TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR. RESIDENCE INN PROJECT Davis, CA. Prepared For: JACKSON PROPERTIES 155 Cadillac Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENCE INN PROJECT Davis, CA Prepared For: JACKSON PROPERTIES 155 Cadillac Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Prepared By: KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. 3853 Taylor Road, Suite G Loomis, California 95650 (916) 660-1555 July 21, 2016 4026-02 Residence Inn Davis TIA.rpt Transportation Engineers

RESIDENCE INN PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i INTRODUCTION... 1 Study Purpose and Objectives... 1 Project Description... 1 EXISTING SETTING... 4 Study Area... 4 Level of Service Analysis... 5 Existing Traffic Conditions... 7 Non-Automobile Transportation... 9 PROJECT IMPACTS... 11 Project Characteristics... 11 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Impacts... 12 IMPACT SUMMARY / MITIGATION MEASURES... 16 Existing Conditions... 16 Existing Plus Project Conditions... 16 REFERENCES... 17 APPENDIX... 18

RESIDENCE INN PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description. This study evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Residence Inn Project in the Mace Ranch area of east Davis. The project will be constructed on an existing 2.69 ± acre site at 4647/4652 Fermi Place. This is located in the Mace Ranch area of Davis, in the southwest quadrant of the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Avenue intersection. The proposed project is a 120-room four-story extended stay hotel. The hotel will include studios and one-bedroom rooms with kitchens. Hotel guest amenities will be located on the ground floor and include the lobby, host stand, kitchen, pool, fitness center, gathering room and business center. Access to the project will be through two driveways along Fermi Place. Primary access will be from Mace Blvd to 2 nd Street to Fermi Place. The project is expected to generate approximately 872 new daily trips. 70 new trips are projected during the a.m. peak hour and 74 new trips will be generated in the p.m. peak hour. Existing Setting. Levels of Service were evaluated for seven intersections in the area of the proposed project. The analysis considered both a.m. and p.m. traffic. The existing intersections operate at acceptable Levels of Service, at LOS D or better. Existing Plus Project Specific Impacts. The existing intersection operating Levels of Service will be maintained with the addition of project traffic. All locations will operate at LOS E or better. Thus, the project s impact is not significant based on this criterion. Standard City of Davis conditions of approval will require payment of current MPFP fees as mitigation for city-wide impacts. Traffic Impact Analysis for Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016) Page i

RESIDENCE INN PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Study Purpose and Objectives This study evaluates the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Residence Inn Project in the Mace Ranch area of east Davis. The project is located at 4647/4652 Fermi Place, in the southwest quadrant of the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection. The project consists of a 120-unit extended stay hotel. Access to the site will be along Fermi Place via 2 nd Street. Based on direction received from the City of Davis, the study addresses the following scenarios and the study parameters are consistent with City of Davis guidelines: 1. Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Conditions; 2. Existing Plus Project A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Conditions; The objective of this study is to identify what effects the projects will have on the area roadway network and local intersections in the near term. Project Description The Residence Inn project is a 120-room four-story hotel to be located in the Mace Ranch area of east Davis. The proposed project is a 120-room four-story extended stay hotel. The hotel will include studios and one-bedroom rooms with kitchens. Hotel guest amenities will be located on the ground floor and include the lobby, host stand, kitchen, pool, fitness center, gathering room and business center. Access to the project will be through two driveways along Fermi Place. Primary access will be from Mace Blvd to 2 nd Street to Fermi Place. The location of the project is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan for the project. Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 1 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

PROJECT LOCATION KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineers 4026-02 LT 7/21/2016 VICINITY MAP figure 1

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineers 4026-02 LT 7/21/2016 SITE PLAN figure 2

