incremental delay 2.7 sec Control delay 22.8 sec /v Total travel speed, Sa 22.1 mph Total urban street LOS C w -tra n s Review of Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Road Projects Dear Mr. Barnes; Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans) has performed an evaluation to determine whether two roadway improvement projects identified in the City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) would be necessary in the future from a traffic capacity perspective. The projects include the extension of Seed Farm Drive between Rohnert Park Expressway and Enterprise Drive, and the widening of Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest Boulevard. The heed for these projects was evaluated based on projected future traffic volumes developed through use of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) travel demand model. Background In 2006 the City of Rohnert Park adopted an Updated Public PFFP which outlines a comprehensive strategy for managing the costs of capital facilities, maintenance and services that are impacted by new development Since this update, the need for two projects has come into question: the extension of Seed Farm Drive between Rohnert Park Expressway and Enterprise Drive, including construction of a roadway with two travel lanes and two bike lanes together with installation of traffic signals at each end of the segment, and the widening of Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest Boulevard to include four travel lanes, two bike lanes and a median with traffic signal improvements at the two existing traffic signals mid - segment. Information about and locations of the two projects are shown on the enclosed PFFP Figures 2.1 and 2.3. The applied thresholds of significance for traffic impacts associated with not doing these projects were based on those included in the Revised Draft EIR for the Rohnert Park General Plan, as well as thresholds contained in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Specifically, elimination of these projects from the PFFP would create a significant traffic circulation impact on intersections if it would result in. failure to maintain Level of Service (LOS) C operation for intersections and segments., Though the General Plan contains some exceptions to the LOS C standard, none of these are within the study area. Study Area The study area, as shown on the enclosed Figure I, includes Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest Boulevard together with the following six intersections: wn�dod� a wea,�er T�v«,. March 19, 2010 490 h4an iocino Avenue sidle 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Patrick Barnes i� 707:94 Mr. 95990 City of Rohnert Park web www.w- Vans•com 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park CA 94928 Review of Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Road Projects Dear Mr. Barnes; Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans) has performed an evaluation to determine whether two roadway improvement projects identified in the City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) would be necessary in the future from a traffic capacity perspective. The projects include the extension of Seed Farm Drive between Rohnert Park Expressway and Enterprise Drive, and the widening of Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest Boulevard. The heed for these projects was evaluated based on projected future traffic volumes developed through use of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) travel demand model. Background In 2006 the City of Rohnert Park adopted an Updated Public PFFP which outlines a comprehensive strategy for managing the costs of capital facilities, maintenance and services that are impacted by new development Since this update, the need for two projects has come into question: the extension of Seed Farm Drive between Rohnert Park Expressway and Enterprise Drive, including construction of a roadway with two travel lanes and two bike lanes together with installation of traffic signals at each end of the segment, and the widening of Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest Boulevard to include four travel lanes, two bike lanes and a median with traffic signal improvements at the two existing traffic signals mid - segment. Information about and locations of the two projects are shown on the enclosed PFFP Figures 2.1 and 2.3. The applied thresholds of significance for traffic impacts associated with not doing these projects were based on those included in the Revised Draft EIR for the Rohnert Park General Plan, as well as thresholds contained in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Specifically, elimination of these projects from the PFFP would create a significant traffic circulation impact on intersections if it would result in. failure to maintain Level of Service (LOS) C operation for intersections and segments., Though the General Plan contains some exceptions to the LOS C standard, none of these are within the study area. Study Area The study area, as shown on the enclosed Figure I, includes Commerce Boulevard between Enterprise Drive and Southwest Boulevard together with the following six intersections: Mr. Patrick Barnes Page 2 March 19, 2010 I . Rohnert Park Expressway /State Farm Drive 2. Enterprise Drive/Commerce Boulevard 3. Enterprise Drive/Hunter Drive 4. Enterprise Drive/State Farm Drive S. Commerce Boulevard /Southwest Drive 6. Southwest Boulevard/Seed Farm Drive Consideration was also given to potential impacts to roadways that would need to accommodate the traffic intended to use the proposed Seed Farm Drive extension. Existing Conditions Turning movement counts for the weekday morning and evening peak travel periods were obtained during December 2009 and February 2010, with the exception of the intersections at Rohnert Park Expressway /State Farm Drive and Commerce Boulevard/Southwest Boulevard, where data was collected in June 2007, as shown on Figure I. In recent years during the economic downturn there has been a consistent trend of traffic volumes staying relatively unchanged or declining, therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to increase or "factor" the 2007 data to reflect 2009 -2010 levels. Traffic volumes were obtained during the morning peak period between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and during the evening peak period between 4:00 p.m, and '6:00 p.m. on typical days while area schools were in session, including Cotati - Rohnert Park Unified School District schools and Sonoma State University. The traffic volume data was used to establish the level of delay and associated LOS utilizing methodologies presented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, published by the Transportation Research Board in 2000. Based upon existing traffic conditions all of the study intersections currently operate acceptably. The intersection LOS calculations are summarized in Table I. The study segment of Commerce Boulevard is also operating acceptably with an average travel speed of 22.4 miles per hour (mph), which is indicative of LOS C operation. Copies of all LOS. calculations are enclosed. Table I Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations Study Intersection Existing Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Future. Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Rohnert Park Expy /State Farm Dr 24.9 C 30.4 C 27.5 C 34.3 C 2. Commerce Dr /Enterprise Dr 5.5 A 10.2 B S.4 A 10.8 B w.......___ -. _.._.__._...._.. ............ ... _ _ 3. Enterprise Dr /Hunter Dr _- -- 7.S - - -- A _ - .......-..._....-.....-_.......... 8.6 A 7.7 ...._ __.__.....__.._.._._........._- A 9.0 ... A _..._ .... .... .......... ... I............. . .. ........ I ....... ............. ............_.. 4. Enterprise Dr /State Farm Dr 9.2 ............................._.._..... A 13.4 B ......................._....... 16.5 C 19.5 ._.._....._... C _.........___. --...__.._.... .._.....- _._ ................. .. 5. Commerce Blvd/Southwest Blvd - - -- - - -- 10.4 ...... _...... B ......... ... _ ......... 18.6 _ ......... C __ ............. 12.9 ....---- B .__...._---- 37.0 -.._ E Plus Roundabout 8.0 A 20.9 C ...._.. ......_...._--------- ............. .._._....._...__.._._..__..._.. 6. Southwest Blvd/Seed Farm Dr --- 12.8 _...... B - ..__.._....... 18.8 ---- B ....._............_.. 16.8 --- B ......._ ...._......._ 19.2 B Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Mr. Patrick Barnes Page 3 March 19, 2010 Future Conditions Future traffic volumes were projected for the overall peak hour based upon existing traffic volumes and the level of growth projected in the Sonoma County Travel Model (SCTM/07), which is maintained by the SCTA, as supplied to W -Trans in May 2009. The model is a mathematical representation of existing main roadways and land uses as well as projects for future land use and roadway networks based upon the City's General Plan. The projected future intersection volumes are shown on Figure 2 and an image of the study area within the model is enclosed. Upon review it was determined that the model did not include the Commerce Boulevard widening nor the Seed Farm Drive extension, so the resulting volumes would reflect conditions if these projects were deleted from the PFFP, as is being considered. Based upon projected future traffic volumes, all of the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably with the exception of Commerce Boulevard/Southwest Boulevard. The study segment along Commerce Boulevard is expected to operate acceptably at LOS C with an average travel speed of 21.9 mph. The intersection results are summarized in Table I and copies of the calculations are enclosed. In the Corridor Improvements Traffic Study completed by W -Trans in November 2008, the intersection of Commerce Boulevard /Southwest Boulevard was studied in detail, with one finding that the intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS E under future conditions. The study included a recommendation that the intersection be converted to a roundabout, which would be expected to improve operations to an acceptable level. This recommendation remains unchanged; it is further recommended that installation of a roundabout at this intersection be added to the PFFP. A single -lane roundabout would be expected to operate acceptably at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. Calculations for conditions with a roundabout are enclosed. PFFP Roadway Improvements Capacity (Evaluation Seed Farm Drivee Extension Regarding vehicular capacity the proposed extension of Seed Farm Drive was not included in the SCTM /07 model. Therefore, traffic volume projections within the model were developed with the underlying assumption that this segment would not exist, and such volumes were dispersed to other vicinity road segments, primarily the nearby parallel road, State Farm Drive. Similarly, future traffic was assumed to utilize other area intersections rather than the non - existent and unplanned intersections of Rohnert Park Expressway /Seed Farm Drive and Enterprise Drive/Seed Farm Drive. These 'other area intersections" include Rohnert Park Expressway/State Farm Drive, Enterprise Drive/State Farm Drive, and Seed Farm Drive/Southwest Boulevard, Since intersections are the locations along a corridor where the majority of turning and crossing movements occur, intersections are predominantly the limiting factor in roadway capacity. Further, the volume of traffic that can be accommodated is generally considerably higher for segments than at the intersections at either end; if the intersections along a segment operate acceptably the connecting segment would typically be expected to operate acceptably as well. Since all of the study intersections in proximity to the Seed Farm Drive extension are projected to operate acceptably under future conditions, as shown in Table I, the existing vicinity segments of State Farm Drive and Seed Farm Drive would be expected to operate acceptably under future conditions; this is true without the Seed Farm Drive extension, given that the model assumptions did not include the extension. Mr. Patrick Barnes Page 4 March 19, 2010 Additionally, the existing and projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on adjacent roadways, as shown on the enclosed Figure 3, are consistent with traffic levels that would be appropriate for each affected type of street. Based upon these considerations it was determined that the Seed Farm Drive extension is not necessary to ensure future acceptable operations for vehicular travel. