Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2 - EIR18-01; DA18-01; GPA18-06; AA18-10_2525 N MAIN STREET
2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 This page left blank intentionally. 2-16 Page 1 of 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM NO. 3 – PUBLIC HEARING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2018-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT LOCATED AT 2525 N MAIN STREET Exhibit 1 - EIR Resolution & Exhibits Exhibit 2 - Development Agreement Resolution & Agreement Exhibit 3 - General Plan Amendment Resolution & Exhibits Exhibit 4 - Amendment Application Resolution & Exhibits Exhibit 5 - Sunshine Meeting Minutes & Sign-in Exhibit 6 - Economic Analysis Update Exhibit 7 - Vicinity Map Exhibit 8 - Site Photos Exhibit 9 - Overall Site Plan Exhibit 10 - Floor Plans Exhibit 11 - Building Elevations Exhibit 12 - Renderings Exhibit 13 - Landscape Plan 2-17 This page left blank intentionally. 2-18 EXHIBIT 1 2-19 This page left blank intentionally. 2-20 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 1 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA: (1) ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (2) CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2018021031), (3) ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND (4) ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to develop The Addington a Multi-Family Residential Project (“proposed Project”), originally proposed as a 496-unit multi-family project on a 5.93-acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, California (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, during the entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the public and the City’s elected officials, the Applicant has proposed several modifications to the original proposal; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails (1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and 442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot with residential and commercial parking; (3) approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana (“City”) and Applicant; (4) approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site’s existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93) designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been submitted and requires review and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (the “EIR”) (SCH# 2018021031) (Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01), and approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the northeast corner of North Main Street and Edgewood Road and the properties immediately adjacent to the site include Santiago Park to the north, single-family residential homes to the south and east and the Discovery Science Center of Orange County across Main Street to the west. The Project Site is located on North Main Street, an urban corridor EXHIBIT 1 2-21 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 10 within the City. The Project Site is also located at a main entry point to the Park Santiago Neighborhood, a residential neighborhood predominantly comprised of detached single-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and to evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was required; and WHEREAS, after conducting the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential to have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts to Aesthetics regarding scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; to Agriculture and Forestry Resources regarding farmland; agricultural land, forest land timberland or conversion of; to Biological Resources regarding wetlands, conflicts with a tree preservation policy or ordinance, conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; to Geology and Soils regarding a known earthquake fault, landslides, or soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or waste water disposal; to Hazards regarding sites listed on a hazardous materials site, an airport land use plan, private airstrip or wildland fires; to Hydrology and Water Quality regarding housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; to Land Use and Planning regarding conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; to Mineral Resources regarding loss of a mineral resource to the region or locally; to Noise regarding conflicts with an airport land use plan or private airstrip; Population and Housing regarding displacing existing housing necessitating replacement housing or displacing a substantial number of persons necessitating construction of replacement housing; to Transportation/Traffic regarding a change in air traffic patterns; to Utilities and Service Systems regarding federal, state and local solid waste regulations would have no impact or be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed further in the EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on February 12, 2018, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) - which was also published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation - stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031) would be prepared; and 2-22 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 10 WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Initial Study were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City’s website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on March 1, 2018, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, one hundred sixty-three (163) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared for the proposed Project, addressing comments received in response to the NOP and evaluating the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to Aesthetics with the implementation of mitigation measures regarding the existing visual character of the Project Site and its surroundings, as implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Santiago Park, Edgewood Road, and North Bush Street; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on August 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public - and published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Register - at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on August 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall (20 Civic Center Plaza), on the City’s website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library (26 Civic Center Plaza); and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(i); and 2-23 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 4 of 10 WHEREAS, in response to a request from Chatten-Brown & Cartens LLP, on behalf of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, the City extended the Draft Environmental Impact Report public review and comment period to October 4, 2018 to allow additional time for public review and input; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 59-day review period, from August 7, 2018 to October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, during the 59-day public comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received forty-four (44) written comment letters and six verbal comments on the Draft EIR at the August 27, 2018 public hearing, including a written acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, on November 15, 2018, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies and interested organizations and parties more than ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2018, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued a duly noticed public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019. A second study session was held to review the Project. During the public comment period fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received (twenty-five (25) in support; thirty-one (31) in opposition and two (2) neutral) and eleven (11) written comments were received (two (2) in support and nine (9) in opposition); and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48) speakers opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project; and 2-24 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 5 of 10 WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct the duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131) members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it and one hundred and sixty- six (166) written comments were received with nine (9) in support and one hundred and fifty-seven (157) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, the Applicant and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted that the project be remanded to the Planning Commission after further consultation with staff, Applicant and community to address comments and concerns raised during the public hearing process; and WHEREAS, in June 2019, the applicant submitted a revised plan consisting of development 347 multi-family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces (1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4- story residential building wrapped around a five-level parking structure with an amenity deck on the sixth-level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project on a 5.93- acre site (the “June Revised Plan”); and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the June Revised Plan. At the meeting, seventy- seven (77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and one speaker was neutral. In addition, one-hundred (100) written comments were received with six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission vote resulted in an impasse; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the applicant submitted a further revised plan. including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot which also reduced the Project’s height, increased the Project’s setbacks, and modified the Project entrance (“October Modified Project”); and 2-25 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 6 of 10 WHEREAS, the City has prepared “Clarifications to the Final EIR (October 2019)” to determine if the October Modified Project would result in new or substantially increased environmental effects than those analyzed in the EIR such that the EIR would require recirculation prior to its certification; and WHEREAS, the Clarifications to the Final EIR include detailed analysis, based upon substantial evidence, that demonstrate that the October Modified Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts than are disclosed in the EIR, no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the EIR are required, and no additional feasible alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, October 18, 2019, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2018- 01 (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031) by advertising in the Orange County Register a newspaper of general circulation, and on October 17, 2019 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project and posting on the project site; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse Number #2018021031), and Clarifications to the EIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, and all attachments and appendices to both the Final EIR and the Clarifications to the Final EIR, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Planning Commission has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, 2-26 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 7 of 10 which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project’s significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 7 of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project’s environmental impacts that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are described in Section 8 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 9 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 9.17 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 10 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 11 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the proposed Project’s environmental impacts are described in Section 12 of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and 2-27 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 8 of 10 WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to and shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. 2. The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance”, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Adopt the Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A.” 2-28 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 9 of 10 2. Certify the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 3. Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, after balancing the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts of the Project against the benefits of the Project. 4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “C”, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21081.6; make implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project; and find that in the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 5. Direct City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the City Council’s final Project approval. SECTION 1. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney 2-29 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on _______________________, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-30 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 1 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR CEQA FINDINGS, FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FINAL EIR FOR THE MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No: 2018021031 City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to approval of the Project (Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the State of California Public Resources Code). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states: a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials The CEQA Guidelines are codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing at section 15000. 2-31 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 2 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides that: a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of a proposed project, against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, or a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. The City of Santa Ana, as lead agency, having received, reviewed and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project (currently known as “The Addington”) (Project), the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and the Clarifications to the Final EIR (Clarifications), SCH No. 2018021031, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, hereby adopts the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City of Santa Ana for the development and operation of the Project. This action includes the approval of the DEIR SCH No. 2018021031. 1.2 Organization/Format of Findings These Findings have been organized into the following sections: • Section 1.0: Introduction, provides the organization and records information for these Findings. • Section 2.0: Project Location, provides a summary of the location of the Project. • Section 3.0: Project Description, provides a summary of the Project, including an overview of the discretionary actions required for Project approval and a statement of the Project objectives. • Section 4.0: Discretionary Actions, provides a list of the discretionary approvals that are required by the Project. • Section 5.0: Statement of Project Objectives, provides the statement of objective sought by the Project. 2-32 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 3 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • Section 6.0: Environmental Review and Public Participation provides a description of the CEQA process conducted for the Project. • Section 7.0: Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level, provides the Findings for the impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of regulations that reduce impacts and project-specific mitigation measures. • Section 8.0: Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance, provides the Findings for impacts that can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of regulations that reduce impacts, Project Design Features (PDFs), and mitigation measures. • Section 9.0: Effects Determined Not to be Significant, provides the Findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be less than significant as a result of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) and/or analysis within the EIR. • Section 10.0: Significant Irreversible Environmental Change and Energy Use. • Section 11.0: Growth Inducing Effects, provides the Findings regarding the CEQA-required analysis for growth inducement. • Section 12.0: Alternatives, provides Findings regarding project alternatives. 1.3 Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of, but is not limited to, the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project • The DEIR, including all technical studies included in the appendices for the Project • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the pubic during the public review comment period on the DEIR • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed Project • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • All documents, studies, EIRs or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR including Clarifications • The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the Project and all documents incorporated by reference therein • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) 2-33 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 4 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR • The Final EIR for the Project, including the “Clarifications to the Final EIR” 1.4 Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, California, 92701. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. Copies of these documents which constitute the record of proceedings are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e). 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate (I)-5. The site is located on the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Regional access to the Project site is provided by I-5 and the N. Main Street exit; and local access to the Project site is provided by N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The Project site consists of 6 contiguous parcels that include Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 003-010- 028, 003-010-01, 003-010-03, 003-010-025, 003-010-026, 003-010-030 and is located within the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Orange County 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Originally Proposed Project As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would redevelop the 5.9- acre Project site to provide 496 for-rent multi-family residential units. The residences would be provided within approximately 572,075 square feet of residential structures. The development would be 5 stories and be topped with mezzanines reaching approximately 65-feet 8-inches in height. The development would tier down to 2-stories (slightly over 20-feet in height) on the eastern portion of the site. The residential units would be wrapped around a 358,630 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure with a roofline of approximately 90 feet from the ground surface, which is the highest point of the Project. The Project would result in approximately 930,705 square feet of development and a density of 84 dwelling units per acre, and would provide a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three- bedroom units, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Residential Unit Summary (Originally Proposed Project) Unit Type Number of Units Square Footage of Units Percentage1 Studio 73 590 – 740 15% 1 Bedroom 307 610 – 1,090 62% 2 Bedroom 88 910 – 1,470 18% 3 Bedroom 28 1,360 – 1,520 6% Total 496 -- 100% 1Rounded to the nearest percentage. As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the residential units would be setback a minimum of 40 feet from the cement block wall that forms the eastern Project site boundary and would be separated by 4 courtyards and landscaped areas. The central parking structure would have 9 levels of parking, one of which would be underground; thus, 8 levels of parking would be above ground. The 2-34 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 5 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR parking structure would provide direct access to the leasing office and walkways to residential units, a bicycle parking/sharing station, and 904 parking spaces, which is an average of 1.8 spaces per residential unit. The parking spaces would include 122 tandem spaces, 25 electric vehicle charging stations, and 21 spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The parking structure would also provide direct access to the fitness center, club room, and amenity deck located on top of the western portion of the structure. As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would provide open space and recreation facilities that includes approximately 34,300 square feet of exterior open space and recreation facilities and 6,960 square feet of indoor recreation facilities that would contain: 5 recreational courtyard areas, a rooftop amenity deck and fitness center on the roof of the parking structure, community room, and a wellness center. In addition, each residential unit includes a private patio or balcony area. The open space, recreation areas, and other amenities are listed in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Project Open Space / Recreation Amenities (Originally Proposed Project) Open Space Approximate Square Footage Open Space Recreational Courtyards 1-5 22,900 Wellness Center 1,600 Community Room 4,700 Resident Services /Business Center 3,900 Bicycle Repair Room 280 Dog Wash Room 40 Fitness Center 5,400 Amenity Deck (not including Fitness Center) 11,400 As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would provide vehicular access via a driveway on N. Main Street that would guide vehicles to the parking structure that provides direct access to the residential units, guest parking, and the leasing office. The Project was also originally proposed to implement a secondary access from either Santiago Park (Option B) or Edgewood Road (Option C). Additionally, separate emergency access would be provided from Edgewood Road by knoxbox-gated entrances and onsite emergency lanes that meet the City’s Fire Code requirements. As originally proposed and as described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project would connect to the existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure in the N. Main Street and Edgewood Road right-of-ways. • Water Infrastructure: The Project would install new water infrastructure on the Project site that would connect to the existing 16-inch water pipelines in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The new onsite water system would be compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code (Title 24) for efficient use of water. • Wastewater Infrastructure: Wastewater from the Project site currently discharges into existing City-owned 6- and 12-inch sewer lines within Edgewood Road. The Project would install a new onsite sewer system that connects to the existing sewer lines in Edgewood Road. • Drainage Infrastructure: Surface runoff from the site is conveyed within onsite curb and gutters to an existing catch basin in N. Main Street and sheet flows to an existing drain inlet at the south- west corner of the parking lot. In addition, sheet flows on the north side of the building flow to the existing 10-inch storm water drain that conveys unfiltered runoff to Santiago Creek. The Project would cap this existing 10-inch storm water drain. It would remain in place but would no longer 2-35 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 6 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR be used. All of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to infiltrating landscaping areas, catch basins, and storm water drains that would be installed as part of the Project and would be sized to meet the Project’s needs. The onsite system would connect to the existing City drain system in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which discharges to Santiago Creek. 3.2 Modified Project Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft EIR and preparation of the Final EIR for the Project, the Project applicant submitted a revised development proposal to the City (Modified Project). The Modified Project proposes reducing the number of residential units by 48 percent, reducing the scale of the structures, surface level parking and revising the vehicular access to the site. Specifically, the Modified Project would development the Project site with 256 multi-family residential units surrounding a central parking garage. The residential units are proposed to be provided within approximately 277,281 square feet of residential structures that range between 2 and 4 stories in height. The 2-story residential structures (24- feet, 8-inches in height) would be located on the eastern portion of the site, and be setback a minimum of 90-feet from the eastern boundary of the site with the inclusion of a surface level parking lot. The 3-story residential structures (36-feet, 9-inches in height) would be located both behind the 2-story structures. The remainder of the residential structures would be 4-stories (49-feet, 5-inches in height). The setback of the building along the southern boundary (Edgewood Road) has been increased from 13 feet to approximately 134-feet, with inclusion of a surface parking lot. The residential units would be developed around a 167,253-square foot central parking structure that would have one level of parking underground and 5 levels of parking aboveground. The structure would be centrally located on the site, and be approximately 59-feet in height. The highest point of the Modified Project would be the top of the elevator tower to the amenity deck on top of the parking structure, which would be approximately 75 feet from the ground. Table 1: Proposed Project Modifications Project Characteristic Original Project (per EIR) Modified Project Change Number of Units 496 units 256 units -240 units Density of Residential Development Area 84 units per acre 58 units per acre* -26 units per acre* Residential Unit Mix Studio: 73 units – 15% 1 bdr: 307 units – 62% 2 bdr: 88 units – 18% 3 bdr: 28 units – 6% Studio: 74 units – 29% 1 bdr: 103 units – 40% 2 bdr: 75 units – 29% 3 bdr: 4 units – 2% Studio: +1 units 1 bdr: -204 units 2 bdr: -13 units 3 bdr: -24 units Residential Unit Sizes Studios: 590 – 740 SF 1 bdr: 610 – 1,090 SF 2 bdr: 910 – 1,470 SF 3 bdr: 1,360 – 1,520 SF Studios: 560 – 590 SF 1 bdr: 630 – 930 SF 2 bdr: 910 – 1,180 SF 3 bdr: 1,360 SF Average unit size is smaller Stories of Residential Structures 2 to 5 stories with mezzanines 2 to 4 stories -1 story Maximum Height of Residential Structures 65-feet 8-inches 49-feet 5-inches -16-feet 3-inches Height of Parking Structure Roofline 90 feet (7 above-ground levels) 59 feet (5 above-ground levels) -31 feet Highest Structure Fitness Center Roofline on Western portion of the Amenity Deck – 90 feet Elevator Tower Roofline towards western portion of site – 74 feet 5-inches. -15 feet 5 inches 2-36 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 7 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Project Characteristic Original Project (per EIR) Modified Project Change Building Setback from Eastern Side Boundary 40 foot minimum 90 foot minimum +50 feet Building Setback from Southern Side Boundary Between 10 feet and 13 feet 4 inches 134 feet 6-inches +121 feet Size of Subterranean Parking 1 level 40,000 square feet 1 level 26,700 square feet -13,300 square feet Parking – Total 904 total spaces 511 spaces dedicated 691 including shared parking -393 dedicated spaces Spaces Per Unit 1.8 2.0 dedicated 2.7 w/ shared parking +0.2 dedicated +0.9 w/ shared parking Tandem Spaces 122 0 -122 Electric Vehicle Spaces 25 15 -10 ADA Spaces 21 12 -9 Notes: bdr = bedroom; SF = square feet; w/ = with; w/o = without * not including the OC Discovery Cube shared parking area of 1.42 acres As shown, the proposed Modified Project would reduce the development by 240 units; from 496 units to 256 units, a 48 percent reduction. The proposed Modified Project’s residential structures would be one- story lower in height and eliminate mezzanines (approximately 16-feet lower), reduce the residential density by 26 units per acre, and be separated from the eastern side of the site by an additional 50 feet in increased setback when compared to the Project as originally proposed. The height of the centrally located parking structure would be reduced by approximately 31 feet and the highest point of the proposed structures would be 15 feet lower. The Modified Project would provide 12,920 square feet of exterior open space and recreation facilities; this is a reduction of 9,980 square feet from the 22,900 square feet of exterior open space that was included in the Original Project. The types of exterior recreational amenities proposed for the Modified Project are similar to those described in the EIR and includes 3 open space courtyards, and a rooftop amenity deck. The Modified Project also reduces interior amenities by 12,799 square feet, as a result of removing the originally proposed Wellness Center, Community Room, Resident Services/Business Center, Bicycle Repair Room, Dog Wash Room, and reducing the size of the Fitness Center. Consistent with the Original Project, the proposed Modified Project would provide vehicular access by a driveway on N. Main Street that would guide vehicles to the parking structure and provide direct access to the residential units, guest parking, and the leasing office. An optional access was proposed at the intersection of Walkie Way and Main Street. However, the Modified Project proposes to created a single shared access for Santiago Park and the Project. To do this the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive will be redesigned. Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive will shift to the south creating an off-set intersection. Santiago Park and the Project will share access from the relocated street. The existing gated vehicular entry along Main Street to Santiago Park would be permanently closed. The proposed emergency access to the Project site would continue to be provided from Edgewood Road by a knoxbox gated entrance and onsite emergency lanes that meet the City’s Fire Code requirements. 3.3 Project Design Features A reduction in the number of electric vehicle charging stations are proposed. The Original Project included at least 25 electric vehicle charging stations and the Modified Project includes at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. No other changes in Project Design Features (PDFs) are proposed. The Project has been 2-37 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 8 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR designed to incorporate the following Project Design Features (PDFs) that would prevent or lessen potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. These PDFs will be implemented in the same manner as mitigation measures. PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. PDF-2: The Project will include at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. PDF-3: The Project will include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings. PDF-4: Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided throughout the common areas of the site, including the dog park area, for the tenants to dispose of their refuse in a proper manner. Property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal, including dog feces disposal bags, to maintain a trash-free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off-site. PDF-5: The Project will include safety design features for security, such as low-intensity security lighting, key pads for building access, security cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. 3.4 Construction Activities and Schedule The Project would be developed over an 18-month period, in one construction phase that includes the following stages: (1) demolition of existing building, pavement, removal of infrastructure and some landscaping; (2) grading and excavation; (3) construction of drainage, utilities, and subgrade infrastructure; (4) building construction; and (5) paving and application of architectural coatings. No units will be leased until construction of the entire Project is completed and occupancy permits have been received from the City. Construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and excluding Sundays and federal holidays, which would be consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18-314; Special Provisions). However, typical construction activities would occur Monday through Friday, generally 20 days a month. Initial site preparation would include demolition of the existing building and several areas of asphaltic concrete pavements. Demolition would remove all subsurface remnants, including foundations, floor slabs, and any utilities that will not be reutilized with the new development. It is anticipated that a maximum of 120 construction workers would be onsite at one time, which would occur during the building construction phase. 2-38 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 9 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 4.0 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the Project requires several actions by the City, including: • Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018021031). Certification of the Final EIR (SCH No. 2018021031) evaluating the environmental impacts resulting from the Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Pubic Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). The Final EIR provides additional environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City as part of Project implementation. The Final EIR includes “Clarifications to the Final EIR” which describes the Modified Project and analyzes the potential of the Modified Project to result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. • General Plan Land Use Amendment. The Project requires City approval of General Land Use Amendment, which would change the General Plan Land Use designation of the Project area from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC), which allows residential uses to a maximum density of 90 dwelling units per acre. • Amendment Application for a Zone Change. The Project requires approval of an Amendment Application from the City for a zone change a c from Professional (P) to Specific Development (SD). The SD zone provides site specific development standards. • Development Agreement. To guide development and services as described in the Project Description previously pursuant to a contract between the City of Santa Ana and Project Applicant. 5.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives support the project’s underlying purpose to develop multi-family residential uses on the project site and assist with meeting the City’s housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high-quality housing. • Increase high-quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeways, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. 2-39 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 10 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project. • The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for a 30-day public review period, which commenced on February 12, 2018, and ended on March 13, 2018. The NOP was distributed to all public agencies, trustee agencies, and the State Office of Planning and Research; posted in the OC Register, posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s office and on the City’s website; and provided for public review at the Santa Ana Public Library and at the City’s Planning Division counter. • Based on the Initial Study and Environmental Check List Form (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G), the City staff determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to allow public agencies, local residents, and interested persons an opportunity to review the Project and provide input on issues to be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on March 1, 2018 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the First Congressional Church of Santa Ana, located at 2555 Santiago Street. Notice of the scoping meeting was sent to state and local agencies, cities, individuals who expressed interest in the Project and notice of the meeting was also included in the Notice of Preparation. • The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City’s Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Section 2.4, Areas of Controversy of the DEIR summarizes the issues identified for analysis. • The DEIR was originally made available for a 45-day public review period from August 7, 2018 to September 20, 2018. The public review period was then extended to 59-days (an additional 2 weeks to October 4, 2018) in response to a request from the public. The Notice of Completion was sent to all interested persons, agencies, cities and organizations and notice posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s office and in the OC Register. The Notice of Completion was also sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to additional public agencies. Copies of the DEIR were made available on the City’s website at: http://santa- ana.org/pba/planning/2525mainresidentialdevelopment.asp, and at the following locations: o City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701 o City of Santa Ana Public Library, 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 • On August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Notice of the meeting was posted in the OC Register and mailed to property owner and occupants within 500 feet. • On November 15, 2018, the City released the Final EIR which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received, revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. • On November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019. • On January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicit further comments on the EIR. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the 2-40 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 11 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project. • On February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicit further comments on the EIR. The public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019. • On February 19, 2019, the City Council continued a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicit further comments on the EIR. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted that the project be taken back to the Planning Commission after further consultation with staff, Applicant and community to address comments and concerns raised. • After further consultation with the public, the Applicant submitted the Modified Project to the City, which reduced the total number of proposed multi-family dwelling units to 256 and include surface level parking, and also reduced the Project’s height, increased the Project’s setbacks, and modified the Project entrance. • The City then prepared “Clarifications to the Final EIR” (October 2019) which included detailed analysis, based upon substantial evidence, that demonstrate that the Modified Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts than are disclosed in the EIR, no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the EIR are required, and no additional feasible alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. 7.0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR, in the and in this document, the following environmental impact cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore required. The following summary describes the adverse impacts of the Project that would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of standard regulatory requirements, PDFs, and all feasible mitigation measures. 7.1 Aesthetics 7.1.1 Visual Character Threshold: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR, with implementation of the Project, views of the Project site from the adjacent Santiago Park area would change from setback views of the existing 2-story office building partially screened by mature landscaping to that of forefront views of the 5-story residential building, with a landscaped tree buffer directly adjacent to the park. This would result in a significant and unavoidable change in views of the Project site from the park. The difference in scale and height, due to the Project’s location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property 2-41 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 12 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to the visual character of the site in comparison to the park. Thus, the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) In addition, implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street. The background views of urban buildings would become forefront views, and the proposed size and scale of the Project would substantially increase the overall visual density of the built environment. The difference in visual scale and height with the proposed structure adjacent to the roadway and limited of visual setback buffer, would be substantial and considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. Thus, the visual change related to the height, scale, and setback from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street would be significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-21.) The Project includes the following PDF that would reduce the visual impacts of the Project: • PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. (DEIR, p. 3-18.) In addition, Mitigation Measure AES-1 require measures be implemented to retain and protect the trees along the eastern and southern Project site boundary and would reduce these impacts. Mitigation Measure AES-1 provides: Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect the trees along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that are planned for preservation during construction of the proposed Project pursuant to the 2018 Arborist Report: • If the wall along the eastern boundary of the Project site cannot be heightened in-place and must be replaced, it shall be reconstructed with a precast concrete fence or a wall without a continuous footing. • Before finalizing construction plans, a contractor with an AirSpade or AirKnife shall explore the locations adjacent to the preserved trees to locate large lateral roots. The root locations shall be marked, and a survey provided to update the construction plans to avoid cutting any significant large roots. The cutting of small roots shall be planned for late spring or winter and made with clean cuts. No pruning paint or sealants shall be used. • Any grade changes near the preserved trees or pruning of trees to provide clearances for construction equipment shall be coordinated with a Registered Consulting Arborist before construction begins, and precautions pursuant to the arborist’s recommendations shall be taken to mitigate potential tree injuries. • Prior to construction, a one-pound soil sample shall be taken from the top 18-inches of soil in each area where trees will be preserved. The samples shall be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and soil supplement recommendations. Fertilization of the preserved trees shall be completed pursuant to the laboratory analysis’ soil supplement recommendations. • Prior to construction, augur 6-inch diameter holes about 3 feet deep at a 3-foot spacing between large roots in the more compacted and crowded spaces. Avoid large visible roots, relocating the 2-42 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 13 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR holes as needed. Start augur holes at three times the trunk diameter, i.e. 6-feet from a 24-inch tree. Back fill with amended soil, based on an agronomic lab’s testing and recommendations. • Prior to construction, mulch all exposed soil areas using a topical application of a well-composted, coarse-texture mulch, without manure or bio-solids, e.g. Aguinaga Forest Floor ½ to 1½” particle size. Apply it 2-inches deep, but not against the tree trunks. • Deep water before construction and check soil moisture monthly during construction by means of a soil test probe. Slow water with a soaker hose or water spike for 12 hours, or as long as necessary to reach 4-feet deep. • Rinse tree foliage at the end of each work week, using a strong stream of water from a high- pressure nozzle. • During construction in areas without pavement near the preserved trees, 3 or more inches of coarse mulch or tree chips under 1-inch plywood for light vehicle parking and steel plates for larger vehicles is required to prevent compaction and protect surface roots. • Protection Barrier: A protection barrier shall be installed around the trees to be preserved. The barrier shall be constructed of durable fencing material, such as chain link fencing. The barrier shall be placed as far from the base of the tree(s) as possible and shall be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of construction, and shall not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission of the Project arborist. o Storage of Materials: There shall be NO storage of materials or supplies of any kind within the area of the protection barriers. Concrete and cement materials, block, stone, sand and soil shall not be placed within the drip-line of the tree. o Fuel Storage: Fuel storage shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of any tree to be preserved. Refueling, servicing and maintenance of equipment and machinery shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of the protected trees. o Debris and Waste Materials: Debris and waste from construction or other activities shall NOT be permitted within protected areas. Wash down of concrete or cement handling equipment, in particular, shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of protected trees. • Any damages or injuries should be reported to the Project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. However, even with implementation of the PDF-1 and Mitigation Measure AES-1, the Project would still result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. As a result, impacts related to existing visual character or quality of the site would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Consistent with the methodology in the EIR, photo-simulations were also prepared to demonstrate the degree of visual change that would result from implementation of the Modified Project. The photo- simulations show that, as described in the EIR, the Modified Project would alter the existing views by development of forefront residential buildings that would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to visual character from specific viewpoints. However, the Modified Project would be lower in height and smaller in scale than the Original Project. The contrast in views that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project is less than what would occur from the Original Project. Thus; although impacts related to specific viewpoints would remain significant and unavoidable, no new or greater impacts would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.1.) 2-43 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 14 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The City hereby finds that feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified in the DEIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, PDFs, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures have reduced potential impacts to a level of less than significant as determined by the City. All of the PDFs and mitigation measures will be included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in order to ensure compliance with all conditions adopted by the City. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to PDFs or existing regulations that reduce environmental impacts, the EIR and these Findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: 8.1 Air Quality 8.1.1 Exposure of Substantial Pollutant Concentrations to Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.) Facts in Support of Findings: As detailed in the DEIR, the Project has the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for emissions of PM10 during construction activities. Therefore, SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 to reduce particulate matter and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring the construction contractor to use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards, would be implemented to reduce construction emissions below a level of significance. With implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 that would be confirmed through the City’s permitting process for the Project, localized construction emissions of PM10 would be below SCAQMD thresholds and reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the construction contractor shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-AQ-1), the Project’s impact in Air Quality would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, the same construction 2-44 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 15 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.2.) 8.2 Biological Resources 8.2.1 Movement of Fish or Wildlife Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-3 through 4.3-4.) Facts in Support of Findings: Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the DEIR identified that the Project could impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The 180 mature ornamental trees on the Project site provide potentially suitable foraging and breeding habitat for nesting migratory birds and raptor species associated with urban areas such as red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and Cooper’s hawk. The Project includes removal of many of the existing trees on the Project site that could disrupt nesting birds and raptors if vegetation is removed or construction begins during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Disruption of migratory nesting birds and raptors is prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site during nesting season, including: vegetation removal, disking, demolition activities, and grading. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts related to nesting birds and raptors would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that vegetation clearing during nesting season (February 1 through September 15) shall be avoided, if feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around nests at an appropriate distance that is a minimum of 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-BIO-1), the Project’s impact on Biological Resources would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-3 through 4.3-4.) Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would avoid potential impacts through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. Because the Modified Project increases the distance of the building footprint from nesting sites in the existing trees and 2-45 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 16 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR vegetation on site, it would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.3.) 8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8.3.1 Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8.) Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to hazards were evaluated in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR. As described, due to the existence of hazardous materials within on- site soils, ground disturbing activity has the potential to result in the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The contaminated soils would need to be excavated and removed as required by DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been required to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated soils. Due to the existence of hazardous materials within on-site soils, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that a qualified consultant prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of arsenic impacted soil. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all arsenic impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 impacts related to hazards of the onsite contaminated soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be to the depth of approximately 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface in areas identified as having arsenic impacted soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that residential 2-46 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 17 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-HAZ-1), the Project’s potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve handling of hazardous materials and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level such that no new or greater impacts related to hazardous materials would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.6.) 8.4 Noise 8.4.1 Noise Levels in Excess of Established Standards Threshold: Would the Project result in 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? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would not result in generation of noise levels in excess standards established by the City’s Municipal Code. Per Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City’s Municipal Code noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the Project would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards. 2-47 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 18 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR However, the Project has the potential to result in exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of relevant standards as a result of increased traffic-related noise. As discussed in the DEIR, traffic along the roadways near the Project site would generate noise that could exceed interior noise standards within some of the Project units. Thus, some of the residential units would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with increased Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to meet the interior noise standards. As described in Section 4.8, Noise, of the DEIR, the residential units along N. Main Street would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of between 27 and 30 to meet the interior noise standards. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that the appropriate windows and doors are installed, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following construction requirements to be implemented and verified prior to provision of occupancy permits: • Windows/Glass Doors: Residential units adjacent to N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors (all windows/doors on all floors) with minimum STC ratings of 30; and all other buildings require standards windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 27. • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): Exterior doors facing N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 and shall be well weather-stripped; and all other residential building exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Ventilation: Residential exterior vents shall be oriented away from I-5 and N. Main Street. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vents. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-NOI-1), the Project’s potential impacts relating to noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Consistent with the Original Project, the construction generated by the Modified Project would generate temporary noise and vibration that would require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Also, due to the location of the proposed residential units, mitigation is required to ensure that interior noise is within City standards. With implementation mitigation identified in the EIR, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.8.) 8.4.2 Groundborne Vibrations Threshold: Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 2-48 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 19 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activities for of the Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is included to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site. With implementation of this measure, vibration impacts at the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following. requirements: • Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment, such as bulldozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of the eastern boundary of the Project site. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction. • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all construction. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (MM-NOI-2), the Project’s potential impacts relating to groundborne vibration and noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8- 16 through 4.8-17.) Consistent with the Original Project construction activities for of the Modified Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Therefore, like the Original Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts related to vibration would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.8.) 8.4.3 Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-22 through 4.8-24.) The City hereby makes Finding 2 that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” Mitigation Measure NOI-3 has been included to minimize and/or avoid the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. 2-49 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 20 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Findings: Construction of the Project would generate short-term periodic increases in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, noise from operation of large mobile construction equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks would be reduced; and Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is included to require installation of a temporary noise barrier that would be a minimum 11-feet high, constructed of frame- mounted materials such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets, and attached to the masonry wall along the eastern Project site boundary or temporary fence posts. In addition, due to the location of existing sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would require a 50-foot setback for use of large mobile construction equipment and require installation of a temporary noise barrier, which would reduce the temporary and intermittent increase in noise from construction to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 temporary and periodic construction noise level increases at receiver locations would be reduced to below the 10 dBA Leq temporary noise level increase threshold. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to periodic temporary increases in noise would be less than significant. To ensure that the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels are mitigated to a less than significant level, in addition to Mitigation Measure NOI-2, discussed above, the following mitigation measure has been identified: Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The Project plans and specifications shall include the requirement to install a minimum 11-foot high temporary construction noise barrier along the Project site eastern boundary for the duration of Project construction. The noise control barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom and shall meet the following height and constructed requirements: • The temporary noise barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or temporary fence posts. • The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; • The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above (MM-NOI-2 and MM-NOI-3), the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) The Modified Project would involve the same types of construction equipment that would be operated in similar locations as the Original Project. However, the building setback along the eastern side of the project site would be 50 feet greater. Thus, construction of building structures would be farther from the residences located to the east of the Project site. However, consistent with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would be required to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site and install a temporary noise barrier to reduce the temporary increase in ambient noise to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts 2-50 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 21 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR related to temporary construction noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.8.) 8.5 Tribal Cultural Resources 8.5.1 Impact on Significant Tribal Cultural Resource Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-4 through 4.12-5.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths in various portions of the Project site. The Project involves excavation and no substantial evidence exists that tribal cultural resources are present in the Project site. However, during the SB 18/AB 52 consultation, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies within its ancestral tribal territory within a sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential adverse effects to unknown tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 has been included to provide for Native American resource sensitivity training and to prescribe activities should any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources be unearthed by Project construction activities. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered at the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and the existing regulations, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. The Project’s grading and construction plans and specifications shall state that prior to commencement of any excavation activities, a Native American shall be contacted to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal 2-51 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 22 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Project Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. With the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above (Mitigation Measure TCR-1), the Project’s potential impacts relating to temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-4 through 4.12-5.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve excavation and disturbance of onsite soils and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. With Mitigation Measure TCR-1 no new or greater impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.12.) 9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City hereby finds—consistent with Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR and the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR)—that the Project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas: 9.1 Aesthetics 9.1.1 Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9 through 4.1-16.) Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and do not contain any sensitive scenic vistas. (DEIR, p. 4.1-3, 4.1-9.) Moreover, as described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics of the DEIR, implementation of the Project would change the character of the site to more closely align with the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element designation as a Major City Entry and the Urban Design Element identification of the site as within the Main Street Concourse node. Additionally, it would align with the Scenic Corridors Element designation of Santiago Creek as an Inter-City Corridor. Hence, the Project would result in a substantial change, but this change would not result in an adverse effect to a scenic vista, and impacts related to a scenic vista would be less than significant. This conclusion also 2-52 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 23 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.1.2 Scenic Resources within State Scenic Highways Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and/or local scenic road? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, pp. 14-15.) Facts in Support of Finding: There are no officially designated state highways or County-designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, pp. 14-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.1.3 Light and Glare Threshold: Would the proposed Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Initial Study, pp. 15-16.) Facts in Support of Finding: All outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 8-210 and Section 41- 611.1 that provides specifications for shielding lighting away from adjacent uses and relate to intensity of security lighting. (Initial Study, p. 15.) Moreover, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations and such compliance would be verified during the permitting process. The lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 15-16.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 9.2.1 Farmland Conversion Threshold: Would the Project result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural land use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed for urban uses and located in an area that is completely developed for urban uses. The Project site and vicinity are void of agricultural uses and the Project would not 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 (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use because no important farmland exists within the Project site and the site is designated as Urban and Built-Up land. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.2 Agricultural Zoning 2-53 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 24 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and vicinity is void of agricultural uses. No agricultural zoning is located in the vicinity of the Project area and no parcels within the Project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts. The Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. The Project site also does not contain any lands that are subject to Williamson Act contracts, either active or in nonrenewal. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.3 Forestland Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning 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)) because no forest land or timberland exists within the Project site and the Project site is zoned for Professional (P) uses. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.4 Loss of Forest Land Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and vicinity is void of forestland or timberland. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.2.5 Conversion Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 18.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not 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 forest land to non-forest use because there is no existing farmland or forest land within or adjacent to the Project site. No other changes to the existing environment would occur from 2-54 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 25 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR implementation of the Project that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use of forest land to non-forest use. (Initial Study, p. 18.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.3 Air Quality 9.3.1 Applicable Air Quality Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in the DEIR, Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Here, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is the applicable air quality plan for the Project, because the Project is consistent with SCAG’s population, housing, and employment forecasts. Notably, the 496 new multi-family units resulting from the Project would constitute a 0.6 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 2 percent increase in the number of the multi-family residential units (5+ units) within the City. The Project’s multi-family units would be within the SCAG projected growth. The housing added by the Project would also help to meet housing demands from projected employment growth in the City while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-14 through 4.2-15.) Moreover, the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas are jobs-rich. The existing jobs-housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The Project would reduce the jobs-housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040, as shown in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEIR. The balance of jobs and housing and the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure implemented by the Project would reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related air quality emissions, as employees could easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas. Thus, the Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing, and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Further still, as discussed in the DEIR, the Project would not exceed any air quality standards. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.3.2 Air Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As detailed in DEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the maximum daily construction and operational emissions would not exceed any of SCAQMD’s daily 2-55 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 26 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR significance thresholds. Thus, the construction and operation of the Project would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, the same construction mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.2.) 9.3.3 Cumulative Increase of Criteria Pollutant Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality methodology provides that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant(s) for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 through 4.2-17.) Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, the same construction mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.2.) 9.3.4 Objectionable Odors Threshold: Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 2-56 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 27 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 22.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which seeks to prevent odor nuisances (Initial Study, p. 22.) Moreover, odors resulting from the temporary construction of the Project are not likely to affect a substantial number of people due to the fact that construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Additionally, the Project would only involve residential uses, which are not land uses that are typically associated with the generation of objectionable odors such as large commercial or industrial uses. (Initial Study, p. 22.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4 Biological Resources 9.4.1 Candidate, Non-listed Sensitive, or Special-Status Animal and Plant Species Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.3-4.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the Project site and adjacent Santiago Park areas consist of developed or ornamentally landscaped areas that do not contain native habitat, special-status habitat, or special-status plants and none are expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. As described by the DEIR, the site could be used by one special-status wildlife species, the western mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms. However, its typical habitat involves conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral, which do not occur on the Project site, within Santiago Park, or in the adjacent areas. Therefore, potential impacts to the western mastiff bat from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. No other candidate, sensitive, or special status species have the potential to occur on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-4.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4.2 Riparian Habitat Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-4 through 4.3-5.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site and adjacent areas do not contain native habitat or special- status habitat, including riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to these types of biological resources. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-4 through 4.3-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 2-57 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 28 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.4.3 Wetlands Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 24.) Facts in Support of Finding: Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project area is developed and does not contain natural wetlands. While Santiago Creek is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the Project site, the creek area is separated from the Project site by a roadway within Santiago Park, and the Project would not extend into the park area. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to wetlands. (Initial Study, p. 24.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4.4 Local Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 24) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Trees in the public right-of-way in Santa Ana are protected under Chapter 33, Article VII of the Municipal Code, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in public locations in Santa Ana. The Project would not remove any existing healthy street trees, and the additional street trees installed by the Project would be planted in compliance with the Municipal Code regulations. Moreover, the existing ornamental trees on the Project site are on private property and are not subject to the Municipal Code regulation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.4.5 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, p. 25) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any lands that are subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to biological habitat plans. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.5 Cultural Resources 2-58 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 29 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.5.1 Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, the Project would not impact any historic resources. The DEIR describes the viewsheds of the properties listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties near the Project site as already significantly affected by urban and modern structures that are taller than the Project’s tallest structure, the proposed 8-level above ground parking structure. As a result, the setting has changed and no longer provides an aesthetic sense of a particular period of history. The Historic Review, referenced in the DEIR, also describes that tall trees throughout Park Santiago screen views toward the Project site, and that many of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties in Park Santiago are not within the viewshed of the Project site. Overall, as detailed in the Historic Review referenced in the DEIR, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, and the existing viewsheds, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by construction of the proposed Project. Accordingly, a reduction in the historic significance of the properties would not occur from implementation of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) Due to the reduced height and scale of the Modified Project, the existing built environment, and location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by implementation of the Modified Project. Thus, consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in a reduction in the historic significance of properties. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.4.) 9.5.2 Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been disturbed various times for different uses and developments. This includes excavation to depths for installation and removal of the previous gas station tanks, and septic tanks, and utility lines from previous developments in the southern portion of the site. In addition, the Property Condition Report referenced in the Initial Study describes that the foundation of the existing building in the northern portion of the site is developed on a 4-inch thick concrete slab on top of 24-inch diameter, 20-36-foot-deep piles. Thus, previous excavation in the area of the existing building reaches 20-36 feet deep, and excavation in other areas of the site were deep enough to provide for utilities, septic tanks, and gasoline tanks. Also, as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the site (referenced in the Initial Study), up to 5.5 feet of fill soils were observed in soil borings. Due 2-59 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 30 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for archaeological resources to be on site is low. In addition, the Project is anticipated to involve grading and excavations to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.5.3 Paleontological Resources or Geologic Feature Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 27) Facts in Support of Finding: Soils beneath the subject site are mapped as Quaternary Alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Quaternary alluvial materials in Orange County are assigned a low paleontological resource sensitivity due to their relatively recent age. As described above, the Project site has been extensively disturbed to various depths across the site, and the Project will involve grading and excavations to depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 27). In addition, the Project site is developed with a building, parking areas, and landscaping, and no unique geologic feature exists on the Project site. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.5.4 Human Remains Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 27) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been extensively disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, impacts related to human remains are less than significant. However, in the unanticipated event that human remains are found during Project construction activities, compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will ensure that human remains will be treated with dignity and as specified by law, which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the Project site, the County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. Ultimately, compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations will ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 27) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6 Geology and Soils 2-60 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 31 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.6.1.1 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Earthquake Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 29-30) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would have no impact related to the exposure of people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. There are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones or other faults mapped on or adjacent to the Project site. The closest major active faults are the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is 10 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located 10 miles to the southwest. Thus, the Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or any other known fault. (Initial Study, pp. 29-30) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.1.2 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 30) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within the seismically active region of Southern California. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. As discussed above, the closest active faults are the Elsinore Fault and the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone that are both located approximately 10 miles from the Project site. Movement along these faults, or other regional faults, could result in seismic ground shaking on the Project site. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Chapter 8, Article 2, Division 1, which regulates all building and construction Projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. Because the Project must be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.1.3 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2-61 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 32 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 30-31) Facts in Support of Finding: Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soil layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Orange Quadrangle map shows the Project site is within a liquefaction zone. However, exploratory borings at the Project site identified groundwater at approximately 110 feet below the ground surface, and borings on the Project site did not encounter groundwater to the maximum depth of 85 feet that was explored. Likewise, the groundwater wells that are located near the Project site identify groundwater levels at 110 feet below the ground surface and 143 feet below the ground surface. In addition, borings on the Project site in 2017 identified that soils consist of silty fine to medium sands with local layers of fine to coarse sands with gravel size rock and some larger rock fragments, which are not the uniform fine-grained sand that typically liquefies. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geo 2017) prepared for the Project site conducted liquefaction analysis and determined that thin layers of onsite soils have the potential for liquefaction; however, these soils are confined by less permeable soils that would prevent the manifestation of liquefaction. Thus, because the groundwater level is far below 50 feet below the ground surface and soils are not uniformly graded fine-grained, the potential for liquefaction and related lateral spreading or ground failure to occur on the Project site is low. In addition, as described above, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, as detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Geo 2017) prepared for the Project site, which would be verified through the City’s permitting process. (Initial Study, pp. 30-31) For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and ground failure. (Initial Study, pp. 30-31) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.1.4 Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death – Landslides Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 31) Facts in Support of Finding: Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits. As described above, the Project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an earthquake-induced landslide area. (Initial Study, p. 31.) In addition, the Project site is located in a flat developed urban area 2-62 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 33 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR that does not contain or is adjacent to large slopes, and the Project would not generate large slopes. Furthermore, as stated in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the Project site, the Project site is not at risk for earthquake induced landslides. For the foregoing reasons, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 31.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.2 Soil Erosion Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 31-32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure. However, small areas of landscaping exist within the parking area, along the site boundary, and adjacent to the existing building. The Project would redevelop the site for multi-family residential uses, which would include areas of landscaping that would surround the proposed structures and be located along the site boundary, similar to the areas of landscaping that currently exist. The new paved areas and landscaping from the Project would not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all significant redevelopment within the City, such as the Project, shall be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP requires construction sites to implement control practices that address erosion and sedimentation (DAMP Section 8.0). Additionally, the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for General Construction Activity requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required to be consistent with the County DAMP, address site-specific conditions related to sources of sediment, and implement erosion control and sediment control Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate sediment during construction. The Project is required to adhere to a City approved SWPPP, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit; this will ensure that potential erosion associated with construction activities would constitute a less than significant impact. (Initial Study, pp. 31-32.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.3 Soil Stability Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain unstable soils or unstable geologic units. As discussed above, the Project site is located in a flat, developed urban area that does not contain, and is not adjacent to, large slopes; moreover, the Project would not generate large slopes. Accordingly, impacts related to landslides would not occur as a result of the Project. Also, as discussed above, the depth to groundwater and the types of soils onsite result in a low potential for liquefaction and related lateral spreading or ground failure. In addition, as further discussed above, the Project would be required to have building foundations and pavement areas and must be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the 2-63 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 34 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR City’s Municipal Code, which requires appropriate back fill, compaction of soils, and foundation design to ensure stable soils. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to unstable soil or geologic units. In addition, the Project is not located on a geological unit or soil that would become unstable as a result of subsidence. Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the groundwater levels within a groundwater basin. Subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in a basin is lowered. Because the Project does not involve groundwater pumping, impacts related to subsidence will not occur as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p. 32.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.4 Soil Expansion Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 32-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soil. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes. As described above, the Project site soils consist of silty fine to medium sands with local layers of fine to coarse sands with gravel size rock and some larger rock fragments, which have a low expansion potential. (Initial Study, p. 32.) In addition, as noted above, the Project would be required to have building foundations and pavement areas constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, which requires appropriate back fill, compaction of soils, and foundation design to ensure stable soils. Thus, the Project’s impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 33.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.6.5 Septic Tanks Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently connected to the City’s sewer system, and the Project would also connect to existing sewers and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, impacts related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would not occur from implementation of the Project. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2-64 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 35 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not generate significant amounts of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. As further detailed in the DEIR, construction and operation of the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) In particular, as detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 4.30 metric tons per year per service population, which would be less than the SCAQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.80 metric tons per year per service population. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related GHG emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.5.) 9.7.2 Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) Facts in Support of Finding: As detailed in the DEIR, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Project is consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, SB 375, and the Santa Ana Climate Action Plan. Moreover, the Project would comply with state and federal programs that are designed to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions, including the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CALGreen Code. In complying with these measures and standards (including Title 24 standards relating to insulation, use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air condition equipment, solar-reflective roofing materials, energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems, reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water, among other things), the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, Project Design Feature PDF-2 would provide a minimum of 25 electric vehicle charging stations to promote usage of electric vehicles. For these reasons, and as further detailed in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, because the Modified Project is 48 percent smaller than the Original Project it would result in fewer stationary source and 2-65 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 36 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR vehicular related GHG emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.5.) 9.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 9.8.1 Hazardous Materials Sites Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) Facts in Support of Finding: Operation of the Project includes activities related to the multi-family residential uses of the Project, which involve use of hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities within the Project area. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that include Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 261.4) would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 36.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.2 Hazards within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) Facts in Support of Finding: The closest existing school to the Project site is the Hoover Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.5 miles away from the Project site at 408 East Santa Clara Avenue. Thus, the Project site is not within one-quarter mile of a school and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 36.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.3 Site Location Threshold: Would the Project 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? 2-66 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 37 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 36-37.) Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Project site nor any adjacent properties are included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, pp. 36-37.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.4 Public Airports Threshold: 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? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, which is located over 6 miles to the south of the Project site. In addition, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 9.35 miles to the northwest of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. (Initial Study, p. 37.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.5 Private Airstrips Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in safety hazards related to an airstrip. (Initial Study, p. 37.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.6 Emergency Response Plans Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 37.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Direct access to the Project site is, and will continue to be, provided from N. Main Street (to the south) and Edgewood Road (to the east), which are adjacent to the Project site. In addition, fire lanes are proposed for the northern and western boundaries of the Project site. 2-67 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 38 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Moreover, the Project must comply with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14. As such, for the reasons discussed herein and in the Initial Study, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 37.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.8.7 Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 38.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within an urban developed area and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area and is not an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 38.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 9.9.1 Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 40.) Facts in Support of Finding: Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all new development and significant redevelopment within the City shall be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Accordingly, both construction and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required to be implemented as part of permitting of the Project. Adherence to a City-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Low Impact Development (LID) features, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, would ensure that potential water quality degradation associated with construction and operational activities would be minimized to a level of less than significance. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 40-41.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 2-68 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 39 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.9.2 Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 41.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project site does not currently provide for groundwater recharge. Moreover, the Project will not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces, and thus groundwater recharge would not be affected. Furthermore, groundwater within the Project region is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). To ensure the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD monitors water levels and recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Continued management of the groundwater basin by OCWD will ensure that substantial depletion of groundwater supplies would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 41.) For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 41.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.3 Drainage Pattern Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 41.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include a stream, river, creek, or other water body, and will not alter the course of any such body of water in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation. The closest body of water is the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the site within Santiago Park; Santiago Park would not be disturbed by the Project. Moreover, the Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern onsite. The Project would cap the existing drain to the creek and provide infiltration basins in the northern portion of the Project area. The remainder of the site would have the same type of onsite drainage that currently exists. The Project thus would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or in the area. Moreover, as to construction activities that would involve excavation and grading of soils, Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that all significant redevelopment within the City, such as the Project, shall be undertaken in accordance with the DAMP, which requires construction sites implement control practices that address erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, the Statewide NPDES Permit for General Construction Activity requires implementation of a SWPP that is required to be consistent with the DAMP and implement erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate erosion during construction. Adherence to a City approved SWPPP, which would be verified prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, would ensure that potential erosion associated with construction activities would be minimized. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) 2-69 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 40 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.4 Flooding Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 42.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not include a stream, river, creek, or other water body. The closest water body is the Santiago Creek, which is located approximately 130 feet to the north of the site within Santiago Park, and would not be disturbed by the Project. The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure. Redevelopment of the site would provide for a similar amount of impervious surface; thus, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase with implementation of the Project. In addition, the Project includes redevelopment of the existing onsite drainage system to provide infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Thus, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or in the area, or substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in flooding. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.5 Water Runoff Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 42-43.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above, the Project site is largely impervious, and redevelopment of the site would not substantially increase impervious areas, such that an increase in runoff would occur. In addition, the Project would redevelop the existing onsite storm water drainage system, which would convey runoff from buildings and paved areas to infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins that would retain and filter storm water prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Overall, redevelopment of the Project site would not result in an increase in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing City storm drain system. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 2-70 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 41 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.9.6 Degradation of Water Quality Threshold: Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 40-43.) Facts in Support of Finding: For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, the Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.7 Flood Hazard Area Zones Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Project site and vicinity (FEMA FIRM number 06059C0163) shows that the site is shown adjacent to, but not part of, a 100-year flood zone associated with Santiago Creek (Zone AE21). The Project site is identified on the FEMA map as “Zone X” and is not depicted within a 100- or 500- year flood zone. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.8 Structures That Impede or Redirect Flows Threshold: Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above, the Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and it will not place any structure within a 100-year flood hazard area. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.9 Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death as a Result of Flooding Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) 2-71 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 42 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam. As shown in the General Plan Public Safety Element, Exhibit 4, the Project site is not located within the dam inundation area. Moreover, the site is located 130-feet up-gradient from Santiago Creek, which is generally dry, unless conveying storm flows. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.9.10 Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Threshold: Would the Project have significant effects relating to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 43.) Facts in Support of Finding: A seiche—a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken by earthquake activity—is not likely to impact the Project area. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the Project site provides that no bodies of water are close enough to the Project site to result in a sieche impact. Therefore, no seiche impacts would occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) A tsunami is not likely to impact the Project area since the Project area is approximately 11.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, outside of the Tsunami Hazard Zone identified by the California Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. The Project area is flat and not near any hillsides that could be susceptible to mudflow. Thus, no mudflow impacts would occur. (Initial Study, p. 43.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 43.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.10 Land Use and Planning 9.10.1 Divide a Community Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 44.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed with a vacant two-story office building that was used by the Wells Fargo bank. The site is adjacent to the south and the east by a single-family residential community, the north by a park, and by a museum and motel to the west across N. Main Street. Implementation of the proposed Project would change the site from an office building to multi-family residential uses, which would extend the residential uses in the community. The existing residential community would not be physically divided by the Project. Rather, the Project would be located at the 2-72 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 43 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR edge of the residential community and would extend the community. In addition, the Project would redevelop only the Project site and would not change roadways or areas outside of the Project site. Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to physical division of an established community. (Initial Study, p. 44.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 44.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.10.2 Conflict with Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Notably, the Project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development, improvement of the job/housing balance, and use of green building measures, such as water efficiency and Low Impact Development features. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in conflict with SCAG policies, and impacts would not occur. Regarding General Plan designations, the Project would require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use designation from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC) to allow for the proposed multi-family uses. The General Plan Land Use Element states that DC designation includes the major activity areas in the City and that District Centers are to be developed with an urban character. The proposed DC designation is consistent with the existing DC land uses to the north of Santiago Park and to the southwest across the I-5 freeway. The General Plan also designates the site as the Main Street Concourse node. The proposed DC land use designation and the Project would implement the Main Street Concourse node designation by providing an architecturally cohesive development with a maximum structure height of 90 feet from the ground surface (height intensive) within a regional activity center. The General Plan identifies that the Project is within the Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway (Figure 10 of the Urban Design Element) and provides that gateways are located at the City’s entry points to help define boundaries and enhance the City’s identity, while reinforcing a sense of place. The proposed DC land use designation, along with the proposed height, architecture, and landscaping of the development Project would provide distinctive features that reinforce the sense of place already provided by the Discovery Cube and numerous other urban structures along N. Main Street. Thus, the Project would align with the General Plan’s intent for the Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway. In addition, although the development under the proposed DC designation would result in a different type 2-73 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 44 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR and higher intensity of residential units than the adjacent LR-7 designated Park Santiago neighborhood area, the Project provides a transition through wall heights, landscaping, building plan, and an eastern setback, such that the taller multi-family structures, vehicle parking, and circulation are not sited adjacent to single-story single-family residences. Also, designating lands for multi-family residential uses would be more consistent with the adjacent single-family residential uses, than the existing office uses because high density residential land uses adjacent to low density residential land uses have more similar and consistent activities than office building uses adjacent to low density residential. Furthermore, the proposed land use designation change from PAO to DC would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would also be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant. The Project includes a zone change that would change the existing zoning designation change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the proposed multi-family residential project. As required by the Zoning Code, the Project’s development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Furthermore, the SD zoning designation would be consistent with the existing SD zoned areas to the north beyond Santiago Park and to the west across N. Main Street. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in an impact related to conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.10.3 Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-6; Initial Study, p. 46.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is developed and located within an urban and developed area. The project site is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, impacts related to such a plan would not occur from the Project. (Initial Study, p. 46.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 46.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.11 Mineral Resources 9.11.1 Known and Locally Important Resources Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2-74 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 45 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 47.) Facts in Support of Finding: No active mining operations exist in the City of Santa Ana. The mapping by the California Geological Survey does not indicate that any significant mineral deposits are present within the City. The Project area is developed with urban office uses and has no history of mining. Implementation of the Project would not cause the loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region or state. Moreover, the Project site and its surrounding vicinity is not in or near a mining site identified by the City of Santa Ana General Plan. (Initial Study, p. 47.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and the Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 47.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.12.0 Noise 9.12.1 Long Term Noise Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.8.17 through 4.8-22.) Facts in Support of Finding: While the Project’s operation would generate some traffic-related noise, such noise would not constitute a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Pursuant to the Noise Impact Analysis (Exhibit H to the DEIR), the Project would generate an increase of less than one dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments, which is less than the relevant threshold. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8.17 through 4.8-22.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.12.2 Public Airports Threshold: 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? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, which is located over 6 miles to the south of the Project site. In addition, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 9.35 miles to the northwest of the airport. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to airports. (Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) 2-75 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 46 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 49-50.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.12.3 Private Airstrips Threshold: 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? Finding: No Impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 50.) Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to an airstrip. (Initial Study, p. 50.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 50.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.13 Population and Housing 9.13.1 Population Growth Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEIR, the Project would not induce substantial population growth. SCAG anticipates a population increase of 8.4 percent by 2040 or an average annual increase of 0.4 percent throughout the County. The anticipated population that would result from the Project would be 0.28 percent of the City’s population, and thus, within the projected population growth. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units would increase 6.3 percent or an average annual increase of 0.3 percent through 2040. Thus, the 496 new multi- family units would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the development and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth. Thus, impacts related to growth would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.13.2 Displacement of Housing Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2-76 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 47 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 51.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently developed for office uses and is void of any existing residential development. As such, the Project would not displace any existing housing and would not result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 51.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.13.3 Displacement of Persons Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-7; Initial Study, p. 51.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is currently developed for office uses and does not include any residential uses. The Project would replace the existing office building with multi-family residential uses. The Project would not displace any residents and would not result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Moreover, the Project’s portion of the cumulative increase in residential units is 9.9 percent, and the remainder of the cumulative projects would generate over 90 percent of the cumulative increase. Thus, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative growth in housing is limited. Furthermore, the total cumulative housing growth from all of the cumulative projects identified in the DEIR would equal 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG growth estimates that anticipate an 8.4 percent increase. Thus, cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. The cumulative addition of housing within the Santa Ana and City of Orange N. Main Street corridor area would have a favorable effect on the jobs-housing balance, which could reduce environmental effects of long commute trips, such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 51.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14 Public Services As described in Section 4.10, Public Services, of the DEIR, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered service facilities. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.1 Fire Protection Services Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order 2-77 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 48 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is within 2.5 miles of 4 existing fire stations and the Project would not result in the need to construct a new fire station or expand an existing station. In addition, Chapter 8-46 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a fire facilities fee be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of buildings exceeding 2 stories in height, such as the Project. The purpose of the fire facilities fee is to improve fire stations in the City and provide revenue for equipment needed to fight fires in buildings over 2 stories in height. The Project would be required to provide funding to assist in improvement of existing fire facilities and provision of needed equipment. Implementation of the Project would not require new or physically altered fire department facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.2 Police Services Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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 police protection? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services but would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. The residential population of the Project would be approximately 0.27 percent of the City’s population and based on the Police Department’s 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the Project would require less than one additional officer. In addition, the Police Department headquarters are 2.5 miles from the Project and within response distance. Furthermore, typical police operations within the Department’s Northeast District deploys coverage to be able to respond to calls from services throughout the area. The addition of one officer on patrol would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.3 Education Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered 2-78 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 49 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 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 schools? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 54.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Initial Study, the Project is required to pay fees for the provision of school services pursuant to state law AB 2926. This fee would contribute to a fund that would pay for new or expanded buildings, faculty, or equipment. Under state law, payment of school impact fees constitutes mitigation for school facility impacts of projects and such payments are deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. (Initial Study, p. 54.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 54.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.4 Parks Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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 parks? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project includes 34,300 square feet of onsite exterior open space and recreation facilities that includes 5 recreation courtyard areas that total 22,900 square feet and an 11,400-square foot amenity deck on the roof of the parking structure. In addition, interior recreation facilities include a 5,397-square foot fitness center and a 1,566 square foot wellness pavilion. These onsite amenities are anticipated to meet many of the park and recreation needs of Project residents. The new residential population that would be generated from the Project is also anticipated to utilize existing off-site park and recreation facilities. There is currently 93.8 acres of Santa Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site. Based on the existing amount of park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the number of residents at full capacity of the Project, the Project is not anticipated to require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 2-79 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 50 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 9.14.5 Existing Recreational Facilities Threshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would provide onsite open space and recreational facilities for residents, which is anticipated to reduce the Project’s impact on off-site recreational facilities. Moreover, based on the existing amount of park and recreational facilities in the Project site’s vicinity, the recreational facilities that would be provided as part of the Project, and the anticipated number of residents at the Project, the Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires that residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, by payment of the required park fees, the Project would provide funding to offset any increased usage at other park and recreation facilities. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.6 New Recreational Facilities Threshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project includes recreational facilities that would be constructed and operated as part of the proposed Project. In addition, access Option B includes repaving the Walkie Way entrance to Santiago Park and the addition of landscaping that includes trees and ground cover in the park and Project site entrance. The impacts of development of the recreational amenities and access options are considered part of the impacts of the Project as a while and are analyzed throughout the various sections of the DEIR. Moreover, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14,) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.14.7 Other Public Facilities 2-80 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 51 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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 other public facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Initial Study, other public facilities include libraries. The City of Santa Ana Public Library includes two branches within 5 miles of the site. Library service needs are changing with increasing resources being available online and the availability of high-speed internet services and the new residences on the Project site do not necessarily result in an incremental need for library facilities. A majority of the residential units would be equipped with internet access, which provides access to many of the same resources provided by the library and would limit the increased need for library services and resources. (Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 54-55.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.15 Transportation and Traffic 9.15.1 Conflict with Applicable Circulation Plan or with Applicable Congestion Management Program Threshold: Would the Project 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? Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. Based on the thresholds identified in these plans, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, as further explained in the DEIR. Notably, the vehicular trips that would be generated by the Project would not cause an exceedance of any traffic level of service threshold at any intersection or roadway segment. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) 2-81 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 52 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR To evaluate the potential traffic impacts related to the Modified Project, a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (included as Attachment B to the Clarifications to the Final EIR) was prepared and peer reviewed by a City-selected independent traffic engineer and the City’s traffic engineering staff. The Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis evaluates operation of 278 multi-family units, which is 22 more units than the Modified Project that consists of 256, and therefore, provides an overstated and conservative analysis of potential impacts. The analysis determined that the Modified Project would develop 48 percent fewer residential units than the Original Project, which would result in 79 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 96 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,186 fewer daily trips than the Original Project. Thus, no new impacts related to the volume of vehicular trips would occur from the Modified Project. Additionally, the Modified Project would implement changes to the Main Street and Walkie Way intersection geometrics that would result in less than significant impacts to study area intersections, roadway segments, and vehicle queues; which is consistent with the impacts of the Original Project as detailed in the EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. (Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, Section 3.11.) 9.15.2 Air Traffic Patterns Threshold: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose any uses that would affect air traffic patterns or air traffic levels. No portion of the Project would change air traffic patterns by extending into airspace. The closest operating airport is over 6 miles south of the Project site. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 2-8, Initial Study, p. 58.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.3 Design Feature Hazards Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in hazards related to a design feature or incompatible use. The Project driveways include direct access to the parking structure, and access from N. Main Street would be restricted to right-turn ingress/right-turn egress to provide for safe and effective circulation. As noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis referenced in the DEIR, motorists entering and exiting the Project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Moreover, and as noted by the Traffic Impact Analysis, the neighborhood intersections and roadway have adequate capacity to support the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) 2-82 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 53 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.4 Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Direct access to the Project site is, and will continue to be, provided from N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which are adjacent to the Project site. In addition, fire lanes for emergency access are proposed for the northern and western boundaries of the Project site. Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Moreover, the Project is required to design and construct internal access to conform to OCFA standards to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the City of Santa Ana Fire Code included as Municipal Code Chapter 14. (Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.15.5 Alternative Transportation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 58-59.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, pedestrian or other alternative transportation systems. Notably, the Project would not conflict with existing bus routes or sidewalks, and it would implement new onsite sidewalks to connect to offsite sidewalks and onsite bicycle facilities. (Initial Study, p. 59.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR and Initial Study, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 59.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.1 Utilities and Service Systems 9.16.1 Wastewater Treatment Requirements Threshold: Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2-83 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 54 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) Facts in Support of Finding: The multi-family residential land uses proposed by the Project are not anticipated to discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the RWQCB. (Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, pp. 63-64.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.2 New Infrastructure and Adequate Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR, the Project would receive water supplies through the existing 16-inch water lines located within the N. Main Street and Edgewood Road rights-of-way that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the Project; no extensions or expansions to the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Redevelopment of the existing onsite water distribution lines would only serve the Project and would not provide water to any off-site areas. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 through 4.13-7.) 9.16.3 Storm Water Drainage Requirements Threshold: Would the Project result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 64.) Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is largely impervious, as it is generally covered by pavement or the building structure, and small areas of landscaping surround the development. The Project would redevelop the site for multi-family residential uses, which would include areas of landscaping that would surround the proposed structures and be located along the site boundary, similar to the areas of landscaping that currently exist. Redevelopment of the site would provide for a similar amount of impervious surface; thus, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase with implementation of the Project. In addition, the Project includes redevelopment of the existing onsite drainage system that would accommodate runoff with infiltration basins, storm drains, and catch basins 2-84 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 55 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR that would retain and filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm drains in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Thus, the Project would not increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in the need for new or expanded offsite drainage facilities. (Initial Study, p. 64.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 64.)This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.4 Water Supply Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) Facts in Support of Finding: The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates a supply and demand increase of 8.2 percent (3,028 acre feet per year) relating to water. The Project would result in an increase in demand for water supplies that is between just 2.7 and 4.2 percent of the UWMP’s anticipated increase. Accordingly, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.5 Wastewater Treatment Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) Facts in Support of Finding: Based on results of the sewer flow monitoring and the City’s Design Criteria wastewater generation rates, the Sewer Study identified that the existing sewer lines that serve the Project site would be able to adequately handle the additional wastewater flows from the Project. Additionally, the existing wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the Project. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to serve the Project’s demand in addition to existing service commitments. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16.6 Solid Waste Facilities Threshold: Would the Project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to 2-85 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 56 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-8; Initial Study, p. 65.) Facts in Support of Finding: The existing landfills that serve the project region have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste needs. (Initial Study, p. 65.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 65.) For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Initial Study, p. 65.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.16 Energy Resources As discussed in Section 4.14, Energy, of the DEIR, the Project would not result in an increase in overall or per capita energy consumption, or in a wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, or require or result in the construction of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure capacity, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, or conflict with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards. The Project would be developed pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Part 11 [CALGreen Code]), which would provide for sustainable construction and operational practices, including energy efficiency. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements and the City’s Climate Action Plan includes review of design components and energy conservation measures ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. In addition, the Project would represent an urban infill development because it would occur on a currently developed site, and would be located near existing off-site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a project of similar size and land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. The land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidance related to a reduction of vehicle trip distances that would achieve a reduction in associated transportation-related fuel demand. Also, the Project site is within an area where existing infrastructure would provide for efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas to the Project and the Project would not inhibit the development of other alternative energy sources. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project 9.17 Findings Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts 2-86 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 57 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. As discussed throughout Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the DEIR’s cumulative evaluation focuses on whether the impacts of the Project are cumulatively considerable within the context of impacts caused by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As described, different types of cumulative impacts occur for different environmental resources that affect different geographic areas. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis, where cumulative impacts occur over a large area, is different from the geographic scope considered for cumulative analysis of aesthetic resources, for which cumulative impacts are limited to specific viewsheds. Thus, in assessing aesthetic resources impacts, only development within and immediately adjacent to the Project area that would contribute to a cumulative visual effect is analyzed, whereas cumulative traffic impacts are based upon all development within the traffic study area of roadways and intersections. Therefore, the DEIR describes the cumulative geographic scope, and the potential cumulative impacts included in the geographic scope. As detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the cumulative evaluation in the DEIR determined that the cumulatively considerable impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant with implementation of the PDFs and mitigation measures that would reduce the potential of project level impacts to become cumulatively significant. Overall, cumulative impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-7 through 4.14-8.) Specifically, the City hereby finds as follows: 9.17.1 Aesthetics The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site and is visible from the site because it is currently developed with an 11- story office building. This related project involves development of multi-family residences on the site, which would be similar to the character to the proposed Project. The two projects would provide similar multi-family development and would not combine to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. The other cumulative projects are similar to the proposed Project, providing multi-family residential uses that would be consistent with the existing urban, developed character of the viewshed area. As a result, cumulative impacts related to scenic views and visual character and site quality would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts related to shade and shadow would occur when development projects are sufficiently close that shadows from individual buildings combine to create areas of consecutive shading of shadow- sensitive areas. The DEIR details that shadows of the Project do not combine with shadows of other projects to create consecutive shading of any shadow-sensitive areas. Thus, the shading from the Project would not cumulatively combine with other projects, and cumulative impacts related to shade and shadow would be less than cumulatively significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative aesthetic effects would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-26 through 4.1-27.