EXISTING SETTING Study Area This study addresses traffic conditions on the adjacent roadways that will be used to access the site and a review of the site plan. The quality of traffic flow is often governed by the operation of the local intersections. For this study seven intersections were identified for evaluation. The study locations include: The Mace Blvd / Alhambra Drive intersection is a signal controlled tee intersection. The northbound approach provides a 250 ± left turn lane with protected left phasing. Free right turns exist for the southbound and eastbound approaches. For both movements, the vehicles departing the intersection are not required to yield to through movement vehicles as they enter their own lane as the turn is completed. The 2 nd Street / Fermi Place Target intersection is a signal controlled intersection. This intersection will provide access to the project site. Eastbound 2 nd Street consists of a left turn lane, a through lane and a through-right lane while the westbound approach includes left, through and right turn lanes; the right lane is a trap lane from the westbound departure of the 2 nd Street / Mace Blvd intersection. The north leg of the intersection provides the primary access into the target Center while the south leg is Fermi Place providing access to the project site. Both legs include left turn lanes and through-right lanes. The signal includes protected left turns on all approaches. Bicycle lanes exist along 2 nd Street. The Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection is a signal controlled intersection with protected left turn phasing. The northbound approach includes a 300 ± left turn lane, a through lane and a through-right lane. The southbound approach includes a 200 ± left turn lane, two through lanes and a right turn lane. The eastbound approach incudes a 250 ± left turn lane, a through lane and a right turn lane; the right turn lane is a trap lane from the eastbound departure of the 2 nd Street / Fermi Place - Target intersection. For both right turn movements vehicles are required to yield to through movement vehicles. Bicycle lanes are present along all approaches. The Mace Blvd / I-80 Westbound Ramps intersection is a signal controlled intersection south of the project site. The intersection serves westbound I-80 off-ramp and on-ramp traffic in an L- 1 diamond configuration. The northbound approach includes two 260 ± left turn lanes and two through lanes. The southbound approach includes two through lanes and a 275 ± right turn lane. The westbound off-ramp is a two-lane off-ramp and feed to a right turn lane and a leftthrough lane. The westbound off-ramp also includes a 685 ± left turn lane. The westbound right turn lane has a dedicated accepting lane north of the intersection. This third lane merges into the two through lanes about 325 north of the ramp intersection. Bicycle lanes are present along Mace Blvd. The Mace Blvd / I-80 eastbound On-Ramps intersection provides way access to eastbound I-80 for both northbound and southbound Mace Blvd. The southbound ramp is a loop ramp while the northbound ramp is directional. Both ramp entrances are movements. Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 4 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

The Chiles Road / I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection is a signal controlled intersection south of I-80. The intersection has three legs. The eastbound approach includes a single through lane while the westbound approach includes two through lanes that merge into a single lane west of the intersection. The eastbound hook off-ramp includes a dual lane off-ramp that widens prior to the intersection to provide two left turn lanes and one right turn lane. Bicycle lanes are present along on the west leg of Chiles Road. The Mace Blvd / Chiles Road intersection is a four-way signal controlled intersection east of the project site. The eastbound approach includes two, a through lane and a right turn lane. All four lanes are about 325, and extend to the I-80 eastbound off-ramp intersection. The westbound approach includes left, through and right turn lanes, with the turn lanes each about 150. The northbound Mace Blvd approach includes a 125 left turn lane, a through lane and a through-right lane. The outside lane includes a short one-car right turn lane. The southbound approach includes a 300 ± left turn lane, two through lanes and a 150 ± right turn lane. The signal phasing includes protected left turns on all approaches. Level of Service Analysis Methodology. Level of Service Analysis has been employed to provide a basis for describing existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of project traffic impacts. Level of Service measures the quality of traffic flow and is represented by letter designations from "A" to "F", with a grade of "A" referring to the best conditions, and "F" representing the worst conditions. Table 1 presents typical Level of Service characteristics. Local agencies adopt minimum Level of Service standards for their facilities. The City of Davis identifies LOS E as the acceptable Level of Service within the City during the peak hour while LOS F is acceptable for the Core Area and the Richards Blvd / Olive Drive area. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual was used to provide a basis for describing existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of project traffic impacts. Synchro 9.1 / SimTraffic micro-simulation software was used to analyze the Mace Blvd corridor, from the I-80 Eastbound Off-ramp intersection at Chiles Road to the Mace Blvd / Alhambra Drive intersection. The 2 nd Street / Fermi Place Target intersection was analyzed using Synchro 9.1. This approach was consistent with the Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) DEIR. Levels of Service at the intersections analyzed using SimTraffic were based upon the average results of the SimTraffic output. The SimTraffic software is a stochastic model, i.e. randomness is present when running the simulations. The results will vary within each scenario and between scenarios. This may result in intersections having lower delays or queues in the Plus Project scenario than in the No Project scenario. The simulation results contained in this report reflect the average of the mean 10 one-hour simulation runs selected from a 20 run sample. SimTraffic evaluates overall systems, providing operational Levels of Service for individual intersections and segments. Although the operations at individual intersections and along segments are reported it is more meaningful to look at SimTraffic results as a whole system, rather than as individual intersections. This is a particular strength of SimTraffic as it considers Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 5 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