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle travel, in order to determine if removal of the Seed Farm Drive extension would have any effect, the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, which is part of a Countywide plan, was reviewed. The plan indicates that a Class I Multi -use Path is proposed to connect Seed farm Drive between Enterprise Drive and Rohnert Park Expressway. This path is part of the regional SMART trail that is proposed to run parallel to the railroad. Removal of the Seed Farm Drive extension is not expected to impact plans to build this path. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Most Plan map for Rohnert Park is enclosed. Qmmerce Boulevard Widening between Enternrise Drive and Southwest Boulevard Regarding vehicular capacity, a segment capacity analysis was performed for the existing lane configuration of the study segment of Commerce Boulevard, including single through lanes in each direction. Additional lanes at specific locations were included, such as the southbound left -turn lanes at Enterprise Drive, Avram Avenue and Alison Avenue, and northbound right -turn lane at Alison Avenue. Finally, the stop /yield controls at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard/Southwest Boulevard were considered. It is projected that this segment of Commerce Boulevard will continue to operate acceptably at LOS C with this configuration and future traffic volumes. Because of these projected acceptable operations, the planned widening of this segment appears to be unnecessary from a traffic capacity perspective. It should be noted that the HCM methodology utilized to analyze this segment is recommended for segments of at least one to two miles in length and this segment of Commerce Boulevard is less than one mile, or 0.6 miles in length. However, as with the Seed Farm Drive extension evaluation, if intersections operate acceptably it is expected that the adjacent corridor will also operate acceptably, so it is important that acceptable intersection operations are maintained to ensure acceptable segment operations. For this reason, it is important to reiterate the above recommendation to install a roundabout at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard /Southwest. Boulevard. A single lane roundabout would be expected to provide acceptable intersection operation and maintain acceptable segment operations under future traffic conditions with the existing segment lane configuration. Additionally, as with the Seed Farm Drive extension, the existing and projected ADTs on Commerce Boulevard are within a range that is considered appropriate for a two -lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle travel, currently there is a northbound Class H Bicycle Lane on Commerce Boulevard, and sidewalk exists on the majority of the east side of the segment. There is currently a Class I Multi -use Path on the west side of the street which serves pedestrians and southbound cyclists. The improvements identified in the PFFP include installation of a six-foot bicycle lane for southbound travel, together with a contiguous sidewalk on the west side of the street, which would duplicate the existing conditions for the northbound travel on the east side of the street However, it is unclear if these proposed improvements would replace the existing Class I path or create duplicate southbound facilities. The street cross - section from the PFPP is enclosed. Mr. Patrick Barnes Page S March 19, 2010 It should be noted that the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan shows existing Class I and Class II facilities for this segment. While it appears to be unnecessary to widen Commerce Boulevard for vehicular capacity, it is recommended that pedestrian and bicycle facilities continue to be addressed in the PFFP. Consistency with Recent Environmental Documents As noted above, the SCTM /07 travel demand model does not include either the Seed Farm Drive extension or the widening of Commerce Boulevard. The predecessor to the SCTM /07 model was also reviewed, and it was determined that neither improvement was .included in that model. These two travel demand models have formed the basis for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) traffic analyses that are in- process or have been conducted over the past several years for projects in Rohnert Park, including those for University District, Northeast Area, Southeast Area, Canon Manor, Stadium Area, Sonoma Mountain Village, Walmart, and Wilfred- Dowdell. The traffic analyses conducted for these EIRs would therefore remain valid if the City chooses to remove the Seed Farm Drive extension and Commerce Boulevard widening projects from the PFFP. Conclusions and Recommendations • All study intersections and segment currently operate acceptably. • Based on projected future volumes, all of the study intersections and segment are expected to operate acceptably in their current configurations with the exception of the intersection of Commerce Boulevard /Southwest Boulevard. • A single -lane roundabout at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard/Southwest Boulevard would be expected to operate acceptably under future volumes. A roundabout at this intersection would also allow the Commerce Boulevard segment to the north to operate acceptably without widening. It is therefore recommended that installation of a single -lane roundabout at Commerce Boulevard/Southwest Boulevard be added to the PFFP. • Subject to the installation of a single -lane roundabout at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard/Southwest Boulevard, the Commerce Boulevard widening project may be removed from the PFFP with less- than - significant impacts on vicinity roadways and intersections. • Since all the study intersections in proximity of Seed Farm Drive extension are projected to operate acceptably under future conditions, and given that this extension was not included in regional traffic modeling assumptions, the Seed Farm Drive extension can be removed from the PFFP with less- than-significant impacts on vicinity roadways and intersections. • Removal of the Seed Farm Drive extension from the PFFP is not expected to impact planned bicycle or pedestrian circulation improvements. • It is recommended that bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the study segment of Commerce Boulevard continue to be addressed in future updates to the PFFP. • The traffic projections utilized in ongoing and recent Rohnert Park €IRs utilized the SCTA travel demand model, which does not include either of the two roadway projects that were the focus of Mr. Patrick Barnes Page 6 March 19, 2010 this evaluation. Consequently, the traffic analyses for these EIRs would remain valid should the City remove the two projects from the PFFP. Thank you for contacting W -Trans for these services. Please feel free to call have any questions. Sincerely, v Tony Henderson, EIT Assistant Transportation Engineer /-M0 /WT Mary Jo Yung, P.E., PTOE Associate MJY /tdWRPA907 -20.11 Enclosures: 2006 PFFP — Figures 2.1 and 2.3 Figure I — Study Area and Existing Traffic Volumes Level of Service Calculations Sonoma County Travel Model — Study Area Figure 2 — Future Traffic Volumes Figure 3 — Average Daily Traffic. SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Rohnert Park and Vicinity Map 2006 PFFP — Proposed Commerce Boulevard Cross - section IIIiI t II q Wilfred 1 Dowdell /Specific Plan Area Northwest Specific Pion Area � I! � II fi 110 1 li I i; Wst _,404 NEWS 1 %_, � I ° Lri ,1E W11 it, LEGEND: "Nla " - �� --w -- i. BODWAY PARKWAY 2 Nolwaen Valley Norse Or & Railroad Ave Plan Area r 2 COMMERCE BOULEVARD University Specific Between Enl wise Do & Southwest BWd Plan Area 3. DOWOELL AVENUE Bolweon WWi fred Ave & 750'south o[Wiffred Ave A. OOWOELLAVENUE Between 730' south of Wilfred Ave & Business Park Dr 5. NOT USED I' 8. GOLF COURSE DRIVE [ Between Fei way Or & Country Club Or i 7. KEISER AVE ` Between Snyder Ln & PoWuma !NN Or 8. RONNERiPARKEXPRESSWAY Between Snyder Ln & Potaluma Nit of 0. SEED FARM Behreen RohneA Park Expwy & Enterprise Or 10. SNYDER LANE Between South Side of •G• Soellon & North side of Creek Middle School 11. SNYDER LANE Between South Side of Creek Middle School & Medical Center Dr 12. SNYDER LANE Sehveen Medkal Canter Or & Southwest Blvd 13. WILFRED AVENUE Between 1999 City Limils & Urban Growth Boundary Northeast • I Specific J Plan Area 7 University Specific Plan Area 8 7 —7— Canon Manor Specific Plan Area m I Southeast Specific — Pian Area FIGURE 2.9 Rohnert Park Finance Plan Roadway Improvements Key Map O O Y O Y l t 111 a � M O I N.i O Y• -.71 r u 1. NOT USED 2. BODYWAY PKWY & CAMINO COLLECAO 3. BODWAY PKWY& VALLEY HOUSE DRIVE 4. BODWAY PKWY & RAILROAD AVENUE 5. COMMERCE BLVD & AVRAM AVENUE 6. COMMERCE BLVD & ALISON DRIVE 7. DOWDELL AVENUE & WILFRED AVENUE 8. ELEANOR AVENUE & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY 9. LABATH AVENUE & WILFREO AVENUE 1% PETALUMA HILL RD & KEISER AVENUE 11. PETALUMA HILL RD & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY 12. PETALUMA HILL RD & EAST COTATI AVENUE 13. NOT USED 14. PETALUMA HILL RD & RAILROAO AVENUE 15. REDWOOD DRIVE & WILFRED AVENUE 1& SEED FARM DRIVE & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY 17. SEED FARM DRIVE & ENTERPRISE DRIVE 118. 'SNYDER LANE & ELEANOR AVENUE 19. SNYDER LANE & KEISER AVENUE 20. SNYDER LANE & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY 21. SNYDER LANE & SOUTHWEST BLVD I I f E - - --lf ifir fi fffff ff ifil ff Southeast Specific Plan Area FIGURE 2.3 Rohnert Park Finance Plan Traffic Signal Improvements Key Map ff li h i h14 A North No«^ a, v 4(89) .: N t 173(328); 86(157) i (S f- 126(368) 1 (13) s: (9)4 --- 't t' t g (a r (0)01--+ (122)188 4 L 220(211) (, 72 (98) .(122)46 ..� (162) -� �- 214(249) .1 1. 479(380) 02) 75 99\AC.7 -i IS N t 173(328); j b f- 126(368) .1 t> tro ;c g n co 4 L 220(211) (, 72 (98) .(122)46 ..� (162) -� �- 214(249) .1 1. 479(380) 02) 75 99\AC.7 -i IS N 132(48). e°v�,. °� •— 488(343) .1 t> 97 (153) (154)144 t (645)541 co (122)188 4 L 220(211) (, 72 (98) .(122)46 ..� (162) -� �- 214(249) .1 1. 479(380) 02) 75 99\AC.7 -i IS N 18(79) 48(142) tNrr N �O 4 L 220(211) (, 72 (98) .(122)46 ..� (162) -� �- 214(249) .1 1. 479(380) 02) 75 99\AC.7 -i IS AM Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:25:59 Page 2 -1 AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) RRYf•Rflrlff•f xfRRf f• 1fRrf•f• Rtfft •wfY•wfY <RRlf•i•+*«R•l +tf•lt iR+<+i•Rt «f lfff +ff Intersection #2 Rohnert Park Expwy /State Farm Dr wf.r +.f•••11f r•r +t•f }•1f Yfftetf< f<< w••+f r• ff r!• Yf ; +f +Y•frf < ; ;1<Rax•effrYRf•+e # +< Cycle (sac): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.337 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 24.9 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: C x. +RRYRrRYx % *- - ...