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.2 Air Quality 2-87 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 58 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality methodology provides that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant(s). As shown in the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. For these reasons, also discussed previously in Section 9.3.3 of these Findings, and in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on air quality would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-7.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.3 Biological Resources The Project site is developed and located within an urban area of the City. The site provides limited areas for natural habitat and wildlife species; but does include mature trees that could be used by birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for nesting. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would provide for nesting bird surveys that would reduce the potential of the Proposed Project to impact nesting migratory birds or raptors, which would also avoid the potential of the Project to contribute to cumulative effects. As detailed in the DEIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to all other candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, therefore with Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts that could potentially occur from other development projects. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.4 Cultural Resources As detailed in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties of properties in Park Santiago, and the existing viewsheds, impacts related to the setting and feeling aspects of integrity of historic properties would not be reduced by implementation of the proposed Project; and the Project would not materially alter any physical characteristics of a historic resource that convey its historical significance. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts that could potentially occur from other development projects throughout the region, and a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-15.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.5 Geology, Soils and Seismicity Geologic and soils related impacts occur in a local or site-specific context, such as immediately adjacent cumulative development. Thus, the scope of analysis for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils encompasses the Project vicinity. The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site. The Project would be required 2-88 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 59 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR to comply with CBC building codes, which reduces impacts to a less than significant level. All other projects are also subject to the same CBC building codes to reduce potential effects related to seismic events. As a result, cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project is not located on a site with potential for significant effects related to geology, soils, or seismicity. (Initial Study, pp. 29-33.) Accordingly, the Project will not have cumulative effects on geology, soils, and seismicity, even when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions All GHG emissions are assessed in a cumulative context because no single project can cause a discernible change to climate. AB 32 recognizes the significance of the statewide cumulative impact of GHG emissions from sources throughout the state and sets a performance standard for mitigation of that cumulative impact. Therefore, analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the EIR effectively constitutes an analysis of a project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact of GHG emissions. As described in DEIR Section 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project would be lower than the AQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons discussed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects on greenhouse gas emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-13.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects; although it is possible for combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. The closest cumulative project is the 2700 North Main Street residential development that is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site. Due to this distance, the potential from hazards to cumulatively increase is limited. In addition, compliance with the relevant federal, state, and local regulations during the construction and operation of related projects would ensure that cumulative impacts from hazardous materials would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, implementation of the Project would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment; and therefore, would not result in a cumulative contribution to a hazardous materials impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. In addition, the nearby projects provide residential and commercial uses, that would use the same type of limited hazardous materials as the proposed Project. With regular use and storage of these commonly used household products, such as would occur on the Project site, cumulative impacts would not occur. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 through 4.6-9.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 2-89 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 60 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR The Initial Study (DEIR Appendix A) details that Section 18-156 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requires all new development and significant redevelopment within the City be undertaken in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), including but not limited to the development project guidance; and any conditions and requirements established by City agencies related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the Project site, which are verified prior to the issuance by the City of a grading permit or building permit. The DAMP requires implementation of site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, because the proposed Project is a priority project as it would replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site, it would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Low Impact Development (LID) features and BMPs to limit the potential for pollutants to enter surface water, such as storm water runoff. With implementation of these requirements, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. In addition, all of the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to these State and County regulations, which would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Also, as discussed in the Initial Study, the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to hydrology and water quality. (Initial Study, pp. 39-44.) Accordingly, the Project will not have cumulative effects relating to hydrology and water quality, even when considered with past, current, and future probable projects, and cumulative effects would be less than cumulatively considerable. This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.9 Land Use and Planning A large portion of the cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project consist of multi-family residential development. In addition, the cumulative projects include mixed-uses, retail commercial, hotel, and services. These related projects are similar, consistent, and complementary to the proposed SD zone and multi-family residential development. DEIR Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, describes that the Project would not result in conflicts with existing land use or zoning designations and would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project, which has the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including applicable regulations, policies, and standards of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Thus, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to such an impact that could occur from related projects. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-34.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.10 Noise Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed Project. The nearest related project to the Project site is the 2700 North Main Street residential development project is located 0.2 miles north of the Project site and is in the site plan review stage of development approval. Thus, it is likely that these projects would not be constructed simultaneously. In addition, should construction of the projects overlap, the distance between the sites and the numerous intervening structures located between 2-90 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 61 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR the sites that would serve to reduce construction-related noise levels, a substantial increase in combined construction noise levels would not occur. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. Cumulative construction could also result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. As described above, the nearest related project to the proposed Project is 0.2 miles north of the project site. Due to this distance, and the rapid attenuation of groundborne vibration, the proposed Project and this related project are not in close enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same sensitive receptor should construction of this related project occur at the same time as the proposed Project. Only receptors located in the immediate vicinity of each construction site would be potentially impacted by each development. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from construction activities would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Additionally, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the Project opening year (2020) and the year 2040 cumulative base traffic volumes on the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.3 dBA CNEL, which is lower than 5 dBA, cumulative impact threshold for traffic noise. For the reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to noise would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-24 through 4.8-25.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.11 Population and Housing The Project’s portion of the cumulative increase in residential units is 9.9 percent, and the remainder of the cumulative projects would generate over 90 percent of the cumulative increase. Thus, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative growth in housing is limited. Additionally, the total cumulative housing growth from all of the cumulative projects identified in the DEIR would equal 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG growth estimates that anticipate an 8.4 percent increase. Thus, cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. Furthermore, the cumulative addition of housing within the Santa Ana and City of Orange N. Main Street corridor area would have a favorable effect on the jobs-housing balance, which could reduce environmental effects of long commute trips, such as air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons that are detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to population and housing would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-10.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.12 Public Services and Recreation Fire Protection Fire protection service is provided by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) staffed Fire Stations that are owned by the City of Santa Ana. There are several proposed projects within Santa Ana in the Project vicinity that would combine to generate additional demands for OCFA services. Like the proposed Project, the related projects would be reviewed by City and OCFA staff prior to permit approval and would be 2-91 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 62 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR required to implement fire protection design features per California building and fire code regulations that would reduce potential fire hazards. Cumulative increased demands for services would also be offset by the City of Santa Ana fire facilities fee that is required for each development project. As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the Project would not result in cumulative traffic impacts in both years 2020 and 2040. The roadway segments and intersections near the Project site and Fire Stations 70 and 71 would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, the vehicular trips generated by operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in emergency response times that could cumulatively combine with other development projects in the City, and impacts related to emergency response times from Fire Stations 70 and 71 would be less than cumulatively considerable. Because 4 of the City’s 10 existing fire stations exist within 2.5 miles of the Project site, and related projects would be subject to the same impact fees that provide funding for additional equipment and staffing, and fire safe construction requirements, impacts related to fire services from the proposed Project would not combine with other related projects to result in a cumulative impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire service facilities. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-5.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Police Services The Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services and based on the Police Department’s 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the proposed Project would require one additional officer for the Department’s Northeast District that serves all areas of the City north of First Street and East of Flower Street. In addition, the DEIR estimates that the cumulative projects would require an additional 3 officers to maintain the City’s existing officers to population ratio. The addition of less than 1 officer from the proposed Project and 2 officers from the other projects within the Police Department’s Northeast District would not require the need for, new or physically altered police protection facilities. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to police services would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Parks and Recreation The proposed Project would provide onsite recreational facilities for residents that would meet many recreation and park needs of Project residents. In addition, the Project would be required to pay park fees to offset usage of existing park and recreation facilities. The cumulative projects within the City of Santa Ana would also be required to provide park and recreational facilities and/or pay in-lieu fees as required by each city, which are implemented to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities, and as a result reduce cumulative effects of each project. Thus, because the proposed Project would provide the open space and recreation facilities and would provide 2-92 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 63 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR payment of the required park fees, the Project’s impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts related to park and recreation facilities would be less than significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to parks and recreation would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-14.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.13 Transportation and Traffic As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Project would not result in impacts in the cumulative 2020 and 2040 conditions pursuant to the Caltrans, City of Santa Ana, and City or Orange thresholds and methodology. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-10 and 4.11-11.) As detailed in DEIR T ables 4.11-9 through 4.11-36, the proposed Project would not conflict with or result in an exceedance of a threshold by any of the following: the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, the Traffic Impact Analysis details that the capacities of the Park Santiago neighborhood intersections and roadways are substantially higher than the daily trip generation of the proposed Project. As such, cumulative impacts related to neighborhood traffic would be less than cumulatively significant. Also, the DEIR details that Project access locations and circulation around the Project site would be adequate, and cumulative impacts related to queuing would be less than cumulatively considerable. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to transportation and traffic would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-41.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 9.17.14 Utilities and Service Systems Water The Project would install new water lines to serve the proposed buildings and connect to the existing system that is adjacent to the Project site. The water system has been designed the proposed Project and would be served by existing infrastructure. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in the requirement for new or expanded off-site water infrastructure that could combine with other water infrastructure needs to result in an environmental impact. Thus, potential cumulative impacts from off-site water system expansions would not occur from the proposed Project. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that was prepared for the Project describes that the 2015 MWD UWMP details the ability to meet the demands of its member agencies, including the City of Santa Ana, through 2040. In addition, the City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP confirmed the ability of the local supplies and the OC Basin to meet the growing demands of the City in multiple climate scenarios. Also, as described previously the increased water demand from the proposed Project would be between 2.7 and 4.3 percent of the 2015 UWMP anticipated increase. Thus, the City would have water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements, and cumulative water supply needs would be able to be met as detailed by the MWD and City’s UWMPs. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in water supply demands that would require new or expanded entitlements. 2-93 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 64 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to water supplies would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-8.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Wastewater DEIR Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the existing sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the increased flows resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, the OCSD reclamation facilities have an average flow of 184 mgd and a treatment capacity of 462 mgd (OCSD, 2017). Due to this volume of excess capacity that is designed by OCSD to accommodate future regional growth, the increase in wastewater flow from the proposed Project that would require 0.04 percent of this remaining capacity would not significantly impact the OCSD reclamation facilities. As a result, impacts related to cumulative projects wastewater treatment and conveyance capacity would be less than significant. For these reasons detailed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to wastewater treatment and conveyance would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-12.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. Drainage and Water Quality All projects in the watershed are required to implement measures to comply with the LID, MS4 Permit, DAMP requirements for implementation of SWPPPs and WQMPs. These requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to water quality. Implementation of the proposed Project would include compliance with all required laws, permits, and plans, through implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP that would be approved by the City prior to construction and operational permits and have been designed to reduce impacts associated with drainage and water quality. The proposed Project would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces due to the increase in landscape and open space areas. Additionally, the DAMP required runoff volume would be filtered through the detention and drywell systems prior to discharge off-site to manage stormwater drainage and protect water quality. The detention and drywell treatment systems have high removal effectiveness for all storm water pollutants of concern. Thus, the runoff volume that would result from the proposed Project would not increase, and the proposed treatment systems would remove pollutants from onsite runoff. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate volumes of stormwater flows or polluted runoff that could combine with other projects to be cumulatively considerable. As a result, cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed in the DEIR, the Project’s cumulative effects relating to drainage and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable when considered with past, current, and future probable projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-19.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND ENERGY USE 2-94 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 65 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs reveal the significant environmental changes that would occur as a result of a proposed Project. CEQA also requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the Project. The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: • Lands in the Project area that are currently developed with office uses would be committed to multi-family residential uses once the proposed buildings are constructed. Secondary effects associated with this irreversible commitment of land resources include: o Changes in views associated with construction of the new buildings and associated development (see Section 4.1 of the DEIR, Aesthetics). o Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.11 of the DEIR, Transportation and Traffic). o Emissions of air pollutants associated with Project construction and operation (see Section 4.2 of the DEIR, Air Quality). o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, appliances, and the like (see Section 4.14 of the DEIR, Energy). o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from operation of the Project (see Section 4.8, Noise). • Construction of the Project as described in Section 3.0 of the DEIR, Project Description, would require the use of energy produced from non-renewable resources and construction materials. In regard to energy usage from the proposed Project, the Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources, and conservation efforts would be enforced during construction and operation of proposed development. The proposed development would incorporate energy-generating and conserving project design features, including those required by the California Building Code, California Energy Code Title 24, which specify green building standards for new developments. In addition, the Project includes project design features that result in additional energy- efficiency. (DEIR, p. 5-4.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 11.0 GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects if it requires new development or infrastructure to support it. The Project's growth effects would be considered significant if they could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas. As discussed in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, the limited number of jobs generated by the Project would represent a small portion of the estimated job growth that would be within, and not exceed, SCAG’s population forecast. As such, the Project would result in direct employment growth at a level that is already anticipated in regional projections; and thus, would be less than significant. The Project would not remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major 2-95 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 66 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area, or by expansion of public services in the Project area. The infrastructure needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the site and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth; and the Project would not create a demand for public services beyond what is already contemplated. Additionally, as described in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, SCAG projections show that the jobs – housing ratio is anticipated to increase to 1.65 by 2040; and that the Project would reduce the jobs-housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi-family housing on the Project site, where employees can easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas, which are jobs-rich. Thus, the Project would provide additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities. In addition, the provision of housing on the Project site would not result in economic activity that would cause the need for additional off-site housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, growth inducing impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 12.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 12.1 Background Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: 2-96 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 67 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR (c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) Here, a range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project was developed to provide additional information and flexibility to the decision-makers when considering the proposed Project. (DEIR, pp. 6- 1 through 6-26.) 12.2 Project Objectives The following Project objectives support the Project’s underlying purpose to develop multi-family residential uses on the Project site and assist with meeting the City’s housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high-quality housing. • Increase high-quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeway, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide residents with a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreational amenities. (DEIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) 2-97 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 68 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 12.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible, meet most of the project objectives, and avoid significant environmental effects that would occur from the project, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, are infeasible, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), (f)(3)). The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. Alternative Site Alternative An alternative site was considered but eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location.” In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant. The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is vacant, and the site is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel and implement new high-quality multi-family housing near employment centers to promote an improved jobs/housing balance, provide housing near existing transportation, and utilize existing infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 496 multi-family residential units on another 5.9-acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the Project. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location.” Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an available alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration. No Project/Vacant Building Alternative An alternative where the building would remain vacant and underutilized was eliminated from further consideration. Because the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, it is not reasonable due to the need for new residential and employment space in the area or financially feasible for the existing site owner for the site to remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. Therefore, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative would be remote and infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. As described previously, alternatives that are remote, infeasible, and do not meet Project objectives, do not need to be considered. Thus, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative was rejected from further consideration. 12.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project . . .” including the “No Project” alternative. The following alternatives have 2-98 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 69 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives to supplement the access alternatives presented in the DEIR. The alternatives presented have been determined to be physically feasible and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project. The Alternatives include: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build • Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative • Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative 12.5 Evaluation of Alternatives Selected for Analysis Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Description: Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR is required to “discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” Therefore, under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site and it would remain in its existing condition. However, as described in Section 6.4 of the DEIR, the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, and it is not reasonable to assume that the Project site would remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. In the No Project/No Build condition, it is reasonably expected that the existing 81,172 square foot office building would be re-occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the Project with re-occupation at full capacity of the existing office building. (DEIR, p. 6-4.) Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact that would result from the Project and all of the potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Final EIR—which include measures related to aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources—would not be required. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 through 6-11.) However, the environmental benefits of the Project would also not be realized, such as improvements to storm water quality, removal of contaminated soils, improvements to the jobs/housing balance, and the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not install storm water filtration features in accordance with DAMP and LID design guidelines that would filter and slow the volume and rate of runoff; the arsenic contaminated soils would remain onsite; and this alternative would provide for the projected employment growth but would not improve the jobs to housing balance within the region and could generate more vehicle miles traveled. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) The site would not be redeveloped into new high-quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. Capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan would not occur, and a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities would not be implemented by this alternative. Overall, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) 2-99 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 70 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Finding: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts and would avoid the need for mitigation to ensure impacts to various environmental resources would not occur. Additionally, this alternative would not require a General Plan amendment or zone change. However, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives and the environmental benefits of the Project would not be realized. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Description: Under this alternative, described in further detail in the DEIR (DEIR, p. 6-12), a 30 percent reduction in the number of residential units would be built, which would result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights. Like the Project, 77 percent of the units would be studio or one-bedroom units, 18 percent would be 2-bedroom units, and 6 percent would be 3-bedroom units. This alternative would develop and operate 347 multi-family residential units on the 5.9-acre site, which would result in 59 dwelling units per acre, which is a 149-unit (and 25 unit per acre) reduction compared to the Project. Reducing these units from the Project would eliminate 51 units along the eastern portion of the Project site to provide a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the site; and the 5th floor residential units along the eastern side would be eliminated to provide a maximum of 4-stories adjacent to the 90- foot setback. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the development would be 3-stories in height along Santiago Park and Edgewood Road, and would be 5 stories in height along N, Main Street and adjacent to the parking structure. To support the 347 multi-family residential units under this alternative 625 parking spaces (an average of 1.8 spaces per unit consistent with the Project) would be provided within a 6-level parking structure, that would have 5 levels above ground and one level underground. Like the Project, the residential units would be wrapped around the parking structure. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the Wellness Room and Community Rooms would not be developed (as they are planned to be located within the 90-foot setback) and the recreation amenities would also be reduced by 30 percent. Thus, approximately 4,870 of indoor recreation facilities would be provided by this alternative. However, the 90-foot setback would create a large open space area (approximately 54,000 square feet) along the eastern side of the Project site that could be used for open space recreation. Like the Project, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment from the existing land use designation of PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) to District Center (DC), and a Zone change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) designation. Environmental Effects: As further discussed in the DEIR (DEIR, pp. 6-12 through 6-17), the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the site resulting in an open space area that could be used for recreation. In addition, views of the Project site would be visually less dense and structure heights would be lower from several viewpoints. Also, the shade and shadow generated from the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than the Project and would extend into fewer off-site areas. However, the same mitigation to protect the trees to remain onsite would be necessary to ensure views of the Project site are screened, and (although less) this alternative would also result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s aesthetics criteria. Thus, this Alternative does not eliminate a significant and unavoidable impact. 2-100 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 71 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR This alternative would also require the same types of construction activities and related mitigation measures as the proposed Project. Therefore, although the Reduced Project Alternative would be lower in height, scale, and mass, generate fewer greenhouse gas and air quality emissions, require fewer services, result in less traffic trips, and create a large open space area on the eastern portion of the Project site, it would not reduce the need for mitigation or the level of impact significance compared to the Project. Finding: The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed Project; however, the alternative would not reduce significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level and would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Reduced Project Alternative. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative Description: Under this alternative described in further detail in the DEIR (DEIR, pp. 6-18 through 6- 24), the Project site would be redeveloped for new professional office uses as allowed by the City’s Zoning Code Sections 41-312 through 41-323. The Project site has a Zoning designation of P (Professional), which allows buildings up to 3-stories or 35-feet in height. The building setbacks required in the P zone include a 15-foot setback from the front and side property lines, and a 50-foot rear setback when the site backs to residential areas. The maximum office building structure that could be developed under the existing zoning code requirements would be 3-stories high and 387,465 square feet (floor area ratio of 1.5), which would require 1,161 parking spaces (per the P zone requirement of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The office building would be surrounded by drought tolerant ornamental landscaping. Under this alternative, the existing onsite development would be demolished, removed, and replaced to provide a new building structure that would be developed pursuant to current building requirements, such as energy efficient power systems, drought tolerant landscaping, storm water filtration, and other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. This alternative would be consistent with the existing land use designation, which is PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) and P zoning designation. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Environmental Effects: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in a lower building height than the Project, and a 10-foot larger setback from the eastern boundary of the site; but would be 4.77 times larger than the existing 81,172 square foot 2-story building, and like the Project, this alternative would substantially change the scale, height, and setbacks in comparison to existing views of the Project site, which would result in a significant impact pursuant to the City’s aesthetics criteria. Furthermore, the character of the office building under this alternative would be less visually consistent with the adjacent single-family residential than the proposed multi-family residential. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) The Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in approximately 1,275 employees at full capacity and generate approximately 3,774 vehicle trips per day, which is 40 percent more daily trips than the proposed Project. As a result, impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas, traffic noise, and traffic congestion would be increased in comparison to the Project. Similarly, construction of this alternative would require the same construction related mitigation measures that are required for the Project. Overall, the Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in greater impacts than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet 2-101 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 72 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR a majority of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped into new high-quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance, and would not provide residents with a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. Although the Project would meet the objectives of redeveloping land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure and would implement capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan, a majority (5 out of 7) of the Project objectives would not be met. (DEIR, pp. 6-23 through 6-24.) Finding: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable aesthetic impact, would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project, and would result in greater impacts to other environmental topics than the Project. In addition, the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet a majority of the Project objectives. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Existing Zoning Alternative. 12.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative The Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Project is the No Project/No Build Alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and all of the potential construction impacts, reduce many of the operational impacts, and would not be required to implement the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR that are related to: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources. However, this alternative would not improve the storm water runoff quality that runs directly into Santiago Creek, not remove the contaminated soils from the site, not improve the jobs/housing balance and the related reduction in vehicle miles traveled. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(3)(1) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives is Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, which would develop 30 fewer units than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) The potential impacts from this alternative are less than the Project because the residential structure under this alternative would be lower in height, at a lower density, and be sited at least 90-feet from the eastern property line resulting in a large open space area that could be used for recreation. However, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact related to a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site and the alternative would not reduce the need for mitigation compared to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial effect; providing fewer multi-family housing units on the Project site that would result in a reduced improvement to the City’s 3.2 percent vacancy rate, fewer residents traveling to local employment opportunities, a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance, and is not as reflective of the General Plan Major City Entry and Main Street Concourse node designations as the Project. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. The site would be redeveloped for new high- quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit; however, fewer residential units would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance would occur. Additionally, fewer residents would be accommodated by the safe, high-quality, modern residential 2-102 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. _____ Page 73 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR community with open space and various recreation amenities on the Project site. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA does not require the City to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, explain the considerations that led it to conclude that those alternatives were infeasible from a policy standpoint, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweighed the harm. 2-103 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 74 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE No: 2018021031 CITY OF SANTA ANA: DP No. 2017-34 Introduction The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA responsible for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project (Project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant and can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: 15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations. a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. 2-104 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 75 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, most of which do not meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the DEIR for the Project and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the Project, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the Project. The specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project are as follows: 1. The Project would implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. 2. The Project would implement the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element Major City Entry designation along N. Main Street at the Project site. 3. The Project would implement the General Plan Urban Design Element Main Street at I-5 Freeway Gateway designation. 4. The Project would provide consistency with the General Plan Scenic Corridors Element Inter- City Corridor designation along the Santiago Creek area at N. Main Street. 5. The Project would provide needed multi-family rental housing to improve the City’s 3.2 percent vacancy rate and provide a variety of housing options for existing and future residents. 6. The Project would reduce the jobs-housing ratio, providing a beneficial effect of providing multi- family housing in a jobs-rich area so that employees can easily travel to employment opportunities. 7. The Project would result in a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions from the provision of housing near regional shopping areas and employment, and by improving the jobs-housing balance. 2-105 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution No. _____ Page 76 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 8. The Project would provide additional multi-family housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. 9. The Project would redevelop an underutilized parcel to implement high-quality multi-family housing with recreation amenities, near transportation facilities and utilizing existing infrastructure capacity. 10. The Project would improve storm water filtration, such that unfiltered runoff would no longer be conveyed to Santiago Creek. All of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to infiltrating landscaping areas and catch basins that would improve the existing storm water quality that conveys to the creek. 11. The Project would install additional 24- and 36-inch box trees and tree wells along the Edgewood Road and N. Main Street right-of-way, providing additional public street trees. 12. The Project would result in the creation, installation, and maintenance of a public art project with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Project, pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company (“Project Applicant”). 13. The Project would result in the Project Applicant constructing park improvements including, but not limited to, installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancements to Santiago Park pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company (“Project Applicant”). 14. The Project would result in providing benefits to the Park Santiago neighborhood for a period of 55-year (subject to annual review) including access to on-site amenities, private 24-hour roving security patrol of Santiago Park and the Park Santiago Neighborhood pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company (“Project Applicant”). 15. The Project would result in the Applicant preforming the analysis, design, engineering, construction, and inspection/administration of (1) Santiago Park neighborhood improvements at up to three locations on Edgewood and/or Bush Street to achieve traffic calming and traffic diversion. Improvements may be based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association and may include, but not be limited to, bulb-outs, traffic circles and medians within the neighborhood streets. (2) Street lighting enhancements within the Santiago Park Neighborhood. (3) A street light at the Santiago Park Drive / Main Street intersection. (4) Decorative concrete pavement within the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way and Main Street/Santiago Park Drive pursuant to a development agreement entered into between the City and the Project Applicant, AC 2525 Main St., a California limited liability company (“Project Applicant”). 2-106 2525 N. MAIN STREET MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been certified which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid signi ficant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project (project). The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP. 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The MMRP for the project will be active through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the project to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts on the environment. The table identifies the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance. The MMRP also includes a column for the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required mitigation measure has been completed. The project includes specific Project Design Features (PDFs) that are incorporated to avoid and/or minimize potential environmental impacts. In addition, the EIR analysis describes the existing regulations that effectively avoid or reduce environmental impacts. The PDFs and the existing regulations that are implementable actions related to project construction and operation activities are included in the following MMRP table to ensure implementation and appropriate monitoring of each, in the same manner as the mitigation measures. 2-107 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FINAL EIR Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials Project Description Features PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern and southern project site boundaries, which were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report (MMRP Attachment A). In Construction and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-2: The project will include at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. In Site Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-3: The project will include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings. In Building Mechanical Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-4: Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided throughout the common areas of the site, including the dog park area, for the tenants to dispose of their refuse in a proper manner. Property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal, including dog feces disposal bags, to maintain a trash- free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off-site. In Site Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division PDF-5: The project will include safety design features for security, such as low-intensity security lighting, key pads for building access, security cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. In Site Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect the trees along the eastern and southern project site boundary that are planned for preservation during construction of the proposed project pursuant to the 2018 Arborist Report (MMRP Attachment A): If the wall along the eastern boundary of the project site cannot be heightened in-place and must be replaced, it shall be reconstructed with a precast concrete fence or a wall without a continuous footing. Before finalizing construction plans, a contractor with an AirSpade or AirKnife shall explore the locations adjacent to the preserved trees to locate large lateral roots. The root locations shall be marked, and a survey provided to update the construction plans to avoid cutting any significant large roots. The cutting of small roots shall be planned for late spring or winter and made with In Construction and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-108 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials clean cuts. No pruning paint or sealants shall be used. Any grade changes near the preserved trees or pruning of trees to provide clearances for construction equipment shall be coordinated with a Registered Consulting Arborist before construction begins, and precautions pursuant to the arborist’s recommendations shall be taken to mitigate potential tree injuries. Prior to construction, a one-pound soil sample shall be taken from the top 18-inches of soil in each area where trees will be preserved. The samples shall be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and soil supplement recommendations. Fertilization of the preserved trees shall be completed pursuant to the laboratory analysis’ soil supplement recommendations. Prior to construction, augur 6-inch diameter holes about 3 feet deep at a 3-foot spacing between large roots in the more compacted and crowded spaces. Avoid large visible roots, relocating the holes as needed. Start augur holes at three times the trunk diameter, i.e. 6-feet from a 24-inch tree. Back fill with amended soil, based on an agronomic lab’s testing and recommendations. Prior to construction, mulch all exposed soil areas using a topical application of a well - composted, coarse-texture mulch, without manure or bio-solids, e.g. Aguinaga Forest Floor ½ to 1½” particle size. Apply it 2-inches deep, but not against the tree trunks. Deep water before construction and check soil moisture monthly during construction by means of a soil test probe. Slow water with a soaker hose or water spike for 12 hours, or as long as necessary to reach 4-feet deep. Rinse tree foliage at the end of each work week, using a strong stream of water from a high- pressure nozzle. During construction in areas without pavement near the preserved trees, 3 or more inches of coarse mulch or tree chips under 1-inch plywood for light vehicle parking and steel plates for larger vehicles is required to prevent compaction and protect surface roots. Protection Barrier: A protection barrier shall be installed around the trees to be preserved. The barrier shall be constructed of durable fencing material, such as chain link fencing. The barrier shall be placed as far from the base of the tree(s) as possible and shall be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of construction, and shall not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission of the project arborist. o Storage of Materials: There shall be NO storage of materials or supplies of any kind within the area of the protection barriers. Concrete and cement materials, block, stone, sand and soil shall not be placed within the drip-line of the tree. 2-109 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials o Fuel Storage: Fuel storage shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of any tree to be preserved. Refueling, servicing and maintenance of equipment and machinery shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of the protected trees. o Debris and Waste Materials: Debris and waste from construction or other activities shall NOT be permitted within protected areas. Wash down of concrete or cement handling equipment, in particular, shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of protected trees. Any damages or injuries should be reported to the project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. Municipal Code Section 33-185, Street Tree Species to Be Planted: The tree species to be planted shall be consistent with the list of the official street tree species for the City of Santa Ana. Species other than those included in this list may be planted as street trees with consent from the environmental and transportation advisory committee In Site and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Landscape Plan Approval City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency Municipal Code Section 33-188, Site Plan Approval: The site plan for the project shall include street trees showing the approximate location, size, and species of all existing trees to be maintained, trees to be removed, and trees required for approval of the project. In Site and Landscape Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency Municipal Code Section 33-193, Building Materials Near Trees, Shrubs: No person shall pile building material, or other material, about any tree, plant, or shrub in a street in any manner that will in any way injure such tree, plant or shrub. In Construction Plans and Specifications. During Construction and Demolition City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 31-1304, Outdoor Lighting: All outdoor lighting in parking lots should be reflected away from these sensitive land uses. In Lighting and Design Plans. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Planning Division Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the construction contractor shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403 (4): All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-110 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid - morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1113. The project shall not include application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. A list of low/no-VOC paints is provided at the following SCAQMD website: www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html. All paints will be applied using either high volume low-pressure spray equipment or by hand application. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 1186. Sweep onsite streets (and off-site streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares) to reduce the amount of particulate matter. Visible roadway accumulations shall begin removal within 72 hours of any notification of the accumulation and shall be completely removed. All sweepers shall be compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, Less Polluting Sweepers. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition and Construction Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that vegetation clearing during nesting season (February 1 through September 15) shall be avoided, if feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around nests at an appropriate distance that is a minimum of 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non -raptors. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to demolition, grading, or construction permits City of Santa Ana Planning Division Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be to the depth of approximately 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface in areas identified as having arsenic impacted soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Grading Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-111 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials conducted during excavation to ensure that all arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project plans and specifications shall include the following construction requirements to be implemented and verified prior to provision of occupancy permits: Windows/Glass Doors: Residential units adjacent to N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors (all windows/doors on all floors) with minimum STC ratings of 30; and all other buildings require standards windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 27. Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): Exterior doors facing N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 and shall be well weather-stripped; and all other residential building exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. Ventilation: Residential exterior vents shall be oriented away from I-5 and Main Street. If such In Building Plans and Specifications. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-112 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vents. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The project’s construction plans and specifications shall include the following requirements: Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment, such as bulldozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of the eastern boundary of the project site. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during project construction. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all construction. In Demolition and Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Demolition, Grading, and/or Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The project’s construction plans and specifications shall include the requirement to install a minimum 11-foot high temporary construction noise barrier along the project site eastern boundary for the duration of project construction. The noise control barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom and shall meet the following height and constructed requirements: The temporary noise barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted bla nkets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or temporary fence posts. The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be p romptly repaired; The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to demolition, grading, or construction permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division and Planning Division Municipal Code Section 18-314, Construction Activities: Construction activities shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to demolition, grading, or construction permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-113 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials Public Services Orange County Fire Authority Fire Prevention Guideline B-09: Specific information shall be provided during the submittal of plans to demonstrate compliance with all codes and other regulations governing water availability for firefighting and emergency access to the project site and structures that shall be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority. In Development Plans and Specifications. Prior to Building Permits Orange County Fire Authority Municipal Code Chapter 14, Fire Code: New structures shall meet all California Fire Code standards. In Development Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Orange County Fire Authority Municipal Code Chapter 8-46, Fire Facilities Fee: The fire facilities fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit for construction of buildings. All fire facility fee revenues shall be expended solely to fund equipment needed to fight fires in buildings over 2 stories in height and to improve fire stations to accommodate such equipment. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Sections 35-108, 35-110, and 35-111 Park and Recreation Fees: The park and recreation fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit for construction of buildings. The park and recreation fee revenues shall be expended solely to fund the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities based on a standard of 2 acres of public park and/or recreational space per 1,000 residents. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. The project’s grading and construction plans and specifications shall state that prior to commencement of any excavation activities, a Native American shall be contacted to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public In Grading and Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to Grading Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-114 Required Measure Implementation Timing Responsible for Ensuring Compliance / Verification Date Completed and Initials Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the project applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. Utilities and Service Systems Municipal Code Article XVI, Green Building Standards Code: New structures shall meet the CALGreen water efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new plumbing fittings and fixtures. In Development Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 39-106, Permanent Water Conservation Requirements: New structures shall meet the CALGreen water efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new plumbing fittings and fixtures. In Development Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 39-106, Permanent Water Conservation Requirements: The project shall implement the required water conservation measures that are effective at all times and is not dependent upon a water shortage. In Development Plans. Prior to Occupancy Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division Municipal Code Section 41-1503, Landscape Water Use Standards: New landscaping shall implement the Santa Ana Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines. In Landscape Plans. Prior to Building Permits City of Santa Ana Planning Division Municipal Code Section 18-156, Control of Urban Runoff: The project shall implement the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and any conditions and requirements established by the City related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the project site. In Demolition, Grading, and Development Plans. Prior to Demolition, Grading, and/or Building Permits City of Santa Ana Building and Safety Division 2-115 This page left blank intentionally. 2-116 EXHIBIT D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Draft Environmental Impact Report, Final Environmental Impact Report, Clarifications to the Final Environmental Impact Report (October 2019), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Technical Appendices are available at the following locations: Online: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning-projects-and- documents/2525-n-main-residential-development Paper Copies: Planning and Building Agency Planning Counter, First Floor 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Santa Ana Public Library 26 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LINK 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-117 2-118 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CLARIFICATION TO THE 2525 N. MAIN STREET (MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK) MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031 City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Santa Ana RE Consulting October 2019 2-119 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Environmental Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Summary of CEQA Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 3 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 13 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 28 3.4 Cultural/Historic Resources ........................................................................................................................ 29 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 31 3.7 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................................. 33 3.8 Noise .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 3.9 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................................. 41 3.10 Public Services ........................................................................................................................................... 43 3.11 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 45 3.12 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 61 3.13 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................................... 