interaction between intersections. For this study, significance is defined as the overall condition of the network; for example, if only one intersection operates below the LOS threshold in one scenario and a different intersection operates below the threshold in a plus Project scenario this is not considered significant as the network overall is still operating with a single intersection below the LOS threshold. Implementation of a mitigation measure at one intersection could affect a different intersection in the network, creating a cascading effect of mitigation measures. The identification of maintaining a single intersection in the network operating below the LOS threshold indicates that traffic is dynamic under a coordinated system. This analysis method and the significance thresholds are responding to this systemic approach. TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Roadway (Daily) "A" Uncongested operations, all queues Little or no delay. Completely flow. clear in a single-signal cycle. Delay < 10 sec/veh Delay < 10.0 sec "B" "C" "D" "E" Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single cycle. Delay > 10.0 sec and < 20.0 sec Light congestion, occasional backups on critical approaches. Delay > 20.0 sec and < 35.0 sec Significant congestion of critical approaches but intersection functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long queues formed. Delay > 35.0 sec and < 55.0 sec Severe congestion with some long standing queues on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es). Delay > 55.0 sec and < 80.0 sec "F" Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. Delay > 80.0 sec Short traffic delays. Delay > 10 sec/veh and < 15 sec/veh Average traffic delays. Delay > 15 sec/veh and < 25 sec/veh Long traffic delays. Delay > 25 sec/veh and < 35 sec/veh Very long traffic delays, failure, extreme congestion. Delay > 35 sec/veh and < 50 sec/veh Intersection blocked by external causes. Delay > 50 sec/veh Sources: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (TRB). Free flow, presence of other vehicles noticeable. Ability to maneuver and select operating speed affected. Unstable flow, speeds and ability to maneuver restricted. At or near capacity, flow quite unstable. Forced flow, breakdown. Significance Thresholds. Intersections: Significant traffic impacts at intersections within the City of Davis jurisdiction are defined when the addition of proposed project traffic causes any of the following: Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 6 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

a) For signalized intersections outside the Core Area or the Richards Blvd / Olive Drive area, causes overall intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour) to an unacceptable level (LOS F in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour); b) For signalized intersections outside the Core Area or the Richards Blvd / Olive Drive area, exacerbate unacceptable (LOS F) operations by increasing an intersection s average delay by five seconds or more; c) For unsignalized intersections outside the Core Area or the Richards Blvd / Olive Drive area, causes the worst-case movement (or average of all movements for all-way stopcontrolled intersections) to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour) to an unacceptable level (LOS F in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour) and meet the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) peak hour signal warrant; d) For unsignalized intersections outside the Core Area or the Richards Blvd / Olive Drive area that operate unacceptably (LOS F in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour) and meet MUTCD s peak hour signal warrant without the project, exacerbate operations by increasing the overall intersection s volume by more than one percent; or e) For unsignalized intersections that operate unacceptably, but do not meet MUTCD s peak hour signal warrant without the project, add sufficient volume to meet the MUTCD peak hour signal warrant. Existing Traffic Conditions Existing a.m. and p.m. traffic volumes were obtained from the recently completed traffic impact study for the Mace Ranch Innovation Center. Existing volumes are shown in Figure 3. Intersection Levels of Service. The Level of Service for signalized and unsignalized intersections is based on and measured in terms of control delay for the peak fifteen-minute analysis period. Table 2 summarizes current Levels of Service at the study area intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. All intersections currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service, at LOS D or better. Location TABLE 2 EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Average Average Warrants LOS Delay (secs) LOS Delay (secs) Met? 1. Mace Blvd /Alhambra Drive Signal A 8 A 9 N/A 2. 2 nd Street / Fermi Place - Target Signal B 11 B 15 N/A 3. Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street Signal D 45 C 29 N/A 4. Mace Blvd / I-80 WB Ramps Signal C 24 B 18 N/A 5. Mace Blvd / I-80 EB On-Ramps Uncontrolled A 5 A 4 N/A 6. Chiles Rd / I-80 EB Off-Ramp Signal A 7 A 8 N/A 7. Mace Blvd/Chiles Rd Signal C 26 C 24 N/A Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 7 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