•..R }fitYr ;R<R•R >...YfRRf RxR} R... x.......... R xR >fxf Yf R *RR %xR Street Name: State Farm Dr Rohnert Park Expwy Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ t --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Split Phase split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ ( --------------- 11 --------------- il-------------- 1) --------------- I volume Module: Base Vol: 123 80 85 49 73 70 144 541 186 97 488 132 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 123 8o 85 49 73 70 144 541 186 97 488 132 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 123 80 85 49 73 70 144 541 186 97 488 132 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 123 80 85 49 73 70 144 541 186 97 488 132 PCE Adj: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 123 80 BS 49 73 70 144 541 186 97 488 132 ------------ I --------------- ll--------------- 11--------------- II_-- _----------- i Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.82 1.18 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3186 2072 1615 1684 1719 1648 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I--------------- 11-------------=-I 1 -------- ------- II- --------- --- --1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.08 Crit Moves: x + ;; .- R +.f ...r Green /Cycle: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.24 0.47 0.47 0.17 0.40 0.40 Volume /Cap: 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.32 0.34 0.20 Delay /Veh: 37.2 37.2 38.4 39:5 40.2 40.2 32.1 16.7 16.1 37.2 20.9 19.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 37.2 37.2 38.4 39.5 40.2 40.2 32.1 16.7 16.1 37.2 20.9 19.7 LOS by Move: D D D D D D C 8 S D C B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 5 3 5 5 8 11 7 6 11 5 ff r;;+ 4f•r < #.R «. ♦ff++l+•i+ ;a«R4f *; < ;f YR r ;fR #fY ;R1<•Y•R•lff rfftf *ft <RRlf lfflf Rif Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. R%}%> rRrlriiiii. eYR f; RrY;> YYRR* R%%% RYRf}.*I RRR. RR* #RR } ;•RRel; *.lRixRYRYx.r.;R *RR% PM Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:06 Page 2 -1 PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) •#f Rf} t# R•*+} R•* 1RRlrR +ltf•t•Y }•RtltYftt *lRRf•ft +R irf•rRR.}Rf RR #* %xNf #R•!Rf ♦ ++ *> Intersection #1 Rohnert Park Expwy /State Farm Dr +•:•>:< Ytxa•. trtrf fY+• rr•. er•r.> #rf.r.a•errtrrx• »++•.ff +f +e.• +rrre :•f.a.t +ix• %. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.501 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 30.4 Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: C / f•R ♦RRR *R %Rlfl••RR }fRtx *%xR>R1f I•YfftRftRtfY »Rf RRfxkRxxfRR .RY•Yx }YYRR %RYRY *>.+> Street Name: state Farm Dr Rohnert Park. Expwy Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I --------------- It --------------- II--------------- il--------------- 1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:' Include Include Include Include Min. Green: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I --------------- 1)--------------- I I--------------- It--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 190 136 206 83 150 88 154 645 122 153 343 48 Growth Ad5: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 190 136 206 83 150 88 154 645 122 153 343 48 User Adj: 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 190 136 206 83 150 88 154 645 122 153 343 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 190 136 206 83 150 88 154 645 122 153 343 48 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 190 136 206 83 150 88 154 645 122 153 343 48 ------------ I--------------- t i--------------- il--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.75 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.26 D.74 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3068 2196 1615 1708 2154 1263 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- it --------------- lt--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.05 D.07 D.07 0.09 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.03 Crit Moves: *" " ' "* Green /Cycle: 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.28 0.28 volume /Cap: 0.24 0.24 0.50 0.35 D.50 0.50 0.34 0.50 0.21 0.50 0.34 0.11 Delay /Veh: 29.7 29.7 32.8 39.2 40.5 40.5 31.3 25.5 22.6 39.0 29.1 27.0 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 29.7 29.7 32.8 39.2 40.5 40.5 31.3 25.5 22.6 39.0 29.1 27.0 LOS by Move: C C C D D D C C C D C C HCM2k95thQ: 6 6 11 5 8 8 8 16 5 9 9 2 f YfY ++RY <flRR•f•4t•f 1Rf YfYY *tr >RffR +ff Rf•R *i•tifi *Yff t * # # *# # *<.Rx •.RrrYtR %tf <tRf• Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. + +> +> + + * # +r +•l4r4rt1tx•Rfx %Rf xRfx•!R+ #RR >♦tY«RNwRxrRYf xxfxx } >Rt +xrttf xxetf %R•xrx Traffix 7.9.0415 (e) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffic. 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:00 Page 3 -1 AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) # #f Yfff.a> #faR }ftfaf if Rffflf elRfef #>)R.RYRfRRRf..lffif lfi lff RlRlwfifif Rfi.Y. }.f lff lY! Intersection 82 Commerce Dr /Enterprise Dr .wR..f ..f •f.R........ • .f....... «fRYff...e. f «x... • ffff .................. <•• Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vole /Cap. W : 0.200 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 5.5 Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A .f..fffrfffi ** # ... *. *f--t-- ... .... *..*.* ..... I ... xf }.xRV<R # *l*« Street Name: Commerce Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T - R ------------ I ----- ---- - --- -1 1---- - - -•.. --- - -- ) 1- - - - - -. -------- 11---------- ---- -1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 523 62 18 257 0 0 0 0 48 0 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 523 62 i8 257 0 0 D 0 48 0 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj., 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 523 62 18 257 0 0 0 0 48 0 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 523 62 18 257 0 0 0 0 48 0 18 PC£ Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 523 62 18 257 0 0 0. 0 48 0 18 ------------ I --------------- Il--------------- II--------------- ll--------------- ; Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3116 376 1605 3610 0 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- 1I--------------- I)--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: *••• •• •••• Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Volume /Cap: 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.16 Delay /Veh: 0.0 1.9 1.9 46.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 44.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 0.0 1.9 1.9 46.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 44.6 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D A D HCM2k95thQ: 0 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 >ftwf.R•.f.•« <xxt•1f Ye>f f>>** f*#>#> f# f>'***.> t#> Y♦ * * }fx!! #• * # # *R#•.rtY.RR *Y «<fx }R* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. •frw >RYffY.fif.RR xxx xxx» >wR1xw# *RxRf x >1rr# * *fxRfifwNR wf rff rxxRl r�xxxxrfffrf.R >waxx PM Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13 :26:06 Page 3 -1 PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) f1llfffklff tlf }letRRRf Y#} Yff }11f }r. # #ffRfRlxk } }r }RRRrR.f R *'Y#RxfRYf Rf ff.Rlx,.f4f .f Intersection 82 Commerce Dr /Enterprise Dr .}.. f. e.•<. f. e. r. f.. f. ff.. e. rf.... f •Rff...e «.tr*wfr.ffrr•...«f•.rf Cycle (Sec):• 10D Critical Vol. /Cap. m : 0.300 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R =4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 10.2 Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: B > frRRR R* RR*. RR. Yf. YYw *f *R } ............. - *RR.....RYRf RfRRRf RRRYRfwfflw*f....... Street Name: Commerce Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound. west Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T - R - L - T- R L- T- R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 volume Module: Base Vol: 0 656 83 44 592 0 0 0 0 142 0 79 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 '656 83 44 592 0 0 0 0 142 0 79 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 656 83 44 592 0 0 0 0 142 0 79 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 656 83 44 592 0 0 0 0 142 0 79 PCE Adj: 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t4LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 656 83 44 $92 0 0 0 0 142 0 79 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 1I--------------- 11--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.78 0.22 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3150 399 1806 3610 0 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 ------------ 1 --------------- ( i--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sate 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 Crit I-loves: •••• * *•• .•w• Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.08 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.16 volume /Cap: 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:25 0.00 0.30 Delay /Veh: 0.0 5.9 5.9 44.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.0 37.4 User DelAdi: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDal /Veh: 0.0 5.9 5.9 44.4 3.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.0 37.4 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D A D HCM2k95thQ: 0 9 9 3 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 VNf> R. RRf.}. Rf NV*f.*«.t t. RR...... R...* R. RtR* R1rV ••* >Yf #* **•Y ....... f # # } #RR *RfR Mote: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. -It , * *. #*.... ri *.... * * *I* *..xff >ffwRR }R #R #f fRR V•V1NtNN..........VVNVNRNNNRxNR Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to 11- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to N- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA *1 Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:00 Page 4 -1 AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City or Rohnert Park --------------- *-------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ff if lf.} f lffxff•RfYRxffRIf R. RRR .tItf *.f *.ff *Rt44fff.RR.ff•a».f if.f •f R *1R•.f »aRf. Intersection 43 Enterprise Dr /Hunter Dr . Yr•+* ff.• ff• 1ffRlfff. f• f . »ff ♦ ♦ff.fRfli..fa ♦ltffi.Rf.s.f iffYl }f 1f Yf.11f } %fet<RRf Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.093 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average.Delay (sec /veh): 7.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A % * ♦r.••ff * »t #.41•t #YYR1••i4f *tfi tRRRR RRtR*RtRtlttxtf lfeillx*f Rf RRf RxRxYRf YR RlRrkx Street Name: Hunter Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: :forth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L- T- R L- T- R L- T -- R ------------ 1---- ----------- tt--------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 if 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II------- ---- ----II---------- - - --- i volume Module: Base Vol: 1 1 2 43 0 7 4 71 0 1 66 74 Growth Ad5: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 1 2 43 0 7 4 71 0 1 66 74 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume:. 1 1 2 43 0 7 4 71 0 1 66 74 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 1 2 43 0 7 4 71 0 1 66 74 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 1 2 43 0 7 14 71 0 1 66 74 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.DO 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.86 0.00 0.14 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 Final Sat.: 206 206 411 668 0 109 79 1419 0 11 750 894 ------------!--------------- II--------------- II-- ------- ---- -- ti---------- -- -- -I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 xxxx 0.06' 0.05 0.05 xxxx 0.09 0.09 0.08 Crit Moves: %* +f -1. -1 .1.1 Delay /veh: 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.8 0.0 7.8 7.7 7.7 0.0 7.8 7.8 7.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.8 0.0 7.8 7.7 7.7 0.0 7.8 7.8 7.0 LOS by Move: A A A A + A A A * A A A ApproachDel: 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.4 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 f.fRRlf lff * <4t4 *•ffRff *f•1Rf # #f tRf.kr*tf1•R Rf Rf<.RfftffRlta•R <4•f rf RlRR.f »ff R•Rf Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. .. f4ff. fY } #rRll.11.f }Y *1f }t.'