62 3.14 Energy ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 Tables Table 1: Proposed Project Modifications ................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Comparison of Open Space / Recreation Areas .......................................................................................... 5 Table N-1: Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 37 Table N-2: Project Operational Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 37 Table N-3: Project Operational Noise Level Compliance ......................................................................................... 40 Table P-1: Comparison of Residents at Full Occupancy ......................................................................................... 42 Table P-2: City of Santa Ana Jobs – Housing Balance Comparison ....................................................................... 42 Table T-1 Comparison of Vehicular Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 46 Table T-2: Existing Condition with Modified Project - Intersection Levels of Service ............................................... 47 Table T-3: Existing Condition with Modified Project – Roadway Segment Levels of Service .................................. 48 Table T-4: Existing Condition with Modified Project Queuing .................................................................................. 49 Table T-5: Existing Condition with Modified Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service ...................................... 51 Table T-6: Opening Year (2020) with Modified Project - Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 52 Table T-7: Opening Year (2020) with Modified Project – Roadway Segment Levels of Service ............................. 53 Table T-8: Opening Year (2020) with Modified Project Queuing ............................................................................. 54 Table T-9: Year 2040 with Modified Project - Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... 55 Table T-10: Year 2040 with Modified Project – Roadway Segment Levels of Service ............................................ 56 2-120 Table T-11: Year 2040 with Modified Project Queuing ............................................................................................ 57 Table T-12: Year 2040 with Modified Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service ................................................ 58 Table T-13: Parking Demand Per the ITE Rates ..................................................................................................... 59 Table T-14: Parking Survey Data Summary ............................................................................................................ 60 Table U-1: Comparison of Water Demands ............................................................................................................. 63 Figures Figure 1: Modified Project Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Modified Project Open Space Plan ............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Modified Project Site Access ...................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Modified Project North and West Building Elevations ................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: Modified Project South and East Building Elevations ............................................................................... 10 Figure 6: Modified Project Conceptual Renderings ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7: Visual Simulation Viewpoint Locations .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: N. Main Street View Simulations .............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 9: Eastbound Santiago Park View Simulations ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 10: Westbound Santiago Park View Simulations .......................................................................................... 19 Figure 11: N. Spurgeon Avenue View Simulations .................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12: Edgewood Road at N. Bush Street View Simulations ............................................................................ 22 Figure 13: Original Project Shade and Shadow ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 14: Modified Project Shade and Shadow ...................................................................................................... 25 Figure 15: Modified Project Operationals Noise Source and Receiver Locations .................................................... 39 Attachment A: Supplemental Operational Noise Analysis Attachment B: Supplemental Traffic Analysis Attachment C: Parking Analysis 2-121 Acronyms AFY acre feet yearly APNs Assessor Parcel Numbers AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESLs Environmental Screening Levels GHG greenhouse gas gpd gallons per day HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HSP Health and Safety Plan HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning I Interstate ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LID Low Impact Development LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCHA Orange County Health Care Agency OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PDF Project Design Feature PM Particulate Matter RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SMP Soil Management Plan STC Sound Transmission Class SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan USGS United States Geologic Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled WQMP Water Quality Management Plan 2-122 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This document is a Clarification to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Magnolia at the Park Multi- Family Residential Project (Original Project) (SCH Number: 2018021031) located at 2525 N. Main Street in the City of Santa Ana. The Draft EIR (DEIR), Final EIR, in conjunction with this Clarification, serve as the environmental review for the proposed Modified Project. Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR and preparation of the Final EIR for the Original Project, but prior to certification of the Final EIR, the Project applicant has revised the development proposal to the City. This Clarification document evaluates the revised development proposal (Modified Project), as described herein. The Modified Project proposes reducing the number of residential units by 48.4 percent, reducing the scale of the structures, and revising the vehicular parking and access to the site. This Clarification evaluates these modifications to determine if any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts would occur from implementation of the Modified Project that were not identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Section 15000 et seq.), the City is the Lead Agency charged with deciding whether or not to approve the Project with or without the proposed modifications. This Clarification addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Modified Project and will be considered by the City during the Project approval process, in tandem with the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, all oral and written comments presented to the City, and all other documents comprising the Project’s administrative record. 1.2 Environmental Procedures This Clarification to the Final EIR, which will be incorporated into the Final EIR, has been prepared to determine if the proposed Modified Project would result in new or substantially increased environmental effects than were originally identified in the EIR, and to determine if any of the conditions triggering the need to recirculate the EIR are present. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a Lead Agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a draft EIR for public review, but before the EIR is certified. “New information” includes changes in the proposed project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. CEQA considers new information to be “significant” when it deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) specifies that “Significant new information” related to impacts that requires recirculation include: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; or (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(e) states that a decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Therefore, this Clarification considers whether the proposed Modified Project would result in a new significant environmental impact, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact previously identified in the EIR. 1.3 Summary of CEQA Analysis In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, and as detailed herein, the City of Santa Ana completed a comprehensive analysis of the proposed Modified Project and found that none of the conditions specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 are present. Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not required prior to the City’s 2-123 consideration of the Modified Project, and no new or substantially more severe adverse environmental effects would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Clarification focuses on the potential environmental impacts associated with the Modified Project that might cause a change in the conclusions of the EIR, including significant new information related to new or increased adverse environmental effects. In other words, this document compares the environmental effects of the Project as evaluated in the EIR to those of the Modified Project and considers whether the proposed modifications would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than was disclosed in the EIR. Specifically, this document analyzes whether a reduction of 240 residential units (a 48.4 percent reduction), a reduction in the height of the proposed structures, and a re-design of the proposed site entrance (as detailed below), the addition of surface level parking, and a lot line adjustment would result in the new or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the EIR. As detailed herein, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts and no new mitigation measures are required. On the basis of these findings and the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, no recirculated EIR is required for the modified multi-family residential project. As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(e) the analysis throughout this Clarification provides substantial evidence to support these findings. 1.4 Project Location The Project is located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate (I)-5. The site is located on the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. Regional access to the Project site is provided by I-5 and the N. Main Street exit; and local access to the Project site is provided by N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The Project site consists of 6 contiguous parcels that include Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 003-010-028, 003- 010-01, 003-010-03, 003-010-025, 003-010-026, 003-010-030 and is located within the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Orange County 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle. 1.5 Project Objectives The Project objectives have not been modified. As described by the EIR, the following objectives support the Project’s underlying purpose to develop multi-family residential uses on the Project site and assist with meeting the City’s housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high-quality housing. • Increase high-quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeways, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. 2-124 2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Modified Project would reduce the height, size, and scale of the Project that was analyzed in the EIR. The Modified Project would redevelop the 5.9-acre Project site to provide 256 for-rent multi-family. The residential units would be provided within approximately 277,281 square feet of residential structures that range between 2 and 4 stories in height. The 2-story residential structures (24-feet 8-inches in height), located on the eastern portion of the site, and be setback a minimum of 90-feet from the eastern boundary of the site, as shown in Figure 1, Modified Project Site Plan. The 3-story residential structures (36-feet 9-inches in height) would be located behind the two-story structures on the eastern portion of the site. The remainder of the residential structures would be 4-stories with a roofline of approximately (49-feet 5-inches in height). The setback of the building along the southern boundary (Edgewood Road) has been increased from 13 feet to approximately 134-feet, with inclusion of a surface parking lot. The residential units would be developed around a 167,253 square foot central parking structure that would have one 26,700 square foot level of underground parking and 5 levels of aboveground parking. The parking structure would be centrally located onsite and would be approximately 59-feet in height. The highest point of the proposed development would be the top of the elevator tower to the amenity deck on top of the parking structure, which would be approximately 74 feet 5 inches from the ground surface. Table 1 provides a comparison between the Original Project as evaluated in the EIR and the proposed Modified Project. Table 1: Proposed Project Modifications Project Characteristic Original Project (per EIR) Modified Project Change Number of Units 496 units 256 units -240 units Density of Residential Development Area 84 units per acre 58 units per acre* -26 units per acre* Residential Unit Mix Studio: 73 units – 15% 1 bdr: 307 units – 62% 2 bdr: 88 units – 18% 3 bdr: 28 units – 6% Studio: 74 units – 29% 1 bdr: 103 units – 40% 2 bdr: 75 units – 29% 3 bdr: 4 units – 2% Studio: +1 units 1 bdr: -204 units 2 bdr: -13 units 3 bdr: -24 units Residential Unit Sizes Studios: 590 – 740 SF 1 bdr: 610 – 1,090 SF 2 bdr: 910 – 1,470 SF 3 bdr: 1,360 – 1,520 SF Studios: 560 – 590 SF 1 bdr: 630 – 930 SF 2 bdr: 910 – 1,180 SF 3 bdr: 1,360 SF Average unit size is smaller Stories of Residential Structures 2 to 5 stories with mezzanines 2 to 4 stories -1 story Maximum Height of Residential Structures 65-feet 8-inches 49-feet 5-inches -16-feet 3-inches Height of Parking Structure Roofline 90 feet (7 above-ground levels) 59 feet (5 above-ground levels) -31 feet Highest Structure Fitness Center Roofline on Western portion of the Amenity Deck – 90 feet Elevator Tower Roofline towards western portion of site – 74 feet 5-inches. -15 feet 5 inches Building Setback from Eastern Side Boundary 40 foot minimum 90 foot minimum +50 feet Building Setback from Southern Side Boundary Between 10 feet and 13 feet 4 inches 134 feet 6-inches +121 feet Size of Subterranean Parking 1 level 40,000 square feet 1 level 26,700 square feet -13,300 square feet Parking – Total 904 total spaces 511 spaces dedicated 691 including shared parking -393 dedicated spaces Spaces Per Unit 1.8 2.0 dedicated 2.7 w/ shared parking +0.2 dedicated +0.9 w/ shared parking Tandem Spaces 122 0 -122 Electric Vehicle Spaces 25 15 -10 ADA Spaces 21 12 -9 Notes: bdr = bedroom; SF = square feet; w/ = with; w/o = without * not including the OC Discovery Cube shared parking area of 1.42 acres 2-125 Install 24” Box Street Trees Proposed 8’ Ht. Masonry Wall Existing Single-Family ResidentialExisting Single-Family Residential Eastern Property Line Screening Proposed 8’ Ht. Masonry Wall Proposed Rolling Gate Proposed Rolling Gate Edgewood RoadEdgewood RoadExisting Fan Palm Court-yard2 Court-yard2 Court-yard1 Court-yard1 Amenity Building Amenity Building Parking StructureParking Structure N. Main StreetN. Main Street Leasing Lobby Leasing Lobby Move-InMove-InGarage EntryGarage Entry Courtyard 3 Courtyard 3 S a n t i a g o P a r k S a n t i a g o P a r k RooftopRooftop 6’ Ht. Tubular Steel Fence 6’ Ht. Tubular Steel Fence Install 24” Box Street Trees and Tree Wells Figure 1: Modified Project Site Plan SOURCE: Architects Orange; MJS Landscape Architecture, 2019 0 80 Feet Two Stories Three Stories Four Stories 2-126 As shown in Table 1, the proposed Modified Project would reduce the development by 240 units; from 496 units to 256 units, a 48.4 percent reduction. This would result in a residential density of 58 units per acre, not including the OC Discovery Cube shared parking area of 1.42 acres (described below). The proposed Modified Project’s residential structures would be one-story lower in height and eliminate mezzanines (approximately 16-feet lower) and would be separated from the eastern side of the site by an additional 50 feet in increased building setback compared to the Original Project. The height of the centrally located parking structure would be reduced by approximately 31 feet and the highest point of the proposed structures (the roof elevator shaft) would be 15.5 feet lower. Additionally, the level of subterranean parking would be reduced in size by 13,300 square feet from approximately 40,000 square feet for the Original Project to approximately 26,700 square feet for the Modified Project. Open Space, Recreation, and Other Amenities The Modified Project would provide 3 open space recreational courtyards totaling 12,920 square feet of exterior open space and recreation facilities; this is a reduction of 9,980 square feet from the 22,900 square feet of exterior open space within 5 open space recreational courtyards that were included in the Original Project. The open space areas are shown in Figure 2, Modified Project Open Space Plan. The types of exterior recreational amenities proposed for the Modified Project are the same as those provided for the Original Project and include outdoor kitchens/barbeques, fire pits, water features, seating areas, tables, and trellis covered patios. The Modified Project would also provide a rooftop amenity deck with a pool, spa, restrooms, poolside seating, and other amenities; however, the amenity deck would be 2,119 square feet smaller (Table 2). The interior residential amenities would also be reduced in comparison to the Original Project. As shown in Table 2, the Modified Project would not include the originally proposed Wellness Center, Community Room, Resident Services/Business Center room, Bicycle Repair Room, and Dog Washroom. In addition, the size of the Fitness Center would be reduced by 2,279 square feet. Table 2: Comparison of Open Space / Recreation Areas Amenity Original Project Modified Project Change Open Space Recreational Courtyards 22,900 SF 12,920 SF -9,980 Wellness Center 1,600 SF 0 -1,600 SF Community Room 4,700 SF 0 - 4,700 SF Resident Services /Business Center 3,900 SF 0 -3,900 SF Bicycle Repair Room 280 SF 0 SF -280 SF Dog Wash Room 40 SF 0 SF -40 SF Fitness Center 5,400 SF 3,121 SF -2,279 SF Amenity Deck 11,400 SF 9,281 SF -2,119 SF Notes: SF square feet Parking The Modified Project would provide onsite parking in both a central parking structure and a surface parking lot that would be located on the eastern and southern portions of the site, as shown in Figure 1. The central parking structure would provide 407 spaces that would be dedicated to the onsite residential uses. The surface parking lot would contain 284 parking spaces, of which 104 would be dedicated to the onsite residential uses and 180 would be shared with the OC Discovery Cube that is located across N. Main Street from the Project site and currently utilizes the site for 180 parking spaces. 2-127 O ONOPARKINGVANGATENOPARKINGREF DW W/D COATS CB CB EN T R Y CB CB EN T R Y CBCBENTRYCBCBENTRYCBCBENTRYCB CB ENTRYCBCBENTRYP. Amenity Deck 9,281 sf Edgewood RoadN. Main Street Landscape Area - East1,348 sfCourtyard 16,166 sf Courtyard 24,273 sf Landscape Area - North 2,942 sf Courtyard 3 2,481 sf Club Room/ Fitness Center3,121 sf Landscape Area - West 3,746 sf Figure 2: Modified Project Open Space Plan SOURCE: Architects Orange, 2019 0 80 Feet At-Grade Open Space Interior Open Space Amenity Deck 2-128 The Modified Project would share the 180 spaces provided in the southern portion of the site. The parking spaces would be used by the OC Discovery Cube from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily and would be available for the onsite residences between 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. A rolling gate would separate the onsite residential and OC Discovery Cube parking areas and be opened and closed for management of onsite parking. As part of the agreement for use of the space for OC Discovery Cube parking, the Modified Project includes a perpetual easement of the shared surface lot area. The number of parking spaces for the residential units would be increased to provide 2.0 parking spaces per unit that are dedicated to the onsite residences, which would increase onsite parking capacity in comparison to the Original Project. In addition, the Modified Project would include 180 shared parking spaces that would be available for residential uses after 5:00 p.m. daily, which results in 2.7 parking spaces per units between 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Site Access and Circulation The proposed Modified Project would provide vehicular access to the site from two driveways along N. Main Street. The southern driveway would provide right-in and right-out access to the parking area to be used by the OC Discovery Cube. The northern driveway would be used for the residential uses and would guide vehicles to the parking structure and provide direct access to the residential units, guest parking, and the leasing office. The residential parking on the east side of the site would also be accessed through the parking structure. The northern driveway would also include a public use access easement to Santiago Park; and the existing gated access at the east leg of the N. Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive intersection would be removed. To provide for left-turn vehicular access into and out of the Project site, the southern leg of the intersection of N. Main Street at Walkie Way (including the pedestrian crossings and signals) would be moved approximately 80 to 90-feet to the south. The north leg of the N. Main Street crosswalk would be removed, the south leg of the crosswalk would connect the Project site and the Discovery Cube, and the median would be modified during construction of the Modified Project. The proposed site access is shown on Figure 3, Modified Project Site Access. The intersection signalization of Walkie Way (going east and west into and out of the site) would be modified to operate with split- phasing 1 and the N. Main Street northbound and southbound left-turn lanes (into and out of the site) would operate with lead/lag phasing2. Architecture and Design No changes to the architecture style and aesthetic design of the Project are proposed. As described in the EIR, the Project’s architectural design would integrate the proposed structures, landscaping, and open space courtyard areas and also provide varied building heights and projections. Conceptual building elevations showing the Modified Project are provided in Figures 4 and 5 and conceptual renderings of the Modified Project are provided in Figure 6. The architecture retains vertical variations, horizontal roof elements, and various setbacks. The exterior color palate remains the same including various earth toned colors, such as beige, brown, and grey with black and metal accents, as well as stone veneer, stucco, sand plaster finishes, and wood facade accents. Walls and Fencing No changes to the walls and fencing are proposed. As detailed in the EIR, the existing 6-foot high masonry wall along the eastern portion of the site would be raised to 8-feet in height; and the existing fence along the northern boundary of the site would be replaced with a 6-foot-high tubular steel fence, which, along with landscaping, would delineate the Project site from the Santiago Park area. In addition, the fire lane entrances would be secured with a decorative tubular steel gate with a knoxbox for emergency access. 1 Split phasing is a signal that gives a green phase for all vehicle movements of one direction (e.g., northbound through, right, and left) followed by a phase for all movements of the opposite direction (e.g., southbound through, right, and left). 2 Lead/lag phasing is a signal sequence where the green left turn arrow is either before or after the oncoming thru green. 2-129 Building Setback Building Setback Proposed Crosswalk Proposed Median Proposed Crosswalk Proposed Driveway Proposed DrivewayProposed Driveway Proposed Curb & Gutter Proposed Curb & Gutter Proposed Curb & Gutter Proposed Curb & Gutter Proposed Curb Ramp Proposed Curb Ramp Proposed Curb & Gutter Proposed Curb & Gutter Driveway Sight Triangle Driveway Sight Triangle Proposed Entry Proposed SidewalkProposed Sidewalk Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Striping Crosswalk to be Re-striped Crosswalk to be Re-striped Figure 3: Modified Project Site Access SOURCE: Fuscoe Engineering, 2019 0 80 Feet Proposed Right-of-Way Line Existing Property Line Existing Centerline Proposed Building Outline Driveway Sight Triangle Full Depth AC Replacement 2’ AC Overlay Existing Right-of-Way Existing Right-of-Way 2-130 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 T.O. PARAPET LEVEL 4 46'-10" (FROM F.F.)"1-'0110'-1""1-'019'-1"LEVEL 1 (+0'-0") LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"9'-1"T.O. ROOF45'-4" LEVEL 1(FIN.FLR.)(FIN.FLR.) LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 "1-'0110'-1"10'-1""2-'9LEVEL 1 (+0'-0") T.O. PARAPET 46'-10" (FROM F.F.) (FIN.FLR.) LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"9'-1"LEVEL 1(+0'-0") T.O. ROOF45'-4" (FIN.FLR.) Figure 4: Modified Project North and West Building Elevations SOURCE: Architects Orange, 2019 0 80 Feet N o r t h E l e v a t i o n West Elevation North Elevation West Elevation NKey Map 2-131 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 10'-1""1-'0110'-1"9'-1"LEVEL 1 (+0'-0") LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 10'-1"10'-1"LEVEL 1(+0'-0") T.O. PARAPET36'-9" (FROM F.F.) (FIN.FLR.) T.O. ROOF45'-4" (FIN.FLR.)9'-1"LEVEL 2 10'-1"9'-1"LEVEL 1(+0'-0")(FIN.FLR.) LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 10'-1""1-'01"1-'9LEVEL 1 (+0'-0")(FIN.FLR.) T.O. PARAPET 46'-10" (FROM F.F.) Figure 5: Modified Project South and East Building Elevations 0 80 Feet South Elevation East Elevation SOURCE: Architects Orange, 2019 East Elevation South ElevationNKey Map 2-132 Figure 6: Modified Project Conceptual Renderings SOURCE: Architects Orange, 2019 Key Map N 6 7 3 2145 2. View On Main Street Looking Northeast 4. View On Main Street Looking Southeast 3. View On Main Street Looking At Leasing Center 5. View On Main Street Looking Southeast 1. View At Main Street & Edgewood Road Looking East 6. View At Northeast Corner Looking West 7. View At Edgewood Road Looking West 2-133 Landscaping and Lighting No changes to lighting are proposed; however, due to the provision of surface parking on the site, the amount of landscaping would be reduced from approximately 0.94 acre of landscaping to approximately 0.48 acre of landscaping on the site. The landscaped areas would be located throughout the site and additional street trees would be planted along N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The residential building would be adjacent to landscaped courtyards. Many of the existing mature trees that line the eastern and southern site boundary would remain; however, trees that are located throughout the remainder of the site, within construction areas, or are in poor or declining health would be removed. New ornamental landscaping would be installed throughout the site that would include a variety of 24- through 48-inch box trees, 1 – 5-gallon shrubs, and ground covers. Additional trees ranging in size from 24- to 48-inch box trees would be added to the eastern property line to fill in gaps in the mature landscaping to screen views between the site and adjacent residential areas. The Project would also install 24- and 36-inch box trees and tree wells along Edgewood Road and N. Main Street and may replace existing street trees. New plant species used in the landscaping would be drought-tolerant, non-invasive, and compliant with the City of Santa Ana’s landscaping requirements. Likewise, the new irrigation installed onsite would meet the City’s requirements for water efficiency (Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1503; Landscape Water Use Standards). As described in the EIR, new exterior lighting onsite would be provided for security and to accent the landscaping, Project signage, light walkways, and parking areas. The new lighting would be focused on the Project site, shield offsite areas, and would be compliant with the City’s lighting regulations (Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 8-210 and Section 41-611.1). Infrastructure No changes to the proposed infrastructure connections are proposed, and these connections would include the following: • Water Infrastructure: As detailed in the EIR, the Project would install new water infrastructure on site that would connect to the existing 16-inch water pipelines in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road. The new onsite water system would be compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code (Title 24) for efficient use of water. • Wastewater Infrastructure: Wastewater from the Project site currently discharges into existing City-owned 6- and 12-inch sewer lines within Edgewood Road. As detailed in the EIR, the Project would install a new onsite sewer system that connects to the existing sewer lines in Edgewood Road. • Drainage Infrastructure: As detailed in the EIR, the existing 10-inch storm water drain that conveys unfiltered runoff to Santiago Creek would be capped and all of the runoff from the site would be conveyed to new infiltrating landscaping areas, catch basins, and storm water drains that would be sized to meet the Project’s needs. The onsite system would connect to the existing City drain system in N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, which discharges to Santiago Creek. Project Design Features A reduction in the number of electric vehicle charging stations are proposed. The Original Project included at least 25 electric vehicle charging stations and the Modified Project includes at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. No other changes in Project Design Features (PDFs) are proposed. The following PDFs would prevent or lessen environmental impacts and would be implemented in the same manner as mitigation measures: • PDF-1: The landscape plan will incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. • PDF-2: The Project will include at least 15 electric vehicle charging stations. 2-134 • PDF-3: The Project will include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2 within all buildings. • PDF-4: Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided throughout the common areas of the site, including the dog park area, for the tenants to dispose of their refuse in a proper manner. Property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal, including dog feces disposal bags, to maintain a trash-free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off-site. • PDF-5: The Project will include safety design features for security, such as low-intensity security lighting, keypads for building access, security cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. Construction Activities and Schedule No changes to the proposed construction schedule are proposed. The Modified Project would be developed within the 18-month period evaluated by the EIR and involve one construction phase that includes: (1) demolition of existing building, pavement, removal of infrastructure and some landscaping; (2) grading and excavation; (3) construction of drainage, utilities, and subgrade infrastructure; (4) building construction; and (5) paving and application of architectural coatings. No units will be leased until construction of the entire Project is completed and occupancy permits have been received from the City. As described in the EIR, construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and excluding Sundays and federal holidays, which would be consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18-314; Special Provisions). However, typical construction activities would occur Monday through Friday, generally 20 days a month. Initial site preparation would include demolition of the existing building and several areas of asphaltic concrete pavements. Demolition would remove all subsurface remnants, including foundations, floor slabs, and any utilities that will not be reutilized with the new development. It is anticipated that a maximum of 120 construction workers would be onsite at one time, which would occur during the building construction phase. General Plan Land Use and Zoning Amendments The Modified Project would require City approval of the same General Plan Land Use and zoning amendments that are required by the Original Project. These amendments would change the land use designation of the site from Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and an Amendment Application (zone change) from Professional (P) to Specific Development (SD) to provide site specific development standards. 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The evaluation of environmental impacts in this Clarification summarizes conclusions made in the EIR and compares them to the impacts of the proposed Modified Project. Mitigation measures referenced are from the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program and would be applied to proposed Modified Project. This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, to provide the factual basis for determining whether potential impacts related to the proposed Modified Project requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. As discussed in further detail in Section 1.2, Environmental Procedures, of this Clarification, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, a recirculated EIR is not required unless the Lead Agency determines that one or more of the following conditions related to environmental impacts are met: 1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; and/or 2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result. 2-135 3.1 Aesthetics Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Viewshed Impacts Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR describes that with implementation of the Project, views of the Project site from the adjacent Santiago Park area would change from setback views of the existing 2-story office building partially screened by mature landscaping to that of forefront views of the 5-story residential building, with a landscaped tree buffer directly adjacent to the park. This would result in a significant and unavoidable change in views of the Project site from the park. The difference in scale and height, due to the Project’s location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to the visual character of the site in comparison to the park. Thus, the EIR determined that the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) In addition, the EIR describes that implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street. The background views of urban buildings would become forefront views, and the proposed size and scale of the Project would substantially increase the overall visual density of the built environment. The difference in visual scale and height with the proposed structure adjacent to the roadway and limited visual setback buffer, would be substantial and considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. Thus, the EIR determined that the visual change related to the height, scale, and setback from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street would be significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-21.) The EIR describes that PDF-1 that would incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. This was determined to reduce the visual impacts of the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-18.) The EIR also included Mitigation Measure AES-1 that requires measures be implemented to retain and protect the trees along the eastern and southern Project site boundary. This measure was determined to reduce visual impacts. However, even with implementation of PDF-1 and Mitigation Measure AES-1, the EIR determined that the Project would still result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that was considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. As a result, impacts related to existing visual character or quality of the site were determined to be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Shade and Shadow Impacts Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR describes that the Original Project would not exceed the City’s thresholds for shade and shadow impacts. The EIR determined that shadow-sensitive use areas (where sunlight is important to its function) would not be shaded by project-related structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. between fall and spring, or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. between spring and fall compared to existing conditions. Because these City’s thresholds were not exceeded, impacts related to shade and shadow were determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-24 through 4.1-26.). Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Viewshed Impacts Consistent with the methodology in the EIR, photo-simulations were prepared to demonstrate the degree of visual change that would result from implementation of the Modified Project. The photo-simulations have been utilized to depict, at a realistic yet conceptual level of detail, the proposed conditions from public locations after construction and with 5-years maturity of the proposed landscaping. Figure 7 provides the public viewpoint locations for each of the visual simulations. 2-136 Project SiteProject SiteN. Main StN. Main StSantiagoCreekSantiagoCreekN. Bush StN. Bush StN. Spurgeon StN. Spurgeon St A D B C Santiago Park Santiago Park 5 Edgewood RdEdgewood Rd F 0 100 Feet Visual Simulation Viewpoint Locations Figure 7: Visual Simulation Viewpoint Locations SOURCE: Wenjie Studio, 2019 2-137 Viewpoint A: N. Main Street. Figure 8 provides a comparison of the existing northbound view of the Project site along, N. Main Street at Edgewood Road, the change to the view as described in the EIR, and the change to the view that would occur from the Modified Project. As shown, and described in the EIR, in the existing condition, the predominant visual feature on the site from this viewpoint is a large parking lot that is partially screened behind mature ornamental landscaping of various species. Similar to the change detailed in the EIR, the Modified Project would alter the existing view by development of forefront structures that would be larger in height and scale than the existing office building on the site. However, the Modified Project would be lower in height and smaller in scale than the Original Project structures; and the existing prominent structures along the N. Main Street view corridor, such as the OC Discovery Cube and the 10-story office buildings would remain the visual focal point. The structures proposed by the Modified Project along the N. Main Street frontage would be 4-stories with a roofline that is approximately 49-feet 5-inches; this is 16-feet lower in height than the Original Project’s 5-story, plus mezzanine structure that had a roofline of approximately 64 feet high along N. Main Street. The parking structure for the Modified Project is proposed to be approximately 59-feet high, which would be 31 feet lower than the 90-foot high parking structure that was evaluated in the EIR. Likewise, the highest point of the Modified Project in the western portion of the site is 15 feet 5 inches lower than the highest point of the Original Project. Figure 8 shows that the smaller buildings constructed by the Modified Project would have greater screening by landscaping and would be less prominent than the structures developed by the Original Project. As shown, the contrast in views that would occur from the Modified Project is less than what would occur from the Original Project. Thus; no new or greater impact related to changes to views along N. Main Street would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Viewpoints B and C: Santiago Park. Figures 9 and 10 provide comparisons of the existing views of the Project site from the adjacent Santiago Park area, the change to the views as described in the EIR, and the change to the views that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. As shown, and described in the EIR, the existing features in Santiago Park adjacent to the Project site include an asphalt bike trail, scattered landscaping, weedy vegetation, tree stumps, and limited groundcover. Similar to the changes detailed in the EIR, the Modified Project would alter the existing views by development of forefront residential buildings adjacent to Santiago Park that would be greater in scale, height, and closer than the existing office building and would be partially screened by new trees on the site. The development would change views from middle ground views of a 2-story office building to forefront views of a modern urban development. Thus, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would also result in a significant and unavoidable impact because the difference in scale and height, due to the development’s location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to visual character. However, the Modified Project would be lower in height and smaller in scale than the Original Project structures. The structures proposed by the Modified Project along the Santiago Park frontage would be 4-stories with a roofline that is approximately 49-feet 5-inches. This is more than 16-feet lower in height than the Original Project’s 5-story, plus mezzanine structure that had a roofline of approximately 65-feet along the northern elevation (as shown in Figure 4). In addition, the Modified Project includes a 10-foot minimum landscaped setback between Santiago Park and the residential structures (shown in Figure 2, Modified Project Open Space Plan), which is slightly larger than the 7-foot minimum setback provided by the Original Project (see, DEIR, Figure 3-5). Figures 9 and 10 show that the smaller buildings constructed by the Modified Project and increased landscaped setback along Santiago Park would result in greater landscape screening and the views of the Modified Project would be less prominent than those of the Original Project. As shown, the contrast in views that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project is less than what would occur from the Original Project. Thus, although impacts 2-138 Existing View Draft EIR Project Proposed Modified Project Figure 8: Viewpoint A: N. Main Street SOURCE: Wenjie Studio, 2019 2-139 Existing View Draft EIR Project Proposed Modified Project Figure 9: Viewpoint B: Santiago Park at N. Main Street and Walkie Way SOURCE: Wenjie Studio, 2019 2-140 Existing View Draft EIR Project Proposed Modified Project Figure 10: Viewpoint C: Santiago Park toward N. Main Street SOURCE: Wenjie Studio, 2019 2-141 would remain significant and unavoidable, no new or greater impacts related to changes to views from Santiago Park would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Viewpoint D: N. Spurgeon Street. Figure 11 provides a comparison of the existing view of the Project site from N. Spurgeon Street, the change to the view as described in the EIR, and the change to the view that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. The Modified Project includes a minimum of a 90-foot building setback from the eastern boundary of the Project site and buffered by landscaping. This is an increased setback of 50-feet in comparison to the Original Project, which included a 40-foot minimum setback. As shown on Figure 1, Modified Project Site Plan, and Figure 5, Modified Project Conceptual Building Elevations, the proposed 4-story (approximately 49-foot 5-inch high) structures would be set behind the 2-story (approximately 24-feet high) and 3-story (approximately 36 feet high) portions of the Project. The 4-story structure would be more than 16 feet lower in height than the approximately 65-foot high structures that were previously proposed. As shown in Figure 11, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 and Project Design Feature PDF-1, which would increase landscaping along the eastern boundary through installation of new trees ranging in size from 24- to 48-inch box trees and protection of the existing healthy trees, a large majority of the Project structure rooflines generated by the Modified Project would not be seen from N. Spurgeon Street. The 50-foot increased setback and lower structures would screen views of the buildings developed by the Modified Project. Limited views of the Modified Project could occur at some points along N. Spurgeon Street. However, these views would be less than what would occur by the Original Project, under which views of some of the 5th floor units would be visible from N. Spurgeon Street, as shown in Figure 11. Also, due to the planned location of the parking structure in the central portion of the Project site, it would not be visible from N. Spurgeon Street. The trajectory of views from the viewpoint along N. Spurgeon Street are shown on Figure 11. The design of the Project in combination with line-of-sight from N. Spurgeon result in the parking structure being screened from view. Any potential views of the parking structure from other locations to the east of the Project site would be within background views, which would be similar to, but lower in height than, views of the Original Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in reduced visual impacts from N. Spurgeon Street compared to the Original Project, and no new or greater impacts related to changes to views from N. Spurgeon Street would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Viewpoint F: Edgewood Road at N. Bush Street. Figure 12 provides a comparison of the existing view of the Project site from Edgewood Road at N. Bush Street, the change to the view as described in the EIR, and the change to the view that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. The Modified Project would change views from Edgewood Road at N. Bush Street from that of a vacant surface parking lot to views of a multi-story residential building set behind a surface parking lot that provides a building setback of approximately 134 feet. The background views of urban buildings would become middle ground views, and forefront views would be of the surface parking lot. The size and scale of the proposed structures would increase the overall visual density of the built environment. The difference in visual scale and height with the proposed structure, would be substantial and considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. Thus, the visual change related to the height, scale, and setback from the Modified Project at the Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street viewpoint would continue to be significant and unavoidable. However, the Modified Project would be lower in height and smaller in scale than the Original Project. The structures proposed by the Modified Project on the southern portion of the Project site near Edgewood Road at Bush Street would be 4-stories with a roofline of approximately 49-feet 5-inches from the ground surface (shown on Figure 5 [south elevation]). The buildings along Edgewood Road at Bush Street would be between 16-feet 3-inches lower in height than the approximately 65-foot high 5-story Original Project buildings in the southern portion of the site and would be set behind the surface parking lot, providing greater visual distance and less visual density (as shown in Figure 12). The 59 foot high parking structure (that would be 31 feet lower than the Original Project parking structure) would not be visible from this viewpoint/trajectory, as it would be located behind the 4-story residential building, but it could be visible in background views from other locations farther back from the Project site that may allow for a higher/taller view perspective. 2-142 Existing View Draft EIR Project Proposed Modified Project Figure 11: Viewpoint D: N. Spurgeon Street SOURCE: Wenjie Studio, 2019 2-143 Existing View Draft EIR Project Proposed Modified Project Figure 12: Viewpoint F: Edgewood Road at N. Bush Street SOURCE: Wenjie Studio, 2019 2-144 As shown, the change in Viewpoint F that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project is similar in character to the change from the Original Project. However, the smaller buildings constructed by the Modified Project would result in reduced visual scale, as they would be set behind the surface parking lot. Thus, the views of the Modified Project would be visually less dense and provide a greater visual setback than those of the Original Project. As shown, the contrast in views that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project is less than what would occur from the Original Project. Thus; although impacts from the Modified Project to Viewpoint F would be significant and unavoidable due to a substantial visual contrast from existing conditions, no new or greater impacts related to changes to views from Edgewood Road at N. Bush Street would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Shade and Shadow Impacts Consistent with the methodology applied in the EIR, shade/shadow diagrams were developed by using three- dimensional massing models of the Modified Project and software that induces sunlight conditions to illustrate the shadow effects of the proposed structures. The shadows shown are the summer/winter solstices and the spring/autumnal equinoxes as they show the longest and shortest shadows. Further, the time periods of 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m., show the shade pattern throughout the day. In addition, the spring and autumn (March/September) shadow patterns are similar in nature; and are therefore grouped together. As described previously, the structures developed by the Modified Project would be between 16 and 31 feet lower in height than the structures described in the EIR. In addition, the setback on the east has increased to 90-feet from 40- feet and the setback along the south has increased from 13 feet to approximately 134-feet, with inclusion of a surface parking lot. Figures 13 and 14 show that the shade and shadow that would be generated by the Modified Project is very similar to, but slightly less than the shade and shadow that would be generated by the Original Project. In both project conditions, shadow from the proposed structures would encroach into N. Main Street and Santiago Park. However, the shadows from the Modified Project would not encroach into the adjacent residential areas. Figure 14 shows that shadows from the Modified Project at 3:00 p.m. during the winter solstice would be limited to the Project site. The shadows on the adjacent residential areas would be limited to shadows from the existing walls, fencing and residential structures. Thus, shadows from the Modified Project would be less than those generated by the Original Project. In both the Original Project and Modified Project conditions, shadows from the proposed development would not result in shadows to sensitive use areas (where sunlight is important to its function) for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. between fall and spring, or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. between spring and fall. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not exceed the City’s shade and shadow thresholds. Thus, no new or greater impacts related to shade and shadow would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Aesthetics As described in the EIR for the Original Project, the Modified Project would alter the existing views by development of forefront residential buildings that would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to visual character from specific viewpoints. However, the Modified Project would be lower in height and smaller in scale than the Original Project. The contrast in views that would occur from implementation of the Modified Project is less than what would occur from the Original Project. Thus; although impacts related to specific viewpoints would remain significant and unavoidable, no new or greater impacts would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. 2-145 EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. SPURGEON ST.N. MAIN ST.North March/September - 9am March/September - 12pm March/September - 3pm June - 9am June - 12pm June - 3pm December - 9am December - 12pm December - 3pm Source: DEIR Figure 4.1-13 Prepared By: RT Design, Ron Teitel Figure 13: Original Project Project Shade and Shadow Spring/Autumn Equinox Summer Solstice Winter Solstice 2-146 North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.North EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.EDGEWOOD RD. SANTIAGO PARK N. MAIN ST.N. SPURGEON ST.March/September - 9am March/September - 12pm March/September - 3pm June - 9am June - 12pm June - 3pm December - 9am December - 12pm December - 3pm Source: Architects Orange, 2019Prepared By: RT Design, Ron Teitel Figure 14: Modified Project Shade and Shadow Spring/Autumn Equinox Summer Solstice Winter Solstice 2-147 EIR Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect the trees along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that are planned for preservation during construction of the proposed Project pursuant to the 2018 Arborist Report: • If the wall along the eastern boundary of the Project site cannot be heightened in-place and must be replaced, it shall be reconstructed with a precast concrete fence or a wall without a continuous footing. • Before finalizing construction plans, a contractor with an AirSpade or AirKnife shall explore the locations adjacent to the preserved trees to locate large lateral roots. The root locations shall be marked, and a survey provided to update the construction plans to avoid cutting any significant large roots. The cutting of small roots shall be planned for late spring or winter and made with clean cuts. No pruning paint or sealants shall be used. • Any grade changes near the preserved trees or pruning of trees to provide clearances for construction equipment shall be coordinated with a Registered Consulting Arborist before construction begins, and precautions pursuant to the arborist’s recommendations shall be taken to mitigate potential tree injuries. • Prior to construction, a one-pound soil sample shall be taken from the top 18-inches of soil in each area where trees will be preserved. The samples shall be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and soil supplement recommendations. Fertilization of the preserved trees shall be completed pursuant to the laboratory analysis’ soil supplement recommendations. • Prior to construction, augur 6-inch diameter holes about 3 feet deep at a 3-foot spacing between large roots in the more compacted and crowded spaces. Avoid large visible roots, relocating the holes as needed. Start augur holes at three times the trunk diameter, i.e. 6-feet from a 24-inch tree. Back fill with amended soil, based on an agronomic lab’s testing and recommendations. • Prior to construction, mulch all exposed soil areas using a topical application of a well-composted, coarse- texture mulch, without manure or bio-solids, e.g. Aguinaga Forest Floor ½ to 1½” particle size. Apply it 2- inches deep, but not against the tree trunks. • Deep water before construction and check soil moisture monthly during construction by means of a soil test probe. Slow water with a soaker hose or water spike for 12 hours, or as long as necessary to reach 4-feet deep. • Rinse tree foliage at the end of each work week, using a strong stream of water from a high-pressure nozzle. • During construction in areas without pavement near the preserved trees, 3 or more inches of coarse mulch or tree chips under 1-inch plywood for light vehicle parking and steel plates for larger vehicles is required to prevent compaction and protect surface roots. • Protection Barrier: A protection barrier shall be installed around the trees to be preserved. The barrier shall be constructed of durable fencing material, such as chain link fencing. The barrier shall be placed as far from the base of the tree(s) as possible and shall be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of construction, and shall not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission of the Project arborist. o Storage of Materials: There shall be NO storage of materials or supplies of any kind within the area of the protection barriers. Concrete and cement materials, block, stone, sand and soil shall not be placed within the drip-line of the tree. 2-148 o Fuel Storage: Fuel storage shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of any tree to be preserved. Refueling, servicing and maintenance of equipment and machinery shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of the protected trees. o Debris and Waste Materials: Debris and waste from construction or other activities shall NOT be permitted within protected areas. Wash down of concrete or cement handling equipment, in particular, shall NOT be permitted within 150 feet of protected trees. • Any damages or injuries should be reported to the Project arborist as soon as possible. Severed roots shall be pruned cleanly to healthy tissue, using proper pruning tools. Broken branches or limbs shall be pruned according to International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Guidelines and ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. 3.2 Air Quality Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Construction Impacts As detailed in the EIR, the Project has the potential to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) localized significance thresholds for emissions of PM10 during construction activities. Therefore, SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 to reduce particulate matter and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring the construction contractor to use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resource Board (EPA/CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards, would be implemented to reduce construction emissions below a level of significance. With implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 that would be confirmed through the City’s permitting process for the Project, localized construction emissions of PM10 would be below SCAQMD thresholds and reduced to a less than significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.2-17.) Air Quality Plan Impacts As discussed in the EIR, Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered to be consistent with the AQMP. The EIR determined the Original Project is consistent with SCAG’s population, housing, and employment forecasts because the 496 new multi-family units resulting from the Original Project would constitute a 0.6 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 2 percent increase in the number of the multi-family residential units (5+ units) within the City, and within SCAG’s projected growth. In addition, the EIR determined that the Original Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15.) Operational Impacts As detailed in EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the maximum daily operational emissions would not exceed any of SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds. Thus, the construction and operation of the Project would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16.) Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Construction Impacts The Modified Project would be smaller and therefore require less overall construction activity than the Original Project. The Modified Project would develop 240 fewer multi-family residential units and a smaller parking structure with 13,300 square feet less of subterranean parking. However, it would require similar daily construction activities and use of machinery that have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for emissions of PM10 during construction activities. Therefore, SCAQMD Rules 403(4), 1113, and 1186 to reduce particulate matter and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring the construction contractor to use off-road diesel construction equipment that 2-149 complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards, would also be required to reduce construction emissions below a level of significance. No new or greater impacts related to construction air quality would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Air Quality Plan Impacts Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project is consistent with SCAG’s population, housing, and employment forecasts because the 256 new multi-family units that would be developed by the Modified Project would constitute a 0.33 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, and a 1.0 percent increase in the number of the multi-family residential units (5+ units) within the City, which is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projected growth. In addition, the Modified Project would also support Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to air quality plans would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Operational Impacts As the Modified Project would reduce the number of multi-family residential units that would be developed on the site by 48.4 percent, the stationary source emissions that would be generated by the residences would also be reduced. Similarly, Section 3.11, Transportation and Traffic, of this document details that operation of 278 multi-family units, (which is 22 more units than the Modified Project’s proposed 256 units and thus provides an overstated and conservative analysis of potential impacts), would result in 1,186 fewer daily vehicular trips than the Original Project. The reduction of vehicular trips would correlate directly to a reduction of vehicular emissions being generated by operation of the site. As described previously, the Original Project’s maximum daily operational emissions would not exceed any of SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds. Thus, the Modified Project, which would result in 240 fewer residential units and 1,186 fewer daily vehicle trips would also not result in a violation of an air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to operational air quality emissions would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Air Quality Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate air quality emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, the same construction mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the Modified Project would constitute growth that is consistent with the AQMP. In addition, because the Modified Project is 48.4 percent smaller than the Original Project, it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that the construction contractor shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. 3.3 Biological Resources Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the EIR describes that the 180 mature ornamental trees on the Project site provide potentially suitable foraging and breeding habitat for nesting migratory birds and raptor species. Removal of 2-150 existing trees on the site could disrupt nesting birds and raptors if vegetation is removed or construction begins during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Disruption of migratory nesting birds and raptors is prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 was included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site during nesting season to ensure that impacts would not occur. In addition, the EIR describes that trees in the public right-of-way in Santa Ana are protected under Chapter 33, Article VII of the Municipal Code, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in public locations. Any street trees installed or removed are required to be in compliance with the Municipal Code regulations, which would be regulated as part of the City’s project permitting procedures. Therefore, the EIR determined that implementation of the Original Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees. Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would include removal of many of the existing trees that could disrupt nesting birds and raptors if vegetation is removed or construction begins during the nesting season. However, the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure that impacts to nesting birds would not occur. In addition, any street trees installed or removed by the Modified Project would also be required to be in compliance with the Municipal Code regulations. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to biological resources would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Biological Resources Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would avoid potential impacts through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Construction plans and specifications shall state that vegetation clearing during nesting season (February 1 through September 15) shall be avoided, if feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around nests at an appropriate distance that is a minimum of 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. 3.4 Cultural/Historic Resources Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR As described in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, the Original Project would not impact any historic resources. The EIR describes the viewsheds of the properties listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties near the Project site as already significantly affected by urban and modern structures that are taller than the Original Project’s tallest structure. As a result, the setting has changed and no longer provides an aesthetic sense of a particular period of history. The EIR also describes that tall trees throughout Park Santiago screen views toward the Project site, and that many of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties in Park Santiago are not within the viewshed of the Project site. Overall, as detailed in the EIR, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, and the existing viewsheds, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by implementation of the Original Project. Accordingly, the EIR 2-151 determined that an impact related to historic resources would not occur from implementation of the Original Project. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project As detailed previously in the discussion of aesthetics (Section 3.1), the structures developed by the Modified Project would be between 16 and 31 feet lower in height than the Original Project structures and would be setback 50 feet further from the eastern property line and 121 feet further from the southern property line than the Original Project structures. The lower building heights and increased setbacks would result in a reduction of views of the new development from historic properties. The views of surface parking areas would be similar to the surface parking areas that currently exist on the site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in an increased impact to the integrity of the historic setting in Park Santiago compared to the Original Project. Also, as described previously, views of the Project site are screened by many tall trees with dense leaves throughout the Park Santiago neighborhood and along boundary of the Project site. This landscape screening would remain with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 and Project Description Feature PDF-1, which would increase landscaping along the eastern boundary through installation of new trees ranging in size from 24- to 48-inch box trees and protection of the existing healthy trees. In addition, the subterranean parking for the Modified Project would be 13,300 square feet smaller than the subterranean parking for the Original Project. Thus, less excavation would occur, and no potentially increased impacts related to archaeological resources would result from implementation of the Modified Project. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to cultural/historic resources would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Cultural/Historic Resources Due to the reduced height and scale of the Modified Project, the existing built environment, and location of the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties, the integrity of the historic setting and feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by implementation of the Modified Project. Thus, consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in a reduction in the historic significance of properties. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to cultural/historic resources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR As described in DEIR Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Original Project construction and operation of the Project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) In particular, as detailed in the EIR, the Project’s total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 4.30 metric tons per year per service population, which would be less than the SCAQMD Tier 4 Option 3 threshold of 4.80 metric tons per year per service population; and therefore, less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) The EIR also describes that projects in the City are required to comply with state and federal programs that are designed to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions, including the California Title 24, California Energy 2-152 Code, and the CALGreen Code. In addition, Project Design Feature PDF-2 would provide a minimum of 25 electric vehicle charging stations to promote usage of electric vehicles. The EIR determined that the Project would be consistent with existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10 through 4.5-13.) Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project The Modified Project would reduce the number of multi-family residential units that would be developed on the site by 240 units, which is a 48.4 percent reduction. As a result, the stationary source GHG emissions that would be generated by the residences on the site would also be reduced. Section 3.11, Transportation and Traffic, of this document details that the Modified Project would result in 1,186 fewer daily vehicular trips than the Original Project. The reduction of vehicular trips would correlate directly to a reduction of vehicular emissions being generated by operation of the site. As described previously, the Original Project’s GHG emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds. Thus, the Modified Project, which would result in 240 fewer residential units and 1,184 fewer daily vehicle trips would also not exceed the significance thresholds. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to GHG emissions would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Also, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with state and federal programs that are designed to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions, including the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CALGreen Code. In addition, Project Design Feature PDF-2 that provides for a minimum of 15 electric vehicle charging stations to promote usage of electric vehicles is included in the Modified Project. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to GHG emissions would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed multi-family residential units. However, because the Modified Project is 48.4 percent smaller than the Original Project it would result in fewer stationary source and vehicular related GHG emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Impacts related to hazards were evaluated in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR. As described, due to the existence of hazardous materials within on-site soils, ground disturbing activity has the potential to result in the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The contaminated soils would need to be excavated and removed as required by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been required to reduce the potential risks related to accidental release and exposure of people and the environment to the contaminated soils. 2-153 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that a qualified consultant prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be used by construction workers to remove and dispose of the areas of arsenic impacted soil. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements, soils sampling ensure all contaminated soils are removed, and that a certified hazardous waste hauler remove and transport all arsenic impacted soil and other potentially hazardous materials per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA) and DTSC that regulates the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. The EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1, impacts related to hazards of the onsite contaminated soils would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Consistent with Original Project, the Modified Project would also involve demolition, excavation, and grading activities that would disturb existing hazardous materials on the site. However, the subterranean parking for the Modified Project would be 13,300 square feet smaller than the subterranean parking for the Original Project. Thus, less excavation would occur, and no potentially increased impacts related to hazardous materials in excavation soils would occur. The Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would ensure that excavation and disposal of contaminated soils and other potentially hazardous materials be completed pursuant to existing DTSC, RWQCB, CalOSHA, and other applicable requirements that would reduce potential impacts to humans and/or the environment from release of hazardous materials. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts related to hazards of the onsite contaminated soils from construction of the Modified Project would be less than significant. No new or greater impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Hazards and Hazardous Materials Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve handling of hazardous materials and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level such that no new or greater impacts related to hazardous materials would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous materials, including: • A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. Excavation of contaminated soils shall be to the depth of approximately 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface in areas identified as having arsenic impacted soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials. • Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be 2-154 present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. • All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. 3.7 Land Use and Planning Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR As discussed in Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR, the Original Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Original Project would be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Notably, the Original Project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development, improvement of the job/housing balance, and use of green building measures, such as water efficiency and Low Impact Development (LID) features. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project would not result in conflict with SCAG policies, and the EIR determined that impacts would not occur. Regarding General Plan designations, the EIR described the Original Project as requiring a General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use designation from Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) to allow for multi-family uses. The General Plan Land Use Element states that DC designation includes the major activity areas in the City and that District Centers are to be developed with an urban character. The proposed DC designation is consistent with the existing DC land uses to the north of Santiago Park and to the southwest across the I-5 freeway. Although the Original Project under the proposed DC designation would result in a different type and higher intensity of residential units than the adjacent LR-7 designated Park Santiago neighborhood area, the EIR determined that the Project would provide a transition through wall heights, open space courtyard locations, structures tiering down to 2- stories along the eastern side, and a 40-foot eastern setback; such that the taller multi-family structures, vehicle parking, and circulation are not sited adjacent to single-story single-family residences. The EIR also determined that the proposed land use designation change from PAO to DC would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Original Project was determined to be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and that impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant. The Original Project also required an Amendment Application (zone change) to change the existing zoning designation change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement the multi-family residential project. As required by the Zoning Code, the development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Additionally, the SD zoning designation would be consistent with the existing SD zoned areas to the north beyond Santiago Park and to the west across N. Main Street. Therefore, the EIR determined that implementation of the Original Project would not result in an impact related to conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-34.) 2-155 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project The Modified Project would consist of the same uses as the Original Project and would require the same General Plan and zoning amendments for implementation. Like the Original Project, and although 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent) would be developed, the Modified Project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high- density, infill development, improvement of the job/housing balance, and use of green building measures, such as water efficiency and LID features. Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would also not result in conflict with SCAG policies. The Modified Project would also require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use designation from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to District Center (DC) to allow for multi-family uses, which would continue to be consistent with the existing DC land uses to the north of Santiago Park and to the southwest across the I-5 freeway. Although the Modified Project under the proposed DC designation would also result in a different type and higher intensity of residential units than the adjacent LR-7 designated Park Santiago neighborhood area, the Modified Project (that includes 58 units per acre, not including the OC Discovery Cube shared parking area of 1.42 acres) would be 26 units per acre lower in density than the Original Project that included 84 units per acre. The Modified Project would provide residences in structures that are a maximum of 4-stories high (one less story than the 5-story residential structures proposed by the Original Project). In addition, 2-story buildings would be located along the eastern side of the Project and 3-story buildings would be located behind the 2-story buildings to provide a transition between N. Main Street, the taller Project structures, and the existing single-family residential neighborhood on the east side of the site. Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would provide a transition through tiering up to taller structures, wall heights, open space courtyard locations on the east side of the site. However, the 90-foot minimum eastern setback for the Modified Project would be 50 feet wider than the 40-foot minimum setback that was included in the Original Project and the 134 foot southern building setback is 121 feet greater than that was included in the Original Project. Thus, providing a greater separation and transition between the proposed multi-family residences and the existing single-family residential neighborhood. Consistent with the findings of the EIR, the land use designation change from PAO to DC that would occur for the Modified Project would not conflict with a policy or plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Modified Project would also require a zone change from P (Professional) to a Specific Development (SD) to implement multi-family residential development. As required by the Zoning Code, the development plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with development standards. Consistent with the Original Project, the SD zoning designation would be located near the existing SD zoned areas to the north beyond Santiago Park and to the west across N. Main Street and would not result in an impact related to conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to land use and planning would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Land Use and Planning The Modified Project would require the same General Plan land use and zoning designation amendments as the Original Project. Consistent with the determinations of the EIR, the Modified Project would not result in an impact related to conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to land use and planning would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. 2-156 EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.8 Noise Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Construction Noise Standards: The EIR determined that the Original Project would not result in generation of noise levels in excess standards established by the City’s Municipal Code. Per Section 18-314 (Special Provisions) of the City’s Municipal Code noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The Original Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the Project would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards. (DEIR p. 4.8-11.) Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise: The EIR determined that construction activities would generate short-term periodic increases in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 was provided to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site and Mitigation Measure NOI-3 was included to require installation of a temporary noise barrier that would be a minimum 11-feet high, constructed of frame-mounted materials such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets, and attached to the masonry wall along the eastern Project site boundary or temporary fence posts. In addition, due to the location of existing sensitive receptors. The EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 temporary and periodic construction noise level increases at receiver locations would be reduced to below the 10 dBA Leq temporary noise level increase threshold. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to periodic temporary increases in noise were determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) Groundborne Vibration: Construction activities for of the Original Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 was included to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site. With implementation of this measure, vibration impacts at the nearby sensitive receptors were determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-17.) Operation Interior Noise: Section 4.8, Noise, of the DEIR, describes that traffic along the roadways near the Project site would generate noise that could exceed interior noise standards within some of the proposed residential units. Thus, some of the residential units would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with increased Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to meet the interior noise standards. As described in Section 4.8, Noise, of the DEIR, the residential units along N. Main Street would require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of between 27 and 30 to meet the interior noise standards. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that the appropriate windows and doors are installed, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-13.) Traffic Generated Noise: Section 4.8, Noise, of the DEIR, also describes that operation of the Original Project would generate a one dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) increase in traffic-related noise, which is less than the 3 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 60 CNEL and less than the 1.5 dBA CNEL threshold for areas above 65 CNEL. Thus, the EIR determined that traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. 2-157 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Construction Noise Standards: Consistent with the Original Project, construction activities of the Modified Project are subject to the City Municipal Code regulations. Thus, the Modified Project would be in compliance with the City’s construction related noise standards. No new or greater impacts related to temporary construction noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise: The Modified Project would be smaller and therefore require less overall construction activity than the Original Project. The Modified Project would develop 240 fewer multi-family residential units and a smaller parking structure with 13,300 square feet less of subterranean parking. The Modified Project would involve the same types of construction equipment that would be operated in similar locations as the Original Project. However, the building setback along the eastern side of the Project site would be 50 feet greater. Thus, construction of building structures would be farther from the residences located to the east of the Project site. Consistent with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would be required to prohibit the use of large mobile equipment and loaded trucks within 50 feet of the residences to the east of the Project site and install a temporary noise barrier to reduce the temporary increase in ambient noise to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts related to temporary construction noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Groundborne Vibration: Consistent with the Original Project construction activities for of the Modified Project would generate short-term vibration levels that would exceed the distinctly perceptible vibration standard at receiver locations within 50 feet of large bulldozers usage. Therefore, like the Original Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level. However, the Modified Project would include a smaller parking structure with 13,300 square feet less of subterranean parking. Therefore, no additional vibration related to ground excavation for the parking structure would result; and overall, no new or greater impacts related to vibration would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Operation Interior Onsite Noise: Consistent with the conditions of the Original Project traffic along the roadways near the Project site would generate noise that could exceed interior noise standards within some of the proposed residential units. Thus, like the Original Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to ensure that the appropriate windows and doors are installed, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts related to interior noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Traffic Generated Noise: As described in Section 3.11, Transportation and Traffic, of this document, the Modified Project is estimated to generate 79 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 96 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,186 fewer daily trips than the Original Project. The reduction of vehicular trips would also reduce traffic-related noise. Thus, consistent with the Original Project traffic related noise impacts would be less than significant; because fewer vehicular trips would be generated, no new or greater impacts related to traffic noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Project Generated Operational Noise: To evaluate the potential noise impacts from operation of the Modified Project, a Focused Noise Assessment (included as Attachment A) was prepared. This Focused Noise Assessment calculates the potential operational noise levels due to the Project’s stationary noise sources including: roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pad-mounted transformers, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor courtyard activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, and parking structure activities, at seven off-site receiver locations adjacent to the Project site. To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, the Focused Noise Assessment used reference noise level measurements from similar types of activities, which are provided in Table N-1. 2-158 Table N-1: Reference Noise Levels Noise Source Duration (hh:mm:ss) Ref. Distance (Feet) Noise Source Height (Feet) Hourly Activity (Mins)7 Reference Noise Level (dBA L50) @ Ref. Dist. @ 50 Feet Roof-Top Air Conditioning Unit1 96:00:00 5' 5' 39 74.4 54.4 Trash Enclosure Activity2 00:00:32 5' 5' 60 69.0 49.0 Pad-Mounted Transformer3 -3 6' 5' 60 56.0 37.6 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements4 01:00:00 10' 5' 60 44.0 33.5 Courtyard Activity5 00:08:00 10' 4' 60 73.8 59.8 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity6 00:10:00 5' 4' 60 68.7 48.7 Roof-Top Parking4 00:10:00 5' 4' 60 68.7 48.7 Source: Urban Crossroads, 2019. Attachment A. 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/27/2015 at the Santee Walmart located at 170 Town Center Parkway. 2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 5/3/2018 at a commercial and office park trash enclosure in the City of Costa Mesa. 3 Source: NEMA TR 1-2013 Transformers, Step Voltage Regulators and Reactors, Table 2 sound level for a 500 kVA transformer. 4 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 8/24/2016 in the parking lot of the Windemere Apartment community in the City of Riverside. 5 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Saturday night, September 21, 2019 in the City of Newport Beach. 6 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/5/2017 at the Covenant Hill Clubhouse pool in Ladera Ranch. 7 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site based on the reference noise level measurement activity. Table N-2 identifies that the operational noise from the Project would range from 31.4 to 46.9 dBA L₅₀ at the sensitive off-site receiver locations. These operational noise level calculations are based on the reference noise level measurements in Table N-1 and include barrier attenuation provided by intervening structures between each noise source and the receivers, which are shown in Figure 15. These noise levels also assume the worst-case with the roof- top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pad-mounted transformers, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor courtyard activity, outdoor pool/spa activity and roof-top parking activities all operating simultaneously. In reality, the noise sources would most likely not occur simultaneously and would vary throughout the day. Table N-2: Project Operational Noise Levels Receiver Location Noise Source Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA) L50 (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) L2 (1 min) Lmax (<1 min) R1 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 15.6 17.3 18.6 18.9 19.4 Trash Enclosure Activity 27.7 33.7 40.7 45.7 47.2 Pad-Mounted Transformer 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 20.4 23.4 31.4 37.4 45.0 Courtyard Activity 36.8 39.0 41.5 43.9 46.6 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 28.1 31.1 34.4 37.5 42.9 Roof-Top Parking 9.4 12.4 20.4 26.4 34.0 Combined Noise Level: 37.9 40.7 44.8 48.7 51.8 R2 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 20.7 22.4 23.7 24.0 24.5 Trash Enclosure Activity 13.4 19.4 26.4 31.4 32.9 Pad-Mounted Transformer 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 32.4 35.4 43.4 49.4 57.0 Courtyard Activity 42.3 44.5 47.0 49.4 52.1 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 31.6 34.6 37.9 41.0 46.4 Roof-Top Parking 14.4 17.4 25.4 31.4 39.0 Combined Noise Level: 43.2 45.4 49.0 52.8 58.6 R3 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 22.4 24.1 25.4 25.7 26.2 Trash Enclosure Activity 14.4 20.4 27.4 32.4 33.9 Pad-Mounted Transformer 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2-159 Receiver Location Noise Source Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA) L50 (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) L2 (1 min) Lmax (<1 min) Parking Lot Veh. Movements 32.7 35.7 43.7 49.7 57.3 Courtyard Activity 45.8 48.0 50.5 52.9 55.6 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 33.6 36.6 39.9 43.0 48.4 Roof-Top Parking 15.9 18.9 26.9 32.9 40.5 Combined Noise Level: 46.3 48.6 51.7 54.9 59.9 R4 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 23.2 24.9 26.2 26.5 27.0 Trash Enclosure Activity 13.5 19.5 26.5 31.5 33.0 Pad-Mounted Transformer 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 32.2 35.2 43.2 49.2 56.8 Courtyard Activity 46.5 48.7 51.2 53.6 56.3 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 33.2 36.2 39.5 42.6 48.0 Roof-Top Parking 17.6 20.6 28.6 34.6 42.2 Combined Noise Level: 46.9 49.1 52.1 55.3 59.9 R5 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 21.0 22.7 24.0 24.3 24.8 Trash Enclosure Activity 11.9 17.9 24.9 29.9 31.4 Pad-Mounted Transformer 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 33.5 36.5 44.5 50.5 58.1 Courtyard Activity 30.0 32.2 34.7 37.1 39.8 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 30.6 33.6 36.9 40.0 45.4 Roof-Top Parking 16.6 19.6 27.6 33.6 41.2 Combined Noise Level: 36.7 39.4 45.7 51.2 58.5 R6 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 18.1 19.8 21.1 21.4 21.9 Trash Enclosure Activity 11.6 17.6 24.6 29.6 31.1 Pad-Mounted Transformer 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 30.5 33.5 41.5 47.5 55.1 Courtyard Activity 25.5 27.7 30.2 32.6 35.3 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 29.8 32.8 36.1 39.2 44.6 Roof-Top Parking 21.9 24.9 32.9 38.9 46.5 Combined Noise Level: 34.3 37.2 43.3 48.8 56.0 R7 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 19.4 21.1 22.4 22.7 23.2 Trash Enclosure Activity 12.3 18.3 25.3 30.3 31.8 Pad-Mounted Transformer 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 19.6 22.6 30.6 36.6 44.2 Courtyard Activity 24.6 26.8 29.3 31.7 34.4 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 28.4 31.4 34.7 37.8 43.2 Roof-Top Parking 22.9 25.9 33.9 39.9 47.5 Combined Noise Level: 31.4 34.2 39.0 43.6 50.3 Source: Urban Crossroads, 2019. Attachment A. As shown on Table N-3, the Project generated noise levels at the sensitive off-site receivers would not exceed the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards. Therefore, operation of the Modified Project would result in less than significant noise impacts. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to noise would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. 2-160 0 100 Feet Figure 15: Operational Noise Source and Receiver Locations SOURCE: Urban Crossroads, 2019 Receiver Locations Existing Barrier Height (in feet) Existing Barrier Distance from Receiver to Noise Source (in feet) Rooftop Air Conditioning Unit Trash Enclosure Transformer Parking Lot Vehicle Movements Courtyard Activity Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 2-161 Table N-3: Project Operational Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location Land Use Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA) Threshold Exceeded? L50 (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) L2 (1 min) Lmax (<1 min) Daytime Residential Standards 55 60 65 70 75 - Nighttime 50 55 60 65 70 - R1 Residential 37.9 40.7 44.8 48.7 51.8 No R2 Residential 43.2 45.4 49.0 52.8 58.6 No R3 Residential 46.3 48.6 51.7 54.9 59.9 No R4 Residential 46.9 49.1 52.1 55.3 59.9 No R5 Residential 36.7 39.4 45.7 51.2 58.5 No R6 Residential 34.3 37.2 43.3 48.8 56.0 No R7 Residential 31.4 34.2 39.0 43.6 50.3 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 2019. Attachment A. Conclusion for Noise Consistent with the Original Project, the construction generated by the Modified Project would generate temporary noise and vibration that would require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Also, due to the location of the proposed residential units, mitigation is required to ensure that interior noise is within City standards. With implementation mitigation identified in the EIR, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following construction requirements to be implemented and verified prior to provision of occupancy permits: • Windows/Glass Doors: Residential units adjacent to N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors (all windows/doors on all floors) with minimum STC ratings of 30; and all other buildings require standards windows and sliding glass doors with a minimum STC rating of 27. • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): Exterior doors facing N. Main Street (all floors) require upgraded exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 and shall be well weather-stripped; and all other residential building exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Ventilation: Residential exterior vents shall be oriented away from I-5 and N. Main Street. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vents. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The Project plans and specifications shall include the following. requirements: • Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment, such as bulldozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of the eastern boundary of the Project site. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction. • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary 2-162 construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all construction. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The Project plans and specifications shall include the requirement to install a minimum 11-foot high temporary construction noise barrier along the Project site eastern boundary for the duration of Project construction. The noise control barriers shall have a solid face from top to bottom and shall meet the following height and constructed requirements: • The temporary noise barrier shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or temporary fence posts. • The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; • The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. 3.9 Population and Housing Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR As described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the DEIR, the Original Project would not induce substantial population growth. SCAG anticipates a population increase of 8.4 percent by 2040 or an average annual increase of 0.4 percent throughout the County. The anticipated population that would result from the Original Project would be 0.28 percent of the City’s population, and thus, within the projected population growth. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units would increase 6.3 percent or an average annual increase of 0.3 percent through 2040. Thus, the 496 new multi-family units developed by the Original Project would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Original Project would be sized to specifically serve the development and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth. Thus, the EIR determined that impacts related to population, housing, and related growth would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 through 4.9-10.) In addition, the EIR determined that addition of housing by the Project would have a favorable effect on the jobs-housing balance. (DEIR p. 4.9-9.) Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Housing and Population Growth As described previously, the Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project. As shown on Table P-1, the reduction in units and change in the unit type mix proposed by the Modified Project would result in 453 fewer residents at full occupancy. 2-163 Table P-1: Comparison of Residents at Full Occupancy Unit Type Persons per Unit* Original Project Modified Project Number of Units Total Residents Number of Units Total Residents Studio 1.6 73 117 74 118 One-bedroom 1.6 307 491 103 165 Two-bedroom 2.7 88 238 75 203 Three-bedroom 3.9 28 109 4 16 Total 496 955 256 502 Reduction in Residential Units -240 Reduction in Residents at Full Occupancy -453 *Source: DEIR Table 4.9-6. The 502 residents at full occupancy of the Modified Project would constitute a 0.15 percent increase over the 2017 City of Santa Ana population of 341,341, which would be less than the 0.28 percent increase that would occur from the Original Project (DEIR p. 4.9-8). In addition, the 256 new multi-family units would constitute a 0.33 percent increase in the total number of residential units in the City, which is lower than the 0.64 percent increase that would occur from the Original Project; and a 1.0 percent increase in the number of the multi-family residential units (5+ units) within the City, which is less than the 2 percent increase that would occur from the Original Project. Because the population from the Modified Project would be less than the Original Project, the anticipated population that would result from the Modified Project would also be within the SCAG projected growth. Thus, consistent with the impacts of the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts related to induction of substantial population growth. Jobs-Housing Balance As described in the DEIR, the Santa Ana area is jobs-rich. The EIR describes that the existing jobs-housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is projected to be 2.13 in 2040 (DEIR p. 4.9-6). The Modified Project would result in 240 fewer housing units within the employment rich area. However, Table P-2 shows that consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in a slight improvement to the jobs-housing balance, which is a beneficial effect of providing multi-family housing on a site where employees can easily travel to local employment opportunities. Table P-2: City of Santa Ana Jobs – Housing Balance Comparison Year Projected Employment Original Project Modified Project Projected Housing Units Plus Project Jobs – Housing Ratio Projected Housing Units Plus Project Jobs – Housing Ratio 2015 159,459 77,477 + 496 = 77,971 2.05 77,477 + 256 = 77,733 2.05 2040 166,000 78,000 + 496 = 78,496 2.11 78,000 + 256 = 78,256 2.12 Source: DEIR Table 4.9-6. Conclusion for Population and Housing Consistent with the Original Project, the number of residential units and residents that would result from the Modified Project be within the SCAG projected growth forecast and would result in a slight improvement to the jobs-housing balance. Thus, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 2-164 3.10 Public Services Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Fire Protection The EIR describes that the Project site is within 2.5 miles of 4 existing fire stations and the Original Project would not result in the need to construct a new fire station or expand an existing station. In addition, the EIR describes that Chapter 8-46 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a fire facilities fee be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of buildings exceeding 2 stories in height, such as the Original Project. The purpose of the fire facilities fee is to improve fire stations in the City and provide revenue for equipment needed to fight fires in buildings over 2 stories in height. The EIR describes that redevelopment of the Project site would require fee payments to provide funding to assist in improvement of existing fire facilities and needed equipment. The EIR determined that implementation of the Original Project would not require new or physically altered fire department facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-4 through 4.10-5.) Police Services The EIR describes that the Original Project would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services but would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. The residential population of the Original Project (955 residents at full occupancy) would be approximately 0.27 percent of the City’s population and based on the Police Department’s 2016 staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the EIR determined that the Original Project would require less than one additional officer. In addition, the Police Department headquarters are 2.5 miles from the Project site, within response distance, and typical police operations within the Department’s Northeast District deploys coverage to be able to respond to calls from services throughout the area. Furthermore, the EIR determined that the addition of one officer on patrol would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Therefore, the EIR determined that the Original Project would result in a less than significant impact related to police protection. Park and Recreation Services The Original Project planned 34,300 square feet of onsite exterior open space and recreation facilities that included 5 recreation courtyard areas that total 22,900 square feet and an 11,400-square foot amenity deck on the roof of the parking structure. In addition, interior recreation facilities include a 5,397-square foot fitness center and a 1,566 square foot wellness pavilion. In addition, the EIR describes that is currently 93.8 acres of Santa Ana parkland within 3-miles of the Project site and that based on the existing amount of park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, the recreation facilities that would be provided as part of the Original Project, and the number of residents at full capacity, the Original Project would not require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. In addition, the EIR describes that the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Section 35-108 requires residential development fees be paid for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of park and recreation facilities to preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities and the availability of such facilities. Thus, the EIR determined that the Original Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Fire Protection As detailed previously in Section 3.9, Population and Housing, of this document, the Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project, which would result in 453 fewer residents at full occupancy. The reduction in residents would equate to a reduced number of calls for service. As described in the EIR, service calls to OCFA are largely related to medical emergencies, which consist of 80 percent of service calls; while fire calls consist of 1.9 percent of OCFA service calls in Santa Ana (DEIR p. 4.10-4). Hence, fewer residents would equate to fewer calls for services. In addition, the maximum height of the tallest structures of the Modified 2-165 Project would be 15-feet 5-inches lower in height than the Original Project. Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would be required to pay fees to provide funding for needed fire facilities and equipment and implementation of the Modified Project would not require new or physically altered fire department facilities. Thus, no new or greater impacts related to fire protection services would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Police Services As described previously, the Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project, which would result in 453 fewer residents at full occupancy. The reduction in residents would equate to a reduced number of calls for police services. Based on the staffing of 1.04 officers per thousand population, the Modified Project would require less than one additional officer, which is consistent with the needs of the Original Project. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would also result in a less than significant impact related to police protection. Park and Recreation Services As described previously, the Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project, which would result in 453 fewer residents at full occupancy, which would result in a reduced need for park and recreation services. The Modified Project would provide 12,920 square feet of open space and recreation facilities in courtyards; which is a decrease of 9,980 square feet over the 22,900 square feet of courtyard open space that was included in the Original Project. The Modified Project also includes a 9,281 square foot amenity deck that is 2,119 square feet smaller than the Original Project. Likewise, the fitness center would be 2,279 square feet smaller than the one included in the Original Project. Although the Modified Project would result in an overall decrease in exterior recreational space by 12,099 square feet in comparison to the Original Project, it would result in a 17 square foot increase in park and recreational space per residential unit. The Modified Project would also be required to pay park and recreation fees to “preserve an appropriate balance between the demand by residents for use of park and recreational facilities”, as stated in Municipal Code Section 35-110. Due to the overall increase in open space and recreational space provided by the Modified Project and payment of required fees, the Modified Project would not require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. Thus, consistent with the Original Project, impacts related to park and recreation from implementation of the Modified Project would be less than significant. In addition, the Modified Project does not utilize a portion of Santiago Park for access as was proposed by access Option B of the Original Project. Therefore, potential impacts related to acquisition of parkland would not occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Public Services The Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project, which would result in 453 fewer residents at full occupancy. The reduction in residents would equate to a reduced demand for services from the Project site, including police, fire, park, and recreational services. In addition, the total amount of park and recreation space onsite would be increased in comparison to the Original Project. Thus, consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts related to public services. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to public services would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 2-166 3.11 Transportation and Traffic Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR As detailed in DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic, the Original Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including the Orange County Congestion Management Program, Caltrans Measures of Effectiveness, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element. Based on the thresholds identified in these plans, the Original Project would result in a less than significant impact. Specifically, the vehicular trips that would be generated by the Original Project would not cause an exceedance of any traffic level of service threshold at any intersection or roadway segment. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 through 4.11-32.) Moreover, and as detailed in the EIR, the Park Santiago neighborhood intersections and roadways have adequate capacity to support the Original Project and impacts to local street systems would also be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-33.) Also, the EIR details that Project access locations and circulation around the Project site would be adequate, and cumulative impacts related to queuing would be less than significant. Regarding parking, the Final EIR describes that the highest parking demand from the Original Project would be 799 spaces on a weekday pursuant to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) Land Use 221 - "Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise)" rates. As the Original Project is proposed to include 904 parking spaces within a central parking structure, the Project’s parking would accommodate needs of the Project pursuant to the ITE rates, which indicates that impacts related to parking would be less than significant. In addition, the Final EIR included a comparison of actual parking demands at existing multi-family developments within the City, which determined that the Original Project would have sufficient parking and would not result in significant impacts related to parking. Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project As described previously, the Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project and would continue to provide onsite parking for use by the OC Discovery Center. The parking area for the OC Discovery Center would be accessed from a right-in right-out driveway on N. Main Street. The proposed residences would be served by another driveway adjacent to Santiago Park that would provide direct access to the parking structure and residential surface parking area. As described in Section 2, Modifications to the Original Project Description, and shown on Figure 3, Modified Project Site Access, to provide for left-turn vehicular access into the Project site, the southern leg of the intersection of N. Main Street at Walkie Way (including the pedestrian crossings and signals) would be moved approximately 80 to 90-feet to the south as part of the Modified Project. The relocated pedestrian crossing on N. Main Street would connect the Project site and the Discovery Cube, and the median would be modified. The intersection signalization of Walkie Way (going east and west into and out of the site) would be modified to operate with split-phasing 3 and the Main Street northbound and southbound left-turn lanes (into and out of the site) would operate with lead/lag phasing4. The proposed northern driveway for the Modified Project would also provide an easement to Santiago Park for maintenance vehicles and the public who reserve park facilities; and the existing gated vehicular entry along N. Main Street to Santiago Park would be closed. To evaluate the potential traffic impacts related to the Modified Project, a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis (included as Attachment B) was prepared and peer reviewed by a City selected independent traffic engineer and the City’s traffic engineering staff. The Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis evaluates operation of 278 multi-family units, which is 22 more units than the Modified Project’s proposed 256 units. Therefore, the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis provides an overstated and conservative analysis of potential impacts. Consistent with the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (included in Appendix J of the DEIR) the roadway conditions that are evaluated in the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis include the ongoing I-5 from SR-55 to SR-57 High 3 Split phasing is a signal that gives a green phase for all vehicle movements of one direction (e.g., northbound through, right, and left) followed by a phase for all movements of the opposite direction (e.g., southbound through, right, and left). 4 Lead/lag phasing is a signal sequence where the green left turn arrow is either before or after the oncoming thru green. 2-167 Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Improvement project that is planned to be completed in 2020. This project includes the addition of one continuous HOV lane in each direction along the northbound and southbound I-5 between SR-55 and SR-57 and the I-5 HOV northbound entrance and southbound exist ramps at the intersection of N. Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 Ramps have been removed. Project Trip Generation The vehicle trip generation rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) and are based on Land Use 221 - "Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise)", which is consistent with the EIR analysis. Table T-1 shows that 278 units (22 units more than the Modified Project of 256 units) is estimated to generate 79 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 96 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,186 fewer daily trips than the Original Project. Table T-1 Comparison of Vehicular Trip Generation Land Use A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Rates 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 5.44 Original Project Trip Generation (496 units) 46 133 179 133 86 219 2,698 Modified Project Trip Generation (278 units) 26 74 100 75 48 123 1,512 Reduction in Trips -20 -59 -79 -58 -38 -96 -1,186 Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. Because the Original Project resulted in less than significant traffic impacts, and the Modified Project would result in fewer peak hour and daily vehicular trips, the Modified Project would not result in any new or increased traffic impacts. Although the intersection of N. Main Street and Walkie Way would be modified to accommodate southbound left turns into the Project site, the traffic analysis modeling shows that the existing roadway network would be able to accommodate the change, as none of the traffic criteria thresholds would be exceeded, as detailed below. Therefore, no new or increased transportation, traffic, or circulation impacts would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Existing Plus Modified Project Intersections: In the existing plus project with the Modified Project condition, Table T-2 shows that all of the study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service except for the SR-22 eastbound ramps at Town and Country Road in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and currently operates at an unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. With the addition of traffic from the Modified Project, the intersection would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. This is the same conditions that would occur by the Original Project, as shown in Table 4.11-9 of the DEIR. Therefore, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in exceedance of the Caltrans criteria, and no impacts at other intersections would occur in the existing plus Modified Project condition. Thus, overall impacts would be less than significant. Roadway Segments: In addition, as shown in Table T-3, all study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service and implementation of the Modified Project would not cause an exceedance of LOS criteria on any of the roadway segments in the traffic study area. Therefore, impacts to roadway segments in the existing plus Modified Project scenario would also be less than significant, which is consistent with the EIR findings identified in DEIR Table 4.11-10. Queueing: As described previously, the Modified Project would implement changes to the Main Street and Walkie Way intersection geometrics that would provide a left turn into the Project site. This would result in a reduction in the storage length for the northbound left turn and the northbound through lanes at the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Driveway, and for the southbound through lanes at the Main Street/Edgewood Road intersection by approximately 90 feet. Table T-4 shows the queueing in the existing without and with Modified Project conditions. As 2-168 Table T-2: Existing Condition with Modified Project - Intersection Levels of Service Without Project With Project Change in V/C LOS Standard AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact 1. Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp D - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - - No 2. Broadway/Santa Clara Ave. E 0.908 E - 0.751 C - 0.913 E - 0.754 C - 0.005 0.003 No 3. Broadway/Buffalo Ave. D 0.504 A - 0.514 A - 0.506 A - 0.517 A - 0.002 0.003 No 4. Main St./La Veta Ave. D 0.522 A - 0.601 B - 0.525 A - 0.603 B - 0.003 0.002 No 5. Main St./Town and Country Rd. E 0.534 A - 0.600 A - 0.539 A - 0.605 B - 0.005 0.005 No 6. Main St./E Memory Lane E 0.435 A - 0.481 A - 0.437 A - 0.488 A - 0.002 0.007 No 7. Main St./Walkie Way- Santiago Park D - 12.0 B - 13.6 B - 19.4 B - 19.8 B - - No 8. Main St./Project Driveway D - 16.0 C 15.9 C 16.1 C 16.6 C No 9. Main St./Edgewood Rd-/I-5 Ramps D - 38.0 D - 27.5 C - 35.3 D - 25.1 C - - No 10. Main St./Santa Clara Ave.- I-5 NB On Ramp D - 46.5 D - 31.3 C - 47.1 D - 28.6 C - - No 11. Main St./Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp D - 20.0 B - 26.6 C - 16.3 B - 21.3 C - - No 12. Main St./17th St. D 0.807 D - 0.728 C - 0.810 D - 0.730 C - 0.003 0.002 No 13. Bush St./Edgewood Rd. D 0.191 A 8.6 A 0.202 A 8.6 A 0.191 A 8.6 A 0.203 A 8.6 A 0.000 0.001 No 14. SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Ave. D - 24.0 C - 24.8 C - 24.1 C - 24.8 C - - No 15. SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Rd. D - 75.1 E* - 89.0 F* - 75.7 E* - 89.3 F* - - No 16. Memory Lane/Lawson Way D 0.230 A - 0.216 A - 0.233 A - 0.217 A - 0.003 0.001 No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 2-169 Table T-3: Existing Condition with Modified Project – Roadway Segment Levels of Service Without Project With Project Daily Volume Daily Volume Increase in V/C Impact? Roadway Segment LOS Standard Classification LOS E Capacity V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS Santa Clara Avenue 1 Broadway to Main Street E 4-Lane Undivided 25,000 9,344 0.374 A 9,624 0.385 A 0.011 No Buffalo Avenue 2 Broadway to Main Street D 2-Lane One-Way 12,500 4,293 0.343 A 4,301 0.344 A 0.001 No Main Street 3 Town and Country Road to La Veta Street D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 34,853 0.619 B 35,223 0.626 B 0.007 No 4 Memory Lane to Town and Country Road E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 30,066 0.534 A 30,565 0.543 A 0.009 No 5 I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 31,196 0.554 A 32,104 0.570 A 0.016 No 6 I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-Ramp D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 27,140 0.482 A 27,896 0.495 A 0.013 No 7 South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th Street E 4-Lane Divided 37,500 30,532 0.814 D 30,730 0.819 D 0.005 No La Veta Avenue 8 Main Street to SR-22 Westbound Ramps D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 24,136 0.429 A 24,356 0.433 A 0.004 No Town and Country Road 9 Main Street to Lawson Way D 4-Lane Divided 37,500 18,649 0.497 A 18,778 0.501 A 0.003 No Memory Lane 10 Main Street to Lawson Way E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 9,500 0.169 A 9,607 0.171 A 0.002 No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 2-170 Table T-4: Existing Condition with Modified Project Queuing Storage Length (In Feet) Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Main Street/Memory Lane NBT 680 352 394 338 323 Main Street/Walkie Way NBL 150 31 45 45 58 NBT 390 193 390 214 196 SBL 80 1 1 32 64 EBL 70 8 19 11 27 EBR 150 0 0 8 61 WBL 100 - - 78 58 WBR 100 - - 60 43 Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 Ramps NBL 175 59 148 55 122 NBT 690 140 289 42 215 SBL 150 91 113 90 127 SBR 130 0 0 0 38 EBTL 1353 27 64 23 44 EBR 150 11 1 0 0 WBTL 250 219 152 182 101 WBR 60 23 18 11 0 Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On-Ramp NBT 350 62 80 149 253 Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. 1Queues reported are 95th Percentile queue lengths per movement in feet. EBL = eastbound left; EBTL= eastbound through-left turn; NBL = northbound left; NWR = northwest bound right; SBL = southbound left; SBT= southbound turn; SBT2 = southbound second turn; SER = southeast bound right turn; WBTL = westbound though-left turn 2-171 shown all queues are forecast to fit within the storage lengths at each location. Therefore, impacts related to queuing would not occur with implementation of the Modified Project in the existing condition. Freeway Segments: Freeway segments are under Caltrans jurisdiction. As shown in Table T-5, both with and without the Modified Project in the existing condition, all traffic study area freeway facilities would operate at unsatisfactory levels of service E or F except for the I-5 southbound Broadway and Main Street off-ramps in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This is the same condition that would occur with implementation of the Original Project, as shown on DEIR Table 4.11-15. Thus, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would also result in less than significant impacts to freeway segments per Caltrans criteria. Opening Year (2020) Plus Modified Project Intersections: In the opening year (2020) plus Modified Project condition, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service except for the Main Street/Santa Clara/I-5 NB On Ramp and the SR-22 eastbound ramps at Town and Country Road in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as shown in Table T-6. With the addition of traffic from the Modified Project, the LOS at these locations would not be reduced. Therefore, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in exceedance of the City or Caltrans criteria, and no impacts at other intersections would occur in the opening year (2020) plus Modified Project condition. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Roadway Segments: As shown in Table T-7, all study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service and implementation of the Modified Project would not cause an exceedance of LOS criteria on any of the roadway segments in the traffic study area. Therefore, impacts to roadway segments in this scenario would also be less than significant. Queueing: As described previously, the Modified Project would result in reducing the storage length along N. Main Street. Table T-8 shows the queueing in the opening year (2020) plus Modified Project condition. As shown all queues are forecast to fit within the storage length at each location. Therefore, impacts related to queuing would not occur with implementation of the Modified Project in the year 2020 condition. Year 2040 Plus Modified Project Intersections: As shown in Table T-9, in the year 2040 plus Modified Project condition, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service except for: • N. Main Street and Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 northbound ramps in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; • N. Main Street and 17th Street in the a.m. peak hour; and • SR-22 eastbound ramps at Town and Country Road in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (same as existing condition). These intersections would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under 2040 both without and with project conditions, which would also occur by the Original Project, (DEIR Table 4.11-29). In addition, the LOS at these intersections would not change with implementation of the Modified Project in 2040 conditions. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact in the 2040 scenario, and impacts would be less than significant. Roadway Segments: As shown in Table T-10, all study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service in 2040 with implementation of the Modified Project. Therefore, impacts to roadway segments in this scenario would also be less than significant. 2-172 Table T-5: Existing Condition with Modified Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service Freeway Segment/Ramp Type Without Project With Project Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS I-5 Northbound 17th Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp Weave 16.30 92.4 F * 14.80 95.8 F * 16.20 92.6 F * 14.70 96.6 F * No Main Street Off-Ramp to Main Street-On Ramp Basic 16.20 92.6 F * 16.90 89.0 F * 16.10 92.9 F * 16.90 88.8 F * No Main Street On-Ramp to SR-22 WB Collector Weave 15.30 45.0 F * 18.70 45.0 F * 15.10 45.0 F * 18.60 45.0 F * No I-5 Southbound South of SR-22 Basic 53.60 35.7 E * 48.30 46.9 F * 56.60 35.7 E * 48.30 46.9 F * No I-5/SR-57 Collector Major Merge 69.70 19.4 C1 43.20 40.5 E1 69.70 19.4 C1 43.20 40.5 E1 No I-5/SR-57 Collector Lane Drop Basic 51.90 43.6 E * 55.00 34.6 F * 51.90 43.6 E * 55.00 34.6 F * No Main Street On-Ramp to 17th Street Off-Ramp Weave 50.80 40.6 E * 39.00 45.0 F * 50.70 40.7 E * 39.00 45.0 F * No Broadway Off-Ramp Diverge 60.40 31.7 D 60.50 30.9 D 60.40 31.8 D 60.50 31.0 D No Main Street Off-Ramp Diverge 69.90 18.7 C 69.90 18.2 C 69.90 18.7 C 69.90 18.3 C No SR-22 Eastbound SR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp Weave 12.10 45 F * 14.90 45 F * 12.10 45 F * 14.90 45 F * No Town & Country Rd. Off-Ramp to Town & Country Rd On-Ramp Basic 55.60 29.2 F * 55.90 29.2 F * 55.60 29.2 F * 55.90 29.2 F * No Town & Country Rd On-Ramp to Grand Off-Ramp Weave 26.90 45.0 F * 28.70 45.0 F * 26.80 45.0 F * 28.70 45.0 F * No SR-22 Westbound La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue On-Ramp Weave 45.60 45 F * 17.20 87.8 F * 45.60 45 F * 17.20 87.6 F * No La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to La Veta Ave On-Ramp Basic 55.60 41.7 F * 22.60 78.4 F * 55.60 41.7 F * 22.60 78.4 F * No La Veta Ave On-Ramp to to I-5/SR-57 Collector Weave 48.30 38.7 E * 18.00 45.0 F * 48.30 38.7 F * 18.00 45.0 F * No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 1 Based on HCM 6th Edition, there are no effective models of performance for a major merge area and LOS cannot be determined specifically for major merge areas 2-173 Table T-6: Opening Year (2020) with Modified Project - Intersection Levels of Service Without Project With Project Change in V/C LOS Standard AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact? 1. Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp D - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - - No 2. Broadway/Santa Clara Ave. E 0.920 E - 0.770 C - 0.925 E - 0.783 C - 0.005 0.013 No 3. Broadway/Buffalo Ave. D 0.510 A - 0.521 A - 0.513 A - 0.524 A - 0.003 0.003 No 4. Main St./La Veta Ave. D 0.547 A - 0.647 B - 0.548 A - 0.648 B - 0.001 0.001 No 5. Main St./Town and Country Rd. E 0.603 B - 0.676 B - 0.607 B - 0.681 B - 0.004 0.005 No 6. Main St./E Memory Lane E 0.506 A - 0.517 A - 0.508 A - 0.524 A - 0.002 0.007 No 7. Main St./Walkie Way- Santiago Park D - 22.0 C - 22.3 C - 20.2 C - 20.3 C - - No 8. Main St./Project Driveway D 16.1 C 18.1 C 16.3 C 19.0 C 9. Main St./Edgewood Rd-/I-5 Ramps D - 32.8 C - 22.5 C - 32.7 C - 22.2 C - - No 10. Main St./Santa Clara Ave.- I-5 NB On Ramp D - 55.1 E* - 88.9 F* - 54.7 D - 96.0 F* - - No 11. Main St./Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp D - 16.0 B - 25.2 C - 15.9 B - 28.5 C - - No 12. Main St./17th St. D 0.889 D - 0.783 C - 0.891 D - 0.785 C - 0.002 0.002 No 13. Bush St./Edgewood Rd. D 0.198 A 8.7 A 0.206 A 8.7 A 0.198 A 8.7 A 0.207 A 8.7 A 0.000 0.001 No 14. SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Ave. D - 29.8 C 25.1 C - 29.9 C - 25.2 C - - No 15. SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Rd. D - 92.2 F* 95.9 F* - 93.0 F* - 97.0 F* - - No 16. Memory Lane/Lawson Way D 0.341 A - 0.248 A - 0.341 A - 0.250 A - 0.000 0.002 No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 2-174 Table T-7: Opening Year (2020) with Modified Project – Roadway Segment Levels of Service Without Project With Project Increase in V/C Impact? Daily Volume Daily Volume Roadway Segment LOS Standard Classification LOS E Capacity V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS Santa Clara Avenue 1 Broadway to Main Street E 4-Lane Undivided 25,000 9,479 0.379 A 9,759 0.390 A 0.011 No Buffalo Avenue 2 Broadway to Main Street D 2-Lane One-Way 12,500 4,355 0.348 A 4,363 0.349 A 0.001 No Main Street 3 Town and Country Road to La Veta Street D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 39,066 0.694 B 39,436 0.700 C 0.007 No 4 Memory Lane to Town and Country Road E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 32,972 0.586 A 33,471 0.595 A 0.009 No 5 I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 34,976 0.621 B 35,844 0.637 B 0.016 No 6 I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-Ramp D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 31,460 0.559 A 32,216 0.572 A 0.013 No 7 South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th Street E 4-Lane Divided 37,500 33,679 0.898 D 33,877 0.903 E 0.005 No La Veta Avenue 8 Main Street to SR-22 Westbound Ramps D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 26,222 0.466 A 26,442 0.470 A 0.004 No Town and Country Road 9 Main Street to Lawson Way D 4-Lane Divided 37,500 23,294 0.621 B 23,423 0.625 B 0.003 No Memory Lane 10 Main Street to Lawson Way E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 11,794 0.209 A 11,901 0.211 A 0.002 No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 2-175 Table T-8: Opening Year (2020) with Modified Project Queuing Storage Length (In Feet) Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Main Street/Memory Lane NBT 680 234 278 345 391 Main Street/Walkie Way NBL 150 42 51 45 58 NBT 390 260 303 216 242 SBL 80 0 1 32 64 EBL 70 8 19 11 27 EBR 150 - - 8 61 WBL 100 - - 78 58 WBR 100 - - 60 43 Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 Ramps NBT 690 69 260 68 258 SBL 150 99 133 100 142 WBTL 250 183 106 183 104 WBR 60 46 18 46 17 Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On-Ramp NBT 350 110 228 170 217 Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. 