1 3 1 (455) 588 (10) 16 (9) 11 (176) 336 392 (695) 150 (297) Mace Blvd / Alhambra Dr 2 (185) 54 (7) 2 (63) 25 5 3 6 (29) 42 (320) 492 (147) 84 2 nd St / Fermi Pl / Target (85) 37 (521) 846 (83) 66 5 (6) 243 (634) 24 (97) 9 (27) 1 (6) 7 (11) 11 (40) 48 (26) 14 (42) (930) 623 (470) 642 Mace Blvd / EB I-80 Ramps (346) 241 (105) 85 412 (259) 865 (801) 356 (357) 2 6 4 5 7 (144) 34 (141) 14 (596) 276 4 Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street (950) 941 (201) 172 22 (50) 497 (803) 567 (460) 537 (781) 1 (1) 294 (465) (441) 394 Chiles Rd / I-80 EB Off-Ramps 7 (185) 133 (473) 236 (317) 268 302 (206) 61 (26) 21 (34) XX (XX) R1-1 Legend AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Stop Sign 539 (526) 372 (249) (460) 433 (158) 101 (148) 97 43 (78) 552 (378) 26 (28) Signalized Intersection Mace Blvd / WB I-80 Ramps Mace Blvd / Chiles Rd KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineers 4026-02 LT 7/21/2016 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS figure 3

Non-Automobile Transportation Public Transit. Unitrans and Yolo Bus provide public transit service in Davis. The facilities serving the area of the proposed project include: 1. Unitrans. This is operated by the University of California. There are five routes that operate past the site, along Mace Blvd and/or 2 nd Street. These include the A, O, P, Q and Z routes. The A and Z routes run midweek while the O route only runs on the weekend. The P and Q routes operate every day. Currently, Unitrans is operating their summer schedule with the new 2016/2017 schedule effective August 1. According to Unitrans most of the changes are in weekend service. The A route begins at The Silo terminal on the UCD campus and proceeds through downtown Davis to L Street where it then continues along 5 th Street, into Mace Ranch, along Mace Blvd to South Davis where it turns and heads back to the UCD campus. The route operates in the midweek on about 30 minute headways, departing The Silo between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and then on an hourly schedule Monday through Thursday until 10:10 p.m. The A line does not operate weekend service. The Z line operates from the Memorial Union and proceeds through downtown along 3 rd Street where it continues onto 5 th Street via L Street. The route then loops around Mace Ranch via Alhambra Drive, Mace Blvd, Second Street and Pena Drive to Fifth Street where it heads back to the Memorial Union. The route operates in the midweek on ½ hour headways, departing the Memorial Union between 7:15 a.m. and 5:55 p.m. The P and Q routes provide citywide service and passes near the site. The P route provides counterclockwise service around the City and the Q route provides clockwise service. Both routes travel along Mace Blvd and stop at the 2 nd Street intersection. The P and the Q routes operate from 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; Friday service operates from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Weekend service is provided for both routes from 8:24 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The routes operate at 30 minute headways during the midweek with headways extending to one hour after 6:00 p.m. while weekend service operates at about one hour headways. The O Line operates only on weekends. The route begins at the Memorial Union Terminal and proceeds through downtown Davis to 5 th Street. The route passes the project site at Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection to Target where it continues to Pena Street and back to 5 th Street. The route continues through downtown and into west Davis and back to the Memorial Union. The route operates on 75-minute headways from about 9:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. 2. Yolo Bus. Yolo Bus provides service in the project vicinity with four routes, 42A and 42B, 43 and 232. Route 42A provides clockwise service between Davis, Woodland, Sacramento Airport and downtown Sacramento. Route 42B provides counterclockwise service between Davis, Woodland, Sacramento Airport and downtown Sacramento. Both Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 9 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