..Atl.tt.tf lfYttl..a..f.Y..r.*f.ff. \.lf Yff*1f .t{tR.f P14 Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:07 Page 4 -1 P14 Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Levei Of Service Computation Report 2000 HC14 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) *ff if *f4! *4** * ... *.•kRf %1x.4{.... *.....R. *4hf rtRR.t•taffi R ...................Rf• >, Intersection 03 Enterprise Dr /Hunter Dr ..f ftYfR*tfff**R1xf Rf Rffff.lR..f alRflfff RReRRtfrix.*Y.fR1RRYY41Y1•If Rf * * %RRf R ♦•t Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.188 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +RR4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 8.6 Optimal cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A ffYYY }rx #Rf %fxl.4f.R.ftRf # * *•RR11f Rf itflRffftr }t .1Rf *4R #RR *Rai* ** *f4f * *• »fRr.<RI Street Name: Hunter Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L - T - R L- T - R L- T - R ------------ I--------------- I!--------------- II--------------- II--- --- ---- -----I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 If 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ------------ !--------------- il--------------- lt --------------- il--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 0 1 108 7 15 9 168 0 13 157 69 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 initial See: 2 0 1 108 7 15 9 168 0 13 157 69 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 2 0 1 108 - 15 9 168 0 13 157 69 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 2 0 1 108 7 1$ 9 168 0 13 157 69 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 2 0 1 108 7 15 . 9 168 0 13 157 69 ------------ i--------------- It--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.83 0.05 0.12 0.10 1.90 O.OD 0.11 1.31 0.58 Final Sat.: 450 0 225 576 37 80 70 1317 0 76 946 443 ------------ I --------------- i!--------------- II--------------- t! --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 xxxx 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 xxxx 0.17 0.17 0.16 Crit Moves. »*• *•++ *+•* f..r Delay /Veh: 8.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 0.0 8.8 8.6 8.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 8.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 0.0 8.8 8.6 8.1 LOS by Move: A ' A A A A A A a A A A ApproachDel: 8.0 9.0 8.5 8.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.0 9.0 8.5 8.4 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 tiff.R.R.R *.fR..rlf.f RtR%* RRR. fa f. .RfRRtRRRf %Y.....iRiR *t <xR•a.if Rf lYf t *R <f RRk.r Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. •11.1......1.. 11f.......ft.RR kf %. H . H ........f }f...*- .1 ..... I ..... -A ........ Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffir. 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Existing Thu Feb 11. 2010 13:26:00 Page 5-1 AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -----------------'-------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Spay Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) txf+ x.+ f. f♦ a+ ae<; fr .f ;raxr..xxxR }rt.r>rrra.e. «f.lf arw rw..rxr <ff erfffr•rra <f tr < <« Intersection 04 Enterprise Dr /state Farm Dr xx.a...•+.. <}. w. r... r<•<.« wf;.. fra.• f• f< w< ff R.R.w..•f.we.<.ffef.ff••. «wff.. Cycle (see): « 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. W : 0.284 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (see /veh): 9.2 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A xx. r.+• rrr. ax<e fx.<;..•••• f# w# r.<> w. r ..w..w.•.*xrf #rar <.ef *. +f * < ;..r rw./•w.xxr•x Street. Name: State Farm Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------)--------------- II--------------- if- -------------- 11-- ------- ------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:, Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------------ i--------------- It --------------- i(--------------- II --------------- ! Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 149 0 56 46 89. 0 0 72 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Sse: 0 0 0 149 0 56 46 89 0 0 72 220 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 149 0 56 46 89 0 0 7r 220 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 0 0 0 149 D 56 46 89 0 0 72 220 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 149 0 56 46 89 0 0 72 220 ------------ 1------- -------- I1--------------- il--------------- I.) --------------- t Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0100 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final sat.: 0 0 0 580 0 716 599 654 0 0 672 776 ------------ f --------------- il--------------- i1--------------- ii--------------- i Capacity Analysis Module: VaI /Sat: xxxx xxxx rxvx 0.26 xxxx 0.08 0.08 0.14 xxxx xxxx 0.11 0.28 Crit Moves: Delay /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 7.8 9.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.5 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 7.8 9.0 8.8 0.0. 0.0 8.5 8.9 LOS by Move: * * B A A A * * A A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 9.6 8.9 8.8 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 9.8 8.9 8.8 LOS by Appr: * A A A AliWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 rf<...,.,r... ;..<. }.r #•+ x. w«..w. w. r. ww. r. w. .rf «w• «. « < +r..•«x+. + +f.a. + <.+.. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. r. a..• wf. .aafY..«..Y. <•R.+. +•a...fa.♦•rf af• #f.a..ra >fa }..x +a.a.f aaa..f rrraf Ra. <+ P14 Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:07 Page 5 -1 PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HC14 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) aaa+. af• R.•. a < ... ar .... rx.......a ... .f..14f Y#.... #r/R.. }.x..•+....... ..........• Intersection #4 Enterprise Dr /State Farm Dr .. r.. r... e. e. r.}........ x. w..•# rr.« f++ r.•........ ...f. <..<.f.<.rr+.•r <. ;...Y.... Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.626 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 13.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B r•w+ } + + #; xex; xr..•.. rrx# xxxxxx x« r •xa.xx..RY. <.f.r}• }w. <x ;xwxx.«. •..f xxxx a <..•r.. Street Name: State Farm Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound (vest Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- A ---°°----- I--------------- 11---- --- --------II----- ---- -- --- -11- ------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------------ 1--------------- Il--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 339 0 144 122 162 0 0 98 211 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 '339 0 144 122 162 0 0 98 211 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 339 . 0 144 122 162 0 0 98 211 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 339 0 144 122 162 0 0 9e 211 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 339 0 144 122 162 0 0 98 211 ------------ I---------------( I--------------- II-- -- --- ---- ---- If- --- --------- --I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 541 0' 653 511 551 0 0 549 618 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 1l--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: - Vol /sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.63 xxxx 0.22 0.24 0.29 xxxx xxxx 0.18 0.34 Crit Moves: • }•• * * *^ • *Y* Delay /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 20.3 11.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 10.3 11.0 LOS by Move: • • * C f A B B * B B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.1 11.5 10.8 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 16.1 11.5 10.8 LOS by Appr: * C B B AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 >. a.• fl. Ra•«.• 4. •ra.a.+fff..•Rf•..•.fa ; #fif ;; ;f +•••r +a <. •.f.<•.f•••a.ef. ;off• ♦ +. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wrr• aaa.>. a- r•.sa >.wrar <r.ax <.x•r «..r•r rata... +.xarr +faa•x... >.f rf••r •aa.a•Y....r Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix '.7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Existing Fri Feb 12. 2010 09:44:49 Page 6 -1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -clay Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) .......... ! #Rto {4.iflRi.... * * ... }4.f RRf }Ri Rfl.. aRf RRf+k <}+Rwf #!it }RY..R.... R.**. Intersection #5 Commerce Blvd /southwest Blvd ltffff.flw.ffffttf tfa•rf.rfRRt t%tlftYRf Rf aflxftt..f Rt1lR STffR %tffRfxY.ff sxf txf f. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.396 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 10.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B fR1RY %.f}f.Ra ;Rt;taxxfr...xtxRRwxf txxR <Rr<fff «Rfff 114.1 ♦+ +xx +..44x4. %rRr : «Yf.f Street Name: Commerce Blvd southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I --------------- 1t --------------- 11 --------------- I1 --------------- 1 Control: stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop sign Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ------------ i --------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- I1 --------------- 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 76 186 258 71 0 0 0 0 126 0 173 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 76 186 258 71 0 0 0 0 126 0 173 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Ad5: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 76 0 258 71 0 0 0 0 126 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 16 0 258 71 0 0 0 0 126 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 VILF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Firalvolume: 0 76 0 258 71 0 0 0 0 126 0 0 ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- II--- -- ---- ------11---- ----- ------I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 674 773 651 714 0 0 0 0 575 0 708 ------------ I--------------- 1t--------------- II- - ------- --- ---II------- --- -----I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: xxxx 0.11 0.00 0.40 0.10 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.22 xxxx 0.00 Crit Moves: ... • •••. ... Delay /Veh: 0.0 8.5 0.0 11.6 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 8.5 0.0 11.6 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: * A f B A • " B ' ApproachDel: 8.5 10.9 xxxxxx 10.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 ApprAdjDei: 8.5 10.9 xxxxxx 10.3 LOS by Appr: A B R B AlIWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 xx.f.RR.ffxffR +R ;.Yl1RSRf lfttf#ff.♦R...fr.f RxR.xRffYx.RR < }RtRfR.fff %xRef RttRRf %f Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Ifi..lf.flt... \.tlf.Y.ff ♦Yf tY }f... \'..t..Y.it4t \tf.t.f >. }f ;.tlttt.tly }t }f.4ttf tf\ PM Existing Fri Feb 12. 2010 09:44:55 Page 6 -1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pl4 Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) .11tf.f #ff tafY . %.Y.AYrY }xf..'Rfftf.f ♦ftltf tlR}ttf.f•.ttt ff C.tf.fR..........Yfff Y..} Intersection 85 Commerce Blvd /Southwest Blvd .. f«%. xt%% f4. f .YRf <f #f # #RfRRRfaff•ffRffl.f.If lfrlrf lwt!lRRRf Malt lrff ♦t ♦.....♦ Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.731 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 18.6 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C f.f.ftxf t. ;.! % ;ifff Rf } « <.xRx4R}f'•Rx1f # %.liRRflf Y.sf #lf.tf............ R.ff...... Street Name: Commerce Blvd Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L - T - R L - T - R L- T - R ------------ I--------------- 11------- ---- ----11------------- --II - - -- - - - --I Control: Stop Sign stop Sign stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- 11---------------I t- - --- ----- ----- It------------- --1 Volume Module: Base V01: 0 283 537 275 225 0 0 0 0 368 0 328 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 283 537 275 225 0 0 0 0 368 0 328 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 283 0 275 225 0 0 0 0 363 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 283 0 275 225 0 0 0 0 368 0 0 PCE Ad5: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 0 283 0 275 225 0 0 0 0 368 0 0 ------- ---- I --------------- II--------------- Il --------------- It --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 l.OG 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 533 585 518 557 0 0 0 0 503 0 594 ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- 11-- ------ ---- ---II--------- - - ----I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: xxxx 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.40 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.73 xxxx 0.00 Grit Moves: ••" '•• "• ' Delay /Veh: 0.0 16.1 0.0 16.6 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25'5 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 16.1 0.0 16.6 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: C ' C B • Y " D + ' ApproachDel: 16.1 15.0 xxxxxx 25.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxrr. 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 16.1 15.0 xxxxxx 25.5 LOS by Appr: C B D AllWayAvgQ: 0,0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 R.rr.xff xff+ xxxxxRrrxYx .RfR%Rxz..rrR.eRRffRx.xxwr•af rf of %. %x.x.w•wfrlx xR x %fx %... Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. tt f.. f.a xtft. f. f. iftR. ft.. lf. RtR..fR.tt ............. *....... t......f 1't ♦.ta..f }tf Traffix 7.9.0415 (e) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to N- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Existing Thu Feb 11, 201D 13:26:00 Page 7 -1 A14 Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -----------------------------------------------------_---------------------'---- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) fixtxalf• 1w.• f.• a..• A.fR.R R* R}.% af♦ xr.•• Rxf R * #!•f. }rrrfRw >•. *fRRlff +r. *f ..wf xaR «f Intersection 06 Southwest Blvd /Seed Farm Dr ex.e..f•.r.faw. %.R ♦ #f + *f•...eef rawfwwMr.. r.r +«.a*.+..r.Yrr! * *x * # *x!*..rf • +l... R.e Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(%): 0.234 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 12.8 Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: B * w....•... R#.. R* .... .. rrrRfw. xxrlw.* axf.•.* rf**e xRR .Rf...ffxxx **. *..R * %ff.w* * *w* Street Name: Seed Farm Or Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T - R L- T- R ------------ 1--------------- it --------------- II --------------- 1)--------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: include OVI Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 ------------I---------------It--------------- it -------------- -1t--- -- ---- ---- -- Volume Module: Sass Vol: 0 0 0 160 0 46 75 457 Growth Adji 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Es;: 0 0 0 160 0 46 75 457 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00-140 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FHF Volume: 0 0 0 160 0 46 75 457 Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 160 0 46 75 457 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinaiVolume: 0 0 0 160 0 46 75 457 Saturation Flow Module: 0 0 479 214 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 479 214 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 479 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 479 214 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 479 214 Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 1805 3610 0 0 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: R R. Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.37 0.18 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 Volume /Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.08 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 Delay /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 20.3 35.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 10.9 10.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 20.3 35.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 10.9 10.9 LOS by Move: A A A C A C D A A A S S HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 5 0 2 4 4 0 0 8 7 < f. ee•. r.. w<* RR. fi«. r. xf }rf.fxx * %«1RxR>rR *Y * **x * *Rr : #rR lxrfRxrrlRa•x•zr }.•ffaRRR! Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xx•ff•1.1rrrY rYYx.. ? *I.rf•••Rf *ff RfffYr sff•R %w•f %R.1.Y >f*rfR * * } }.f xRr *x•rf iY *1.!* PM Existing Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:07 Page 7 -1 PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert ParY. Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 RCM Operations Method (Base Volume. Alternative) . r.• YYffiRfifRA=** x. Yr ... *... ... rf RfY}.*** ..... }f.* .......... } ♦ *. *........ f t. }...r Intersection #6 Southwest Blvd /Seed Farm Dr .....• e*.. AR**.**. frr••..« r. ra. r. r. Rrw} r......... f.f•.fRew..> *.......l...R..fi #>% Cycle ;sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.351 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 18.8 Optimal Cycle: 22 Level OE Service: B r. .Y.r.x } #RR #rl.rfrr * # *R #*RfR.RRf Rf r ♦YR ** * *...R..Rf rf r. # # *w.•A >f...r. #a..f<rx•fr Street Name: Seed Farm Or Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L - T - R L- T- R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- 11 --------------- control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 ------------ i--------------- I[--------------- )t --------------- 11 --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 419 0 234 102 323 0 0 380 249 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 419 0 234 102 323 0 6 300 249 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 419 0 234 102 323 0 0 380 249 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 419 0 234 102 323 0 0 380 249 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinaiVolume: 0 0 0 419 0 234 102 323 0 0 380 249 ------------ i--------------- II--------------- II--------------- li--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3502 0 ?615 1805 3610 0 0 3610 1615 l-- --- ----------il' __.. _! I- °-- ---- -----')i-------- -- -- - - -I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.15 Crit Moves: __•_ _••_ . *_* Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.50 0.16 0.6D 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.94 Volume /Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.29 0.35 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.35 Delay /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 0.0 14.7 38.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 17.7 18.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 0.0 14.7 38.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 17.7 18.9 LOS by Move: - A A A C A B D A A A B B HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 10 0 8 6 5 0 0 8 10 ..*%..... w.......** ... #>##**# a* Rr*#*#**#**.... r ....... .*- x....• >r+ +a.wr• *R #> ## Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. lff rrf•flf....Yfffllff tlfiRRR **x %fY..r•f *RRR # *ARR %x %*r. }R * * }RRx %*.R > * >!Rl.f }.R..tf Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AN Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:33 Page 2 -1 AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) RRYf . R...*. f. f.*.*** ....... R Y ... . .......... f # * *1f *. * ♦.*..l. *RRfRif, #.* Intersection N1 Rohnert Park Expwy /State Farm Dr * R* t.. ........... R.... t*. t.*** k* ... *** .... I..w*.R ... Rltffl.w...f t..11 ....... t. Cycle (sec): 100 critical Vol. /Cap.(XI: 0.679 .• Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y +R =4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 27.5 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C k'. t. f.•* R. RRttt.. R.. ff RR♦* te*#*. ttt*** f. f* * *t *R *eRR *f»Y * * ;.RR ;f....fl.R >f * * * * # ** Street Name: State Farm Dr Rohnert Park Expwy Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I--------------- II---------------1 1-- ------------- 11-T---- -- ------ -I Control: Split.Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I -------------- -)1 --------------- II --------------- )) --------------- I Volume Module: Sase Vol: 125 129 148 152 166 127 267 1085 571 167 669 286 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12$ 129 148 152 166 127 267 1085 571 167 669 286 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 125 129 148 152 166 127 267 1085 571 167 669 286 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 125 129 148 152 166 127 267 1085 571 167 669 286 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 125 129 148 152 166 127 267 1085 571 167 669 286 --- -- - ---- -- --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- )i --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.48 1.52 1.00 1.02 1.12 0.86 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2601 2684 1615 1740 1900 1454 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I -------------- lt--------------- II--------------- ----- - - - --{ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.09 0.19 0.18 Crit Moves: '# .... .f #f .... Green /Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.29 0.52 0.52 0.14 0.37 0.37 Volume /Cap: 0.36 0.36 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.66 0.51 0.56 0.68 0.68 0.51 0.49 Delay /Veh: 39.6 39.6 49.6 44.5 44.5 44.5 30.3 16.9 20.1 48.6 25.1 25.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 AdjDel /Veh: 39.6 39.6 49.6 44.5 44.5 44.5 30.3 16.9 20.1 48.6 25.1 25.I LOS by Move: 0 D D D D D C 8 C D C C HCM2k95thQ: 6 6 11 11 11 11 14 22 24 12 16 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. .... t.f.. Yt...* .... R f .......... #.R * .... ff. * ..... f*.Y PM Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:55 Page 2 -1 PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) #k * *#f.kk * * #etRRif kf Rf RR.... *. *,* ........... k*.....f *1w*#1R * #f 1f#11f.RR * **l* ♦Rtf Intersection B1 Rohnert Park Expwy /State Farm Dr *!tf*. ... *- ... t>.t ........ .# Rf ...... R.. R. R, R. R. f..R...... **. ... * ... w.......... Cycle (see), 100 critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.662 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y +R -*4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 34,3 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Y*t ff * *R*tf.R >ffR.fR1R * >* *.RR *f »1f Yf * *t. *t }.f #.W.w # > #R* # # # *fft>f tf ♦f t <RR *.Rt tff Street Name: State Farm Dr Rohnert Park Expwy Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I--------------- I(---------------( 1--------------- 11------ ---- ---- -I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include - Min. Green: 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: i 11 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 -------- - - - -I- Volume Module: Base Vol: 202 246 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 202 246 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume. 202 246 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 202 246 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 202 246 259 1.00 259 1.00 1.00 259 0 259 1.00 1.00 259 259 156 1.00 1.00 259. 156 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 259 156 0 0 259 256 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 259 156 ------------ I --------------- ll--------------- II--------------- (i--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.35 1.65 1.00 1.25 0.75 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2388 2908 1615 2089 1258 1673 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- --- _------ -_ - -_I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.22 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.10 Crit Moves: .R.. * *!!. .... Green /Cycle: 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.14 10.26 0.26 Volume /Cap: 0.36 0.36 0.68 0.61 0.61 0.68 0.68 0.63 0.22 0.63 0.68 0.36 Delay /Veh: 32.1 32.1 39.9 37.3 37.3 38.9 40.8 28.3 23.3 45.9 35.1 30.