1Queues reported are 95th Percentile queue lengths per movement in feet. Bold = Exceeds storage length EBL = eastbound left; EBTL= eastbound through-left turn; NBL = northbound left; NWR = northwest bound right; SBL = southbound left; SBT= southbound turn; SBT2 = southbound second turn; SER = southeast bound right turn; WBTL = westbound though-left turn 2-176 Table T-9: Year 2040 with Modified Project - Intersection Levels of Service Without Project With Project Change in V/C LOS Standard AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact? 1. Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp D - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - 0.0 A - - No 2. Broadway/Santa Clara Ave. E 0.988 E - 0.838 D - 0.993 E - 0.851 D - 0.005 0.013 No 3. Broadway/Buffalo Ave. D 0.521 A - 0.539 A - 0.523 A - 0.542 A - 0.002 0.003 No 4. Main St./La Veta Ave. D 0.653 B - 0.686 B - 0.655 B - 0.687 B - 0.002 0.001 No 5. Main St./Town and Country Rd. E 0.671 B - 0.775 C - 0.677 B - 0.780 C - 0.006 0.005 No 6. Main St./E Memory Lane E 0.573 A - 0.564 A - 0.574 A - 0.567 A - 0.001 0.003 No 7. Main St./Walkie Way- Santiago Park D - 22.4 C - 23.6 C - 20.6 C - 21.4 C - - No 8. Main St./Project Driveway D - 17.8 C 21.1 C 18.0 C 22.1 C 9. Main St./Edgewood Rd-/I-5 Ramps D - 32.9 C - 29.8 C - 32.6 C - 27.6 C - - No 10. Main St./Santa Clara Ave.-I-5 NB On Ramp D - 64.0 E* - >100 F* - 62.6 E* - >100 F* - - No 11. Main St./Buffalo Avenue- I-5 SB On Ramp D - 17.6 B - 30.0 C - 17.5 B - 40.6 D - - No 12. Main St./17th St. D 0.956 E* - 0.811 D - 0.958 E* - 0.812 D - 0.002 0.001 No 13. Bush St./Edgewood Rd. D 0.206 A 8.5 A 0.218 A 8.5 A 0.206 A 8.5 A 0.219 A 8.5 A 0.000 0.001 No 14. SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Ave. D - 30.6 C - 26.6 C - 31.2 C - 26.7 C - - No 15. SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Rd. D - 84.5 F* - >100 F* - 92.8 F* - >100 F* - - No 16. Memory Lane/Lawson Way D 0.354 A - 0.262 A - 0.356 A - 0.264 A - 0.002 0.002 No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 2-177 Table T-10: Year 2040 with Modified Project – Roadway Segment Levels of Service Without Project With Project Increase in V/C Impact? Daily Volume Daily Volume Roadway Segment LOS Standard Classification LOS E Capacity V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS Santa Clara Avenue 1 Broadway to Main Street E 4-Lane Undivided 25,000 10,382 0.415 A 10,662 0.426 A 0.011 No Buffalo Avenue 2 Broadway to Main Street D 2-Lane One-Way 12,500 4,770 0.382 A 4,778 0.382 A 0.001 No Main Street 3 Town and Country Road to La Veta Street D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 41,530 0.738 C 41,900 0.744 C 0.007 No 4 Memory Lane to Town and Country Road E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 34,935 0.621 B 35,434 0.629 B 0.009 No 5 I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 35,210 0.625 B 36,118 0.642 B 0.016 No 6 I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-Ramp D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 33,033 0.587 A 33,789 0.600 A 0.013 No 7 South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th Street E 4-Lane Divided 37,500 35,363 0.943 E 35,561 0.948 E 0.005 No La Veta Avenue 8 Main Street to SR-22 Westbound Ramps D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 27,533 0.489 A 27,753 0.493 A 0.004 No Town and Country Road 9 Main Street to Lawson Way D 4-Lane Divided 37,500 24,459 0.652 B 24,588 0.656 B 0.003 No Memory Lane 10 Main Street to Lawson Way E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 12,384 0.220 A 12,491 0.222 A 0.002 No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 2-178 Queueing: As described previously, construction of the Modified Project includes changes to the N. Main Street at Walkie Way intersection to provide a left turn into the Project site and changes to the median to provide adequate storage length. Table T-11 provides the queueing in the year 2040 plus Modified Project condition. As shown, all queues are forecast to fit within the storage length, except for the southbound left turn at Main Street and Edgewood Road in the p.m. peak hour with the existing median. An exceedance of the storage length by 11-feet is forecast to occur in the p.m. peak hour without the Modified Project. With Modified Project, the exceedance would increase by 3 feet in year 2040 conditions. As detailed in Section 2, Modifications to the Original Project, the median would be modified to accommodate these queues. Thus, operation of the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact related to queuing. In addition, this operational condition is improved in comparison to the conditions that would occur from implementation of the Original Project Option A, which included one driveway to the Project site that was sited along N. Main Street, and resulted in a p.m. peak hour queue of 235 feet (71 feet greater than the queue of 164 feet shown in Table T-11). Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to queuing would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Table T-11: Year 2040 with Modified Project Queuing Storage Length (In Feet) Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Queue Length1 Main Street/Memory Lane NBT 680 294 578 416 590 Main Street/Walkie Way NBL 150 44 53 44 62 NBT 390 305 381 266 305 SBL 80 0 1 32 64 EBL 70 8 19 11 27 EBR 150 0 0 8 64 WBL 100 0 1 75 58 WBR 100 0 1 57 43 Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 Ramps NBT 690 101 366 70 382 SBL 150 99 161 100 164 WBTL 250 183 114 183 113 WBR 60 50 23 50 22 Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On-Ramp NBT 350 132 151 157 230 Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. Bold = Exceeds storage length 1Queues reported are 95th Percentile queue lengths per movement in feet. EBL = eastbound left; EBTL= eastbound through-left turn; NBL = northbound left; NWR = northwest bound right; SBL = southbound left; SBT= southbound turn; SBT2 = southbound second turn; SER = southeast bound right turn; WBTL = westbound though-left turn Freeway Segments: As shown in Table T-12, both with and without the Modified Project in Year 2040 condition, all traffic study area freeway facilities would operate at unsatisfactory levels of service E or F except for the I-5 southbound Broadway and Main Street off-ramps in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This is the same condition that would occur with implementation of the Original Project, as shown on DEIR Table 4.11-28. Thus, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would also result in less than significant impacts to freeway segments per Caltrans criteria. 2-179 Table T-12: Year 2040 with Modified Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service Freeway Segment/Ramp Type Without Project With Project Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS I-5 Northbound 17th Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp Weave 15.70 94.1 F * 12.00 107.3 F * 15.60 94.3 F * 12.00 107.1 F * No Main Street Off-Ramp to Main Street-On Ramp Basic 15.60 94.4 F * 13.40 100.0 F * 15.50 94.7 F * 13.40 100.1 F * No Main Street On-Ramp to SR-22 WB Collector Weave 13.50 45.0 F * 10.90 45.0 F * 13.30 45.0 F * 10.90 45.0 F * No I-5 Southbound South of SR-22 Basic 43.90 47.9 F * 48.30 47.0 F * 43.90 47.9 F * 48.30 47.0 F * No I-5/SR-57 Collector Major Merge 35.50 50.3 F1 37.50 46.6 F1 35.50 50.3 F1 37.50 46.6 F1 No I-5/SR-57 Collector Lane Drop Basic 52.70 35.8 E * 53.30 34.5 F * 52.70 35.8 F * 53.30 34.5 F * No Main Street On-Ramp to 17th Street Off-Ramp Weave 43.80 45.0 E * 38.20 45.0 F * 43.80 45.0 F * 38.20 45.0 F * No Broadway Off-Ramp Diverge 60.50 34.3 D 60.50 33.0 D 60.50 34.4 D 60.50 33.1 D No Main Street Off-Ramp Diverge 68.80 22.2 C 69.50 20.3 C 68.70 22.3 C 69.50 20.4 C No SR-22 Eastbound SR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off- Ramp Weave 11.40 45.0 F * 16.30 45.0 F * 11.40 45.0 F * 16.30 45.0 F * No Town & Country Rd. Off-Ramp to Town & Country Rd On-Ramp Basic 55.50 29.0 F * 56.10 32.3 F * 55.50 29.0 F * 56.10 32.3 F * No Town & Country Rd On-Ramp to Grand Off- Ramp Weave 25.50 45.0 F * 31.70 45.0 F * 25.40 45.0 F * 31.70 45.0 F * No SR-22 Westbound La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue On- Ramp Weave 39.70 49.2 F * 15.80 91.7 F * 39.70 49.3 F * 15.90 91.5 F * No La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to La Veta Ave On- Ramp Basic 32.40 62.5 F * 18.70 87.1 F * 32.30 62.6 F * 18.60 87.1 F * No La Veta Ave On-Ramp to to I-5/SR-57 Collector Weave 46.70 36.7 E * 12.20 45.0 F * 46.70 36.7 E * 12.20 45.0 F * No Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment B. * Exceeds LOS Standards 1 Based on HCM 6th Edition, there are no effective models of performance for a major merge area and LOS cannot be determined specifically for major merge areas 2-180 Parking As described in Section 2, Modifications to the Original Project, the Modified Project includes a central parking structure that would provide 407 spaces for the onsite residential uses and a surface parking lot that would contain 284 parking spaces, of which 104 would be dedicated to the onsite residential uses and 180 would be shared with the OC Discovery Cube that is located across N. Main Street from the Project site and currently utilizes the site for 180 parking spaces. The shared parking spaces would be used by the OC Discovery Cube from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily and would be available for the onsite residences between 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. A rolling gate would separate the onsite residential and OC Discovery Cube parking areas and be opened and closed for management of onsite parking. Overall, the Modified Project would provide 511 spaces for onsite residential and 180 shared spaces. In comparison, the Original Project included 904 parking spaces within a central parking structure to accommodate the demand of the multi-family residences. The Original Project did not include a surface parking lot and did not include shared parking for the OC Discovery Cube. It was planned for the existing OC Discovery Cube onsite parking to relocate. Table T-13 provides the estimated parking demand per the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) Land Use 221 - "Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise)" that provides both average parking needs and 85th percentile parking needs (which provides the highest parking demand 85 percent of the time). As shown, the highest demand from the proposed multi-family residences would be 412 spaces on a weekday. As the Modified Project is proposed to include 511 parking spaces that would be dedicated to the multi-family residences, the Modified Project’s parking would accommodate needs of the development pursuant to the ITE rates, which indicates that impacts related to parking would be less than significant. Table T-13: Parking Demand Per the ITE Rates Land Use Units ITE Vehicle Parking Generation Rates Project Parking Demand Average Rate 85th Percentile Average Rate 85th Percentile Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday 221 256 1.2 1.03 1.05 1.61 1.14 307 264 269 412 292 Total Residential Parking Provided 511 511 511 511 511 Total Residential Parking Required Per ITE Rates 307 264 269 412 292 Parking Surplus 204 247 242 99 219 Source: ITE Trip Generation (10th Edition) Land Use 221 - "Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) To identify actual existing parking demands and provide a comparison to the ITE parking rates, parking demand surveys were completed at two multi-family residential developments in the City that are similar to the Modified Project in terms of rent pricing, market segment, and amenities (included as Attachment C). The surveys were completed at the Nineteen01 multi-family development located at 1901 East First Street (254 units) that includes 48.4 percent 1 bedroom units, 49.2 percent 2 bedroom units, and 2.4 percent 3 bedroom units; and the Marke multi-family development located at 100 E MacArthur Boulevard (300 units) that includes 51.7 percent 1 bedroom units, 43.6 percent 2 bedroom units and 4.7 percent 3 bedroom units. Thus, the surveyed projects have units that are larger (don’t include studios) and have a greater need for parking than the 68 studios proposed for the Modified Project. The parking surveys were conducted on a weekday (Thursday) and a weekend day (Saturday) for a period of 24 hours. This Parking Analysis is included as Attachment C and Table T-14 provides summary of the parking survey data. 2-181 Table T-14: Parking Survey Data Summary Survey Location Number of Units Day of Week Parking Occupancy Parking Rate Nineteen01 264 Peak Weekday Demand 344 1.35 Peak Weekend Demand 342 1.35 The Marke 300 Peak Weekday Demand 230 0.77 Peak Weekend Demand 193 0.64 Average Demand (Weekday) 1.06 Average Demand (Weekend) 0.99 Peak Demand Per Unit (Weekday & Weekend) 1.35 Total Project Parking Provided 539 Total Project Parking Required Per Peak Demand 365 Project Parking Surplus 174 Source: Translutions, 2019. Attachment C. As identified on Table T-14, the peak parking demand is 1.35 spaces per unit at Nineteen01 and The Marke has much lower parking rates. Applying the Nineteen01 peak parking rate to the Modified Project would result in a need for 346 parking spaces. As described previously, the Modified Project includes 511 parking spaces, which is 165 more than the number of spaces forecast to be needed for the Modified Project based on recent parking surveys done at similar multi-family developments. As a result, no potentially significant impact related to residential parking would occur. In addition, the site currently provides 180 parking spaces for use by the OC Discovery Cube. The Modified Project would maintain the use of these spaces for the OC Discovery Cube by implementation of a perpetual easement of the shared surface lot area. As this is an existing condition, no impacts related to the use of the site for OC Discovery Cube parking would occur. Conclusion for Transportation/Traffic and Circulation The Modified Project would develop 48.4 percent fewer residential units than the Original Project, which would result in more than 79 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 96 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,186 fewer daily trips than the Original Project. Thus, no new impacts related to the volume of vehicular trips would occur from the Modified Project. Additionally, the Modified Project would implement changes to the Main Street and Walkie Way intersection geometrics that would result in less than significant impacts to study area intersections, roadway segments, and vehicle queues; which is consistent with the impacts of the Original Project as detailed in the EIR. The Modified Project would also provide parking for the proposed onsite multi-family residential uses that meet the anticipated parking demand pursuant to ITE rates and parking surveys at similar developments within the City. As a result, parking related impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to transportation and traffic would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 2-182 3.12 Tribal Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were evaluated in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the DEIR. As described, the Project site has been heavily disturbed to substantial depths in various areas and no substantial evidence exists that tribal cultural resources are present. However, during the SB 18/AB 52 consultation, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that the Project lies within its ancestral tribal territory within a sensitive area. Therefore, to avoid potential adverse effects to unknown tribal cultural resources Mitigation Measure TCR-1 was included to provide for Native American resource sensitivity training and to prescribe activities should any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources be unearthed by Project construction activities. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered at the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and the existing regulations, impacts to tribal cultural resources from implementation of the Original Project was determined to be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Consistent with Original Project, the Modified Project would also involve demolition, excavation, and grading activities that would disturb the site soils. As a result, the Modified Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. However, the subterranean parking for the Modified Project would be 13,300 square feet smaller than the subterranean parking for the Original Project. Thus, less excavation would occur, and increased impacts related to tribal cultural resources would not result from implementation of the Modified Project. No new or greater impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Tribal Cultural Resources Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve excavation and disturbance of onsite soils and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. With Mitigation Measure TCR-1 no new or greater impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. The Project’s grading and construction plans and specifications shall state that prior to commencement of any excavation activities, a Native American shall be contacted to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. The training session includes a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in cooperation with a Native American monitor to determine if the potential resource meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). Construction activities could continue in other areas. 2-183 If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist, in cooperation with a Native American monitor shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Project Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. 3.13 Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Water As detailed in DEIR Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the Original Project would result in a total demand of 131.53 AFY of water at full occupancy. The EIR describes that the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates a water supply and demand increase of 8.2 percent (3,028 acre feet) per year. The Original Project would result in an increase in demand for water supplies that is 4.3 percent of the UWMP’s anticipated increase per year. Therefore, the EIR determined that City would have water supplies available to serve the Original Project. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8.) Wastewater As detailed in DEIR Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, based on results of the sewer flow monitoring and the City’s Design Criteria wastewater generation rates, it was determined that existing sewer lines that serve the Project site would be able to adequately accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the Original Project. Additionally, it was determined that the existing wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater flow from full occupancy of the Original Project and impacts were determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11.) Drainage and Water Quality As detailed in DEIR Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, all projects in the watershed are required to implement measures to comply with the LID, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) requirements for implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These requirements were developed to reduce the potential of impacts to water quality, and to ensure that development projects accommodate stormwater drainage. The EIR determined that the Original Project would result in an increase of pervious area from creation of larger areas of landscape and open space than currently exist onsite, and that stormwater from the site would be filtered through detention and drywell systems prior to discharge off-site to manage stormwater drainage and protect water quality. The EIR determined that the Original Project would result in less than significant impacts related to drainage facilities and water quality. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-16 through 4.13-19.) Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Water Consistent with the methodology of the EIR, the estimated water demand that would result from the Modified Project was based on the City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines that assume 120 gpd per capita and 3,000 gallons per day per acre of landscaping. As shown in Table U-1, the reduction of 453 residents and 0.46 acre of landscaping would reduce the water demand from the Project site by 55,740 gallons per day (gpd) or 62.44 acre feet yearly (AFY) in comparison to the Original Project, as shown on Table U-1. 2-184 Table U-1: Comparison of Water Demands Water Use Water Demand Residents or Acreage Daily Demand (gpd) Annual Demand (AFY) Original Project Residents 120 gpd/capita 955 114,600 128.37 Landscaping 3,000 gpd/acre 0.94 2,820 3.16 Original Project Total 117,420 131.53 Modified Project Residents 120 gpd/capita 502 60,240 67.48 Landscaping 3,000 gpd/acre 0.48 1,440 1.61 Modified Project Total 61,680 69.09 Reduction in Water Demand -55,740 -62.44 GPD gallons per day; AFY = Acre Feet Yearly. The increase in demand for water supplies from the Modified Project would be 2.3 percent of the UWMP’s anticipated annual increase of 3,028 AFY (DEIR page 4.13-8), which is less than the 4.3 percent increase that would result from the Original Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would require less water from existing entitlements than the Original Project, and no new or greater impacts related to water would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Wastewater As shown in Table UT-1, the reduction of 240 residential units that would occupy an estimated 453 residents would result in a 55,740 gpd reduction of water demand. The reduction of water demand would generate a reduction in wastewater generation. As the existing wastewater infrastructure would be able to adequately accommodate the Original Project, it would also be able to accommodate the reduced flows from the Modified Project. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to wastewater would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Drainage Consistent with the Original Project, implementation of the Modified Project would include compliance with all required laws, permits, and plans, through implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP that would be approved by the City prior to receipt of construction and operational permits. The DAMP would require runoff volume to be filtered through the detention and drywell systems prior to discharge off-site to manage stormwater drainage and protect water quality. Thus, the Modified Project would not generate additional runoff volumes, and DAMP required treatment systems would remove pollutants from onsite runoff. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts related to drainage facilities and water quality. No new or greater impacts related to drainage and water quality would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Utilities and Service Systems The Modified Project would develop 240 fewer residential units (48.4 percent less) than the Original Project, which would result in 453 fewer residents at full occupancy. The reduction in residents would equate to a reduced demand for water supplies and wastewater infrastructure capacity. In addition, the Modified Project would also filter runoff pursuant to permitting requirements. Thus, no new or greater impacts related to utilities or services systems would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. 2-185 EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.14 Energy Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR As discussed in Section 4.14, Energy, of the DEIR, the Original Project would be developed pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Part 11 [CALGreen Code]), which would provide for sustainable construction and operational practices, including energy efficiency. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-5 through 4.14-7.) The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements and the City’s Climate Action Plan includes review of design components and energy conservation measures ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the EIR describes that the Original Project would represent an urban infill development because it would occur on a currently developed site, and would be located near existing off-site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, which would result in reduced vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in comparison to a project of similar size and land without close access to employment, service, and retail, destinations; in addition to public transit and freeways. The land use characteristics of the Project are consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidance related to a reduction of vehicle trip distances that would achieve a reduction in associated transportation- related fuel demand. Also, the EIR describes that the Project site is within an area where existing infrastructure would provide for efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas to the Project and the Project would not inhibit the development of other alternative energy sources Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project The Modified Project would reduce the number of multi-family residential units that would be developed on the site by 240 units, which is a 48.4 percent reduction. As a result, the energy demand for the onsite uses would also be reduced. Also, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with state and federal programs that are designed to improve energy efficiency, including the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CALGreen Code. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In addition, Project Design Feature PDF-2 that provides for a minimum of 15 electric vehicle charging stations to promote usage of electric vehicles is included in the Modified Project. Although the Modified Project would result in 240 fewer residential units near existing off-site employment, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in proximity to existing public bus stops and freeways, it would continue to result in reduced VMT in comparison to a project of similar size and land without close access to these destinations and transportation facilities. Thus, the land use characteristics of the Modified Project are also consistent with the CAPCOA guidance related to reducing vehicle trip distances to reduce associated transportation-related fuel demand. Therefore, no new or greater impacts related to energy would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. Conclusion for Energy Consistent with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate demand for energy. However, because the Modified Project is 48.4 percent smaller than the Original Project it would result in less energy usage on the site. Also, like the Original Project, the Modified Project would locate residences near employment and shopping destinations and transportation facilities and would be required to comply with state and federal programs that are 2-186 designed to improve energy efficiency. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger the need to prepare a recirculated EIR or other environmental document exist. The Modified Project would not result in either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. EIR Mitigation Measure The EIR determined that impacts related to energy would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 2-187 Attachment A: Supplemental Operational Noise Analysis 2-188 October 9, 2019 Ms. Renee Escario RE Consulting SUBJECT: THE ADDINGTON FOCUSED NOISE ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM Dear Ms. Renee Escario: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Focused Noise Assessment for The Addington Project (“Project”), which is located at 2525 N. Main Street in the City of Santa Ana. The Project is proposed to consist of up to 256 dwelling units in a two to four-story residential building surrounding a parking structure with 5 above ground levels of parking and an amenity deck. This Focused Noise Assessment calculates the potential Project-related operational noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive residential receiver locations east and south of the Project. This Focused Noise Assessment is consistent with the methods and procedures used in the July 2018 Magnolia at the Park Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (1) This Focused Noise Assessment calculates the potential operational noise levels due to the Project’s stationary noise sources at seven off-site receiver locations adjacent to the Project site. Exhibit A identifies the receiver and noise source locations used to calculate the Project-related operational noise levels. The Project-related operational noise sources based on a review of the site plan include: roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pad-mounted transformers, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor courtyard activity, outdoor pool/spa activity and roof-top parking activities. REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. The Reference Project operational noise levels are based on the noise sources provided in Table 1. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst- case noise environment with the roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pad-mounted transformers, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor courtyard activity, outdoor pool/spa activity and roof-top parking activities all operating simultaneously. In reality, the noise sources will likely vary throughout the day. OPERATIONAL NOISE The operational noise level calculations shown on Table 2 account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. Hard site conditions are used in the operational noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source. 2-189 EXHIBIT A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS 2-190 TABLE 1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Noise Source Duration (hh:mm:ss) Ref. Distance (Feet) Noise Source Height (Feet) Hourly Activity (Mins)7 Reference Noise Level (dBA L50) @ Ref. Dist. @ 50 Feet Roof-Top Air Conditioning Unit1 96:00:00 5' 5' 39 74.4 54.4 Trash Enclosure Activity2 00:00:32 5' 5' 60 69.0 49.0 Pad-Mounted Transformer3 -3 6' 5' 60 56.0 37.6 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements4 01:00:00 10' 5' 60 44.0 33.5 Courtyard Activity5 00:08:00 10' 4' 60 73.8 59.8 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity6 00:10:00 5' 4' 60 68.7 48.7 Roof-Top Parking4 00:10:00 5' 4' 60 68.7 48.7 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/27/2015 at the Santee Walmart located at 170 Town Center Parkway. 2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 5/3/2018 at a commercial and office park trash enclosure in the City of Costa Mesa. 3 Source: NEMA TR 1-2013 Transformers, Step Voltage Regulators and Reactors, Table 2 sound level for a 500 kVA transformer. 4 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 8/24/2016 in the parking lot of the Windemere Apartment community in the City of Riverside. 5 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Saturday night, September 21, 2019 in the City of Newport Beach. 6 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/5/2017 at the Covenant Hill Clubhouse pool in Ladera Ranch. 7 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site based on the reference noise level measurement activity. The basic noise attenuation equation shown below is used to calculate the distance attenuation based on a reference noise level (SPL1): SPL2 = SPL1 - 20log(D2/D1) Where SPL2 is the resulting noise level after attenuation, SPL1 is the source noise level, D2 is the distance to the reference sound pressure level (SPL1), and D1 is the distance to the receiver location. Table 2 indicates that the hourly noise levels associated with the roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pad-mounted transformers, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor courtyard activity, outdoor pool/spa activity and roof-top parking activities are expected to range from 31.4 to 46.9 dBA L₅₀ at the sensitive off-site receiver locations. The operational noise level calculation worksheets are included in Appendix A and include barrier attenuation provided by intervening structures between each noise source and the receiver locations, where applicable, from the existing noise barriers and planned Project buildings. 2-191 TABLE 2: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Receiver Location1 Noise Source2 Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA)3 L50 (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) L2 (1 min) Lmax (<1 min) R1 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 15.6 17.3 18.6 18.9 19.4 Trash Enclosure Activity 27.7 33.7 40.7 45.7 47.2 Pad-Mounted Transformer 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 20.4 23.4 31.4 37.4 45.0 Courtyard Activity 36.8 39.0 41.5 43.9 46.6 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 28.1 31.1 34.4 37.5 42.9 Roof-Top Parking 9.4 12.4 20.4 26.4 34.0 Combined Noise Level: 37.9 40.7 44.8 48.7 51.8 R2 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 20.7 22.4 23.7 24.0 24.5 Trash Enclosure Activity 13.4 19.4 26.4 31.4 32.9 Pad-Mounted Transformer 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 32.4 35.4 43.4 49.4 57.0 Courtyard Activity 42.3 44.5 47.0 49.4 52.1 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 31.6 34.6 37.9 41.0 46.4 Roof-Top Parking 14.4 17.4 25.4 31.4 39.0 Combined Noise Level: 43.2 45.4 49.0 52.8 58.6 R3 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 22.4 24.1 25.4 25.7 26.2 Trash Enclosure Activity 14.4 20.4 27.4 32.4 33.9 Pad-Mounted Transformer 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 32.7 35.7 43.7 49.7 57.3 Courtyard Activity 45.8 48.0 50.5 52.9 55.6 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 33.6 36.6 39.9 43.0 48.4 Roof-Top Parking 15.9 18.9 26.9 32.9 40.5 Combined Noise Level: 46.3 48.6 51.7 54.9 59.9 R4 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 23.2 24.9 26.2 26.5 27.0 Trash Enclosure Activity 13.5 19.5 26.5 31.5 33.0 Pad-Mounted Transformer 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 32.2 35.2 43.2 49.2 56.8 Courtyard Activity 46.5 48.7 51.2 53.6 56.3 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 33.2 36.2 39.5 42.6 48.0 Roof-Top Parking 17.6 20.6 28.6 34.6 42.2 Combined Noise Level: 46.9 49.1 52.1 55.3 59.9 2-192 Receiver Location1 Noise Source2 Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA)3 L50 (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) L2 (1 min) Lmax (<1 min) R5 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 21.0 22.7 24.0 24.3 24.8 Trash Enclosure Activity 11.9 17.9 24.9 29.9 31.4 Pad-Mounted Transformer 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 33.5 36.5 44.5 50.5 58.1 Courtyard Activity 30.0 32.2 34.7 37.1 39.8 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 30.6 33.6 36.9 40.0 45.4 Roof-Top Parking 16.6 19.6 27.6 33.6 41.2 Combined Noise Level: 36.7 39.4 45.7 51.2 58.5 R6 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 18.1 19.8 21.1 21.4 21.9 Trash Enclosure Activity 11.6 17.6 24.6 29.6 31.1 Pad-Mounted Transformer 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 30.5 33.5 41.5 47.5 55.1 Courtyard Activity 25.5 27.7 30.2 32.6 35.3 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 29.8 32.8 36.1 39.2 44.6 Roof-Top Parking 21.9 24.9 32.9 38.9 46.5 Combined Noise Level: 34.3 37.2 43.3 48.8 56.0 R7 Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 19.4 21.1 22.4 22.7 23.2 Trash Enclosure Activity 12.3 18.3 25.3 30.3 31.8 Pad-Mounted Transformer 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking Lot Veh. Movements 19.6 22.6 30.6 36.6 44.2 Courtyard Activity 24.6 26.8 29.3 31.7 34.4 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 28.4 31.4 34.7 37.8 43.2 Roof-Top Parking 22.9 25.9 33.9 39.9 47.5 Combined Noise Level: 31.4 34.2 39.0 43.6 50.3 1 See A for the receiver and noise source locations. 2 Reference noise sources as shown on Table 10-1. 3 Operational noise level calculations are provided in Appendix A. OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level threshold based on the City of Santa Ana exterior noise level standards. Table 3 shows the operational noise levels associated with The Addington Project will satisfy the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at all receiver locations. 2-193 TABLE 3: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver Location1 Land Use Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA)2 Threshold Exceeded?3 L50 (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) L2 (1 min) Lmax (<1 min) Daytime Residential Standards 55 60 65 70 75 - Nighttime 50 55 60 65 70 - R1 Residential 37.9 40.7 44.8 48.7 51.8 No R2 Residential 43.2 45.4 49.0 52.8 58.6 No R3 Residential 46.3 48.6 51.7 54.9 59.9 No R4 Residential 46.9 49.1 52.1 55.3 59.9 No R5 Residential 36.7 39.4 45.7 51.2 58.5 No R6 Residential 34.3 37.2 43.3 48.8 56.0 No R7 Residential 31.4 34.2 39.0 43.6 50.3 No 1 See Exhibit A for the receiver and noise source locations. 2 Estimated unmitigated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 2. 3 Do the estimated Project operational noise levels meet the operational noise level standards? CONCLUSIONS Using reference noise levels to represent the expected noise sources from The Addington site, this analysis estimates the Project-related stationary-source noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations. The normal activities associated with The Addington are anticipated to include roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pad-mounted transformers, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor courtyard activity, outdoor pool/spa activity and roof-top parking activities. The operational noise analysis shows that the Project-related stationary-source noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations will satisfy the City of Santa Ana exterior noise level standards. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5979. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE Principal REFERENCES 1. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Magnolia at the Park. July 2018. 2-194 APPENDIX A OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS 2-195 This page intentionally left blank 2-196 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 393.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -37.9-37.9 -37.9 -37.9-37.9-37.9393.0Distance Attenuation 21.317.5 19.2 20.820.5-56.9 390.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 19.415.6 17.3 18.918.6-58.839 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 582.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 582.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -41.3-41.3 -41.3 -41.3-41.3-41.3582.0Distance Attenuation 47.227.7 33.7 45.740.7-41.3 582.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 47.227.7 33.7 45.740.7-41.360 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-197 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 214.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 214.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -31.0-31.0 -31.0 -31.0-31.0-31.0214.0Distance Attenuation -41.214.8 -41.2 -41.2-41.2-41.2 214.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-10.2-10.2 -10.2 -10.2-10.2-10.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 -41.214.8 -41.2 -41.2-41.2-41.260 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 19.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 166.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 147.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -18.3-18.3 -18.3 -18.3-18.3-18.3166.0Distance Attenuation 45.020.4 23.4 37.431.4-23.6 19.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.3-5.3 -5.3 -5.3-5.3-5.3 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 45.020.4 23.4 37.431.4-23.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-198 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 233.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 394.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 161.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -31.9-31.9 -31.9 -31.9-31.9-31.9394.0Distance Attenuation 46.636.8 39.0 43.941.538.2 233.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.1-5.1 -5.1 -5.1-5.1-5.1 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 46.636.8 39.0 43.941.538.260 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 527.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 537.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -40.6-40.6 -40.6 -40.6-40.6-40.6537.0Distance Attenuation 42.928.1 31.1 37.534.4-40.6 527.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 42.928.1 31.1 37.534.4-40.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-199 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 441.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 601.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 160.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -26.7-26.7 -26.7 -26.7-26.7-26.7601.0Distance Attenuation 34.09.4 12.4 26.420.4-34.6 441.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-7.9-7.9 -7.9 -7.9-7.9-7.9 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R1 34.09.4 12.4 26.420.4-34.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 215.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 218.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -32.8-32.8 -32.8 -32.8-32.8-32.8218.0Distance Attenuation 26.422.6 24.3 25.925.6-51.8 215.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 24.520.7 22.4 24.023.7-53.739 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-200 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 130.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 418.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 288.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -38.4-38.4 -38.4 -38.4-38.4-38.4418.0Distance Attenuation 32.913.4 19.4 31.426.4-55.6 130.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-17.2-17.2 -17.2 -17.2-17.2-17.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 32.913.4 19.4 31.426.4-55.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 66.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 81.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 15.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -22.6-22.6 -22.6 -22.6-22.6-22.681.0Distance Attenuation -28.028.0 -28.0 -28.0-28.0-28.0 66.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.4-5.4 -5.4 -5.4-5.4-5.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 -28.028.0 -28.0 -28.0-28.0-28.060 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-201 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 9.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 24.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 15.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -5.7-5.7 -5.7 -5.7-5.7-5.724.0Distance Attenuation 57.032.4 35.4 49.443.4-11.6 9.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.9-5.9 -5.9 -5.9-5.9-5.9 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 57.032.4 35.4 49.443.4-11.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 183.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 206.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 23.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -26.3-26.3 -26.3 -26.3-26.3-26.3206.0Distance Attenuation 52.142.3 44.5 49.447.043.7 183.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.2-5.2 -5.2 -5.2-5.2-5.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 52.142.3 44.5 49.447.043.760 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-202 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 347.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 357.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -37.1-37.1 -37.1 -37.1-37.1-37.1357.0Distance Attenuation 46.431.6 34.6 41.037.9-37.1 347.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 46.431.6 34.6 41.037.9-37.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 394.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 417.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 23.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -24.3-24.3 -24.3 -24.3-24.3-24.3417.0Distance Attenuation 39.014.4 17.4 31.425.4-29.6 394.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.3-5.3 -5.3 -5.3-5.3-5.3 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R2 39.014.4 17.4 31.425.4-29.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-203 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 177.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 180.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -31.1-31.1 -31.1 -31.1-31.1-31.1180.0Distance Attenuation 28.124.3 26.0 27.627.3-50.1 177.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 26.222.4 24.1 25.725.4-52.039 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 195.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 370.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 175.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -37.4-37.4 -37.4 -37.4-37.4-37.4370.0Distance Attenuation 33.914.4 20.4 32.427.4-54.6 195.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-17.2-17.2 -17.2 -17.2-17.2-17.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 33.914.4 20.4 32.427.4-54.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-204 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 105.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 119.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 14.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -25.9-25.9 -25.9 -25.9-25.9-25.9119.0Distance Attenuation -31.324.7 -31.3 -31.3-31.3-31.3 105.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.4-5.4 -5.4 -5.4-5.4-5.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 -31.324.7 -31.3 -31.3-31.3-31.360 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 8.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 23.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 15.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -5.4-5.4 -5.4 -5.4-5.4-5.423.0Distance Attenuation 57.332.7 35.7 49.743.7-11.3 8.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.9-5.9 -5.9 -5.9-5.9-5.9 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 57.332.7 35.7 49.743.7-11.360 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-205 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 121.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 135.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 14.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -22.6-22.6 -22.6 -22.6-22.6-22.6135.0Distance Attenuation 55.645.8 48.0 52.950.547.2 121.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.4-5.4 -5.4 -5.4-5.4-5.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 55.645.8 48.0 52.950.547.260 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 273.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 283.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -35.1-35.1 -35.1 -35.1-35.1-35.1283.0Distance Attenuation 48.433.6 36.6 43.039.9-35.1 273.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 48.433.6 36.6 43.039.9-35.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-206 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 315.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 332.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 17.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -22.8-22.8 -22.8 -22.8-22.8-22.8332.0Distance Attenuation 40.515.9 18.9 32.926.9-28.1 315.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.3-5.3 -5.3 -5.3-5.3-5.3 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R3 40.515.9 18.9 32.926.9-28.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 161.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 164.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -30.3-30.3 -30.3 -30.3-30.3-30.3164.0Distance Attenuation 28.925.1 26.8 28.428.1-49.3 161.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 27.023.2 24.9 26.526.2-51.239 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-207 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 124.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 412.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 288.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -38.3-38.3 -38.3 -38.3-38.3-38.3412.0Distance Attenuation 33.013.5 19.5 31.526.5-55.5 124.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-17.2-17.2 -17.2 -17.2-17.2-17.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 33.013.5 19.5 31.526.5-55.560 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 93.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 106.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 13.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -24.9-24.9 -24.9 -24.9-24.9-24.9106.0Distance Attenuation -30.325.7 -30.3 -30.3-30.3-30.3 93.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.4-5.4 -5.4 -5.4-5.4-5.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 -30.325.7 -30.3 -30.3-30.3-30.360 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-208 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 11.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 25.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 14.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -6.0-6.0 -6.0 -6.0-6.0-6.025.0Distance Attenuation 56.832.2 35.2 49.243.2-11.8 11.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.8-5.8 -5.8 -5.8-5.8-5.8 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 56.832.2 35.2 49.243.2-11.860 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 111.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 125.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 14.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -21.9-21.9 -21.9 -21.9-21.9-21.9125.0Distance Attenuation 56.346.5 48.7 53.651.247.9 111.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.4-5.4 -5.4 -5.4-5.4-5.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 56.346.5 48.7 53.651.247.960 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-209 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 288.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 298.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -35.5-35.5 -35.5 -35.5-35.5-35.5298.0Distance Attenuation 48.033.2 36.2 42.639.5-35.5 288.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 48.033.2 36.2 42.639.5-35.560 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 243.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 255.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 12.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -21.1-21.1 -21.1 -21.1-21.1-21.1255.0Distance Attenuation 42.217.6 20.6 34.628.6-26.4 243.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.3-5.3 -5.3 -5.3-5.3-5.3 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R4 42.217.6 20.6 34.628.6-26.460 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-210 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 207.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 210.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -32.5-32.5 -32.5 -32.5-32.5-32.5210.0Distance Attenuation 26.722.9 24.6 26.225.9-51.5 207.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 24.821.0 22.7 24.324.0-53.439 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 220.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 534.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 314.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -40.6-40.6 -40.6 -40.6-40.6-40.6534.0Distance Attenuation 31.411.9 17.9 29.924.9-57.1 220.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-16.5-16.5 -16.5 -16.5-16.5-16.5 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 31.411.9 17.9 29.924.9-57.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-211 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 201.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 224.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 23.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -31.4-31.4 -31.4 -31.4-31.4-31.4224.0Distance Attenuation -36.619.4 -36.6 -36.6-36.6-36.6 201.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.2-5.2 -5.2 -5.2-5.2-5.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 -36.619.4 -36.6 -36.6-36.6-36.660 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 9.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 20.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 11.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -4.5-4.5 -4.5 -4.5-4.5-4.520.0Distance Attenuation 58.133.5 36.5 50.544.5-10.5 9.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-6.0-6.0 -6.0 -6.0-6.0-6.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 58.133.5 36.5 50.544.5-10.560 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-212 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 12.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 232.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:20.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 220.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -27.3-27.3 -27.3 -27.3-27.3-27.3232.0Distance Attenuation 39.830.0 32.2 37.134.731.4 12.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-16.5-16.5 -16.5 -16.5-16.5-16.5 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 39.830.0 32.2 37.134.731.460 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 392.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 402.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -38.1-38.1 -38.1 -38.1-38.1-38.1402.0Distance Attenuation 45.430.6 33.6 40.036.9-38.1 392.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 45.430.6 33.6 40.036.9-38.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-213 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 289.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 302.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 13.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -22.2-22.2 -22.2 -22.2-22.2-22.2302.0Distance Attenuation 41.216.6 19.6 33.627.6-27.4 289.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.2-5.2 -5.2 -5.2-5.2-5.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R5 41.216.6 19.6 33.627.6-27.460 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 292.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 295.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -35.4-35.4 -35.4 -35.4-35.4-35.4295.0Distance Attenuation 23.820.0 21.7 23.323.0-54.4 292.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 21.918.1 19.8 21.421.1-56.339 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-214 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 238.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 561.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 323.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -41.0-41.0 -41.0 -41.0-41.0-41.0561.0Distance Attenuation 31.111.6 17.6 29.624.6-57.4 238.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-16.4-16.4 -16.4 -16.4-16.4-16.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 31.111.6 17.6 29.624.6-57.460 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 229.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 298.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 69.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -33.9-33.9 -33.9 -33.9-33.9-33.9298.0Distance Attenuation -39.017.0 -39.0 -39.0-39.0-39.0 229.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-5.1-5.1 -5.1 -5.1-5.1-5.1 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 -39.017.0 -39.0 -39.0-39.0-39.060 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-215 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 80.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 80.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -13.5-13.5 -13.5 -13.5-13.5-13.580.0Distance Attenuation 55.130.5 33.5 47.541.5-13.5 80.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 55.130.5 33.5 47.541.5-13.560 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 12.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 295.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 283.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -29.4-29.4 -29.4 -29.4-29.4-29.4295.0Distance Attenuation 35.325.5 27.7 32.630.226.9 12.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-18.9-18.9 -18.9 -18.9-18.9-18.9 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 35.325.5 27.7 32.630.226.960 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-216 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 430.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 440.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -38.9-38.9 -38.9 -38.9-38.9-38.9440.0Distance Attenuation 44.629.8 32.8 39.236.1-38.9 430.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 44.629.8 32.8 39.236.1-38.960 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 296.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 296.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -22.1-22.1 -22.1 -22.1-22.1-22.1296.0Distance Attenuation 46.521.9 24.9 38.932.9-22.1 296.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R6 46.521.9 24.9 38.932.9-22.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-217 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Air Conditioning Unit (Roof-Top) 251.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 254.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:4.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 3.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 78.274.4 L25 76.1 L2 77.7 L8 77.40.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -34.1-34.1 -34.1 -34.1-34.1-34.1254.0Distance Attenuation 25.121.3 23.0 24.624.3-53.1 251.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-19.0-19.0 -19.0 -19.0-19.0-19.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 23.219.4 21.1 22.722.4-55.039 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:50.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Trash Enclosure Activity 219.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 506.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 287.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 88.569.0 L25 75.0 L2 87.0 L8 82.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -40.1-40.1 -40.1 -40.1-40.1-40.1506.0Distance Attenuation 31.812.3 18.3 30.325.3-56.7 219.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-16.6-16.6 -16.6 -16.6-16.6-16.6 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 31.812.3 18.3 30.325.3-56.760 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-218 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Pad-Mounted Transformer 107.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 370.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 263.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 0.056.0 L25 0.0 L2 0.0 L8 0.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 6.0Reference (Sample) -35.8-35.8 -35.8 -35.8-35.8-35.8370.0Distance Attenuation -53.22.8 -53.2 -53.2-53.2-53.2 107.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-17.4-17.4 -17.4 -17.4-17.4-17.4 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 -53.22.8 -53.2 -53.2-53.2-53.260 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Parking Lot Veh. Movements 88.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 88.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:6.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -14.2-14.2 -14.2 -14.2-14.2-14.288.0Distance Attenuation 44.219.6 22.6 36.630.6-24.4 88.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-10.2-10.2 -10.2 -10.2-10.2-10.2 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 44.219.6 22.6 36.630.6-24.460 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-219 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Courtyard Activity 12.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 328.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:0.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:50.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 316.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.673.8 L25 76.0 L2 80.9 L8 78.575.2 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -30.3-30.3 -30.3 -30.3-30.3-30.3328.0Distance Attenuation 34.424.6 26.8 31.729.326.0 12.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)-18.9-18.9 -18.9 -18.9-18.9-18.9 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 34.424.6 26.8 31.729.326.060 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity 505.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 515.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:50.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:4.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:20.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 83.568.7 L25 71.7 L2 78.1 L8 75.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 5.0Reference (Sample) -40.3-40.3 -40.3 -40.3-40.3-40.3515.0Distance Attenuation 43.228.4 31.4 37.834.7-40.3 505.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 43.228.4 31.4 37.834.7-40.360 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-220 Project Name:TheAddington Job Number:11177 Analyst:B. Lawson Source:Roof-Top Parking 257.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Noise Distance to Barrier: 257.0Noise Distance to Observer feet feet Noise Source Elevation:40.0 Observer Elevation:0.0 feet feet Barrier Height:0.0 Noise Source Height:5.0 feet feet Drop Off Coefficient:15.0 20 = 6 dBA per doubling of distance 15 = 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0 Leq LmaxL50 68.644.0 L25 47.0 L2 61.0 L8 55.00.0 Noise Level NOISE MODEL PROJECTIONS Distance (feet) 10.0Reference (Sample) -21.1-21.1 -21.1 -21.1-21.1-21.1257.0Distance Attenuation 47.522.9 25.9 39.933.9-21.1 257.0Shielding (Barrier Attenuation)0.00.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 Raw (Distance + Barrier) Observer Height:5.0 feet Observer Location:R7 47.522.9 25.9 39.933.9-21.160 Condition:Operational Barrier Elevation:0.0 feet Minute Hourly Adjustment STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 10/7/2019 2-221 Clarification to the 2525 N Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project Final EIR City of Santa Ana October 2019 Attachment B: Supplemental Traffic Analysis 2-222 m e m o r a n d u m DATE: October 6, 2019 TO: Zed Kekula, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer FROM: Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, ENV-SP SUBJECT: The Addington – Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is pleased to provide this memorandum discussing the supplemental traffic impact analysis for the Addington project (previously Magnolia at the Park). The project is located at 2525 Main Street in the City of Santa Ana, California. Translutions prepared a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project in July 2018. Since then, the project has been modified to include 278 units instead of 496 units and the project access has been changed. As proposed now, the project will have one main access and will move the east leg of the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park approximately 90 feet to the south to create an offset intersection. Along with offsetting the intersection, the project will be modifying the existing traffic signal, channelization and other components of the intersection as deemed necessary during the redesign process. This Option is being called Option E. Under Option E, the existing southbound left turn pocket on Main Street at Walkie Way will serve both the project and the park and will be extended from 80 feet to 90 feet with the removal of the north leg crosswalk. The east leg of the intersection is intermittently closed off by an existing gate but provides full access to park maintenance vehicles and to the public who by reservation use park facilities. Under the current project proposal, maintenance vehicles and the public will access the park through the proposed project site access as shown in Figure 1. The signalization of the east and west legs will operate with split-phasing and the northbound and southbound left-turn lanes will operate with lead/lag phasing. The Main Street pedestrian crossing will be relocated to the south leg of the intersection. The south side of the lot will be dedicated to the Discovery Cube. Access for Cube Parking will be through a right-in/right-out driveway south of the Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway and used by only Cube patrons and not by the project. A shared parking agreement will be made between the Cube and the Addington, wherein residents and/or guests for the Addington will not be allowed to use the parking lot between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Based on discussion with the City, the Addington Management will ensure that the parking area dedicated to the Cube will not be used by Addington residents and/or guests. Further, the right-in/right-out driveway will be restricted to Cube patrons only. It should be noted that Cube patrons use the parking lot under existing conditions. The existing trips for the Discovery Cube are low and have been included in the analysis at Main Street and Discovery Cube Driveway based on existing traffic counts. Once the project is completed, the Discovery Cube parking lot will include 180 parking stalls. This access scenario (Option E) is very similar to Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access) evaluated in the July 2018 TIA, with the following two differences: 1. The existing signalized access has been relocated on site and a right-in/right-out driveway for the Discovery Cube has been added; and 2. The number of units has been reduced from 496 to 278. The analysis for Option E includes evaluation of all intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments that were evaluated in the July 2018 TIA for consistency between analyses. Figure 1 (all figures and tables attached) illustrates the site plan. Project Trip Generation. The number of apartment units has been reduced from 496 apartment units to 278 apartments. The trip generation has been revised to reflect the reduced number of apartment units. Trip generation for the proposed project is translutionsthe transportation solutions company... 