routes have stops at the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection. Service begins at this location with the first bus on the 42A route departing at 4:37 a.m. Monday through Friday. The last bus arrives at 11:02 p.m. Service is generally hourly with an additional run at 5:35 a.m. Weekend service begins at 7:08 a.m. from the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection and operates about hourly until 9:08 p.m. The first bus departing along the 42B route leaves at 5:51 a.m. Monday through Friday and operates on about a one hour headway. The last bus arrives at 10:21 p.m. Weekend service begins at 7:43 a.m. from the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection and operates hourly until 10:21 p.m. Route 43 operates Monday through Friday with five runs into Sacramento in the a.m. and four runs from Sacramento in the p.m. The route passes the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection. The morning runs pass this intersection beginning at about 6:30 with the fifth run arriving about 8:00 a.m. In the evening the first bus arrives at the intersection at about 4:45 with the fourth bus arriving about 5:45. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 242 operates only during the midweek with a single run on the morning leaving the Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street intersection at about 6:51 a.m. The return trip arrives from Sacramento at about 6:20 p.m. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are available throughout the City of Davis. The City has developed an extensive bicycle system extending into the University and Yolo County. On-street and off-street facilities are available in the project area with marked bike lanes along Mace Blvd, 2 nd Street and Fermi Place. In addition to the bike lanes bike paths are available along Mace Blvd and Alhambra Drive, and within Mace Ranch, accessible from behind the Target Shopping Center. Sidewalks are present along Fermi Place, along 2 nd Street from the Target Shopping Center to Mace Blvd, along the west side of Mace Blvd north of 2 nd Street and within the Target Center where access to the multipurpose path can be reached. Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 10 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

PROJECT IMPACTS Project Characteristics The development of this project will attract additional traffic to the project site. The amount of additional traffic on a particular section of the street network is dependent upon two factors: I. Trip Generation, the number of new trips generated by the project, and II. Trip Distribution and Assignment, the specific routes that the new traffic takes. Trip Generation. Trip generation is determined by identifying the type and size of land use being developed. Recognized sources of trip generation data may then be used to calculate the total number of trip ends. The trip generation of the project was computed using rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2013) based on the projected use. The project consists of a 120 room extended stay hotel. Two alternative hotel types were considered, Land Use 310, Hotel. This land use is described as places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities (pool, fitness room), and/or other retail and service shops. Land Use 312, Business Hotel, was also considered in describing the project. ITE describes a Business Hotel as places of lodging aimed toward the business traveler. These hotels provide sleeping accommodations and other limited facilities, such as a breakfast buffet bar and afternoon beverage bar (no lunch or dinner is served and no meeting facilities are provided). Based on the extended stay hotel description Land Use 312 was used for trip generation. Table 3 displays the daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the site. The proposed project is expected to generate 872 daily trips with 70 a.m. and 74 p.m. peak hour trips. Land Use Amount Daily TABLE 3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Business Hotel 120 room 7.27 0.58 0.62 872 70 74 Note - numbers may not equal due to rounding New Trips 872 70 74 In Out In Out In Out In Out 59% 41% 60% 40% 41 29 45 30 Net New Trips 872 41 29 45 30 Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 11 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

Trip Distribution. The distribution of project traffic was determined based on knowledge of the project area, existing hotels within Davis and existing and future travel patterns in the area. Table 4 displays the trip distribution assumptions used for the proposed project. Trip Assignment. Traffic generated by the project was added to existing peak hour volumes based on the projected distribution percentages. Figure 4 displays the project generated traffic based on the project access to the surrounding roadways. Figure 5 displays the resulting a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections for the Existing plus Project condition. TABLE 4 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Route % of Total AM Trips % of Total PM Trips To / From I-80 westbound 40% 30% To / From I-80 eastbound 30% 30% West on 2 nd Street 10% 15% North/West on Mace Blvd / Covell Blvd 10% 15% East on CR 32A 5% 5% South on Mace Blvd 5% 5% Total 100% 100% Existing Plus Project Level of Service Impacts Intersection Levels of Service. Table 5 displays the a.m. and p.m. peak period Level of Service at each study intersection with the proposed project. All intersections will continue to operate within the City s Level of Service threshold, at LOS C or better. The all-way stop controlled intersection at Cowell Blvd / Drummond Avenue / Chiles Road operates acceptably and will not meet the peak hour signal warrant. Thus, the project s traffic impacts are not significant from the standpoint of City LOS policy. Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 12 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

1 (7) 4 3 (5) 2 (37) 37 4 (7) 26 (26) 3 (5) 5 (2) 1 (9) 9 18 (15) 1 Mace Blvd / Alhambra Dr 2 nd St / Fermi Pl / Target 3 6 Mace Blvd / EB I-80 Ramps 3 (7) 4 2 (2) (13) 16 2 6 4 5 7 4 (5) 3 (2) 1 (20) 22 Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street (11) 10 (9) 12 31 (29) 12 (13) Chiles Rd / I-80 EB Off-Ramps 7 (2) 1 XX (XX) R1-1 Legend AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Stop Sign 18 (15) (13) 16 2 (2) Signalized Intersection Mace Blvd / WB I-80 Ramps Mace Blvd / Chiles Rd KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineers 4026-02 LT 7/21/2016 PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS figure 4