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 32.1 32.1 39.9 37.3 37.3 38.9 40.8 28.3 23.3 45.9 35.1 30.5 LOS by Move: C C D D D D D C C D D C HCM2k95thQ: 8 8 16 13 13 15 16 20 5 11 19 8 kt RR. RR. RRRR.} Rf.f tR. R. Rkf,. RRR klRRR. <t *tRR <#.R>RRt...<etf.f Rw•.>Y ; ♦ *Rw #kt ;.tt.f Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ...... ** ..... * ... .... ........... Rr>tff........ *. * *.! * * ... .•.f +..f 1*1.....kkt>rft 232 268 783 122 153 650 154 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 268 783 122 153 650 154 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 268 783 122 153 650 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 232 268 783 122 153 650 154 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 268 783 122 153 650 154 Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to (4- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Future. Thu Feb 11, 2010 13,26:33 Page 3 -1 All Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park ----------------------------------------------------------'---------------------- Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) Y> R... R.+..tt k. kk#. kf.f fk f#kf ........ }f........k }...R114fRl +f +f \f •f.•R #Rf..kf xfR Intersection ))2 commerce Dr /Enterprise Dr t.+ f•. Rfff •tf!•.e.fw•• ♦f +f. +•akklt }. +f+If Rt.f \tRk \•f.lf rf ff <f #f tff4+.fff. +. <e.f\ cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./cap.%): 0.226 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 5.4 Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A fr.f....k «ww }fa.fa4fs..fi + +..eYf r. }.xr+.w +fk %frxt.twlkwlkrf } <f <fff<f +x. }fr.r ;aalx Street Name: Commerce Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- 11--- ------- - - - --I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: a 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- tl--------------- 11 --------------- I) --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 585 70 24 346 0 0 0 0 51 0 19 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 585 70 24 346 0 0 0 0 51 0 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 585 70 24 346 0 0 0 0 51 0 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0. 585 70 24 346 0 0 0 0 51 0 19 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fina)Volume: 0 585 70 24 346 0 0 0 0 51 0 19 -------- -- -- I--------- - -- - -- ---------------( t---- ----------- II- ---- ----- - - -- -I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3173 380 1805 3610 0 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 ------------(--------------- 11--------------- II-- ------- ------ (1----- ----- - - -- -I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.000 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: r +f+ .... '... Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.06 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 volume /Cap: 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.18 Delay /Veh: 0.0 2.1 2.1 46.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 45.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 2.1 2.1 46.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 45.1 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D A D HCM2k95thQ: 0 5 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 f4.1+fR).+. ;rf R4.trrf r+llfklxki #fk.wwkkf}Rt ;f Rf xt «f!lfffRf\R.r\ff+x ♦kf kffff xkk <r Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. rkff Rfx•efkk <f YfRxwlf lRf +lffklwwkf x ;R }fr,flwRxkkfixw «f •r «r1R.xxxRx %Rx «Y.R>RxR. %RN PM Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26 :55 Page 3 -1 P14 Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) +}}}#} wf. aikw } }xf < #.ffxx %x ;kx1. }wl +4x } }fif wflkrfff +ffaffRtkkw + ♦1fi lx•xawxk\ffawlf Intersection #2 Commerce Dr /Enterprise Dr } }fffi + %f \Yf Rtkf+ fff yyfkkrx <afa <f<f•fxtrk <r \•Rfk+f.•f k.fYttxf4 +ef wfR.f\k \..\f•e.f Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.356 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 10.8 Optimal Cycle: 22 Level of Service: S .1.ff.txfx %44kk.. }xk +tx «4 xxwxxxR ..rf.Yxxw4;;r.x +.x +•1f ;Rex.xw.. af.xr x \zxflRw «xr+ Street Name: Commerce Dr Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- ((--------------- i{--------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------ ) --------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- tl--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 732 104 73 841 0 0 0 0 161 0 94 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 Initial Bse: 0 732 104 73 841' 0 0 0 0 161 0 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 732 104 73 841 0 0 0 0 161 0 94 Reduct Volt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 732 104 73 841 0 0 0 0 161 0 94 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume:' 0 732 104 73 841 0 0 0 0 161 0 94 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- ) t --------------- 11 --------------- ) Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.75 0.25 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3101 441 1805 3610 0 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 ------------(--------------- II ----- ----------11--------- - - - - -- ----- ----- - - - --1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.06 Crit Moves: k «} ... xxR Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.11 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.16 Volume /Cap: 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.36 Delay /Veh: 0.0 7.5 7.5 42.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.9 0.0 38.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 7.5 7.5 42.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.9 0.0 38.0 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D A D HCM2k95thQ: 0 11 11 5 8 0 0 0 D 5 0 6 ..eexrff 4ktweek+ lkf+sR rfkxfxxtrk .w }x «txr.ata.x.w..w } +f.. \xrn 4.af.x.f.rwrx.rf . a.rx Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. +<» r> x> wxxx. wx+ xxRf}% xrxwwrx+ ak.. ew. }rfx.frx «kx +x..ftrrf # + «. ;xx. +r + +wxrx ;xxf. «. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Y- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffir. 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Future -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:33 Page 4 -1 - - - - -- PM Future --------------------------------------------------- Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:55 Page 4 -1 AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions -- ------------------ PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions -- - ------ Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects ---_--------°°°--------------------------_--------- City of Rohnert Park ____________- __- _--- ---- City of Rohnert Park Level Of Service Computation Report -- ----------------------------------___°°------------- ---- __- ° °-------- Level Of Service Computation Report -____-- 2000 HCM 4 - ?lay Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) )<.... rK. K. Kf a. a* R.* *}tr)rRRl.R.Rfl.f.R*fa4Y<faf +.f a.kRriR4fRaf a <..f #KKRa.Rf of *f • RR. ff}#}< Rt* RR* Y** R * }x*RRC }t.).Ka* *.aa<fRf<a1a } <1f }..f RkRlf }.!Y ♦ #a..*.YxRa }l..R Intersection 83 Enterprise Dr /Hunter Or Intersection 03 Enterprise Dr /Hunter Or ....af.R.. f. f.#.<.. f.fr }r. < <.a....lf.ef}If.R.ff #<f <.R)Rf ).l afete #!a.*rr•....... f f f.... f.......•! lsaf!• R ....... l r .... l.Rfaff #f.r.rYRra!lRax<.R.f .Y..Y.a<x < *<w...I Cycle (sect: 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.097 Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.238 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R =4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /vehl: 7.7 Loss Time (sec): 0.(Y +R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 9.0 Optimal cycle: 0 Level Of Service; A Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A ♦ <al rffRf Yx#, ff} RR} R. Ye} rfR.«< aR! )}YRlf }faa*kaaRff!}ffY)Ya <RRlaf a! **f awf+a.Raf.x *IYaff wf * }R }R }RfY }Rx YYafRx *!RR #* *sfaa #a} # ## #xR)ffR)f ))Rx # #.xlxf xf #),IR }RR < }RRM)R Street Name: Hunter Or Enterprise Or Street Name: Hunter Or Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ Control: 1 --------------- Stop Sign 11 --------------- 11 Stop Sign --------------- II Stop Sign --------------- ! Stop Sign ------------ control: i --------------- Stop Sign ll --------------- 11 --------------- 11 Stop Sign Stop Sign. --------------- I Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ------------ I Volume Module: ( t --------------- 11 --------------- I1 --------------- I ------------ 1--------------- Volume Module: 11---------------( I-- - ----- -- -----II---- -- ---------I Base Vol: 1 2 2 53 0 10 17 75 0 2 66 77 Base Vol: 3 0 1 122 11 27 18 206 0 13 180 80 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 2 2 53 0 10 17 75 0 2 66 77 Initial Bse: 3 0 1 122 11 27 18 206 0 13 180 80 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1 2 2 53 0 10 17 75 0 2 66 77 PHF Volume: 3 0 1 122 11 21+ 18 206 0 13 180 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 2 2 53 0 10 17 15 0 2 66 77 Reduced Vol: 3 0 1 122 11 27 18 206 0 13 180 80 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 2 2 53 0 10 17 75 0 2 66 77 FinalVolume: 3 0 1 122 11 27 I8 206 0 13 180 80 ------------ I--------------- Saturation Flow Module: 11--------------- t 1--------------- 1(--------------- 1 ------------ 1--------------- Saturation Flow Module: II--------------- II -------- --- ---- 1l- --- ----- - -- - --1 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.84 0.00 0.16 0.37 1.63 0.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 Lanes: 0.75 0.00 0.25 0.76 0.07 0.17 0.16 1.84 0.00 0.09 1.32 0.59 Final Sat.: 160 319 319 646 0 122 265 1199 0 21 729 880 Final Sat.: 472 0 157 513 46 113 107 1236 0 --- -- ----- ---- 64 919 434 --I ------------ Capacity Analysis I --------------- Module: II--------------- 11--------------- it--------------- t ------------(--------------- Capacity Analysis Module; II--------------- ti- 11- --------- - - - Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 xxxx 0.08 0.06 0.06 xxxx 0.10 0.09 0.09 Vol /Sat: 0.01 xxxx 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.17 xxxx 0.20 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: .xf. lRrx f } *# *r *: Crit Moves: *! .a.f *. *w K.). Delav /Veh: 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.9 0.0 7.9 8.0 7.8 0.0 7.9 7.9 1.1 Delay /Veh: 8.3 0.0 6.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.0 8.9 0.0 9.2 8.9 8.5 Delay Ad5: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.9 0.0 7.9 8.0 7.8 0.0 7.9 7.9 7.1 Adj Del /Veh: 8.3 0.0 8.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.0 8.9 0.0 9.2 8.9 8.5 LOS by Move: A A A A I A A A • A A A LOS by Move: A A A A A A A • A A A ApproachDel: 7.3 7.9 7.9 7.5 Approach Del: 8.3 9.5 8.9 8.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay.Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.3 7.9 7.9 7.5 ApprAdjDel: 8.3 9.5 8.9 8.8 LOS by Apps: A A A A LOS -by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 D.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 A1lWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ..# fa. .RSwlf *f,R *a.4. }. }fRff.f *RxRwxf a *f. *.f.f #ax}.x } }rr *ffa< *.w * \r.. } }KYa +.RxRK. R.... x.** ... **} a*)) R** f!** ... x.s fa*} wRlx** Rx *fx.Yr *..KR * .* ..............Raa R4f.w Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of care per lane. a... *. a.. *fa.... R a..R.af *♦ . ..............*......•....... <..•a.......r.aaf aa<a *..r..aaf.•....,}.Yr *.a }< « <.<..Y. +x...<R...a.,rrrr..f l.a........... <.<, Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to k- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AN Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:33 Page 5 -1 AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnort Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 MCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Rf.wRf # }* #lfif! } ♦RR! }If RYYtt *t!fllf*1 Rf Rf R %.RR.t #4if *41111111 as *x!f #R } # }f.xRf R.f Intersection #4 Enterprise Dr /State Farm Dr %;%...f f..< f..* f!.!}.. 1.....#fx* a*...f........% •#a ♦aalt #awwf ....... - ........ a* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.tx): 0.725 Loss Time (sec), 0 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 16.5 optimal cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ♦f.f.f 1111 t # %%. #Affix .aRf > # %; xf 1Yf R% xf. fff* to # #*waxfx %Yfiff %tRRxwfa.!} *RRf %<R Rf aR Street Name: State Farm Dr Enterprise Or Approach :, North Bound South Bound East Bound hest Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ --------------- It --- ----- - -- ----1 1-- -------- -- - - -1 1- -- --- ---- -----1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- )1--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 398 0 58 46 101 0 0 73 341 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ese: 0 0 0 398 0 SB 46 107 0 0 73 341 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 398 0 58 46 107 0 0 73 341 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 398 0 58 46 107 0 0 73 341 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 0 0 0 393 0 58 46 107 0 0 73 341 ------------ 1--------------- ll--------------- II--------------- il--------------- t Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 549 0 660 492 529 0 0 562 639 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: xxxx xxxx xr= 0.72 xxxr. 0.09 0.09 0.20 xxxx xxxr. 0.13 0.53 exit Moves: * * ** * # *• * * ** Delay /veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 8.4 10.3 10.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 13.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 8.4 10.3 10.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 13.8 LOS by Move: * • * C * A B B • * A B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 21.5 - 10.6 ,13.1 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxY.::x 21.5 10.6 13.1 LOS by Appr: • C B 8 AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 *a*> wfw ... *#•. a .#a. *......a. #*.w•R#xYR ........ ........ #a.a.axww......... a < %xxle Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. . a.• a>*. a• rffa• Ra a..>. a> r•*.• aa•.. f.•• *>•ff..aa•*aa>awr # #• #awaa•. aw.xaa>>a#t•aaa• PM Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26 :55 Page 5 -1 PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Nay Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) efRRfff ;lfR **R *takRf Refa< *lfR.wRSRf *11x11 tfi ;.%.If.f YftxfAi * * * >* *wfff }t %k >* ***>*> Intersection #4 Enterprise Dr /State Farm Dr f» ♦xa.Rf Rewf..*> I1. if. f<! lfR.*>.. s.f < >rxffw4fff. * ».e.f } ;f•xfxf }f ♦f *awe.ewewl.Y Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(x): 0.804 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R =4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 19.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C was. face %Rwfi. ..... . a alafa.R* **..a.; R *xw .............w <w.s Street Name:x State Farm Or Enterprise Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L- T - R L- T - R L- T- R L- T - R ------------ 1--------------- Et --------------- II --------------- 1t_--- -- ---- - - - - - Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ----- ------- 1-- --- ---- ------ I I- -------- - - - --- I I--------------- 1 1--- -- -- - ° °--- t Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 403 0 144 144 191 0 0 135 364 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 403 0 144 144 191 0 0 135 364 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 403 0 144 144 191 0 0 135 364 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 403 0 144 144 191 0 0 135 364 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 0 D 0 403 0 144 144 191 0 0 135 364 ------------(--------------- II---------------1)-- ----- ---- -- --11--- ---- ----- - --I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 501 D 592 471 504 0 0 $17 582 ------------ I --------------- 11- -------------- i)--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.80 xxxr 0.24 0.31 0.38 xxxx xxxx 0.26 0.63 Crit Moves: ** • * *• + * ** Delay /veh: O.D 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 2D.4 13.2 23.6 0.0 0.0 11.7 17.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 10.4 13.2 13.6 0.0 0.0 11.7 17.8 LOS by.Move: > • * D • B B 8 * * B C ApproachDei: xxxxxx 26.2 23.4 16.2 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxY.xx 26.2 13.4 16.2 LOS by Appr: • D Ia C Al1WayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 »fYfY < *R # *wt.t * >4f 1f >1iiRR % ;.ff..wf >ffffwf l;Rxf.wR ♦ft <aw twwx.f }.fi>. a < * *xl.wwR1♦ Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. f» » ****• aa• f•. ww fw****> a•***.> a• 1} f#..,> r.•. f. f .a.f. +.••.a..rY..>ra!!l..,•w >fx Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM Future Fri Feb 12, 2010 09:45:29 Page 6 -1 AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park ----------------------------------------------••_-------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) : # ++ +laRxxft.fK.ff. # #4RrraY <.f 41Rf Rf* fY lifR4eax <RR.f11f + #fa # +R ; ;ft }11f K # +If < +fRaf Intersection N5 Commerce Blvd /Southwest Blvd # f.. R. R1....... ...K *......Kfff.lflfxRK..f.[f ♦f 1ff lRtRe. +....f K.lft............ff Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(x): 0.557 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R =4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 12.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B *1+afffR lxatrl+r+rfff Y ♦RxK.f.f♦Kx +r..1f4•f >KtRrff !1.1111 .+fr <r[1f Rrt1RR4f+#♦ Street Name: Commerce Blvd Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I --------------- li--------------- It --------------- II____ ---------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- It --------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 87 296 345 83 0 0 0 0 196 0 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 87 296 345 83 0 0 0 0 196 0 220 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 67 0 345 83 0 0 0 0 196 0 D Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 87 0 345 83 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 14LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Finalvolume: 0 87 0 345 83 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 Saturation Flow Nodule: . Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 619 700 620 673 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II-- ------------- 11---------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: xxxx 0.14 0.00 0.56 0.12 xxxx xxxx xxxx. Crit Moves: * *•• Delay /Veh: 0.0 9.2 0.0 15.2 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDal /Veh: 0.0 9.2 0.0 15.2 8.6 0.0 D.0 0.0 LOS by Move: a A Y C A . > ApproachDel: 9.2 13.9 xxxxxx Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxxx ApprAdjDel: 9.2 13.9 xxxxxx LOS by Appr: A B • AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 >fRx +. #.ff44ait4. +fR..f.. f #fYf. <f..R.KK.rR +KKfRR... #trf, Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. f Lf •1f.•YYk...iliYS.Y1, 1f t .1111 {f ......................Yi 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 548 0 663 •-----11----- ----- - - -- -I xxxx. 0.36 xxxx 0.00 krRf 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 a B • f 12.3 1.00 12.3 B 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 a # #[Rffxf •aff [f.f < #.f kf aRrrR +..+ffl4....r PM Future Fri Feb 12, 2010 09:45:36 Page 6 -1 PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic'Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park ----------------------------------------------------------------------------`--- Level Of Service Computation Report 2D00 HCM 4 -Nay Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) +Ytf+flf kR RA'; 1141+ f♦+ 4if lRf #l4..4ff.ffa +tlkk4R4RfRa•+ #1111 lfffRY {R }N }1111 # ♦fitr} Intersection ifs commerce Blvd /Southwest. Blvd r #frRffKKKf.f..ff.le ♦af +[ff YR RfKtfRfr. ♦r +f.4f.f.f RfffYYffRRA....f rf4llR «ff :fff. Cycle (sec): 100 critical Vol. /Cap.(x): 0.945 Loss Time (sac): 0 (Y+R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 37.0 optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: E +• }Rf # # +41 +t <1R.tRfRRtf KKf RRr4x 4f Rrf Y.tt.RRfrffr>• #f.fN4 #kxe. ♦1.111 r•! #tittf♦ +r• Street Name: Commerce Blvd Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ 1--------------- tl--------------- 1 1 --------------- li--------------- I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ------------ i--------------- ll--------------- 1l--------------- 11--------------- 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 285 537 425 341 0 0 0 0 447 0 413 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 285 537 425 341 0 0 0 0 447 0 413 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.D0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 285 0 425 341 0 0 0 0 447 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 285 0 425 341 0 0 0 0 447 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 0.00 KLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 0.00 Finalvolume: 0 285 0 425 341 0 0 0 0 447 0 0 ----------- 1--------------- 11--------------- I 1- ---- ------ ----II------ -------- -1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 478 525 488 520 0 0 0 0 473 0 551 ------------ I --------------- la-- -- -------- ---II--------------- --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: xxxx 0.60 0.00 0.87 0.66 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.94 xxxx 0.00 Crit Moves: •••• * * *• * * <* Delay /Veh: 0.0 20.0 0.0 41.6 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.2 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 AdjDel /Veh: 0.0 20.0 0.0 41.6 21.4 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 55.2 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: • C E C < * Y F ApproachDel: 20.0 32.6 xxxxxx 55.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 20.0 32.6 xxxxxx 55.2 LOS by Appr: C D * F A11WayAvgQ: 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 arfr. fa.# aaRa. rf+• f> rff.>. e# f.. f. lKrf........ .*....ff + + + +att.. +R.•f•RexRfR <f rf.f Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xat4Y *lffllL AY.LLRIYR.YfRR#1faY *fR +f Rf 441 #f #4llf.rakf.f Lf . {rafffff if }f Yfi.... <, {+} Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA MOVEMENT SUMMARY _ Site: Future AM @ n®le Lane) Comneme BmdevarN3o VMW6WWvwd Fulure AM Peak How Roundabod By T 265 2.0 0.397 45 LOSA 3.1 Bob 0.61 052 .. 232 OR R 295 2A 0.398 7.6 LOSA 3.1 BOA 0.61 0.66 25.1 Appoaca 22 0.946 383 2.0 0.398 69 LOSA 3.1 80.0 OA7 0.64 24.7 East WesNwrd SoWawrt 1L L 447 2.0 0.838 VA IL L 196 2.0 4319 109 LOSE 26 85.7 0.30 ON 239 6R R 220 2.0 0.319 5.3 LOSA 2A 65.7 0.30 OM 263 Approach 1.00 416 24 0.319 7.3 LOS B 2.6 86.7 0.30 0.66 26.1 NOM SODUMUM COrMKOO 7L L 426 2.0 0Al2 2&3 LOS 212 641A 1.00 7L L 345 2.0 0.375 10A LOS B 29 73.9 0.45 OA9 22.3 4T T 83 2.0 0.376 4.1 LOSA 29 739 OAS OA2 24.1 APP-M 2446 428 2.0 0.375 9.3 LOS 8 29 739 445 0.64 22.6 ANVeNdM 1227 2.0 0.398 9.0 LOSA 3.1 80.0 0.45 0161 24.0 Levd of SwA=(Avw. NL DWW), LOS A. BMW on avera29 Mlar for a8 V&Vde moMwb. LOS Method: Oft OiCK Level W Swvks (Wort MarenwMt: LOS B. L0S Ms0wd forkwivMW vW" w4vwm S: Delay (HC Approach LOS va m we tow an ewwomtdomy w any wNda rnma" R&AVW W LOS Mebgrk Same M S)pnal3W kof mcdom Rawdoeau M podty Model: SIDRA Swrwmd. Pnvooslat MoiwayI&Wth 20103MOPM COPYOQ [C2000.200Akm4 IA-dma PO Lid sliipiA t S67RAWTERBEtTWN4AAATJ PM10M WO AM9W( WPA= FtPA7607 .20RPAlSIDM%DOWOWCaSWAmMAW INTERSECTION 6000199, WTPM& FLOA7WO MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Future PM Single Lanai Co mw es eowwarasadMraat Badwaro Fuluw PM Peak Hoar Roundabout 6T T 265 2.0 0.907 229 LOS 26A 654A 1.00 IA7 U.6 6R R 537 2.0 0917 26.0 LOS 25A 654.4 1Al lAD- 16.1 Approach an 22 0.946 249 LOS 25.8 GMA 1.00 1,42 163 East wooft rd 5pmraeal 1L L 447 2.0 0.838 VA LOS 6 16A 4162 1.00 095 20.6 6R R 413 2.0 0.834 12.0 LOSE 16A 4182 tA0 0.95 219 Approach 060 2.0 0.656 14.6 LOS B 16A 4182 1.00 095 21.1 NOM Sumboudcwurbrm 7L L 426 2.0 0Al2 2&3 LOS 212 641A 1.00 1.38 162 4T T 341 2.0 0.912 19.6 LOS 21.3 641A 100 1.38 163 Approaca 766 2.0 0211 23A LOS 21.3 541A 1.00 1.38 16.3 ABVaNdM 2446 2.0 0.017 209 LOS 25A 854A 1.00 124 17$ Lavelot SwAw(Avw.kLOday):LOSC. BMW an&"ream delay fwal wWda moveawft LOSMsBwd:DWay(MCM} L"0I0fS6nKc6tVAxnabwWA*L0SC. LOS UWwd for k4vWuW vWde nwvWMUL Deby (HCM). Approach LOS vstwnaesbasalonew wortdelayfor&W atkb Ow w" Roundabow LOS Wftio& Smasas MWmfisod Inkrse 6wL Rmarlabaa CWmay MOW: SIDRASMaUd. P,OOe. sod: Money. MM %12010 PM Copye m02a00d009 Akw ft&AnO WftfRy tsd SIDR. ". _�• SCM *TER�CiWH4A9AT3 F py KMMWOX%RPA1907RPA790727RP INTERSECTION 8000193. WTMOLS. FLOAIM AM Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26:34 Page 7 -1 AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects. City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) . krrxR •rR}letlRfkarlxrfRrlYtfaRlf afRrR } }R1R Rf txf} 1Rr ; RR I }RRtik!lRx RRaRttRkRRfkYR Intersection (16 Southwest Blvd /Seed Farm Or ♦•aearlrrr at.ra.a•.kr }.k• +rra•eR.ffrra krre•arraRaa rrrrrrRRe #a +a.rarr.reraaRa••a Cycle isec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. m. 0.373 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): 16.8 Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: B Rkrae +.rfRfklR•.Rae1}r. Ref Yftf Rl..ffRk+.rR.•!rl +frfrr4lYrkRlf tRR..k rt } }Rf }aRkRRfR Street Name: Seed Farm Dr Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Hest Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I --------------- it --------------- II --------------- II - --------- - - - - - I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 ------------I- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial SSG: 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 D 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 396 0 1.00 1.00 396 . 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 396 0 0 0 396 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 396 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 1805 3610 0 0 3610 1615 ----------- I --------------- Il--------------- ( 1--------------- 11 --------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0_06 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.19 Crit Moves: r..f .k.r .k :. Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30.0.00 0.44 0.14 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 volume /Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.14 0.37 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.37 Delay /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 16.9 40.3 7.8 0.0 0.0 14.9 15.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 16.9 40.3 7.8 0.0 0.0 14.9 15.6 LOS by Move: A A A C A B D A A A B B HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 _0 10 0 4 6 7 0 0 11 11 . trttakf }krtt.t .............akr.r Rrtr4.... -...... -.1 a.}... R. reltf Rkk.! } }f RY;.e. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. kf............ +.....R }kRlkltR}affak...... kakk.R.... R ... kk}kffrlkf.... R R• 99 91 550 0 0 585 302 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 99 91 550 0 0 585 302 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 99 91 550 0 0 585 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 91 550 0 0 585 302 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 99 91 550 0 0 585 302 -- - -1 1-- ------ ------ -1 1 -------- ------- P14 Future Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:26 :55 Page 7 -1 PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Roadway Projects City of Rohnert Park -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) fRYRYR. rRRttf> tt. Rfr1R ltfYRRt•Rr.tl.t1f11.RtYftlRr if ♦Rf tYtR ♦ ♦1t RRltRY.aRflrf aaaf Intersection 46 Southwest Blvd /Seed Farm Dr ......RR#ktR#!.♦ rR rrr• ra•f f..rafrr.•• ............ ..•....•....... ♦ ##!!••••...kerr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap.(x): 0.506 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y +R -4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec /vah): 19.2 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B JtRrRRf RRRRRRRRfl RrRf• RR.* RafR• ff rrf Yt.l.! #.R +eff.r.R.R #RRlR•f !. •rR.1lfl ;f ;RtR.f Street Name: Seed Farm Dr. Southwest Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 11-- ---- -- -- -----It---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 ------------ I --------------- il--------------- It--------------- It --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 518 0 234 123 375 0 0 490 419 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 518 0 234 123 .375 0 0 490 419 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 518 0 234 123 375 0 0 490 419 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 518 0 234 123 375 0 0 490 419 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVOiume: 0 0 0 518 0 234 123 375 0 0 490 419 ------------)--------------- II--------------- II----- ----------)t ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3502 0 1615 1805 3610 0 0 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- It--------------- II--------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.14 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.26 Crit Moves: rlf. .- .+ }e Green /Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.43 0.13 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Volume /Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.34 0.51 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.$1 Delay /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 19.5 41.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 16.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDal /Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 19.5 41.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 16.5 LOS by Move: A A A C A B D A A A B B HCM2k95thQ: 0 .0 0 14 0 10 8 5 D D 9 16 .er•fr•rrf RR.aRrRf.rr..attRtt k• Rrrl RrfR.tRRkl +k }aRr +ltrarkrt. # +Rrf a}frrRrf.ak ♦Rf Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. -- Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA Traffix 7.9.0415 (C) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to W- TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA HCS +: Urban Streets Release 5.4 Phone: Far.: E -Mail: Analyst: T__PLANNING ANALYSIS DH Agency /Co.: N -Trans Date Performed:, 2/2512010 Analysis Time Period: Existing PM Peak Sour Urban Street: Commerce Blvd Direction of Travel: Jurisdiction: City of Rohnart Park Analysis Year: 2010 Project 10: RPA907 -20 Traffic Characteristics Annual average daily traffic, AADT 13750 vpd Planning analysis hour factor. K 0.096 Directional distribution factor, 0 0.546 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.960 Adjusted saturation flow rate 1800 pcphgpl Percent turns from exclusive lanes 5o t __— __................. Roadway Characteristics _T_________.,_•.......... Number of through lanes one direction, N I Free flow speed, FFS 35 mph Urban class 3 Section length 0.60 miles Median No Left -turn bays No .............._ ------------ Signal Cha racteristies_ _�_____,••_ Signalized intersections 3 Arrival type, AT 3 Signal type (k - 0.5 for planning) Actuated Cycle length, C 80.0 sec Effective green ratio. 9/C 0.680 Results HCS+: Urban Streets Release 5.4 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: _ PLANNING ANALYSIS Analyst: TDH Agency /Co.: W -Trans Date Performed: 2/25/2010 Analysis Time Period: Future PM Peak Hour Urban Street: Commerce Blvd Direction Of Traver Jurisdictions City of Rohnert Part. Analysis Year: 2035 Project ID: RPA907 -20 Traffic Characteristics Annual average daily traffic, AADT Planning analysis hour factor, K Directional distribution factor, D Peak -hour factor, PHF Adjusted saturation flow rate Percent turns from exclusive lanes 16350 vpd 0.096 0.546 0.960 1800 pcphgpl 50 S :aracteristics______ Number of through Lanes one Direction, N I Free flow speed. £FS 35 mph Urban class 3 Section length 0.60 miles Median No Left -turn bays No Characteristics Signalized intersections 3 . Arrival type, AT 3 Signal type (k - 0.5 for planning) Actuated Cycle length, C 80.0 sec Effective green ratio, g/C 0.680 Annual average daily traffic, AADT 13750 vpd Annual average daily traffic, AADT 16350 vpd Two -way hourly volume 1.320 vph Two -way hourly volume 1569 vph Hourly directional volume 720 vph Hourly directional volume 656 vph Through - volume 15 -min. flow rate 375 v Through - volume 15 -min. flow rate 445 v Running time 76.8 sec Running time 76.8 sec We ratio 0.38 v/c ratio 0.46 Through capacity 978 vph Through capacity 978 vph Progression factor, PP 1.000 Progression factor, PF 1.000 Uniform delay 5.5 see Uniform delay -5.9 sec Filtering /metering factor. I 0.930 Filtering /metering factor. I 0.890 Incremental delay 1.1 sec Incremental delay 1.4 sec Control delay 6.6 sec /v Control delay 7.3 sec /v Total travel speed, sa 22.4 mph Total travel speed, Sa 21.9 mph Total urban street LOS C Total urban street LOS C WOOM 7.00 "CO, 7WF, No Seed Farm Extension SCTA Model Year 2035 Rohnert Park Area Assumed Roadway Capacitites "-----]Commerce assumed -k, to be one lane 800 ; 800 App SCTA Model Year 2035 Rohnert Park Area Assumed Roadway Capacitites i.j 800 ; N SCTA Model Year 2035 Rohnert Park Area Assumed Roadway Capacitites w -t ra n s RPA90A20.af 3/10 Review of Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Road Projects Figure 2 City of Rohnert Park Future Traffic Volumes w -t ra n Is)) RPA90740ai 3/70 Review of Traffic Capacity Needs for Two Future Road Projects Figure 3 City of Rohnert Park Average Daily Traffic CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND VICINITY r,re SarerCM* Tftm* rA-aft o AFM X. ma PROPC]SFD AND C \IS17M; BICYCLE AND PEDlSTMAN R1C177. MS vpree.aeer T700t�Sw„s d8rw aw.mrn.rwa.us a.rryfi.c SONO.UACOUNW.CAUrORNIA use�^adrwca+ev'^Mm^' TK1r/ SNec �vCUV Gu Yoaiiq 0 O1mz 03 0.75 t ❑ aasnrCm�wwaq�rrv�awanbwaYOOiww .le.wCaurge�s. d/dxwwnPaa 0 0.175 oz 05 US 1 L��r * > �+grbwrn puJpJwneW .+w�uwyn"anrwanmscWw�maeos Segment 2 Commerce Boulevard (Modified Parkway) Between Copeland Creek and Southwest Boulevard 80' Existing Right of Way 16' 11' 11' 6' S' B T T Median T T B S SHOWN WITH 4 LANES, A MEDIAN AND BIKE LANES P = Parking B = Bil=y T - Travel Lane S = Sidewalk NOTES: 1. OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE CROSS SLOPE. 2. CLEARING AND GRUBBING IS DETERMINED BY WIDTH OF NEW ROAD TO BE BUILT MINUS DEMOLITION WIDTH AND EXISTING ROAM TO BE RETAINED. 3. CURB IS 0.5'. GUTTER IS 1.5'. 4. EARTHWORK IS BASED ON 2 FOOT EXCAVATION. C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S ; P.O. WX 6796 SHIM Wk CA 95406�DI PH (7071 527 W79 NOT TO SCALE i 8' OVERLAY DMIENSMS WRY DwNSm WRY SEE EST6WING SEE EMMA7M 7E VWIZ �. WAW ATE EXISTING ROAD TO RETAIN EXISTING YA CLEAR AND GRUB P = Parking B = Bil=y T - Travel Lane S = Sidewalk NOTES: 1. OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE CROSS SLOPE. 2. CLEARING AND GRUBBING IS DETERMINED BY WIDTH OF NEW ROAD TO BE BUILT MINUS DEMOLITION WIDTH AND EXISTING ROAM TO BE RETAINED. 3. CURB IS 0.5'. GUTTER IS 1.5'. 4. EARTHWORK IS BASED ON 2 FOOT EXCAVATION. C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S ; P.O. WX 6796 SHIM Wk CA 95406�DI PH (7071 527 W79 NOT TO SCALE i