1 3 1 (462) 592 (10) 16 (9) 11 (176) 336 395 (700) 150 (297) Mace Blvd / Alhambra Dr 2 (185) 54 (7) 2 (63) 25 5 3 6 (66) 79 (320) 492 (147) 84 2 nd St / Fermi Pl / Target (85) 37 (521) 846 (90) 70 9 (13) 243 (634) 24 (97) 35 (53) 1 (6) 10 (16) 11 (40) 50 (28) 14 (42) (932) 624 (479) 651 Mace Blvd / EB I-80 Ramps (359) 257 (105) 85 412 (259) 883 (816) 356 (357) 2 6 4 5 7 (149) 37 (143) 15 (616) 298 4 Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street (961) 951 (210) 184 22 (50) 497 (803) 598 (489) 549 (794) 1 (1) 294 (465) (441) 394 Chiles Rd / I-80 EB Off-Ramps 7 (185) 133 (475) 237 (317) 268 302 (206) 61 (26) 21 (34) XX (XX) R1-1 Legend AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Stop Sign 557 (541) 372 (249) (473) 449 (158) 101 (148) 97 43 (78) 554 (380) 26 (28) Signalized Intersection Mace Blvd / WB I-80 Ramps Mace Blvd / Chiles Rd KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineers 4026-02 LT 7/21/2016 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS figure 5

Location TABLE 5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Control Existing AM Peak Hour Average LOS Delay (secs) Existing PM Peak Hour Average LOS Delay (secs) Existing plus Project Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Average LOS Delay (secs) LOS Delay (secs) 1. Mace Blvd /Alhambra Drive Signal A 8 A 9 A 7 A 10 2. 2 nd Street / Fermi Place - Target Signal B 11 B 15 B 13 B 17 3. Mace Blvd / 2 nd Street Signal D 45 C 29 E 55 C 31 4. Mace Blvd / I-80 EB Ramps Signal C 24 B 18 C 30 B 18 5. Mace Blvd / I-80 EB On-Ramps Uncontrolled A 5 A 4 A 5 A 4 6. Chiles Rd / I-80 EB Off-Ramp Signal A 7 A 8 A 8 A 8 7. Mace Blvd/Chiles Rd Signal C 26 C 24 C 27 C 25 Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 15 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

IMPACT SUMMARY / MITIGATION MEASURES The preceding analysis has identified project impacts that may occur without mitigation. The text that follows identifies a strategy for mitigating the impacts of the proposed project. Recommendations are identified for facilities that require mitigation but are not a result of the proposed project. If the project causes a significant impact, mitigations are identified for the facility. Existing Conditions Recommendations. No recommendations for improvements for existing conditions have been made as the study intersections and roadway segments all operate at acceptable Levels of Service, at LOS C or better. Existing Plus Project Conditions Adequate operating Level of Service at each intersection will be maintained with the addition of project traffic, and the City s minimum Level of Service standards will be met. In addition, the all roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS D or better. Thus the project s impact is not significant based on this criteria and no mitigation is required. Standard City of Davis conditions of approval will require payment of current MPFP fees as mitigation for city-wide impacts. Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 16 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

REFERENCES 1. ITE Trip Generation, 9 th Edition, 2013 2. California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, November, 2014 3. Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 4. Mace Ranch Innovation Center Draft Environmental Impact Report, Raney Planning and Management, August 2015 5. Telephone and E-mail correspondence, Roxanne Namazi and Ike Njoku, City of Davis, April through June, 2016 Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 17 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

APPENDIX Traffic Impact Analysis for Page 18 Residence Inn, Davis, CA (July 21, 2016)

SimTraffic Performance Report Exist AM Baseline 7/14/2016 1: Mace Blvd & Alhambra Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.0 15.8 2.5 7.7 3: Mace Blvd & 2nd St/CR 32A Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.4 48.2 73.7 21.6 44.7 4: Mace Blvd & I-80 WB Ramp Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 23.2 22.2 26.1 24.0 5: I-80 EB Ramp & Mace Blvd Performance by approach Approach NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.5 9.0 5.2 6: Chiles Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.9 7.7 8.8 7.4 7: Mace Blvd & Chiles Rd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 3.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 37.6 22.3 23.7 19.1 26.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 1351.6 SimTraffic Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM 2: 2nd St & Target/Fermi Pl 7/14/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 2 25 7 1 9 24 243 5 42 492 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 2 25 7 1 9 24 243 5 42 492 84 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 57 2 26 7 1 9 25 256 5 44 518 88 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 86 9 121 13 6 58 44 1393 27 70 759 645 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 114 1486 1774 161 1447 1774 3551 69 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 57 0 28 7 0 10 25 127 134 44 518 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1600 1774 0 1607 1774 1770 1851 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.7 1.7 0.9 8.1 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.7 1.7 0.9 8.1 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 0 130 13 0 65 44 694 726 70 759 645 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.21 0.52 0.00 0.15 0.57 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.68 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 297 0 1361 201 0 1271 201 1154 1207 201 1215 1032 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.5 0.0 15.1 17.4 0.0 16.3 17.0 7.0 7.0 16.7 8.6 6.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 0.0 0.8 28.4 0.0 1.1 11.2 0.1 0.1 8.7 1.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.6 4.3 0.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.9 0.0 16.0 45.9 0.0 17.4 28.3 7.1 7.1 25.4 9.7 6.7 LnGrp LOS C B D B C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 85 17 286 650 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 29.1 9.0 10.3 Approach LOS C C A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 18.4 4.4 7.0 5.0 19.0 5.8 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 23.0 4.0 30.0 4.0 23.0 5.9 27.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s 2.9 3.7 2.1 2.6 2.5 10.1 3.1 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes 11/13/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM 2: 2nd St & Target/Fermi Pl 7/14/2016 User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 11/13/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report Exist PM Baseline 7/18/2016 1: Mace Blvd & Alhambra Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.4 12.3 4.6 9.2 3: Mace Blvd & 2nd St/CR 32A Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 21.8 45.3 32.2 29.6 29.0 4: Mace Blvd & I-80 WB Ramp Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.7 13.8 23.2 17.5 5: I-80 EB Ramp & Mace Blvd Performance by approach Approach NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.3 5.5 3.7 6: Chiles Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.1 8.3 9.4 8.2 7: Mace Blvd & Chiles Rd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 36.9 19.8 21.0 15.8 23.9 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 1086.3 SimTraffic Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM 2: 2nd St & Target/Fermi Pl 7/18/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 185 7 63 11 6 27 97 634 6 29 320 147 Future Volume (veh/h) 185 7 63 11 6 27 97 634 6 29 320 147 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 199 8 68 12 6 29 104 682 6 31 344 158 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 262 35 293 22 19 93 135 1397 12 50 635 540 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 169 1439 1774 279 1347 1774 3595 32 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 199 0 76 12 0 35 104 336 352 31 344 158 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1609 1774 0 1625 1774 1770 1857 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.9 2.7 6.6 6.6 0.8 6.9 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.9 2.7 6.6 6.6 0.8 6.9 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 262 0 328 22 0 112 135 688 722 50 635 540 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.23 0.55 0.00 0.31 0.77 0.49 0.49 0.61 0.54 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 705 0 1054 154 0 561 454 1271 1334 223 1096 931 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.9 0.0 15.3 22.6 0.0 20.4 20.9 10.6 10.6 22.1 12.3 11.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 0.0 0.4 19.6 0.0 1.6 8.9 0.5 0.5 11.5 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.6 3.3 3.4 0.5 3.7 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 0.0 15.7 42.2 0.0 22.0 29.7 11.2 11.1 33.7 13.0 11.4 LnGrp LOS C B D C C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 275 47 792 533 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 27.1 13.6 13.7 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 22.5 4.7 13.5 7.6 20.3 10.9 7.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.8 33.1 4.0 30.2 11.8 27.1 18.3 15.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s 2.8 8.6 2.3 3.8 4.7 8.9 7.0 2.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.6 0.1 6.8 0.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 2010 LOS B 2 Exist PM 7-12-16.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1

SimTraffic Performance Report Exist plus Project AM Baseline 7/18/2016 1: Mace Blvd & Alhambra Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.7 14.1 2.4 6.9 3: Mace Blvd & 2nd St/CR 32A Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.9 51.3 96.7 22.1 55.0 4: Mace Blvd & I-80 WB Ramp Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 39.1 26.3 27.0 30.4 5: I-80 EB Ramp & Mace Blvd Performance by approach Approach NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.6 9.1 5.3 6: Chiles Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.3 7.9 8.7 7.6 7: Mace Blvd & Chiles Rd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 3.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 37.7 22.8 24.4 19.6 26.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 1459.2 SimTraffic Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist plus Project AM 2: 2nd St & Target/Fermi Pl 7/18/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 2 25 10 1 35 24 243 9 79 492 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 2 25 10 1 35 24 243 9 79 492 84 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 57 2 26 11 1 37 25 256 9 83 518 88 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 85 11 143 21 2 92 44 1273 45 111 750 638 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 114 1486 1774 42 1548 1774 3489 122 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 57 0 28 11 0 38 25 129 136 83 518 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1600 1774 0 1590 1774 1770 1841 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 8.4 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 8.4 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 85 0 154 21 0 95 44 646 672 111 750 638 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.18 0.54 0.00 0.40 0.57 0.20 0.20 0.75 0.69 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 0 1321 195 0 1220 195 1120 1165 195 1179 1002 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 0.0 15.1 17.9 0.0 16.5 17.5 7.9 7.9 16.8 9.0 6.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.0 0.6 20.0 0.0 2.7 11.4 0.2 0.1 9.7 1.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.1 4.4 0.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.6 0.0 15.7 37.8 0.0 19.2 28.9 8.1 8.1 26.4 10.1 7.0 LnGrp LOS C B D B C A A C B A Approach Vol, veh/h 85 49 290 689 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 23.4 9.9 11.7 Approach LOS C C A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.4 17.9 4.5 7.6 5.0 19.2 5.9 6.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 23.0 4.0 30.0 4.0 23.0 5.9 27.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s 3.7 3.8 2.2 2.6 2.5 10.4 3.1 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes 11/13/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist plus Project AM 2: 2nd St & Target/Fermi Pl 7/18/2016 User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 11/13/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report Exist plus Project PM Baseline 7/18/2016 1: Mace Blvd & Alhambra Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.6 12.8 4.9 9.5 3: Mace Blvd & 2nd St/CR 32A Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 23.3 46.5 36.9 29.1 31.4 4: Mace Blvd & I-80 WB Ramp Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.5 14.4 23.5 17.7 5: I-80 EB Ramp & Mace Blvd Performance by approach Approach NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.3 5.7 3.8 6: Chiles Rd & I-80 EB Off-Ramp Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.7 9.0 9.5 8.7 7: Mace Blvd & Chiles Rd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.1 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 38.9 19.6 20.7 15.8 24.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 1082.9 SimTraffic Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist plus Project PM 2: 2nd St & Target/Fermi Pl 7/18/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 185 7 63 16 6 53 97 634 13 66 320 147 Future Volume (veh/h) 185 7 63 16 6 53 97 634 13 66 320 147 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 199 8 68 17 6 57 104 682 14 71 344 158 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 261 36 302 30 12 116 135 1287 26 91 630 535 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 169 1439 1774 153 1453 1774 3547 73 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 199 0 76 17 0 63 104 340 356 71 344 158 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1609 1774 0 1606 1774 1770 1850 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.0 1.8 2.7 7.1 7.1 1.9 7.1 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.0 1.8 2.7 7.1 7.1 1.9 7.1 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 261 0 337 30 0 128 135 642 671 91 630 535 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.23 0.57 0.00 0.49 0.77 0.53 0.53 0.78 0.55 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 690 0 1032 151 0 543 445 1244 1301 219 1073 912 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 0.0 15.4 23.0 0.0 20.8 21.3 11.8 11.8 22.1 12.6 11.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.3 15.6 0.0 2.9 8.8 0.7 0.7 13.2 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.7 3.5 3.7 1.2 3.8 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.9 0.0 15.8 38.6 0.0 23.7 30.2 12.5 12.5 35.3 13.4 11.8 LnGrp LOS C B D C C B B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 275 80 800 573 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 26.8 14.8 15.7 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.5 21.7 4.9 14.0 7.7 20.5 11.0 7.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.8 33.1 4.0 30.2 11.8 27.1 18.3 15.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s 3.9 9.1 2.4 3.8 4.7 9.1 7.1 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.8 0.1 6.9 0.4 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.7 HCM 2010 LOS B 4 EPP PM 7-18-16.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1