2-223 Memorandum: The Addington Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis D:\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\ANALYSIS OFFSET SEPTEMBER 2019 REVISED\MEMO SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS.DOCX October 6, 2019 the transportation solutions company...based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) and are based on Land Use 221 – “Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise)”. Table A shows the calculation of the project trip generation. As shown in Table A, the project is forecast to generate 100 a.m. peak hour trips, 123 p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,512 daily trips. Project Trip Distribution. As stated previously, the project access has been modified to include only one access point for the project at Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway. The trip distribution patterns for project trips were developed consistent with the trip distribution from the July 2018 TIA and modified to reflect only one project access at Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway. The project trip generation was applied to the trip distribution patterns for the proposed project to develop trip assignments for project trips. Table B lists the trip distribution by origin/destination. Figure 2 shows the trip distribution for project trips, and Figure 3 shows the trip assignment at the study intersections. METHODOLOGY The analysis will use the same methodology for traffic operations at all study area intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments included in the July 2018 TIA. It should be noted that the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way- Santiago Park-Driveway was analyzed in the July 2018 TIA using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology to assess traffic operations. However, to account for the proposed signal timing and phasing, this intersection was analyzed using Synchro 10, which uses the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology. The TIA submitted in July 2018 included the Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 HOV On/Off Ramp under existing conditions. The July 2018 TIA evaluated the ramp closures for opening year and 2040 scenarios, but the existing and existing plus project scenarios included the ramps since they were open when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released and counts conducted. Therefore, the same analysis parameters were used for the evaluation of Option E (Main Street and Walkie Way- Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube parking) conditions. The ramps have been permanently closed for construction as of April 2019. TRAFFIC VOLUMES The existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 without project traffic volumes were taken from the July 2018 TIA. The project traffic assignment was added to the without project traffic volumes to develop the Option E traffic volumes for existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 with project conditions. INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS Intersection level of service analyses were conducted for existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 with Option E conditions. The existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 with project Option E levels of service are shown in Tables C, D, and E. As shown in Tables C, D, and E, the intersections are projected to operate at the same or better levels of service as under Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access) from the July 2018 TIA. Therefore, the intersection levels of service under Option E are forecast to be the same or better than the findings disclosed in the July 2018 under Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access). ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS ANALYSIS Roadway segment level of service analyses were conducted for existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 with Option E conditions. The existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 with project Option E levels of service are shown in Tables F, G and H. As shown in Tables F, G, and H, the roadway segments are projected to operate at the same or better levels of service as Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access) from the July 2018 TIA. Therefore, the roadway segment levels of service under Option E are forecast to be the same or better than the findings disclosed in the July 2018 under Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access). 2-224 Memorandum: The Addington Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis D:\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\ANALYSIS OFFSET SEPTEMBER 2019 REVISED\MEMO SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS.DOCX October 6, 2019 the transportation solutions company...FREEWAY SEGMENT LOS ANALYSIS Freeway segment level of service analyses were conducted for existing and year 2040 with Option E conditions. The existing and year 2040 with project Option E levels of service are shown in Tables I, and J. As shown in Tables I and J, the freeway segments are projected to operate at the same or better levels of service as Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access) from the July 2018 TIA. Therefore, the freeway levels of service under Option E are forecast to be the same or better than the findings disclosed in the July 2018 under Option B (Santiago Park-Walkie Way Project Access). QUEUEING ANALYSIS A queueing analysis was included for the northbound through lanes of Main Street south of Memory Lane to Santa Clara Avenue and for the turn lanes at Main Street and Walkie Way-Driveway and Main Street and Edgewood Road. With the change to intersection geometrics, the storage length for the northbound left turn and the northbound through lanes at the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Driveway, and the southbound through lane at Main Street/Edgewood Road will be reduced by approximately 90 feet. Table K lists the queueing analysis for existing, opening year cumulative, and year 2040 without project conditions. As shown in Table K, all queues fit within the available storage length with the exception of the southbound left-turn lane at Main Street/Edgewood Road under year 2040 conditions. Table L lists the queueing analysis for Option E Main Street and Walkie Way-Driveway project access conditions. As shown in Table L, all queues fit within the available storage length with the exception of the southbound left-turn lane at Main Street/Edgewood Road under year 2040, under the with and without project conditions. It should be noted, that the southbound left-turn queue at Main Street/Edgewood Road also exceeded the available storage length under year existing, opening year, and year 2040 with project Option A: Main Street Access scenario in the TIA submitted in July 2018. Occasionally, additional queueing may occur as a result of the added vehicle travel delay that is expected on Main Street at Walkie Way due to the additional phase necessary to accommodate the intersection offset. However, although Option E does not result in substantial changes to queueing operations surrounding the project site, the project applicant will work with the City to modify the existing raised curb median on Main Street between Walkie Way and Edgewood Road. CONCLUSION The project has been modified to include 278 units instead of 496 units and the project access has been changed to include the east leg of the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway to create an offset intersection. Under Option E Main Street/Walkie Way-Driveway project access, the study area intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments are projected to operate at the same or better levels of service as the findings disclosed in the July 2018 TIA. The revised project does not create a significant impact at any intersection based on the thresholds adopted by the City of Santa Ana and other agencies. The revised project also does not result in substantial changes to queueing operations at any intersection. We hope you will find this information helpful. Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at (949) 656- 3131. Sincerely, translutions, Inc. Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, ENV SP Principal 2-225 FIGURE 1 The Addington Site Plan with Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access with Discovery Cube Parking the transportation solutions company...D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Z30 Site Plan (9/12/2019)2-226 (11%)17%16%3%1 Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp 2 Broadway/Santa Clara Ave 3 Broadway/Buffalo Ave 4 Main St/La Veta Ave(40%)7%6%(60%)5 Main St/Town and Country Rd 6 Main St/E Memory Ln7 Main St/Walkie-Santiago Pk-Dwy 8 Main St/Discovery Cube Dwy3%1%5%9 Main St/Edgewood-I-5 Ramps 10 Main St/Santa Clara -I-5 NB 11 Main St/Buffalo Ave-I-5 SB On 12 Main St/17th St4%2%3%(4%)(8%)(5%)(8%)(2%)(3%)13 Proj. Dwy 2-Bush St/Edgewood 14 SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Ave 15 SR-22 EB/Town & Country Rd 16 Memory Lane/Lawson WayFIGURE 2XX%(YY%)Inbound%(Outbound%) Distribution The Addington Project Trip Distribution with Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking40%13%5%(5%)(5%)(13%)(3%)(20%)(5%)5%13%3%(12%)7%(11%)(8%)(32%) 10%60%60%(7%)1%10%(3%)16%3%(22%)(10%)34%(60%)27%Not Analyzed in this Alternativethe transportation solutions company...26%(33%)14%(11%)(16%)40%20%(60%)D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Z40 Dist (9/12/2019)2-227 8/54/134/121/21 Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp 2 Broadway/Santa Clara Ave 3 Broadway/Buffalo Ave 4 Main St/La Veta Ave30/192/52/544/295 Main St/Town and Country Rd 6 Main St/E Memory Ln7 Main St/Walkie-Santiago Pk-Dwy 8 Main St/Discovery Cube Dwy1/20/11/49 Main St/Edgewood-I-5 Ramps 10 Main St/Santa Clara -I-5 NB 11 Main St/Buffalo Ave-I-5 SB On 12 Main St/17th St1/31/21/23/26/44/26/41/12/113 Proj. Dwy 2-Bush St/Edgewood 14 SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Ave 15 SR-22 EB/Town & Country Rd 16 Memory Lane/Lawson WayFIGURE 3XX/YYAM/PM Peak Hour Trips The Addington Project Trip Assignment with Option E - Main Street and Walkie-Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking10/303/101/44/24/210/62/115/104/21/43/101/29/62/58/56/424/15 3/816/4516/455/30/13/82/14/121/216/117/59/2644/297/20Not Analyzed in this Alternativethe transportation solutions company...7/2024/164/118/512/810/305/1544/29D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Z40 Trips (10/4/2019)2-228 the transportation solutions com pany... Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Future Use Apartments Trip Generation Rates 1 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 5.44 Trip Generation 278 DU 26 74 100 75 48 123 1,512 Total Trip Generation 26 74 100 75 48 123 1,512 1 Table A - Project Trip Generation Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 221 - "Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition). A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Units D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Project Trips Final (9/10/2019) 2-229 the transportation solutions company... Origin / Destination Distribution La Veta Avenue - West 3% Main Street - North 7% La Veta Avenue - East 4% SR-22 - West 8% SR-22 - East 13% Park Street - Batavia Street - North 5% Broadway - South 11% I-5 - North 16% I-5 - South 20% 17th Street - West 5% Main Street - South 5% 17th Street - East 3% Total 100% Table B: Project Trip Distribution D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset May 2019\Project Trip Distribution Table\EXIST 2-230 the transportation solutions company...DirectLOSProjectIntersection Jurisdiction Standard Control ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOSAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact1 . Broadway/I-5 SB Off RampCaltrans D Yield -0.0A-0.0A-0.0A-0.0A--NO2 . Broadway/Santa Clara AvenueSanta Ana E Signal 0.908 E0.751 C0.913 E0.754 C0.005 0.003 NO3 . Broadway/Buffalo AvenueSanta Ana D Signal 0.504A0.514A0.506A0.517A0.002 0.003 NO4 . Main Street/La Veta Avenue Orange D Signal 0.522A0.601 B0.525A0.603 B0.003 0.002 NO5 . Main Street/Town and Country RoadSanta Ana E Signal 0.534A0.600A0.539A0.605 B0.005 0.005 NO6 . Main Street/E Memory LaneSanta Ana E Signal 0.435A0.481A0.437A0.488A0.002 0.007 NO7 . Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Santa Ana D Signal - 12.0 B - 13.6 B - 19.4 B - 19.8 B - - NO8 . Main Street/Discovery Cube Driveway Santa Ana D TWSC - 16.0 C - 15.9 C - 16.1 C - 16.6 C - - NO9 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-/I-5 Ramps Caltrans D Signal - 38.0 D - 27.5 C - 35.3 D - 25.1 C - - NO10 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On Ramp Caltrans D Signal - 46.5 D - 31.3 C - 47.1 D - 28.6 C - - NO11 . Main Street/Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp Caltrans D Signal - 20.0 B - 26.6 C - 16.3 B - 21.3 C - - NO12 . Main Street/17th Street Santa Ana D Signal 0.807 D 0.728 C 0.810 D 0.730 C 0.003 0.002 NO13 . Project Driveway 2-Bush Street/Edgewood Road Santa Ana DAWSC 0.191A8.6A0.202A8.6A0.191A8.6A0.203A8.6A0.000 0.001 NO14 . SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Avenue Caltrans D Signal - 24.0 C - 24.8 C - 24.1 C - 24.8 C - - NO15 . SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Road Caltrans D Signal - 75.1 E * - 89.0 F * - 75.7 E * - 89.3 F * - - NO16 . Memory Lane/Lawson Way Santa Ana D Signal 0.230A0.216A0.233A0.217A0.003 0.001 NONotes:* Exceeds LOS StandardAWSC = All-Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach/movement.LOS = Level of ServiceThe corridor on Main Street has been optimized with the modifications to the offset intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway. This results in the delay under with project condition to decrease. --------Table C: Existing With Project Option E - Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Project Access and Discovery Cube Parking Levels of ServiceChange in V/CAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourWithout ProjectWith Project--------------------D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\LOS\EXIST P Santiago2-231 the transportation solutions company...DirectLOSProjectIntersection Jurisdiction Standard Control ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOSAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact1 . Broadway/I-5 SB Off RampCaltrans D Yield -0.0A-0.0A-0.0A-0.0A--NO2 . Broadway/Santa Clara AvenueSanta Ana E Signal 0.920 E0.770 C0.925 E0.783 C0.005 0.013 NO3 . Broadway/Buffalo AvenueSanta Ana D Signal 0.510A0.521A0.513A0.524A0.003 0.003 NO4 . Main Street/La Veta Avenue Orange D Signal 0.547A0.647 B0.548A0.648 B0.001 0.001 NO5 . Main Street/Town and Country RoadSanta Ana E Signal 0.603 B0.676 B0.607 B0.681 B0.004 0.005 NO6 . Main Street/E Memory LaneSanta Ana E Signal 0.506A0.517A0.508A0.524A0.002 0.007 NO7 . Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Santa Ana D Signal - 22.0 C - 22.3 C - 20.2 C - 20.3 C - - NO8 . Main Street/Discovery Cube Driveway Santa Ana D TWSC - 16.1 C - 18.1 C - 16.3 C - 19.0 C - - NO9 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-/I-5 Ramps Caltrans D Signal - 32.8 C - 22.5 C - 32.7 C - 22.2 C - - NO10 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On Ramp Caltrans D Signal - 55.1 E * - 88.9 F * - 54.7 D - 96.0 F * - - NO11 . Main Street/Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp Caltrans D Signal - 16.0 B - 25.2 C - 15.9 B - 28.5 C - - NO12 . Main Street/17th Street Santa Ana D Signal 0.889 D 0.783 C 0.891 D 0.785 C 0.002 0.002 NO13 . Project Driveway 2-Bush Street/Edgewood Road Santa Ana DAWSC 0.198A8.7A0.206A8.7A0.198A8.7A0.207A8.7A0.000 0.001 NO14 . SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Avenue Caltrans D Signal - 29.8 C - 25.1 C - 29.9 C - 25.2 C - - NO15 . SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Road Caltrans D Signal - 92.2 F * - 95.9 F * - 93.0 F * - 97.0 F * - - NO16 . Memory Lane/Lawson Way Santa Ana D Signal 0.341A0.248A0.341A0.250A0.000 0.002 NONotes:* Exceeds LOS StandardAWSC = All-Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach/movement.LOS = Level of ServiceThe corridor on Main Street has been optimized with the modifications to the offset intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway. This results in the delay under with project condition to decrease. Table D: Opening Year Cumulative With Project Option E - Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Parking Levels of ServiceChange in V/CAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourWithout ProjectWith Project----------------------------D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\LOS\Cumul P Santiago2-232 the transportation solutions company...DirectLOSProjectIntersection Jurisdiction Standard Control ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOS ICU LOS Delay LOSAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact1 . Broadway/I-5 SB Off RampCaltrans D Yield -0.0A-0.0A-0.0A-0.0A--NO2 . Broadway/Santa Clara AvenueSanta Ana E Signal 0.988 E0.838 D0.993 E0.851 D0.005 0.013 NO3 . Broadway/Buffalo AvenueSanta Ana D Signal 0.521A0.539A0.523A0.542A0.002 0.003 NO4 . Main Street/La Veta Avenue Orange D Signal 0.653 B 0.686 B 0.655 B 0.687 B 0.002 0.001 NO5 . Main Street/Town and Country Road Santa Ana E Signal 0.671 B 0.775 C 0.677 B 0.780 C 0.006 0.005 NO6 . Main Street/E Memory Lane Santa Ana E Signal 0.573A0.564A0.574A0.567A0.001 0.003 NO7 . Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Santa Ana D Signal - 22.4 C - 23.6 C - 20.6 C - 21.4 C - - NO8 . Main Street/Discovery Cube Driveway Santa Ana D TWSC - 17.8 C - 21.1 C - 18.0 C - 22.1 C - - NO9 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-/I-5 Ramps Caltrans D Signal - 32.9 C - 29.8 C - 32.6 C - 27.6 C - - NO10 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On RampCaltrans D Signal - 64.0 E * - >100 F * - 62.6 E * - >100 F * - - NO11 . Main Street/Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp Caltrans D Signal - 17.6 B - 30.0 C - 17.5 B - 40.6 D - - NO12 . Main Street/17th Street Santa Ana D Signal 0.956 E * 0.811 D 0.958 E * 0.812 D 0.002 0.001 NO13 . Project Driveway 2-Bush Street/Edgewood Road Santa Ana DAWSC 0.206A8.5A0.218A8.5A0.206A8.5A0.219A8.5A0.000 0.001 NO14 . SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Avenue Caltrans D Signal - 30.6 C - 26.6 C - 31.2 C - 26.7 C - - NO15 . SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Road Caltrans D Signal - 84.5 F * - >100 F * - 92.8 F * - >100 F * - - NO16 . Memory Lane/Lawson Way Santa Ana D Signal 0.354A0.262A0.356A0.264A0.002 0.002 NONotes:* Exceeds LOS StandardAWSC = All-Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach/movement.LOS = Level of ServiceThe corridor on Main Street has been optimized with the modifications to the offset intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway. This results in the delay under with project condition to decrease. Table E: Year 2040 With Project Option E - Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Levels of ServiceChange in V/CAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourWithout ProjectWith Project----------------------------D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\LOS\2040 P Santiago2-233 the transportation solutions company...LOSDaily DailyRoadway SegmentJurisdiction Standard Functional Classification LOS E CapacityVolume V/C Ratio LOS Volume V/C Ratio LOS1. Broadway to Main StreetCity of Santa Ana E 4-Lane Undivided 25,0009,3440.374 A9,6240.385 A0.011 NO2. Broadway to Main Street City of Santa Ana D 2-Lane One-Way 12,500 4,2930.343 A4,3010.344 A0.001 NO3. Town and Country Road to La Veta Street City of Orange D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 34,8530.619 B35,2230.626 B0.007 NO4. Memory Lane to Town and Country Road City of Santa Ana E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 30,0660.534 A30,5650.543 A0.009 NO5. I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane City of Santa Ana D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 31,1960.554 A32,1040.570 A0.016 NO6. I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-RampCity of Santa Ana D 6-Lane Divided56,30027,1400.482 A27,8960.495 A0.013NO7. South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th StreetCity of Santa Ana E 4-Lane Divided37,50030,5320.814 D30,7300.819 D0.005NO8. Main Street to SR-22 Westbound RampsCity of Orange D 6-Lane Divided56,30024,1360.429 A24,3560.433 A0.004NO9. Main Street to Lawson WayCity of Orange D 4-Lane Divided37,50018,6490.497 A18,7780.501 A0.003NO10. Main Street to Lawson WayCity of Santa Ana E 6-Lane Divided56,3009,5000.169 A9,6070.171 A0.002NONotes:LOS = Level of ServiceV/C = Volume to Capacity RatioMemory LaneSanta Clara AvenueBuffalo AvenueMain StreetLa Veta AvenueTown and Country Road Without Project With ProjectIncrease in V/CDirect Project Impact?Table F: Existing With Project Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Roadway Segment Levels of ServiceD:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\xRoadway LOS\Existing Santiago LOS2-234 the transportation solutions company...LOSDaily DailyRoadway SegmentJurisdiction Standard Functional Classification LOS E CapacityVolume V/C Ratio LOS Volume V/C Ratio LOS1. Broadway to Main StreetCity of Santa Ana E 4-Lane Undivided 25,0009,4790.379 A9,7590.390 A0.011 NO2. Broadway to Main Street City of Santa Ana D 2-Lane One-Way 12,500 4,3550.348 A4,3630.349 A0.001 NO3. Town and Country Road to La Veta Street City of Orange D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 39,0660.694 B39,4360.700 C0.007 NO4. Memory Lane to Town and Country Road City of Santa Ana E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 32,9720.586 A33,4710.595 A0.009 NO5. I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane City of Santa Ana D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 34,9760.621 B35,8840.637 B0.016 NO6. I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-RampCity of Santa Ana D 6-Lane Divided56,30031,4600.559 A32,2160.572 A0.013NO7. South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th StreetCity of Santa Ana E 4-Lane Divided37,50033,6790.898 D33,8770.903 E0.005NO8. Main Street to SR-22 Westbound RampsCity of Orange D 6-Lane Divided56,30026,2220.466 A26,4420.470 A0.004NO9. Main Street to Lawson WayCity of Orange D 4-Lane Divided37,50023,2940.621 B23,4230.625 B0.003NO10. Main Street to Lawson WayCity of Santa Ana E 6-Lane Divided56,30011,7940.209 A11,9010.211 A0.002NONotes:LOS = Level of ServiceV/C = Volume to Capacity RatioTable G: Opening Year Cumulative With Project Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Roadway Segment Levels of ServiceWithout ProjectWith ProjectIncrease in V/CDirect Project Impact?Memory LaneSanta Clara AvenueBuffalo AvenueMain StreetLa Veta AvenueTown and Country Road D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\xRoadway LOS\OY Santiago LOS2-235 the transportation solutions company...LOSDaily DailyRoadway SegmentJurisdiction Standard Functional Classification LOS E CapacityVolume V/C Ratio LOS Volume V/C Ratio LOS1. Broadway to Main StreetCity of Santa Ana E 4-Lane Undivided 25,00010,3820.415 A10,6620.426 A0.011 NO2. Broadway to Main Street City of Santa Ana D 2-Lane One-Way 12,500 4,7700.382 A4,7780.382 A0.001 NO3. Town and Country Road to La Veta Street City of Orange D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 41,5300.738 C41,9000.744 C0.007 NO4. Memory Lane to Town and Country Road City of Santa Ana E 6-Lane Divided 56,300 34,9350.621 B35,4340.629 B0.009 NO5. I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane City of Santa Ana D 6-Lane Divided 56,300 35,2100.625 B36,1180.642 B0.016 NO6. I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-RampCity of Santa Ana D 6-Lane Divided56,30033,0330.587 A33,7890.600 A0.013NO7. South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th StreetCity of Santa Ana E 4-Lane Divided37,50035,3630.943 E35,5610.948 E0.005NO8. Main Street to SR-22 Westbound RampsCity of Orange D 6-Lane Divided56,30027,5330.489 A27,7530.493 A0.004NO9. Main Street to Lawson WayCity of Orange D 4-Lane Divided37,50024,4590.652 B24,5880.656 B0.003NO10. Main Street to Lawson WayCity of Santa Ana E 6-Lane Divided56,30012,3840.220 A12,4910.222 A0.002NONotes:LOS = Level of ServiceV/C = Volume to Capacity RatioTable H: Year 2040 With Project Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Roadway Segment Levels of ServiceWithout ProjectWith ProjectIncrease in V/CDirect Project Impact?Memory LaneSanta Clara AvenueBuffalo AvenueMain StreetLa Veta AvenueTown and Country Road D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\xRoadway LOS\2040 Santiago LOS2-236 the transportation solutions company...Freeway Segment/RampType Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed DensityInterstate 5Northbound17th Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-RampWeave 16.30 92.4 - - F * 14.80 95.8 - - F * 16.20 92.6 - - F * 14.70 96.6 - - F * NOMain Street Off-Ramp to Main Street-On RampBasic 16.20 92.6 - - F * 16.90 88.7 - - F * 16.10 92.9 - - F * 16.90 88.8 - - F * NOMain Street On-Ramp to SR-22 WB CollectorWeave 15.30 45.0 - - F * 18.70 45.0 - - F * 15.10 45.0 - - F * 18.60 45.0 - - F * NOSouthboundSouth of SR-22 Basic 56.60 35.7 - - E * 48.30 46.9 - - F * 56.60 35.7 - - E * 48.30 46.9 - - F * NOI-5/SR-57 Collector Major Merge - - 69.70 19.4C1- - 43.20 40.5E1- - 69.70 19.4C1- - 43.20 40.5E1NOI-5/SR-57 Collector Lane Drop Basic 51.90 43.6 - - E * 55.00 34.6 - - F * 51.90 43.6 - - E * 55.00 34.6 - - F * NOMain Street On-Ramp to 17th Street Off-RampWeave 50.80 40.6 - - E * 39.00 45.0 - - F * 50.70 40.7 - - E * 39.00 45.0 - - F * NOBroadway Off-Ramp Diverge - - 60.40 31.7 D - - 60.50 30.9 D - - 60.40 31.8 D - - 60.50 31.0 D NOMain Street Off-Ramp Diverge - - 69.90 18.7 C - - 69.90 18.2 C - - 69.90 18.7 C - - 69.90 18.3 C NOSR-22EastboundSR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-RampWeave 12.10 45 - - F * 14.90 45 - - F * 12.10 45 - - F * 14.90 45 - - F * NOTown & Country Rd. Off-Ramp to Town & Country Rd On-RampBasic 55.60 29.2 - - F * 55.90 29.2 - - F * 55.60 29.2 - - F * 55.90 29.2 - - F * NOTown & Country Rd On-Ramp to Grand Off-RampWeave 26.90 45.0 - - F * 28.70 45.0 - - F * 26.80 45.0 - - F * 28.70 45.0 - - F * NOWestbound La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue On-Ramp Weave 45.60 45 - - F * 17.20 87.8 - - F * 45.60 45 - - F * 17.20 87.6 - - F * NOLa Veta Ave Off-Ramp to La Veta Ave On-RampBasic 55.60 41.7 - - F * 22.60 78.4 - - F * 55.60 41.7 - - F * 22.60 78.4 - - F * NOLa Veta Ave On-Ramp to to I-5/SR-57 CollectorWeave 48.30 38.7 - - E * 18.00 45.0 - - F * 48.30 38.7 - - F * 18.00 45.0 - - F * NO* Exceeds level of service standard1Based on HCM 6th Edition, there are no effective models of performance for a major merge area and LOS cannot be determined specifically for major merge areas. LOSMainline RampLOSAM Peak HourMainlineLOSAM Peak HourPM Peak HourDirect Project ImpactTable I: Existing With Project Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Freeway Levels of ServicePM Peak HourWithout Project With ProjectRampMainline RampLOSMainline RampD:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Freeway Final 2\Exist P Santiago LOS (9/12/2019)2-237 the transportation solutions company...Segment/RampType Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed DensityInterstate 5Northbound17th Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-RampWeave 15.70 94.1 - - F * 12.00 107.3 - - F * 15.60 94.3 - - F * 12.00 107.1 - - F * NOMain Street Off-Ramp to Main Street-On RampBasic15.60 94.4 - - F * 13.40 100.0 - - F * 15.50 94.7 - - F * 13.40 100.1 - - F * NOMain Street On-Ramp to SR-22 WB CollectorWeave 13.50 45.0 - - F * 10.90 45.0 - - F * 13.30 45.0 - - F * 10.90 45.0 - - F * NOSouthboundSouth of SR-22 Basic43.90 47.9 - - F * 48.30 47.0 - - F * 43.90 47.9 - - F * 48.30 47.0 - - F * NOI-5/SR-57 Collector Major Merge- - 35.50 50.3F1- - 37.50 46.6F1- - 35.50 50.3F1- - 37.50 46.6F1NOI-5/SR-57 Collector Lane DropBasic52.70 35.8 - - F * 53.30 34.5 - - F * 52.70 35.8 - - F * 53.30 34.5 - - F * NOMain Street On-Ramp to 17th Street Off-RampWeave 43.80 45.0 - - F * 38.20 45.0 - - F * 43.80 45.0 - - F * 38.20 45.0 - - F * NOBroadway Off-Ramp Diverge - - 60.50 34.3 D - - 60.50 33.0 D - - 60.50 34.4 D - - 60.50 33.1 D NOMain Street Off-Ramp Diverge - - 68.80 22.2 C - - 69.50 20.3 C - - 68.70 22.3 C - - 69.50 20.4 C NOSR-22EastboundSR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-RampWeave 11.40 45 - - F * 16.30 45 - - F * 11.40 45 - - F * 16.30 45 - - F * NOTown & Country Rd. Off-Ramp to Town & Country Rd On-RampBasic55.50 29.0 - - F * 56.10 32.3 - - F * 55.50 29.0 - - F * 56.10 32.3 - - F * NOTown & Country Rd On-Ramp to Grand Off-RampWeave 25.50 45.0 - - F * 31.70 45.0 - - F * 25.40 45.0 - - F * 31.70 45.0 - - F * NOWestbound La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue On-RampWeave 39.70 49.2 - - F * 15.80 91.7 - - F * 39.70 49.3 - - F * 15.90 91.5 - - F * NOLa Veta Ave Off-Ramp to La Veta Ave On-RampBasic32.40 62.5 - - F * 18.70 87.1 - - F * 32.30 62.6 - - F * 18.60 87.1 - - F * NOLa Veta Ave On-Ramp to to I-5/SR-57 CollectorWeave 46.70 36.7 - - E * 12.20 45.0 - - F * 46.70 36.7 - - E * 12.20 45.0 - - F * NO* Exceeds level of service standard1Based on HCM 6th Edition, there are no effective models of performance for a major merge area and LOS cannot be determined specifically for major merge areas. AM Peak HourPM Peak HourWithout Project With ProjectTable J: Year 2040 With Project Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Freeway Levels of ServiceAM Peak HourPM Peak HourRampLOSMainline RampLOSMainlineMainline RampLOSMainline RampLOSDirect Project ImpactD:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Freeway Final 2\2040 P Santiago LOS (9/12/2019)2-238 the transportation solutions company...AM Peak HourPM Peak HourAM Peak HourPM Peak HourAM Peak HourPM Peak HourIntersectionMovementQueue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length16 . Main Street/Memory LaneNBT 678 352 3942342782945787 . Main Street/Walkie WayNBL 150 314542514453NBT 411 193 390260303305381SBL 80 110101EBL 70 819819819EBR 150 000000WBLR 100 0000009 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 RampsNBL 175 59148----NBT 690 140 28969260101366SBL 150 911139913399161SBR 130 00----EBTL 1353 2764----EBR 140 111----WBTL 250 219 152183106183114WBR 60 23184618502310 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On-Ramp2NBT 350 6280110228132151Notes:Bold = Exceeds storage length1Queues reported are 95th Percentile queue lengths per movement in feet. 2The peak hour factor (phf) is the hourly volume during the maximum volume hour of the day divided by the peak 15-minute flow rate within the peak hour. The existing phf of 0.922 during the p.m. was used for opening year cumulative and 0.95 was used for year 2040. As a result, the queue for the NBT is reducing in the year 2040 conditions. Table K: Without Project Queuing AnalysisStorage Length (In Feet)Existing Without Project Opening Year Cumulative Without Project Year 2040 Without ProjectD:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Queues Walkie Way 2\Without Project2-239 the transportation solutions company...AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourIntersection MovementQueue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length1Queue Length16.Main Street/Memory Lane2NBT 678 338 3233453914165907.Main Street/Walkie Way2NBL 100 455845584462NBT 320 214 196216242266305SBL 90 326432643264EBL 70 112711271127EBR 150 861861864WBL 90 785878587558WBR 90 6043604357439.Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 Ramps2NBL 175 55 122----NBT 690 42 2156825870382SBL 150 90 127100142100164SBR 130 038----EBTL 1353 2344----EBR 140 00----WBTL 250 182 101183104183113WBR 60 1104617502210 .Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On-Ramp3NBT 340 149 253170217157230Notes:Bold = Exceeds storage length1Queues reported are 95th Percentile queue lengths per movement in feet. 2The corridor on Main Street has been optimized with the modifications to the offset intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway. This results in shorter queues for some movements in the with project conditions. 3The Main Street/Edgewood Road-I-5 HOV On/Off Ramp is included in the existing with project conditions. However, the opening year cumulative was evaluated with the ramp closed, which effects queuing operations on the Main Street corridor. Year 2040 With ProjectOpening Year Cumulative With ProjectExisting With ProjectStorage Length (In Feet)Table L: With Project Queuing Analysis - Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube ParkingD:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Queues Walkie Way 2\With Project2-240 Memorandum: The Addington Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis D:\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\ANALYSIS OFFSET SEPTEMBER 2019 REVISED\MEMO SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS.DOCX September 12, 2019 the transportation solutions company... ATTACHMENT A: VOLUME DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS 2-241 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project 1 . Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 435 0 435 778 0 778 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 605 0 605 569 0 569 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 891 4 895 835 12 847 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 605 0 0 605 569 0 0 569 Departure 435 0 0 435 778 0 0 778 Total 1,040 0 0 1,040 1,347 0 0 1,347 South Leg Approach 435 0 0 435 778 0 0 778 Departure 1,496 0 4 1,500 1,404 0 12 1,416 Total 1,931 0 4 1,935 2,182 0 12 2,194 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Leg Approach 891 0 4 895 835 0 12 847 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 891 0 4 895 835 0 12 847 Total Approaches Approach 1,931 0 4 1,935 2,182 0 12 2,194 Departure 1,931 0 4 1,935 2,182 0 12 2,194 Total 3,862 0 8 3,870 4,364 0 24 4,388 The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-242 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 2 . Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 295 0 295 620 0 620 NBR 342 3 345 420 8 428 SBL 37 4 41 97 12 109 SBT 1,459 0 1,459 1,307 0 1,307 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 134 0 134 144 0 144 EBT 321 0 321 233 0 233 EBR 193 0 193 67 0 67 WBL 76 8 84 90 5 95 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 6 0 6 14 0 14 North Leg Approach 1,496 0 4 1,500 1,404 0 12 1,416 Departure 435 0 0 435 778 0 0 778 Total 1,931 0 4 1,935 2,182 0 12 2,194 South Leg Approach 637 0 3 640 1,040 0 8 1,048 Departure 1,728 0 8 1,736 1,464 0 5 1,469 Total 2,365 0 11 2,376 2,504 0 13 2,517 East Leg Approach 82 0 8 90 104 0 5 109 Departure 700 0 7 707 750 0 20 770 Total 782 0 15 797 854 0 25 879 West Leg Approach 648 0 0 648 444 0 0 444 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 648 0 0 648 444 0 0 444 Total Approaches Approach 2,863 0 15 2,878 2,992 0 25 3,017 Departure 2,863 0 15 2,878 2,992 0 25 3,017 Total 5,726 0 30 5,756 5,984 0 50 6,034 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-243 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 3 . Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NBL 9 0 9 6 0 6 NBT 597 3 600 1,009 8 1,017 NBR 141 0 141 253 1 254 SBL 210 0 210 139 0 139 SBT 1,495 8 1,503 1,267 5 1,272 SBR 11 0 11 7 0 7 EBL 1 0 1 0 0 0 EBT 4 0 4 1 0 1 EBR 3 0 3 10 0 10 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 1,716 0 8 1,724 1,413 0 5 1,418 Departure 598 0 3 601 1,009 0 8 1,017 Total 2,314 0 11 2,325 2,422 0 13 2,435 South Leg Approach 747 0 3 750 1,268 0 9 1,277 Departure 1,498 0 8 1,506 1,277 0 5 1,282 Total 2,245 0 11 2,256 2,545 0 14 2,559 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 355 0 0 355 393 0 1 394 Total 355 0 0 355 393 0 1 394 West Leg Approach 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 11 Departure 20 0 0 20 13 0 0 13 Total 28 0 0 28 24 0 0 24 Total Approaches Approach 2,471 0 11 2,482 2,692 0 14 2,706 Departure 2,471 0 11 2,482 2,692 0 14 2,706 Total 4,942 0 22 4,964 5,384 0 28 5,412 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-244 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 4 . Main Street/La Veta Avenue NBL 75 2 77 287 1 288 NBT 613 5 618 962 3 965 NBR 274 9 283 455 6 461 SBL 197 0 197 161 0 161 SBT 1,071 2 1,073 897 5 902 SBR 135 0 135 223 0 223 EBL 305 0 305 326 0 326 EBT 456 0 456 427 0 427 EBR 190 1 191 201 2 203 WBL 295 4 299 268 13 281 WBT 317 0 317 514 0 514 WBR 207 0 207 237 0 237 North Leg Approach 1,403 0 2 1,405 1,281 0 5 1,286 Departure 1,125 0 5 1,130 1,525 0 3 1,528 Total 2,528 0 7 2,535 2,806 0 8 2,814 South Leg Approach 962 0 16 978 1,704 0 10 1,714 Departure 1,556 0 7 1,563 1,366 0 20 1,386 Total 2,518 0 23 2,541 3,070 0 30 3,100 East Leg Approach 819 0 4 823 1,019 0 13 1,032 Departure 927 0 9 936 1,043 0 6 1,049 Total 1,746 0 13 1,759 2,062 0 19 2,081 West Leg Approach 951 0 1 952 954 0 2 956 Departure 527 0 2 529 1,024 0 1 1,025 Total 1,478 0 3 1,481 1,978 0 3 1,981 Total Approaches Approach 4,135 0 23 4,158 4,958 0 30 4,988 Departure 4,135 0 23 4,158 4,958 0 30 4,988 Total 8,270 0 46 8,316 9,916 0 60 9,976 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-245 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 5 . Main Street/Town and Country Road NBL 49 0 49 66 0 66 NBT 860 16 876 1,101 11 1,112 NBR 140 7 147 187 5 192 SBL 262 0 262 401 0 401 SBT 1,075 7 1,082 1,025 20 1,045 SBR 31 0 31 118 0 118 EBL 21 0 21 128 0 128 EBT 64 0 64 136 0 136 EBR 68 0 68 139 0 139 WBL 271 2 273 195 5 200 WBT 52 0 52 99 0 99 WBR 378 0 378 414 0 414 North Leg Approach 1,368 0 7 1,375 1,544 0 20 1,564 Departure 1,259 0 16 1,275 1,643 0 11 1,654 Total 2,627 0 23 2,650 3,187 0 31 3,218 South Leg Approach 1,049 0 23 1,072 1,354 0 16 1,370 Departure 1,414 0 9 1,423 1,359 0 25 1,384 Total 2,463 0 32 2,495 2,713 0 41 2,754 East Leg Approach 701 0 2 703 708 0 5 713 Departure 466 0 7 473 724 0 5 729 Total 1,167 0 9 1,176 1,432 0 10 1,442 West Leg Approach 153 0 0 153 403 0 0 403 Departure 132 0 0 132 283 0 0 283 Total 285 0 0 285 686 0 0 686 Total Approaches Approach 3,271 0 32 3,303 4,009 0 41 4,050 Departure 3,271 0 32 3,303 4,009 0 41 4,050 Total 6,542 0 64 6,606 8,018 0 82 8,100 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-246 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 6 . Main Street/E Memory Lane NBL 29 0 29 104 0 104 NBT 870 24 894 955 15 970 NBR 252 6 258 159 4 163 SBL 33 0 33 35 0 35 SBT 1,115 9 1,124 1,113 26 1,139 SBR 248 0 248 154 0 154 EBL 155 0 155 263 0 263 EBT 222 0 222 309 0 309 EBR 47 0 47 126 0 126 WBL 168 2 170 207 5 212 WBT 209 0 209 162 0 162 WBR 7 0 7 63 0 63 North Leg Approach 1,396 0 9 1,405 1,302 0 26 1,328 Departure 1,032 0 24 1,056 1,281 0 15 1,296 Total 2,428 0 33 2,461 2,583 0 41 2,624 South Leg Approach 1,151 0 30 1,181 1,218 0 19 1,237 Departure 1,330 0 11 1,341 1,446 0 31 1,477 Total 2,481 0 41 2,522 2,664 0 50 2,714 East Leg Approach 384 0 2 386 432 0 5 437 Departure 507 0 6 513 503 0 4 507 Total 891 0 8 899 935 0 9 944 West Leg Approach 424 0 0 424 698 0 0 698 Departure 486 0 0 486 420 0 0 420 Total 910 0 0 910 1,118 0 0 1,118 Total Approaches Approach 3,355 0 41 3,396 3,650 0 50 3,700 Departure 3,355 0 41 3,396 3,650 0 50 3,700 Total 6,710 0 82 6,792 7,300 0 100 7,400 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-247 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 7 . Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NBL 19 0 19 25 4 0 29 NBT 1,249 0 1,249 1,227 0 1,227 NBR 0 16 16 0 45 45 SBL 1 10 11 1 30 31 SBT 1,351 0 1,351 1,534 0 1,534 SBR 11 0 11 2 0 2 EBL 2 0 2 8 0 8 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 0 1 21 0 21 WBL 0 44 44 0 29 29 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 30 30 0 19 19 North Leg Approach 1,363 0 10 1,373 1,537 0 30 1,567 Departure 1,251 0 30 1,281 1,235 0 19 1,254 Total 2,614 0 40 2,654 2,772 0 49 2,821 South Leg Approach 1,268 0 16 1,284 1,252 4 45 1,301 Departure 1,352 0 44 1,396 1,555 0 29 1,584 Total 2,620 0 60 2,680 2,807 4 74 2,885 East Leg Approach 0 0 74 74 0 0 48 48 Departure 1 0 26 27 1 0 75 76 Total 1 0 100 101 1 0 123 124 West Leg Approach 3 0 0 3 29 0 0 29 Departure 30 0 0 30 27 4 0 31 Total 33 0 0 33 56 4 0 60 Total Approaches Approach 2,634 0 100 2,734 2,818 4 123 2,945 Departure 2,634 0 100 2,734 2,818 4 123 2,945 Total 5,268 0 200 5,468 5,636 8 246 5,890 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-248 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 8 . Main Street/Discovery Cube Driveway NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 1,271 16 1,287 1,243 -2 45 1,286 NBR 12 2 0 14 3 0 3 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 1,356 44 1,400 1,555 4 29 1,588 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 0 1 9 6 0 15 North Leg Approach 1,356 0 44 1,400 1,555 4 29 1,588 Departure 1,272 0 16 1,288 1,252 4 45 1,301 Total 2,628 0 60 2,688 2,807 8 74 2,889 South Leg Approach 1,283 2 16 1,301 1,246 -2 45 1,289 Departure 1,356 0 44 1,400 1,555 4 29 1,588 Total 2,639 2 60 2,701 2,801 2 74 2,877 East Leg Approach 1 0 0 1 9 6 0 15 Departure 12 2 0 14 3 0 0 3 Total 13 2 0 15 12 6 0 18 West Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approaches Approach 2,640 2 60 2,702 2,810 8 74 2,892 Departure 2,640 2 60 2,702 2,810 8 74 2,892 Total 5,280 4 120 5,404 5,620 16 148 5,784 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-249 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 11 . Main Street/Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 976 3 979 1,398 10 1,408 NBR 33 0 33 38 0 38 SBL 717 15 732 679 10 689 SBT 1,418 10 1,428 1,103 6 1,109 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 119 0 119 291 1 292 EBT 196 0 196 167 0 167 EBR 26 0 26 46 0 46 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 2,135 0 25 2,160 1,783 0 16 1,799 Departure 1,095 0 3 1,098 1,688 0 11 1,699 Total 3,230 0 28 3,258 3,471 0 27 3,498 South Leg Approach 1,009 0 3 1,012 1,436 0 10 1,446 Departure 1,444 0 10 1,454 1,149 0 6 1,155 Total 2,453 0 13 2,466 2,585 0 16 2,601 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 946 0 15 961 884 0 10 894 Total 946 0 15 961 884 0 10 894 West Leg Approach 341 0 0 341 504 0 1 505 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 341 0 0 341 504 0 1 505 Total Approaches Approach 3,485 0 28 3,513 3,722 0 27 3,749 Departure 3,485 0 28 3,513 3,722 0 27 3,749 Total 6,971 0 56 7,027 7,444 0 54 7,498 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-250 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 12 . Main Street/17th Street NBL 189 0 189 200 0 200 NBT 762 1 763 1,061 4 1,065 NBR 174 0 174 162 0 162 SBL 178 2 180 187 1 188 SBT 1,082 4 1,086 810 2 812 SBR 82 4 86 141 2 143 EBL 141 1 142 199 4 203 EBT 1,250 0 1,250 1,219 0 1,219 EBR 78 0 78 58 0 58 WBL 306 0 306 186 0 186 WBT 1,335 0 1,335 1,064 0 1,064 WBR 16 1 17 59 2 61 North Leg Approach 1,342 0 10 1,352 1,138 0 5 1,143 Departure 919 0 3 922 1,319 0 10 1,329 Total 2,261 0 13 2,274 2,457 0 15 2,472 South Leg Approach 1,125 0 1 1,126 1,423 0 4 1,427 Departure 1,466 0 4 1,470 1,054 0 2 1,056 Total 2,591 0 5 2,596 2,477 0 6 2,483 East Leg Approach 1,657 0 1 1,658 1,309 0 2 1,311 Departure 1,602 0 2 1,604 1,568 0 1 1,569 Total 3,259 0 3 3,262 2,877 0 3 2,880 West Leg Approach 1,469 0 1 1,470 1,476 0 4 1,480 Departure 1,606 0 4 1,610 1,405 0 2 1,407 Total 3,075 0 5 3,080 2,881 0 6 2,887 Total Approaches Approach 5,593 0 13 5,606 5,346 0 15 5,361 Departure 5,593 0 13 5,606 5,346 0 15 5,361 Total 11,186 0 26 11,212 10,692 0 30 10,722 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-251 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 13 . Project Driveway 2-Bush Street/Edgewood Road NBL 58 0 58 85 0 85 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 0 1 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 4 -4 0 0 EBL 2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 96 0 96 115 1 0 116 EBR 67 0 67 58 1 0 59 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 180 0 180 140 0 140 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 6 -6 0 0 Departure 2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 -2 0 0 6 -6 0 0 South Leg Approach 59 0 0 59 85 0 0 85 Departure 67 0 0 67 59 0 0 59 Total 126 0 0 126 144 0 0 144 East Leg Approach 180 0 0 180 140 0 0 140 Departure 97 0 0 97 116 0 0 116 Total 277 0 0 277 256 0 0 256 West Leg Approach 165 -2 0 163 173 2 0 175 Departure 238 0 0 238 229 -4 0 225 Total 403 -2 0 401 402 -2 0 400 Total Approaches Approach 404 -2 0 402 404 -4 0 400 Departure 404 -2 0 402 404 -4 0 400 Total 808 -4 0 804 808 -8 0 800 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-252 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 14 . SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Avenue NBL 899 0 3 902 415 0 10 425 NBT 0000 0000 NBR 479 0 0 479 128 0 0 128 SBL 0000 0000 SBT 0000 0000 SBR 0000 0000 EBL 0000 0000 EBT 332 0 3 335 625 0 2 627 EBR 233 0 6 239 946 0 4 950 WBL 266 0 0 266 497 0 0 497 WBT 454 0 1 455 440 0 3 443 WBR 0000 0000 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Leg Approach 1,378 0 3 1,381 543 0 10 553 Departure 499 0 6 505 1,443 0 4 1,447 Total 1,877 0 9 1,886 1,986 0 14 2,000 East Leg Approach 720 0 1 721 937 0 3 940 Departure 811 0 3 814 753 0 2 755 Total 1,531 0 4 1,535 1,690 0 5 1,695 West Leg Approach 565 0 9 574 1,571 0 6 1,577 Departure 1,353 0 4 1,357 855 0 13 868 Total 1,918 0 13 1,931 2,426 0 19 2,445 Total Approaches Approach 2,663 0 13 2,676 3,051 0 19 3,070 Departure 2,663 0 13 2,676 3,051 0 19 3,070 Total 5,326 0 26 5,352 6,102 0 38 6,140 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-253 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 15 . SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Road NBL 25 0 0 25 186 0 0 186 NBT 128 0 4 132 438 0 2 440 NBR 20 0 0 20 52 0 0 52 SBL 348 0 0 348 185 0 0 185 SBT 309 0 1 310 107 0 2 109 SBR 609 0 1 610 420 0 4 424 EBL 304 0 6 310 583 0 4 587 EBT 104 0 1 105 103 0 1 104 EBR 118 0 0 118 25 0 0 25 WBL 65 0 0 65 11 0 0 11 WBT 64 0 1 65 146 0 2 148 WBR 107 0 0 107 461 0 0 461 North Leg Approach 1,266 0 2 1,268 712 0 6 718 Departure 539 0 10 549 1,482 0 6 1,488 Total 1,805 0 12 1,817 2,194 0 12 2,206 South Leg Approach 173 0 4 177 676 0 2 678 Departure 492 0 1 493 143 0 2 145 Total 665 0 5 670 819 0 4 823 East Leg Approach 236 0 1 237 618 0 2 620 Departure 472 0 1 473 340 0 1 341 Total 708 0 2 710 958 0 3 961 West Leg Approach 526 0 7 533 711 0 5 716 Departure 698 0 2 700 752 0 6 758 Total 1,224 0 9 1,233 1,463 0 11 1,474 Total Approaches Approach 2,201 0 14 2,215 2,717 0 15 2,732 Departure 2,201 0 14 2,215 2,717 0 15 2,732 Total 4,402 0 28 4,430 5,434 0 30 5,464 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-254 the transportation solutions company... Existing WP Project Existing Existing WP Project Existing Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 16 . Memory Lane/Lawson Way NBL 1001 9009 NBT 3003 2002 NBR 3003 6006 SBL 17 0 0 17 17 0 0 17 SBT 1001 4004 SBR 168 0 1 169 149 0 2 151 EBL 180 0 4 184 284 0 2 286 EBT 272 0 2 274 262 0 1 263 EBR 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 15 WBL 0000 4004 WBT 285 0 1 286 212 0 2 214 WBR 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 18 North Leg Approach 186 0 1 187 170 0 2 172 Departure 191 0 4 195 304 0 2 306 Total 377 0 5 382 474 0 4 478 South Leg Approach 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 17 Departure 8 0 0 8 23 0 0 23 Total 15 0 0 15 40 0 0 40 East Leg Approach 293 0 1 294 234 0 2 236 Departure 292 0 2 294 285 0 1 286 Total 585 0 3 588 519 0 3 522 West Leg Approach 459 0 6 465 561 0 3 564 Departure 454 0 2 456 370 0 4 374 Total 913 0 8 921 931 0 7 938 Total Approaches Approach 945 0 8 953 982 0 7 989 Departure 945 0 8 953 982 0 7 989 Total 1,890 0 16 1,906 1,964 0 14 1,978 Analysis\Exist TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-255 the transportation solutions company... Existing Existing Project Existing Existing Existing Project Existing Without Without Trips Plus Without Without Trips Plus Project Project Project Project Project Project 9 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-/I-5 Ramps NBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 77 0 77 239 0 239 NBT 471 1 10 482 829 30 859 NBR 83 -1 0 82 103 0 103 SBU 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 SBL 64 -1 0 63 106 2 0 108 SBT 1,275 44 1,319 1,311 2 29 1,342 SBR 17 0 17 138 0 138 EBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 6 0 6 30 0 30 EBT 5 0 5 12 0 12 EBR 79 0 79 73 0 73 WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 129 0 129 97 -2 0 95 WBT 15 0 15 21 0 21 WBR 91 0 91 91 -2 0 89 NWBR 714 5 719 296 15 311 NWHR 22 0 22 6 0 6 North Leg Approach 1,356 0 44 1,400 1,555 4 29 1,588 Departure 1,283 2 15 1,300 1,246 -2 45 1,289 Total 2,639 2 59 2,700 2,801 2 74 2,877 South Leg Approach 631 0 10 641 1,171 0 30 1,201 Departure 1,483 0 44 1,527 1,481 0 29 1,510 Total 2,114 0 54 2,168 2,652 0 59 2,711 East Leg Approach 235 0 0 235 209 -4 0 205 Departure 174 -2 0 172 227 2 0 229 Total 409 -2 0 407 437 -2 0 435 West Leg Approach 90 0 0 90 115 0 0 115 Departure 109 0 0 109 398 0 0 398 Total 199 0 0 199 513 0 0 513 Southeast Leg Approach 736 0 5 741 302 0 15 317 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 736 0 5 741 302 0 15 317 Total Approaches Approach 3,049 0 59 3,108 3,352 0 74 3,426 Departure 3,049 0 59 3,108 3,352 0 74 3,426 Total 6,098 0 118 6,216 6,704 0 148 6,852 The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Analysis\Exist 5-Leg TM Santiago 2-256 the transportation solutions company... Existing Existing Project Existing Existing Existing Project Existing Without Without Trips Plus Without Without Trips Plus Project Project Project Project Project Project The Addington Table B-1 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 10 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On Ramp NBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 7 0 7 9 0 9 NBT 504 4 508 967 11 978 NBR 584 0 584 712 0 712 SBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 58 12 70 113 8 121 SBT 1,320 24 1,344 1,303 16 1,319 SBR 105 8 113 65 5 70 EBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 127 7 134 204 20 224 EBT 396 0 396 485 0 485 EBR 201 0 201 146 0 146 WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEBR 591 0 591 334 0 334 SEHR 32 0 32 16 0 16 North Leg Approach 1,483 0 44 1,527 1,481 0 29 1,510 Departure 631 0 11 642 1,171 0 31 1,202 Total 2,114 0 55 2,169 2,652 0 60 2,712 South Leg Approach 1,095 0 4 1,099 1,688 0 11 1,699 Departure 2,112 0 24 2,136 1,783 0 16 1,799 Total 3,207 0 28 3,235 3,471 0 27 3,498 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 1,038 0 12 1,050 1,310 0 8 1,318 Total 1,038 0 12 1,050 1,310 0 8 1,318 West Leg Approach 724 0 7 731 835 0 20 855 Departure 144 0 8 152 90 0 5 95 Total 868 0 15 883 924 0 25 949 Northwest Leg Approach 623 0 0 623 350 0 0 350 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 623 0 0 623 350 0 0 350 Total Approaches Approach 3,925 0 55 3,980 4,354 0 60 4,414 Departure 3,925 0 55 3,980 4,354 0 60 4,414 Total 7,851 0 110 7,961 8,707 0 120 8,827 D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Analysis\Exist 5-Leg TM Santiago 2-257 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project 1 . Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 442 0 442 789 0 789 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 614 0 614 578 0 578 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 914 4 918 890 12 902 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 614 0 0 614 578 0 0 578 Departure 442 0 0 442 789 0 0 789 Total 1,056 0 0 1,056 1,367 0 0 1,367 South Leg Approach 442 0 0 442 789 0 0 789 Departure 1,529 0 4 1,533 1,468 0 12 1,480 Total 1,971 0 4 1,975 2,257 0 12 2,269 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Leg Approach 914 0 4 918 890 0 12 902 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 914 0 4 918 890 0 12 902 Total Approaches Approach 1,971 0 4 1,975 2,257 0 12 2,269 Departure 1,971 0 4 1,975 2,257 0 12 2,269 Total 3,942 0 8 3,950 4,513 0 24 4,537 The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-258 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 2 . Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 300 0 300 629 0 629 NBR 347 3 350 426 8 434 SBL 49 4 53 141 12 153 SBT 1,480 0 1,480 1,327 0 1,327 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 136 0 136 146 0 146 EBT 326 0 326 236 0 236 EBR 196 0 196 68 0 68 WBL 77 8 85 91 5 96 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 6 0 6 14 0 14 North Leg Approach 1,529 0 4 1,533 1,468 0 12 1,480 Departure 442 0 0 442 789 0 0 789 Total 1,971 0 4 1,975 2,257 0 12 2,269 South Leg Approach 647 0 3 650 1,055 0 8 1,063 Departure 1,753 0 8 1,761 1,486 0 5 1,491 Total 2,400 0 11 2,411 2,541 0 13 2,554 East Leg Approach 83 0 8 91 105 0 5 110 Departure 722 0 7 729 803 0 20 823 Total 805 0 15 820 908 0 25 933 West Leg Approach 658 0 0 658 450 0 0 450 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 658 0 0 658 450 0 0 450 Total Approaches Approach 2,917 0 15 2,932 3,078 0 25 3,103 Departure 2,917 0 15 2,932 3,078 0 25 3,103 Total 5,834 0 30 5,864 6,155 0 50 6,205 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-259 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 3 . Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NBL 9 0 9 6 0 6 NBT 607 3 610 1,025 8 1,033 NBR 143 0 143 257 1 258 SBL 213 0 213 141 0 141 SBT 1,517 8 1,525 1,286 5 1,291 SBR 11 0 11 7 0 7 EBL 1 0 1 0 0 0 EBT 4 0 4 1 0 1 EBR 3 0 3 10 0 10 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 1,741 0 8 1,749 1,434 0 5 1,439 Departure 608 0 3 611 1,025 0 8 1,033 Total 2,349 0 11 2,360 2,459 0 13 2,472 South Leg Approach 759 0 3 762 1,288 0 9 1,297 Departure 1,520 0 8 1,528 1,296 0 5 1,301 Total 2,279 0 11 2,290 2,584 0 14 2,598 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 360 0 0 360 399 0 1 400 Total 360 0 0 360 399 0 1 400 West Leg Approach 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 11 Departure 20 0 0 20 13 0 0 13 Total 28 0 0 28 24 0 0 24 Total Approaches Approach 2,508 0 11 2,519 2,733 0 14 2,747 Departure 2,508 0 11 2,519 2,733 0 14 2,747 Total 5,016 0 22 5,038 5,466 0 28 5,494 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-260 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 4 . Main Street/La Veta Avenue NBL 81 2 83 294 1 295 NBT 749 5 754 1,042 3 1,045 NBR 347 9 356 506 6 512 SBL 211 0 211 175 0 175 SBT 1,132 2 1,134 1,059 5 1,064 SBR 142 0 142 234 0 234 EBL 317 0 317 338 0 338 EBT 469 0 469 435 0 435 EBR 194 1 195 209 2 211 WBL 315 4 319 303 13 316 WBT 328 0 328 523 0 523 WBR 221 0 221 252 0 252 North Leg Approach 1,485 0 2 1,487 1,468 0 5 1,473 Departure 1,287 0 5 1,292 1,632 0 3 1,635 Total 2,772 0 7 2,779 3,100 0 8 3,108 South Leg Approach 1,177 0 16 1,193 1,842 0 10 1,852 Departure 1,641 0 7 1,648 1,571 0 20 1,591 Total 2,818 0 23 2,841 3,413 0 30 3,443 East Leg Approach 864 0 4 868 1,078 0 13 1,091 Departure 1,027 0 9 1,036 1,116 0 6 1,122 Total 1,891 0 13 1,904 2,194 0 19 2,213 West Leg Approach 980 0 1 981 982 0 2 984 Departure 551 0 2 553 1,051 0 1 1,052 Total 1,531 0 3 1,534 2,033 0 3 2,036 Total Approaches Approach 4,506 0 23 4,529 5,370 0 30 5,400 Departure 4,506 0 23 4,529 5,370 0 30 5,400 Total 9,012 0 46 9,058 10,740 0 60 10,800 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-261 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 5 . Main Street/Town and Country Road NBL 53 0 53 69 0 69 NBT 962 16 978 1,188 11 1,199 NBR 160 7 167 238 5 243 SBL 269 0 269 519 0 519 SBT 1,149 7 1,156 1,114 20 1,134 SBR 33 0 33 120 0 120 EBL 21 0 21 132 0 132 EBT 70 0 70 157 0 157 EBR 69 0 69 141 0 141 WBL 296 2 298 229 5 234 WBT 69 0 69 108 0 108 WBR 498 0 498 458 0 458 North Leg Approach 1,451 0 7 1,458 1,753 0 20 1,773 Departure 1,481 0 16 1,497 1,778 0 11 1,789 Total 2,932 0 23 2,955 3,531 0 31 3,562 South Leg Approach 1,175 0 23 1,198 1,495 0 16 1,511 Departure 1,514 0 9 1,523 1,484 0 25 1,509 Total 2,689 0 32 2,721 2,979 0 41 3,020 East Leg Approach 863 0 2 865 795 0 5 800 Departure 499 0 7 506 914 0 5 919 Total 1,362 0 9 1,371 1,709 0 10 1,719 West Leg Approach 160 0 0 160 430 0 0 430 Departure 155 0 0 155 297 0 0 297 Total 315 0 0 315 727 0 0 727 Total Approaches Approach 3,649 0 32 3,681 4,473 0 41 4,514 Departure 3,649 0 32 3,681 4,473 0 41 4,514 Total 7,298 0 64 7,362 8,946 0 82 9,028 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-262 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 6 . Main Street/E Memory Lane NBL 35 0 35 123 0 123 NBT 931 24 955 1,047 15 1,062 NBR 195 6 201 265 4 269 SBL 36 0 36 40 0 40 SBT 1,189 9 1,198 1,186 26 1,212 SBR 269 0 269 200 0 200 EBL 201 0 201 297 0 297 EBT 237 0 237 332 0 332 EBR 65 0 65 139 0 139 WBL 319 2 321 208 5 213 WBT 230 0 230 179 0 179 WBR 29 0 29 77 0 77 North Leg Approach 1,494 0 9 1,503 1,426 0 26 1,452 Departure 1,161 0 24 1,185 1,421 0 15 1,436 Total 2,655 0 33 2,688 2,847 0 41 2,888 South Leg Approach 1,161 0 30 1,191 1,435 0 19 1,454 Departure 1,573 0 11 1,584 1,533 0 31 1,564 Total 2,734 0 41 2,775 2,968 0 50 3,018 East Leg Approach 578 0 2 580 464 0 5 469 Departure 468 0 6 474 637 0 4 641 Total 1,046 0 8 1,054 1,101 0 9 1,110 West Leg Approach 503 0 0 503 768 0 0 768 Departure 534 0 0 534 502 0 0 502 Total 1,037 0 0 1,037 1,270 0 0 1,270 Total Approaches Approach 3,736 0 41 3,777 4,093 0 50 4,143 Departure 3,736 0 41 3,777 4,093 0 50 4,143 Total 7,472 0 82 7,554 8,186 0 100 8,286 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-263 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 7 . Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NBL 19 0 19 25 4 0 29 NBT 1,260 0 1,260 1,444 0 1,444 NBR 0 16 16 0 45 45 SBL 1 10 11 1 30 31 SBT 1,595 0 1,595 1,621 0 1,621 SBR 11 0 11 2 0 2 EBL 2 0 2 8 0 8 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 0 1 21 0 21 WBL 0 44 44 0 29 29 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 30 30 0 19 19 North Leg Approach 1,607 0 10 1,617 1,624 0 30 1,654 Departure 1,262 0 30 1,292 1,452 0 19 1,471 Total 2,869 0 40 2,909 3,076 0 49 3,125 South Leg Approach 1,279 0 16 1,295 1,469 4 45 1,518 Departure 1,596 0 44 1,640 1,642 0 29 1,671 Total 2,875 0 60 2,935 3,111 4 74 3,189 East Leg Approach 0 0 74 74 0 0 48 48 Departure 1 0 26 27 1 0 75 76 Total 1 0 100 101 1 0 123 124 West Leg Approach 3 0 0 3 29 0 0 29 Departure 30 0 0 30 27 4 0 31 Total 33 0 0 33 56 4 0 60 Total Approaches Approach 2,889 0 100 2,989 3,122 4 123 3,249 Departure 2,889 0 100 2,989 3,122 4 123 3,249 Total 5,778 0 200 5,978 6,244 8 246 6,498 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-264 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 8 . Main Street/Discovery Cube Driveway NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 1,282 16 1,298 1,460 -2 45 1,503 NBR 12 2 0 14 3 0 3 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 1,600 44 1,644 1,643 4 29 1,676 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 0 1 9 6 0 15 North Leg Approach 1,600 0 44 1,644 1,643 29 1,676 Departure 1,283 0 16 1,299 1,469 4 45 1,518 Total 2,883 0 60 2,943 3,112 4 74 3,194 South Leg Approach 1,294 2 16 1,312 1,463 -2 45 1,506 Departure 1,600 0 44 1,644 1,643 4 29 1,676 Total 2,894 2 60 2,956 3,106 2 74 3,182 East Leg Approach 1 0 0 1 9 6 0 15 Departure 12 2 0 14 3 0 0 3 Total 13 2 0 15 12 6 0 18 West Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approaches Approach 2,895 2 60 2,957 3,115 4 74 3,197 Departure 2,895 2 60 2,957 3,115 8 74 3,197 Total 5,790 4 120 5,914 6,230 12 148 6,394 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-265 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 11 . Main Street/Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 1,024 3 1,027 1,532 10 1,542 NBR 42 0 42 51 0 51 SBL 787 15 802 670 10 680 SBT 1,629 10 1,639 1,205 6 1,211 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 121 0 121 295 1 296 EBT 199 0 199 169 0 169 EBR 26 0 26 47 0 47 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 2,416 0 25 2,441 1,876 0 16 1,892 Departure 1,145 0 3 1,148 1,826 0 11 1,837 Total 3,561 0 28 3,589 3,702 0 27 3,729 South Leg Approach 1,066 0 3 1,069 1,583 0 10 1,593 Departure 1,655 0 10 1,665 1,252 0 6 1,258 Total 2,721 0 13 2,734 2,835 0 16 2,851 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 1,028 0 15 1,043 890 0 10 900 Total 1,028 0 15 1,043 890 0 10 900 West Leg Approach 346 0 0 346 511 0 1 512 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 346 0 0 346 511 0 1 512 Total Approaches Approach 3,828 0 28 3,856 3,969 0 27 3,996 Departure 3,828 0 28 3,856 3,969 0 27 3,996 Total 7,657 0 56 7,713 7,938 0 54 7,992 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-266 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 12 . Main Street/17th Street NBL 210 0 210 208 0 208 NBT 761 1 762 1,137 4 1,141 NBR 196 0 196 214 0 214 SBL 194 2 196 213 1 214 SBT 1,197 4 1,201 853 2 855 SBR 126 4 130 165 2 167 EBL 160 1 161 221 4 225 EBT 1,295 0 1,295 1,286 0 1,286 EBR 86 0 86 67 0 67 WBL 363 0 363 213 0 213 WBT 1,411 0 1,411 1,103 0 1,103 WBR 37 1 38 79 2 81 North Leg Approach 1,517 0 10 1,527 1,231 0 5 1,236 Departure 958 0 3 961 1,437 0 10 1,447 Total 2,475 0 13 2,488 2,668 0 15 2,683 South Leg Approach 1,167 0 1 1,168 1,559 0 4 1,563 Departure 1,646 0 4 1,650 1,133 0 2 1,135 Total 2,813 0 5 2,818 2,692 0 6 2,698 East Leg Approach 1,811 0 1 1,812 1,395 0 2 1,397 Departure 1,685 0 2 1,687 1,713 0 1 1,714 Total 3,496 0 3 3,499 3,108 0 3 3,111 West Leg Approach 1,541 0 1 1,542 1,574 0 4 1,578 Departure 1,747 0 4 1,751 1,476 0 2 1,478 Total 3,288 0 5 3,293 3,050 0 6 3,056 Total Approaches Approach 6,036 0 13 6,049 5,759 0 15 5,774 Departure 6,036 0 13 6,049 5,759 0 15 5,774 Total 12,072 0 26 12,098 11,518 0 30 11,548 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-267 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 13 . Project Driveway 2-Bush Street/Edgewood Road NBL 59 0 59 86 0 86 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 0 1 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 4 -4 0 0 EBL 2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 101 0 101 120 1 0 121 EBR 68 0 68 59 1 0 60 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 192 0 192 145 0 145 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 6 -6 0 0 Departure 2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 -2 0 0 6 -6 0 0 South Leg Approach 60 0 0 60 86 0 0 86 Departure 68 0 0 68 60 0 0 60 Total 128 0 0 128 146 0 0 146 East Leg Approach 192 0 0 192 145 0 0 145 Departure 102 0 0 102 121 0 0 121 Total 294 0 0 294 266 0 0 266 West Leg Approach 171 -2 0 169 179 2 0 181 Departure 251 0 0 251 235 -4 0 231 Total 422 -2 0 420 414 -2 0 412 Total Approaches Approach 423 -2 0 421 416 -4 0 412 Departure 423 -2 0 421 416 -4 0 412 Total 846 -4 0 842 832 -8 0 824 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-268 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 14 . SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Avenue NBL 922 0 3 925 439 0 10 449 NBT 0000 0000 NBR 475 0 0 475 213 0 0 213 SBL 0000 0000 SBT 0000 0000 SBR 0000 0000 EBL 0000 0000 EBT 362 0 3 365 653 0 2 655 EBR 293 0 6 299 997 0 4 1,001 WBL 416 0 0 416 526 0 0 526 WBT 480 0 1 481 469 0 3 472 WBR 0000 0000 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Leg Approach 1,397 0 3 1,400 652 0 10 662 Departure 709 0 6 715 1,523 0 4 1,527 Total 2,106 0 9 2,115 2,175 0 14 2,189 East Leg Approach 896 0 1 897 995 0 3 998 Departure 837 0 3 840 866 0 2 868 Total 1,733 0 4 1,737 1,861 0 5 1,866 West Leg Approach 655 0 9 664 1,650 0 6 1,656 Departure 1,402 0 4 1,406 908 0 13 921 Total 2,057 0 13 2,070 2,558 0 19 2,577 Total Approaches Approach 2,948 0 13 2,961 3,297 0 19 3,316 Departure 2,948 0 13 2,961 3,297 0 19 3,316 Total 5,896 0 26 5,922 6,594 0 38 6,632 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-269 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 15 . SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Road NBL 95 0 0 95 215 0 0 215 NBT 180 0 4 184 461 0 2 463 NBR 28 0 0 28 73 0 0 73 SBL 328 0 0 328 275 0 0 275 SBT 301 0 1 302 159 0 2 161 SBR 645 0 1 646 488 0 4 492 EBL 337 0 6 343 619 0 4 623 EBT 132 0 1 133 181 0 1 182 EBR 170 0 0 170 90 0 0 90 WBL 99 0 0 99 65 0 0 65 WBT 127 0 1 128 171 0 2 173 WBR 132 0 0 132 458 0 0 458 North Leg Approach 1,274 0 2 1,276 922 0 6 928 Departure 649 0 10 659 1,538 0 6 1,544 Total 1,923 0 12 1,935 2,460 0 12 2,472 South Leg Approach 303 0 4 307 749 0 2 751 Departure 570 0 1 571 314 0 2 316 Total 873 0 5 878 1,063 0 4 1,067 East Leg Approach 358 0 1 359 694 0 2 696 Departure 488 0 1 489 529 0 1 530 Total 846 0 2 848 1,223 0 3 1,226 West Leg Approach 639 0 7 646 890 0 5 895 Departure 867 0 2 869 874 0 6 880 Total 1,506 0 9 1,515 1,764 0 11 1,775 Total Approaches Approach 2,574 0 14 2,588 3,255 0 15 3,270 Departure 2,574 0 14 2,588 3,255 0 15 3,270 Total 5,148 0 28 5,176 6,510 0 30 6,540 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-270 the transportation solutions company... OY WP Project OY OY WP Project OY Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project Volumes Adjust. Trips With Project The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary 16 . Memory Lane/Lawson Way NBL 1001 9009 NBT 3003 2002 NBR 3003 6006 SBL 17 0 0 17 17 0 0 17 SBT 1001 4004 SBR 341 0 1 342 190 0 2 192 EBL 149 0 4 153 398 0 2 400 EBT 259 0 2 261 279 0 1 280 EBR 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 15 WBL 0000 4004 WBT 304 0 1 305 200 0 2 202 WBR 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 18 North Leg Approach 359 0 1 360 211 0 2 213 Departure 160 0 4 164 418 0 2 420 Total 519 0 5 524 629 0 4 633 South Leg Approach 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 17 Departure 8 0 0 8 23 0 0 23 Total 15 0 0 15 40 0 0 40 East Leg Approach 312 0 1 313 222 0 2 224 Departure 279 0 2 281 302 0 1 303 Total 591 0 3 594 524 0 3 527 West Leg Approach 415 0 6 421 692 0 3 695 Departure 646 0 2 648 399 0 4 403 Total 1,061 0 8 1,069 1,091 0 7 1,098 Total Approaches Approach 1,093 0 8 1,101 1,142 0 7 1,149 Departure 1,093 0 8 1,101 1,142 0 7 1,149 Total 2,186 0 16 2,202 2,284 0 14 2,298 Analysis\OY P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-271 the transportation solutions company... OY OY Project OY OY OY Project OY Without Without Trips Plus Without Without Trips Plus Project Project Project Project Project Project 9 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-/I-5 Ramps NBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 499 1 10 510 963 30 993 NBR 93 -1 0 92 120 0 120 SBU 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 SBL 68 -1 0 67 111 2 0 113 SBT 1,533 44 1,577 1,533 2 29 1,564 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 155 0 155 123 -2 0 121 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 94 0 94 95 -2 0 93 NWBR 698 5 703 400 15 415 NWHR 22 0 22 10 0 10 North Leg Approach 1,601 0 44 1,645 1,644 4 29 1,677 Departure 1,292 2 15 1,309 1,458 -2 45 1,501 Total 2,893 2 59 2,954 3,102 2 74 3,178 South Leg Approach 592 0 10 602 1,083 0 30 1,113 Departure 1,688 0 44 1,732 1,656 0 29 1,685 Total 2,280 0 54 2,334 2,738 0 59 2,797 East Leg Approach 249 0 0 249 218 -4 0 214 Departure 183 -2 0 181 241 2 0 243 Total 432 -2 0 430 460 -2 0 458 West Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southeast Leg Approach 720 0 5 725 410 0 15 425 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 720 0 5 725 410 0 15 425 Total Approaches Approach 3,163 0 59 3,222 3,355 0 74 3,429 Departure 3,163 0 59 3,222 3,355 0 74 3,429 Total 6,326 0 118 6,444 6,710 0 148 6,858 The Addington Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Analysis\OY P 5-Leg TM Santiago 9/12/2019 2-272 the transportation solutions company... OY OY Project OY OY OY Project OY Without Without Trips Plus Without Without Trips Plus Project Project Project Project Project Project Table B-2 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Peak Hour Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 10 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On Ramp NBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 7 0 7 9 0 9 NBT 470 4 474 877 11 888 NBR 667 0 667 940 0 940 SBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 91 12 103 276 8 284 SBT 1,490 24 1,514 1,314 16 1,330 SBR 107 8 115 66 5 71 EBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 125 7 132 207 20 227 EBT 418 0 418 535 0 535 EBR 204 0 204 148 0 148 WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEBR 699 0 699 431 0 431 SEHR 32 0 32 16 0 16 North Leg Approach 1,688 0 44 1,732 1,656 0 29 1,685 Departure 594 0 11 605 1,084 0 31 1,115 Total 2,282 0 55 2,337 2,739 0 60 2,799 South Leg Approach 1,144 0 4 1,148 1,826 0 11 1,837 Departure 2,393 0 24 2,417 1,893 0 16 1,909 Total 3,537 0 28 3,565 3,719 0 27 3,746 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 1,176 0 12 1,188 1,751 0 8 1,759 Total 1,176 0 12 1,188 1,751 0 8 1,759 West Leg Approach 746 0 7 753 889 0 20 909 Departure 146 0 8 154 91 0 5 96 Total 892 0 15 907 980 0 25 1,005 Northwest Leg Approach 731 0 0 731 447 0 0 447 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 731 0 0 731 447 0 0 447 Total Approaches Approach 4,309 0 55 4,364 4,818 0 60 4,878 Departure 4,309 0 55 4,364 4,818 0 60 4,878 Total 8,619 0 110 8,729 9,637 0 120 9,757 D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Analysis\OY P 5-Leg TM Santiago 9/12/2019 2-273 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project 1 . Broadway/I-5 SB Off Ramp NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 573 0 573 910 0 910 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 685 0 685 607 0 607 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 929 4 933 934 12 946 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 685 0 0 685 607 0 0 607 Departure 573 0 0 573 910 0 0 910 Total 1,258 0 0 1,258 1,517 0 0 1,517 South Leg Approach 573 0 0 573 910 0 0 910 Departure 1,614 0 4 1,618 1,541 0 12 1,553 Total 2,187 0 4 2,191 2,451 0 12 2,463 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Leg Approach 929 0 4 933 934 0 12 946 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 929 0 4 933 934 0 12 946 Total Approaches Approach 2,187 0 4 2,191 2,451 0 12 2,463 Departure 2,187 0 4 2,191 2,451 0 12 2,463 Total 4,374 0 8 4,382 4,902 0 24 4,926 The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-274 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 2 . Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 393 0 393 730 0 730 NBR 364 3 367 447 8 455 SBL 51 4 55 148 12 160 SBT 1,568 0 1,568 1,393 0 1,393 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 177 0 177 172 0 172 EBT 342 0 342 248 0 248 EBR 206 0 206 72 0 72 WBL 81 8 89 96 5 101 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 6 0 6 15 0 15 North Leg Approach 1,619 0 4 1,623 1,541 0 12 1,553 Departure 576 0 0 576 917 0 0 917 Total 2,195 0 4 2,199 2,458 0 12 2,470 South Leg Approach 757 0 3 760 1,177 0 8 1,185 Departure 1,855 0 8 1,863 1,561 0 5 1,566 Total 2,612 0 11 2,623 2,738 0 13 2,751 East Leg Approach 87 0 8 95 111 0 5 116 Departure 757 0 7 764 843 0 20 863 Total 844 0 15 859 954 0 25 979 West Leg Approach 725 0 0 725 492 0 0 492 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 725 0 0 725 492 0 0 492 Total Approaches Approach 3,188 0 15 3,203 3,321 0 25 3,346 Departure 3,188 0 15 3,203 3,321 0 25 3,346 Total 6,376 0 30 6,406 6,642 0 50 6,692 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-275 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 3 . Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NBL 9 0 9 6 0 6 NBT 648 3 651 1,054 8 1,062 NBR 150 0 150 270 1 271 SBL 224 0 224 148 0 148 SBT 1,552 8 1,560 1,350 5 1,355 SBR 12 0 12 7 0 7 EBL 1 0 1 0 0 0 EBT 4 0 4 1 0 1 EBR 3 0 3 11 0 11 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 1,788 0 8 1,796 1,505 0 5 1,510 Departure 649 0 3 652 1,054 0 8 1,062 Total 2,437 0 11 2,448 2,559 0 13 2,572 South Leg Approach 807 0 3 810 1,330 0 9 1,339 Departure 1,555 0 8 1,563 1,361 0 5 1,366 Total 2,362 0 11 2,373 2,691 0 14 2,705 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 378 0 0 378 419 0 1 420 Total 378 0 0 378 419 0 1 420 West Leg Approach 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 12 Departure 21 0 0 21 13 0 0 13 Total 29 0 0 29 25 0 0 25 Total Approaches Approach 2,603 0 11 2,614 2,847 0 14 2,861 Departure 2,603 0 11 2,614 2,847 0 14 2,861 Total 5,206 0 22 5,228 5,694 0 28 5,722 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-276 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 4 . Main Street/La Veta Avenue NBL 94 2 96 335 1 336 NBT 950 5 955 1,446 3 1,449 NBR 364 9 373 531 6 537 SBL 225 0 225 184 0 184 SBT 1,499 2 1,501 1,080 5 1,085 SBR 158 0 158 258 0 258 EBL 437 0 437 387 0 387 EBT 515 0 515 457 0 457 EBR 263 1 264 219 2 221 WBL 331 4 335 318 13 331 WBT 344 0 344 549 0 549 WBR 226 0 226 302 0 302 North Leg Approach 1,882 0 2 1,884 1,522 0 5 1,527 Departure 1,613 0 5 1,618 2,135 0 3 2,138 Total 3,495 0 7 3,502 3,657 0 8 3,665 South Leg Approach 1,408 0 16 1,424 2,312 0 10 2,322 Departure 2,093 0 7 2,100 1,617 0 20 1,637 Total 3,501 0 23 3,524 3,929 0 30 3,959 East Leg Approach 901 0 4 905 1,169 0 13 1,182 Departure 1,104 0 9 1,113 1,172 0 6 1,178 Total 2,005 0 13 2,018 2,341 0 19 2,360 West Leg Approach 1,215 0 1 1,216 1,063 0 2 1,065 Departure 596 0 2 598 1,142 0 1 1,143 Total 1,811 0 3 1,814 2,205 0 3 2,208 Total Approaches Approach 5,406 0 23 5,429 6,066 0 30 6,096 Departure 5,406 0 23 5,429 6,066 0 30 6,096 Total 10,812 0 46 10,858 12,132 0 60 12,192 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-277 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 5 . Main Street/Town and Country Road NBL 56 0 56 73 0 73 NBT 1,226 16 1,242 1,607 11 1,618 NBR 168 7 175 250 5 255 SBL 318 0 318 545 0 545 SBT 1,519 7 1,526 1,203 20 1,223 SBR 40 0 40 126 0 126 EBL 26 0 26 135 0 135 EBT 74 0 74 165 0 165 EBR 72 0 72 143 0 143 WBL 311 2 313 240 5 245 WBT 72 0 72 113 0 113 WBR 523 0 523 475 0 475 North Leg Approach 1,877 0 7 1,884 1,874 0 20 1,894 Departure 1,775 0 16 1,791 2,217 0 11 2,228 Total 3,652 0 23 3,675 4,091 0 31 4,122 South Leg Approach 1,450 0 23 1,473 1,930 0 16 1,946 Departure 1,902 0 9 1,911 1,586 0 25 1,611 Total 3,352 0 32 3,384 3,516 0 41 3,557 East Leg Approach 906 0 2 908 828 0 5 833 Departure 560 0 7 567 960 0 5 965 Total 1,466 0 9 1,475 1,788 0 10 1,798 West Leg Approach 172 0 0 172 443 0 0 443 Departure 168 0 0 168 312 0 0 312 Total 340 0 0 340 755 0 0 755 Total Approaches Approach 4,405 0 32 4,437 5,075 0 41 5,116 Departure 4,405 0 32 4,437 5,075 0 41 5,116 Total 8,810 0 64 8,874 10,150 0 82 10,232 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-278 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 6 . Main Street/E Memory Lane NBL 37 0 37 129 0 129 NBT 1,130 24 1,154 1,363 15 1,378 NBR 239 6 245 278 4 282 SBL 37 0 37 42 0 42 SBT 1,443 9 1,452 1,264 26 1,290 SBR 310 0 310 210 0 210 EBL 238 0 238 398 0 398 EBT 249 0 249 349 0 349 EBR 68 0 68 154 0 154 WBL 335 2 337 223 5 228 WBT 242 0 242 188 0 188 WBR 30 0 30 84 0 84 North Leg Approach 1,790 0 9 1,799 1,516 0 26 1,542 Departure 1,398 0 24 1,422 1,845 0 15 1,860 Total 3,188 0 33 3,221 3,361 0 41 3,402 South Leg Approach 1,406 0 30 1,436 1,770 0 19 1,789 Departure 1,846 0 11 1,857 1,641 0 31 1,672 Total 3,252 0 41 3,293 3,411 0 50 3,461 East Leg Approach 607 0 2 609 495 0 5 500 Departure 525 0 6 531 669 0 4 673 Total 1,132 0 8 1,140 1,164 0 9 1,173 West Leg Approach 555 0 0 555 901 0 0 901 Departure 589 0 0 589 527 0 0 527 Total 1,144 0 0 1,144 1,428 0 0 1,428 Total Approaches Approach 4,358 0 41 4,399 4,682 0 50 4,732 Departure 4,358 0 41 4,399 4,682 0 50 4,732 Total 8,716 0 82 8,798 9,364 0 100 9,464 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-279 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 7 . Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NBL 21 0 21 28 4 0 32 NBT 1,482 0 1,482 1,731 0 1,731 NBR 0 16 16 0 45 45 SBL 1 10 11 1 30 31 SBT 1,729 0 1,729 1,781 0 1,781 SBR 12 0 12 2 0 2 EBL 2 0 2 9 0 9 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 0 1 24 0 24 WBL 0 44 44 0 29 29 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 30 30 0 19 19 North Leg Approach 1,742 0 10 1,752 1,784 0 30 1,814 Departure 1,484 0 30 1,514 1,740 0 19 1,759 Total 3,226 0 40 3,266 3,525 0 49 3,574 South Leg Approach 1,503 0 16 1,519 1,759 4 45 1,808 Departure 1,730 0 44 1,774 1,805 0 29 1,834 Total 3,233 0 60 3,293 3,564 4 74 3,642 East Leg Approach 0 0 74 74 0 0 48 48 Departure 1 0 26 27 1 0 75 76 Total 1 0 100 101 1 0 123 124 West Leg Approach 3 0 0 3 33 0 0 33 Departure 33 0 0 33 30 4 0 34 Total 36 0 0 36 63 4 0 67 Total Approaches Approach 3,248 0 100 3,348 3,576 4 123 3,703 Departure 3,248 0 100 3,348 3,576 4 123 3,703 Total 6,496 0 200 6,696 7,152 8 246 7,406 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-280 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 8 . Main Street/Discovery Cube Driveway NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 1,502 16 1,518 1,750 -2 45 1,793 NBR 13 2 0 15 3 0 3 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 1,729 44 1,773 1,805 4 29 1,838 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 0 1 9 6 0 15 North Leg Approach 1,729 0 44 1,773 1,805 4 29 1,838 Departure 1,503 0 16 1,519 1,759 4 45 1,808 Total 3,232 0 60 3,292 3,564 8 74 3,646 South Leg Approach 1,515 2 16 1,533 1,753 -2 45 1,796 Departure 1,729 0 44 1,773 1,805 4 29 1,838 Total 3,244 2 60 3,306 3,558 2 74 3,634 East Leg Approach 1 0 0 1 9 6 0 15 Departure 13 2 0 15 3 0 0 3 Total 14 2 0 16 12 6 0 18 West Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approaches Approach 3,245 2 60 3,307 3,567 8 74 3,649 Departure 3,245 2 60 3,307 3,567 8 74 3,649 Total 6,490 4 120 6,614 7,134 16 148 7,298 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-281 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 11 . Main Street/Buffalo Avenue-I-5 SB On Ramp NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 1,196 3 1,199 1,721 10 1,731 NBR 44 0 44 54 0 54 SBL 826 15 841 721 10 731 SBT 1,710 10 1,720 1,266 6 1,272 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 135 0 135 369 1 370 EBT 209 0 209 177 0 177 EBR 27 0 27 49 0 49 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 2,536 0 25 2,561 1,987 0 16 2,003 Departure 1,330 0 3 1,333 2,090 0 11 2,101 Total 3,866 0 28 3,894 4,077 0 27 4,104 South Leg Approach 1,240 0 3 1,243 1,775 0 10 1,785 Departure 1,737 0 10 1,747 1,315 0 6 1,321 Total 2,977 0 13 2,990 3,090 0 16 3,106 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 1,079 0 15 1,094 952 0 10 962 Total 1,079 0 15 1,094 952 0 10 962 West Leg Approach 371 0 0 371 595 0 1 596 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 371 0 0 371 595 0 1 596 Total Approaches Approach 4,146 0 28 4,174 4,357 0 27 4,384 Departure 4,146 0 28 4,174 4,357 0 27 4,384 Total 8,293 0 56 8,349 8,715 0 54 8,769 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-282 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 12 . Main Street/17th Street NBL 221 0 221 240 0 240 NBT 821 1 822 1,194 4 1,198 NBR 201 0 201 225 0 225 SBL 223 2 225 224 1 225 SBT 1,257 4 1,261 896 2 898 SBR 132 4 136 173 2 175 EBL 168 1 169 223 4 227 EBT 1,486 0 1,486 1,306 0 1,306 EBR 90 0 90 70 0 70 WBL 381 0 381 224 0 224 WBT 1,482 0 1,482 1,211 0 1,211 WBR 39 1 40 83 2 85 North Leg Approach 1,612 0 10 1,622 1,293 0 5 1,298 Departure 1,028 0 3 1,031 1,500 0 10 1,510 Total 2,640 0 13 2,653 2,793 0 15 2,808 South Leg Approach 1,243 0 1 1,244 1,659 0 4 1,663 Departure 1,728 0 4 1,732 1,190 0 2 1,192 Total 2,971 0 5 2,976 2,849 0 6 2,855 East Leg Approach 1,902 0 1 1,903 1,518 0 2 1,520 Departure 1,910 0 2 1,912 1,755 0 1 1,756 Total 3,812 0 3 3,815 3,273 0 3 3,276 West Leg Approach 1,744 0 1 1,745 1,599 0 4 1,603 Departure 1,835 0 4 1,839 1,624 0 2 1,626 Total 3,579 0 5 3,584 3,223 0 6 3,229 Total Approaches Approach 6,501 0 13 6,514 6,069 0 15 6,084 Departure 6,501 0 13 6,514 6,069 0 15 6,084 Total 13,002 0 26 13,028 12,138 0 30 12,168 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-283 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 13 . Project Driveway 2-Bush Street/Edgewood Road NBL 64 0 64 94 0 94 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 0 1 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 4 -4 0 0 EBL 2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 107 0 107 128 1 0 129 EBR 74 0 74 64 1 0 65 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 200 0 200 156 0 156 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 6 -6 0 0 Departure 2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 -2 0 0 6 -6 0 0 South Leg Approach 65 0 0 65 94 0 0 94 Departure 74 0 0 74 65 0 0 65 Total 139 0 0 139 159 0 0 159 East Leg Approach 200 0 0 200 156 0 0 156 Departure 108 0 0 108 129 0 0 129 Total 308 0 0 308 285 0 0 285 West Leg Approach 183 -2 0 181 192 2 0 194 Departure 264 0 0 264 254 -4 0 250 Total 447 -2 0 445 446 -2 0 444 Total Approaches Approach 448 -2 0 446 448 -4 0 444 Departure 448 -2 0 446 448 -4 0 444 Total 896 -4 0 892 896 -8 0 888 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-284 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 14 . SR-22 WB Ramps/La Veta Avenue NBL 968 0 3 971 461 0 10 471 NBT 0000 0000 NBR 527 0 0 527 224 0 0 224 SBL 0000 0000 SBT 0000 0000 SBR 0000 0000 EBL 0000 0000 EBT 416 0 3 419 669 0 2 671 EBR 308 0 6 314 1,047 0 4 1,051 WBL 437 0 0 437 576 0 0 576 WBT 520 0 1 521 484 0 3 487 WBR 0000 0000 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Leg Approach 1,495 0 3 1,498 685 0 10 695 Departure 745 0 6 751 1,623 0 4 1,627 Total 2,240 0 9 2,249 2,308 0 14 2,322 East Leg Approach 957 0 1 958 1,060 0 3 1,063 Departure 943 0 3 946 893 0 2 895 Total 1,900 0 4 1,904 1,953 0 5 1,958 West Leg Approach 724 0 9 733 1,716 0 6 1,722 Departure 1,488 0 4 1,492 945 0 13 958 Total 2,212 0 13 2,225 2,661 0 19 2,680 Total Approaches Approach 3,176 0 13 3,189 3,461 0 19 3,480 Departure 3,176 0 13 3,189 3,461 0 19 3,480 Total 6,352 0 26 6,378 6,922 0 38 6,960 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-285 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 15 . SR-22 EB Ramps/Town & Country Road NBL 100 0 0 100 247 0 0 247 NBT 189 0 4 193 462 0 2 464 NBR 33 0 0 33 77 0 0 77 SBL 344 0 0 344 289 0 0 289 SBT 340 0 1 341 167 0 2 169 SBR 677 0 1 678 512 0 4 516 EBL 354 0 6 360 650 0 4 654 EBT 146 0 1 147 190 0 1 191 EBR 196 0 0 196 95 0 0 95 WBL 104 0 0 104 68 0 0 68 WBT 133 0 1 134 174 0 2 176 WBR 139 0 0 139 481 0 0 481 North Leg Approach 1,361 0 2 1,363 968 0 6 974 Departure 682 0 10 692 1,593 0 6 1,599 Total 2,043 0 12 2,055 2,561 0 12 2,573 South Leg Approach 322 0 4 326 786 0 2 788 Departure 640 0 1 641 330 0 2 332 Total 962 0 5 967 1,116 0 4 1,120 East Leg Approach 376 0 1 377 723 0 2 725 Departure 523 0 1 524 556 0 1 557 Total 899 0 2 901 1,279 0 3 1,282 West Leg Approach 696 0 7 703 935 0 5 940 Departure 910 0 2 912 933 0 6 939 Total 1,606 0 9 1,615 1,868 0 11 1,879 Total Approaches Approach 2,755 0 14 2,769 3,412 0 15 3,427 Departure 2,755 0 14 2,769 3,412 0 15 3,427 Total 5,510 0 28 5,538 6,824 0 30 6,854 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-286 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 WP Project 2,040 2,040 WP Project 2,040 Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project Volumes Adjust.Trips With Project The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour and Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary 16 . Memory Lane/Lawson Way NBL 1001 9009 NBT 3003 2002 NBR 3003 7007 SBL 18 0 0 18 22 0 0 22 SBT 1001 4004 SBR 358 0 1 359 200 0 2 202 EBL 173 0 4 177 418 0 2 420 EBT 296 0 2 298 355 0 1 356 EBR 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 16 WBL 0000 4004 WBT 315 0 1 316 233 0 2 235 WBR 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 19 North Leg Approach 377 0 1 378 226 0 2 228 Departure 184 0 4 188 439 0 2 441 Total 561 0 5 566 665 0 4 669 South Leg Approach 7 0 0 7 18 0 0 18 Departure 8 0 0 8 24 0 0 24 Total 15 0 0 15 42 0 0 42 East Leg Approach 323 0 1 324 256 0 2 258 Departure 317 0 2 319 384 0 1 385 Total 640 0 3 643 640 0 3 643 West Leg Approach 476 0 6 482 789 0 3 792 Departure 674 0 2 676 442 0 4 446 Total 1,150 0 8 1,158 1,231 0 7 1,238 Total Approaches Approach 1,183 0 8 1,191 1,289 0 7 1,296 Departure 1,183 0 8 1,191 1,289 0 7 1,296 Total 2,366 0 16 2,382 2,578 0 14 2,592 Analysis\2040 P TM Santiago - 9/12/2019 2-287 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 2,040 Project 2,040 2,040 2,040 Project 2,040 Without Without Trips Plus Without Without Trips Plus Project Project Project Project Project Project 9 . Main Street/Edgewood Road-/I-5 Ramps NBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 688 1 10 699 1,232 30 1,262 NBR 98 -1 0 97 128 0 128 SBU 0101 0 00 SBL 71 -1 0 70 118 2 0 120 SBT 1,658 44 1,702 1,687 2 29 1,718 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 160 0 160 134 -2 0 132 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 101 0 101 101 -2 0 99 NWBR 726 5 731 420 15 435 NWHR 24 0 24 11 0 11 North Leg Approach 1,729 0 44 1,773 1,805 4 29 1,838 Departure 1,515 2 15 1,532 1,753 -2 45 1,796 Total 3,244 2 59 3,305 3,558 2 74 3,634 South Leg Approach 786 0 10 796 1,360 0 30 1,390 Departure 1,818 0 44 1,862 1,821 0 29 1,850 Total 2,604 0 54 2,658 3,181 0 59 3,240 East Leg Approach 261 0 0 261 235 -4 0 231 Departure 193 -2 0 191 257 2 0 259 Total 454 -2 0 452 493 -2 0 491 West Leg Approach 0000 0000 Departure 0000 0000 Total 0000 0000 Southeast Leg Approach 750 0 5 755 431 0 15 446 Departure 0000 0000 Total 750 0 5 755 431 0 15 446 Total Approaches Approach 3,526 0 59 3,585 3,831 0 74 3,905 Departure 3,526 0 59 3,585 3,831 0 74 3,905 Total 7,052 0 118 7,170 7,663 0 148 7,811 The Addington Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Accessand Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Analysis\2040 P 5-Leg TM Santiago 2-288 the transportation solutions company... 2,040 2,040 Project 2,040 2,040 2,040 Project 2,040 Without Without Trips Plus Without Without Trips Plus Project Project Project Project Project Project Table B-3 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Accessand Discovery Cube Parking Peak Hour Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 10 . Main Street/Santa Clara Avenue-I-5 NB On Ramp NBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 8 0 8 10 0 10 NBT 605 4 609 1,070 11 1,081 NBR 717 0 717 1,010 0 1,010 SBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 148 12 160 356 8 364 SBT 1,555 24 1,579 1,397 16 1,413 SBR 115 8 123 68 5 73 EBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 181 7 188 290 20 310 EBT 458 0 458 586 0 586 EBR 223 0 223 162 0 162 WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEBR 744 0 744 467 0 467 SEHR 36 0 36 18 0 18 North Leg Approach 1,818 0 44 1,862 1,821 0 29 1,850 Departure 786 0 11 797 1,360 0 31 1,391 Total 2,604 0 55 2,659 3,181 0 60 3,241 South Leg Approach 1,330 0 4 1,334 2,090 0 11 2,101 Departure 2,522 0 24 2,546 2,026 0 16 2,042 Total 3,852 0 28 3,880 4,116 0 27 4,143 East Leg Approach 0000 0000 Departure 1,323 0 12 1,335 1,952 0 8 1,960 Total 1,323 0 12 1,335 1,952 0 8 1,960 West Leg Approach 862 0 7 869 1,038 0 20 1,058 Departure 159 0 8 167 96 0 5 101 Total 1,020 0 15 1,035 1,134 0 25 1,159 Northwest Leg Approach 780 0 0 780 485 0 0 485 Departure 0000 0000 Total 780 0 0 780 485 0 0 485 Total Approaches Approach 4,790 0 55 4,845 5,434 0 60 5,494 Departure 4,790 0 55 4,845 5,434 0 60 5,494 Total 9,580 0 110 9,690 10,868 0 120 10,988 D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\Analysis\2040 P 5-Leg TM Santiago 2-289 the transportation solutions company... Existing Daily Existing 2017 Project Plus Roadway Segment Trips Project 1 Broadway to Main Street 9,344 280 9,624 2 Broadway to Main Street 4,293 8 4,301 3 Town and Country Road to La Veta Street 34,853 370 35,223 4 Memory Lane to Town and Country Road 30,066 499 30,565 5 I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane 31,196 908 32,104 6 I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-Ramp 27,140 756 27,896 7 South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th Street 30,532 198 30,730 8 Main Street to SR-22 Westbound Ramps 24,136 220 24,356 9 Main Street to Lawson Way 18,649 129 18,778 10 Main Street to Lawson Way 9,500 107 9,607 La Veta Avenue Town and Country Road Memory Lane Table B-4 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Roadway Segment Daily Volume Worksheet Santa Clara Avenue Buffalo Avenue Main Street D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\xRoadway LOS\Exist P Santiago Volumes (9/12/2019)2-290 the transportation solutions company... OY Daily OY NP Project With Roadway Segment Trips Project 1 Broadway to Main Street 9,479 280 9,759 2 Broadway to Main Street 4,355 8 4,363 3 Town and Country Road to La Veta Street 39,066 370 39,436 4 Memory Lane to Town and Country Road 32,972 499 33,471 5 I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane 34,976 908 35,884 6 I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-Ramp 31,460 756 32,216 7 South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th Street 33,679 198 33,877 8 Main Street to SR-22 Westbound Ramps 26,222 220 26,442 9 Main Street to Lawson Way 23,294 129 23,423 10 Main Street to Lawson Way 11,794 107 11,901 La Veta Avenue Town and Country Road Memory Lane Table B-5 - Opening Year Cumulative With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Roadway Segment Daily Volume Worksheet Santa Clara Avenue Buffalo Avenue Main Street D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\xRoadway LOS\OY P Santiago Volumes (9/12/2019)2-291 the transportation solutions company... 2040 Daily 2040 NP Project With Roadway Segment Trips Project 1 Broadway to Main Street 10,382 280 10,662 2 Broadway to Main Street 4,770 8 4,778 3 Town and Country Road to La Veta Street 41,530 370 41,900 4 Memory Lane to Town and Country Road 34,935 499 35,434 5 I-5 Northbound Ramps to Memory Lane 35,210 908 36,118 6 I-5 Northbound Ramps to I-5 Southbound On-Ramp 33,033 756 33,789 7 South of I-5 Southbound On-Ramp to 17th Street 35,363 198 35,561 8 Main Street to SR-22 Westbound Ramps 27,533 220 27,753 9 Main Street to Lawson Way 24,459 129 24,588 10 Main Street to Lawson Way 12,384 107 12,491 La Veta Avenue Town and Country Road Memory Lane Table B-6 - Year 2040 With Option E - Main street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Roadway Segment Daily Volume Worksheet Santa Clara Avenue Buffalo Avenue Main Street D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\xRoadway LOS\2040 P Santiago Volumes (9/12/2019)2-292 the transportation solutions company...Interstate 5Northbound17th Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp94412289369802433441020Main Street On-Ramp to SR-22 WB Collector7735 1003 1934476957 1247 140171SouthboundSouth of SR-2272509070Broadway Off-Ramp44719504325896Main Street Off-Ramp35216383429360I-5 Connector7250288390703069I-5 Connector Lane Drop1013312139Main Street On to 17th St Off99338802008111828 82231172SR-22EastboundSR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp5683 3242 10851835149 2798 1117155Town & Country Rd On-Ramp to Grand Off-Ramp78115201114295844 141171077Westbound La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue On-Ramp5442799134536594778051538La Veta Ave On-Ramp to to I-5/SR-57 Collector49424781299275084 1372 164375Table B-7 - Existing With Option E - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Freeway Peak Hour VolumesAM Weaving VolumesPM Weaving VolumesDemand VFFVRFVFRVRR Demand VFFVRFVFRVRRP:\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019\Freeway Final 2\Exist P Santiago Volumes (9/3/2019)2-293 the transportation solutions company...Interstate 5Northbound17th Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp95542139239849133736620Main Street On-Ramp to SR-22 WB Collector7943 1275 1824607402 1854 1426106SouthboundSouth of SR-2276569134Broadway Off-Ramp50439334748946Main Street Off-Ramp41107953802495I-5 Connector7656331591343307I-5 Connector Lane Drop1097112441Main Street On to 17th St Off10901 1002709212231 88421078SR-22EastboundSR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp5903 3346 11741895374 2826818156Town & Country Rd On-Ramp to Grand Off-Ramp81586501091427589 150561094Westbound La Veta Ave Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue On-Ramp5194755146434635577765738La Veta Ave On-Ramp to to I-5/SR-57 Collector44717101478415169 1543 196384Table B-8 - Year 2040 With Option D - Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Access and Discovery Cube Parking Freeway Peak Hour VolumesAM Peak HourPM Peak HourDemand VFFVRFVFRVRR Demand VFFVRFVFRVRRP:\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019\Freeway Final 2\2040 P Santiago Volumes (9/3/2019)2-294 Memorandum: The Addington Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis P:\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\ANALYSIS OFFSET SEPTEMBER 2019\MEMO SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS.DOCX September 3, 2019 the transportation solutions company...ATTACHMENT B: LOS WORKSHEETS 2-295 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Broadway & I-5 SB Off-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 891 0 435 605 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 891 0 435 605 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - Free - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 928 0 453 630 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - - - 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy ------ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 - - 0 Platoon blocked, %- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ------ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 - HCM Lane LOS - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 2-296 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 01000191249 0 1 1351 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 01000191249 0 1 1351 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 01000211373 0 1 1485 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 683 0 555 0 654 0 30 2676 0 2 2656 21 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 5274 0 1781 5225 42 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 01000211373 0 1 968 529 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1863 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 23.4 23.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 23.4 23.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 683 0 555 0 654 0 30 2676 0 2 1730 947 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.56 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 683 0 555 0 654 0 193 2676 0 193 1730 947 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.68 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.7 0.0 0.0 59.9 20.3 20.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.7 0.0 44.3 0.9 1.6 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/ln0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 9.3 10.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.3 0.7 0.0 104.2 21.2 21.9 LnGrp LOS C A C AAAEAAFCC Approach Vol, veh/h 3 0 1394 1498 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 0.0 1.7 21.5 Approach LOS C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.0 7.0 66.0 47.0 5.1 67.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 13.0 61.0 31.0 13.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 3.4 25.4 0.0 2.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 9.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 6th LOS B 2-297 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 1271 12 0 1356 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 1271 12 0 1356 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 1 1382 13 0 1474 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 698 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 328 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 328 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 328 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 2-298 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 196 26 0000976337171418 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 196 26 0000976337171418 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 209 28 0 1038 35 763 1509 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 158 278 38 0 1712 58 1449 4056 0 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.56 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1208 2127 293 0 5241 171 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 190 0 174 0 696 377 763 1509 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1810 0 1818 0 1702 1840 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.3 0.0 11.0 0.0 20.4 20.5 16.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.3 0.0 11.0 0.0 20.4 20.5 16.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.67 0.16 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236 0 237 0 1149 621 1449 4056 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.53 0.37 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 354 0 356 0 1149 621 1449 4056 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh50.7 0.0 50.1 0.0 33.1 33.1 19.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.4 4.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 8.8 9.8 5.9 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.6 0.0 54.4 0.0 35.5 37.5 19.3 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A D D B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 364 1073 2272 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.6 36.2 6.6 Approach LOS E D A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s54.8 45.0 20.2 99.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s42.5 40.5 23.5 87.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s18.6 22.5 14.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 7.0 1.4 18.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0 HCM 6th LOS C 2-299 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 96 67 0 180 0 58 01000 Future Vol, veh/h 2 96 67 0 180 0 58 01000 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 2 116 81 0 217 0 70 01000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.8 8.6 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %98% 1% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 58% 100% 100% Vol Right, %2% 41% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 59 165 180 0 LT Vol 58 2 0 0 Through Vol 0 96 180 0 RT Vol 1 67 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 71 199 217 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.099 0.226 0.26 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.01 4.101 4.314 4.929 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 717 879 835 0 Service Time 3.031 2.115 2.327 2.955 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.226 0.26 0 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.3 8.8 8 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.9 1 0 2-300 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 332 233 266 454 899 479 Future Volume (veh/h) 332 233 266 454 899 479 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 369 0 296 504 999 532 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1455 339 2713 1231 866 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.53 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 369 0 296 504 999 532 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 0.0 12.9 4.1 20.9 18.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 0.0 12.9 4.1 20.9 18.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1455 339 2713 1231 866 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.87 0.19 0.81 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1455 412 2713 1231 866 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh22.0 0.0 31.5 9.8 23.3 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 16.1 0.2 5.9 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.8 0.0 6.9 1.4 9.0 6.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.5 0.0 47.5 9.9 29.2 15.6 LnGrp LOS C D A C B Approach Vol, veh/h 369 A 800 1531 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 23.8 24.5 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.7 27.3 47.0 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.5 19.5 42.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s14.9 6.5 6.1 22.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.0 3.8 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-301 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 304 104 118 65 64 107 25 128 20 348 309 609 Future Volume (veh/h) 304 104 118 65 64 107 25 128 20 348 309 609 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 342 117 133 73 72 120 28 144 22 391 600 516 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 357 208 237 94 746 333 356 620 93 511 536 454 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 799 908 1781 3554 1585 1781 3098 465 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 342 0 250 73 72 120 28 81 85 391 600 516 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1707 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1787 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 0.0 11.4 3.6 1.5 5.8 1.1 3.5 3.6 18.1 25.8 25.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 0.0 11.4 3.6 1.5 5.8 1.1 3.5 3.6 18.1 25.8 25.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 0 445 94 746 333 356 355 357 511 536 454 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.00 0.56 0.78 0.10 0.36 0.08 0.23 0.24 0.77 1.12 1.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 357 0 445 129 746 333 356 355 357 511 536 454 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh40.2 0.0 28.8 42.1 28.7 30.4 29.3 30.2 30.2 29.3 32.1 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.0 5.1 18.3 0.3 3.0 0.4 1.5 1.6 10.5 75.9 84.9 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/ln5.5 0.0 5.2 2.1 0.6 2.5 0.5 1.6 1.7 9.0 22.5 20.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.7 0.0 33.9 60.4 28.9 33.4 29.7 31.7 31.8 39.8 108.0 117.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E CCCCCDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 592 265 194 1507 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.6 39.6 31.4 93.4 Approach LOS E D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.2 28.0 30.3 13.8 23.4 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.5 21.7 25.8 9.3 18.9 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.6 13.4 27.8 10.9 7.8 5.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.1 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-302 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & I-5 NB Ramps/Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL2 SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)6 5 79 129 15 91 77 471 83 64 1275 17 Future Volume (vph)6 5 79 129 15 91 77 471 83 64 1275 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1810 1583 1783 1583 3433 4971 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.85 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1585 1583 1377 1583 3433 4971 1770 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 5 86 140 16 99 84 512 90 70 1386 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 74 0 0 85 0000011 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 12 0 156 14 84 602 0 70 1386 7 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 4.0 39.8 7.8 43.6 43.6 Effective Green, g (s)16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 4.0 39.8 7.8 43.6 43.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.33 0.06 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)221 221 192 221 114 1648 115 1847 575 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.12 0.04 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 c0.11 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.81 0.06 0.74 0.37 0.61 0.75 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 44.7 44.7 50.1 44.8 57.5 30.5 54.6 33.4 24.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.13 0.67 0.59 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 22.4 0.1 21.1 0.6 7.9 2.6 0.0 Delay (s)44.8 44.8 72.4 44.9 81.9 35.0 44.5 22.4 24.5 Level of Service D D E D F C D C C Approach Delay (s)44.8 61.7 40.7 23.5 Approach LOS D E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-303 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & I-5 NB Ramps/Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 714 22 Future Volume (vph) 714 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)2787 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 776 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 800 0 Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 9 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 37.6 Effective Green, g (s) 37.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 Clearance Time (s)4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 873 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 Delay (s) 53.8 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 2-304 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 127 396 201 7 504 584 58 1320 105 591 32 Future Volume (vph) 127 396 201 7 504 584 58 1320 105 591 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3219 3433 5085 1583 3433 5029 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3219 3433 5085 1583 3433 5029 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 135 421 214 7 536 621 62 1404 112 629 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 0 402 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 604 0 7 536 219 62 1516 0 663 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 24.3 1.0 40.2 40.2 6.8 46.0 30.7 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 24.3 1.0 40.2 40.2 6.8 46.0 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.38 0.26 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 651 28 1703 530 194 1927 713 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.19 0.00 0.11 0.02 c0.30 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.93 0.25 0.31 0.41 0.32 0.79 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 41.3 47.0 59.1 29.7 30.8 54.4 32.7 43.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.53 0.43 4.12 0.49 0.23 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 19.5 3.9 0.4 2.0 0.7 2.3 18.4 Delay (s)42.0 66.5 94.4 13.3 128.9 27.1 10.0 62.0 Level of Service D E F B F C B E Approach Delay (s)62.6 75.5 10.7 Approach LOS E E B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-305 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Broadway & I-5 SB Off-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 835 0 778 569 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 835 0 778 569 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - Free - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 870 0 810 593 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - - - 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy ------ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 - - 0 Platoon blocked, %- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ------ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 - HCM Lane LOS - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 2-306 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 0 0 0 25 1227 0 1 1534 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 0 0 0 25 1227 0 1 1534 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 23 0 0 0 27 1319 0 1 1649 2 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 678 0 550 0 649 0 35 2691 0 2 2677 3 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 5274 0 1781 5267 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 0 23 0 0 0 27 1319 0 1 1066 585 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1869 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 26.9 26.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 26.9 26.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 678 0 550 0 649 0 35 2691 0 2 1730 950 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.49 0.00 0.51 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 678 0 550 0 649 0 193 2691 0 193 1730 950 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.7 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.4 0.0 0.0 59.9 21.1 21.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.6 0.0 96.6 1.1 2.0 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/ln0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 10.7 12.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.8 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.8 0.6 0.0 156.5 22.2 23.1 LnGrp LOS C A C A A A F A A F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 32 0 1346 1652 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 0.0 2.4 22.6 Approach LOS C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.6 7.4 66.0 46.6 5.1 68.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 13.0 61.0 31.0 13.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 3.8 28.9 0.0 2.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 14.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.6 HCM 6th LOS B 2-307 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 9 1243 3 0 1555 Future Vol, veh/h 0 9 1243 3 0 1555 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 10 1351 3 0 1690 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 677 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 339 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 339 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.9 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 339 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.029 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 2-308 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 291 167 46 00001398 38 679 1103 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 291 167 46 00001398 38 679 1103 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 310 178 49 0 1487 40 722 1173 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 351 278 77 0 1896 51 1105 3718 0 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.64 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1412 389 0 5280 138 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 310 0 227 0 990 537 722 1173 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1800 0 1702 1846 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.3 0.0 13.9 0.0 31.0 31.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.3 0.0 13.9 0.0 31.0 31.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.07 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 351 0 354 0 1262 684 1105 3718 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.65 0.32 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 0 401 0 1262 684 1105 3718 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh46.9 0.0 44.3 0.0 33.5 33.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 4.9 8.8 1.0 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln10.8 0.0 6.5 0.0 13.5 15.4 4.4 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.7 0.0 47.1 0.0 38.4 42.3 18.5 0.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A D D B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 537 1527 1895 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.9 39.8 7.1 Approach LOS E D A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s42.9 49.0 28.1 91.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s35.3 44.5 26.7 84.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s17.5 33.0 22.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 7.5 1.3 12.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 6th LOS C 2-309 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 115 58 0 140 0 85 00114 Future Vol, veh/h 0 115 58 0 140 0 85 00114 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 139 70 0 169 0 102 00115 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.6 8.8 7.6 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 17% Vol Thru, %0% 66% 100% 17% Vol Right, %0% 34% 0% 67% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 85 173 140 6 LT Vol 85 0 0 1 Through Vol 0 115 140 1 RT Vol 0 58 0 4 Lane Flow Rate 102 208 169 7 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.141 0.243 0.207 0.009 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.967 4.196 4.428 4.532 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 723 859 813 789 Service Time 2.993 2.211 2.446 2.563 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 0.242 0.208 0.009 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.6 8.6 7.6 HCM Lane LOS AAAA HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 1 0.8 0 2-310 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 625 946 497 440 415 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 625 946 497 440 415 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 658 0 523 463 437 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1462 570 3383 778 864 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.32 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 658 0 523 463 437 135 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 0.0 22.6 2.7 9.0 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 0.0 22.6 2.7 9.0 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1462 570 3383 778 864 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.92 0.14 0.56 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1462 679 3383 778 864 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh23.4 0.0 26.2 5.0 27.5 9.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 15.8 0.1 2.9 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.4 0.0 11.6 0.8 3.9 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.4 0.0 42.0 5.1 30.4 9.4 LnGrp LOS C D A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 658 A 986 572 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.4 24.7 25.5 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s30.1 27.4 57.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.5 18.0 53.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s24.6 10.4 4.7 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 2.6 3.6 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-311 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 583 103 25 11 146 461 186 438 52 185 107 420 Future Volume (veh/h) 583 103 25 11 146 461 186 438 52 185 107 420 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 614 108 26 12 154 485 196 461 55 195 360 278 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 672 554 133 26 711 317 366 658 78 356 374 317 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.38 0.38 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1457 351 1781 3554 1585 1781 3199 380 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 614 0 134 12 154 485 196 255 261 195 360 278 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1807 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1802 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 0.0 4.5 0.6 3.3 18.0 8.8 12.0 12.1 8.9 17.2 15.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 0.0 4.5 0.6 3.3 18.0 8.8 12.0 12.1 8.9 17.2 15.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 687 26 711 317 366 365 370 356 374 317 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.20 0.47 0.22 1.53 0.54 0.70 0.70 0.55 0.96 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 687 99 711 317 366 365 370 356 374 317 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh35.5 0.0 18.7 44.0 30.1 36.0 31.9 33.2 33.2 32.3 35.7 34.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 0.0 0.1 12.7 0.2 253.9 5.5 10.6 10.7 5.9 38.0 27.2 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/ln8.0 0.0 1.9 0.4 1.4 29.1 4.3 6.1 6.3 4.3 11.6 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.6 0.0 18.8 56.7 30.3 289.9 37.4 43.8 43.9 38.3 73.6 62.1 LnGrp LOS D A B E C F DDDDEE Approach Vol, veh/h 748 651 712 833 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.5 224.2 42.1 61.5 Approach LOS D F D E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 5.8 38.7 22.5 22.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 5.0 30.5 18.0 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.1 2.6 6.5 19.2 17.7 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 89.0 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-312 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & I-5 NB Ramps/Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL2 SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)30 12 73 97 21 91 239 829 103 106 1311 138 Future Volume (vph)30 12 73 97 21 91 239 829 103 106 1311 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1798 1583 1789 1583 3433 5001 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.69 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1292 1583 1369 1583 3433 5001 1770 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 31 12 75 100 22 94 246 855 106 109 1352 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 0 0 82 0000051 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 43 10 0 122 12 246 961 0 109 1352 91 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 13.2 53.2 15.2 55.2 55.2 Effective Green, g (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 13.2 53.2 15.2 55.2 55.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.44 0.13 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)166 204 176 204 377 2217 224 2339 728 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.19 0.06 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.09 0.01 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.05 0.69 0.06 0.65 0.43 0.49 0.58 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 45.8 50.0 45.9 51.2 23.0 48.8 23.8 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.68 0.42 0.17 0.09 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 11.2 0.1 3.5 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.3 Delay (s)47.9 45.9 61.2 46.0 54.8 39.2 21.7 5.0 2.0 Level of Service D D E D D D C A A Approach Delay (s)46.6 54.6 42.3 5.9 Approach LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-313 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & I-5 NB Ramps/Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 296 6 Future Volume (vph) 296 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)2787 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 305 6 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 311 0 Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 9 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 420 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 48.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 Delay (s) 55.6 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 2-314 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 204 485 146 9 967 712 113 1303 65 334 16 Future Volume (vph) 204 485 146 9 967 712 113 1303 65 334 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3271 3433 5085 1583 3433 5049 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3271 3433 5085 1583 3433 5049 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 222 527 159 10 1051 774 123 1416 71 363 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 0 254 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 687 0 10 1051 520 123 1487 0 380 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.2 27.2 1.0 49.9 49.9 6.0 54.9 18.9 Effective Green, g (s) 27.2 27.2 1.0 49.9 49.9 6.0 54.9 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.46 0.16 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 364 741 28 2114 658 171 2309 438 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.21 0.00 0.21 0.04 c0.29 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.93 0.36 0.50 0.79 0.72 0.64 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 45.4 59.2 25.8 30.5 56.2 25.0 49.3 Progression Factor 1.05 1.06 0.53 0.22 0.61 1.21 0.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 13.1 5.1 0.6 6.4 11.8 1.2 16.4 Delay (s)44.4 61.2 36.3 6.2 24.9 80.0 23.3 65.7 Level of Service D E D A C E C E Approach Delay (s)57.5 14.2 27.6 Approach LOS E B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-315 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 44 0 30 19 1249 16 11 1351 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 44 0 30 19 1249 16 11 1351 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 0 1 48 0 33 21 1373 18 12 1485 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 387 0 344 74 0 66 29 2997 39 19 2985 24 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.58 0.58 0.01 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 5194 68 1781 5225 42 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 1 48 0 33 21 900 491 12 968 529 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1702 1858 1781 1702 1863 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 2.6 1.5 19.8 19.8 0.9 22.1 22.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 2.6 1.5 19.8 19.8 0.9 22.1 22.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 387 0 344 74 0 66 29 1964 1072 19 1945 1064 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.50 0.72 0.46 0.46 0.62 0.50 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 344 343 0 305 96 1964 1072 82 1945 1064 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 0.67 0.67 0.67 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.9 0.0 39.9 61.4 0.0 61.0 63.6 15.8 15.8 64.0 16.7 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 5.9 28.2 0.8 1.4 20.0 0.6 1.1 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 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.9 7.6 8.5 0.5 8.5 9.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.9 0.0 39.9 70.7 0.0 66.9 91.8 16.6 17.2 84.0 17.3 17.8 LnGrp LOS D A D E A E F B B F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 3 81 1412 1509 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.9 69.1 17.9 18.0 Approach LOS D E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.2 7.1 79.3 10.4 6.4 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 3.5 24.1 5.5 2.9 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.2 0.0 13.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4 HCM 6th LOS B 2-316 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 196 26 0000979337321428 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 196 26 0000979337321428 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 125 206 27 0 1031 35 771 1503 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 157 276 37 0 1683 57 1437 4027 0 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.83 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1209 2132 287 0 5240 172 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 187 0 171 0 692 374 771 1503 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1819 0 1702 1839 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 18.7 18.8 7.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 18.7 18.8 7.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.67 0.16 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 0 236 0 1130 610 1437 4027 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.37 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 337 0 339 0 1130 610 1437 4027 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 0.0 46.0 0.0 30.8 30.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.5 4.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 0.0 4.8 0.0 7.9 8.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 0.0 50.3 0.0 33.3 35.4 6.2 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A C D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 358 1066 2274 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.7 34.0 2.2 Approach LOS D C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.2 41.0 18.8 91.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.5 36.5 20.5 80.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 20.8 13.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 6.2 1.2 17.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3 HCM 6th LOS B 2-317 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 96 67 0 180 0 58 01000 Future Vol, veh/h 0 96 67 0 180 0 58 01000 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 116 81 0 217 0 70 01000 Number of Lanes 010010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.8 8.6 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %98% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 59% 100% 100% Vol Right, %2% 41% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 59 163 180 0 LT Vol 58 0 0 0 Through Vol 0 96 180 0 RT Vol 1 67 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 71 196 217 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.099 0.223 0.26 0 Departure Headway (Hd)5.004 4.096 4.311 4.923 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 717 880 835 0 Service Time 3.026 2.109 2.324 2.95 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.223 0.26 0 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.3 8.8 8 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.9 1 0 2-318 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 310 105 118 65 65 107 25 132 20 348 310 610 Future Volume (veh/h) 310 105 118 65 65 107 25 132 20 348 310 610 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 118 133 73 73 120 28 148 22 391 601 516 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 357 209 236 94 746 333 356 622 91 511 536 454 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 803 905 1781 3554 1585 1781 3111 455 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 0 251 73 73 120 28 83 87 391 601 516 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1708 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1789 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 0.0 11.5 3.6 1.5 5.8 1.1 3.5 3.7 18.1 25.8 25.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 0.0 11.5 3.6 1.5 5.8 1.1 3.5 3.7 18.1 25.8 25.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 0 445 94 746 333 356 355 358 511 536 454 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.00 0.56 0.78 0.10 0.36 0.08 0.23 0.24 0.77 1.12 1.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 357 0 445 129 746 333 356 355 358 511 536 454 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.2 0.0 28.8 42.1 28.7 30.4 29.3 30.2 30.3 29.3 32.1 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 40.7 0.0 5.1 18.3 0.3 3.0 0.4 1.5 1.6 10.5 76.5 84.9 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 5.8 0.0 5.2 2.1 0.7 2.5 0.5 1.6 1.7 9.0 22.6 20.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.9 0.0 33.9 60.4 28.9 33.4 29.7 31.8 31.9 39.8 108.6 117.0 LnGrp LOS F A C E CCCCCDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 599 266 198 1508 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.2 39.6 31.5 93.6 Approach LOS E D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 28.0 30.3 13.8 23.4 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 21.7 25.8 9.3 18.9 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 13.5 27.8 11.0 7.8 5.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.7 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 335 239 266 455 902 479 Future Volume (veh/h) 335 239 266 455 902 479 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 372 0 296 506 1002 532 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 1455 339 2713 1231 866 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.53 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 372 0 296 506 1002 532 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 0.0 12.9 4.1 21.0 18.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 0.0 12.9 4.1 21.0 18.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1455 339 2713 1231 866 V/C Ratio(X)0.26 0.87 0.19 0.81 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1455 412 2713 1231 866 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.1 0.0 31.5 9.8 23.3 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 16.1 0.2 6.0 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 6.9 1.4 9.1 6.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.5 0.0 47.5 9.9 29.3 15.6 LnGrp LOS C D A C B Approach Vol, veh/h 372 A 802 1534 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 23.8 24.6 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.7 27.3 47.0 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 19.5 42.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.9 6.5 6.1 23.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.0 3.9 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-320 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL2 SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)6 5 79 129 15 91 77 482 82 64 1319 17 Future Volume (vph)6 5 79 129 15 91 77 482 82 64 1319 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1813 1583 1783 1583 3433 4974 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.86 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 1583 1378 1583 3433 4974 1770 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 6 5 81 133 15 94 79 497 85 66 1360 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 70 0 0 81 0000012 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 11 11 0 148 13 79 582 0 66 1360 6 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 4.0 35.9 7.3 39.2 39.2 Effective Green, g (s)15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 4.0 35.9 7.3 39.2 39.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.33 0.07 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)228 224 195 224 124 1623 117 1812 564 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.12 0.04 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 c0.11 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.76 0.06 0.64 0.36 0.56 0.75 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 40.8 45.4 40.9 52.3 28.3 49.8 31.1 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 15.5 0.1 9.9 0.6 6.1 2.9 0.0 Delay (s)40.9 40.9 60.9 41.0 34.2 8.6 55.9 34.0 22.9 Level of Service D D E D C A E C C Approach Delay (s)40.9 53.2 11.7 34.9 Approach LOS D D B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-321 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 719 22 Future Volume (vph) 719 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)2787 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 741 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 764 0 Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 9 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 841 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 36.9 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 Delay (s) 50.4 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 2-322 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave & Sasnta Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 134 396 201 7 508 584 70 1344 113 591 32 Future Volume (vph) 134 396 201 7 508 584 70 1344 113 591 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3219 3433 5085 1583 3433 5026 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3219 3433 5085 1583 3433 5026 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 141 417 212 7 535 615 74 1415 119 622 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 49 0 0 0 387 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 594 0 7 535 228 74 1534 0 656 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.3 22.3 1.0 36.2 36.2 6.8 42.0 26.7 Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 22.3 1.0 36.2 36.2 6.8 42.0 26.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.38 0.24 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 652 31 1673 520 212 1919 676 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.18 0.00 0.11 0.02 c0.31 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.91 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.35 0.80 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 38.0 42.9 54.1 27.7 28.9 49.5 30.3 41.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.60 4.55 0.48 0.25 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 16.9 3.1 0.4 2.2 0.7 2.6 27.3 Delay (s)38.7 59.8 33.8 17.1 133.8 24.7 10.1 68.5 Level of Service D E C B F C B E Approach Delay (s)56.3 79.2 10.8 Approach LOS E E B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-323 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 29 0 19 29 1227 45 31 1534 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 29 0 19 29 1227 45 31 1534 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 23 31 0 20 31 1319 48 33 1649 2 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 387 0 345 50 0 45 39 2918 106 42 3047 4 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 5057 184 1781 5267 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 0 23 31 0 20 31 888 479 33 1066 585 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1702 1837 1781 1702 1869 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.3 19.4 19.4 2.4 25.0 25.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.3 19.4 19.4 2.4 25.0 25.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 387 0 345 50 0 45 39 1964 1060 42 1969 1081 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.45 0.79 0.45 0.45 0.79 0.54 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 345 343 0 305 96 1964 1060 82 1969 1081 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 0.64 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh40.0 0.0 40.4 62.5 0.0 62.2 63.3 15.7 15.7 63.1 16.8 16.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.4 11.6 0.0 6.8 28.4 0.8 1.4 18.3 0.7 1.2 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/ln0.2 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.3 7.5 8.3 1.3 9.6 10.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.1 0.0 40.8 74.1 0.0 69.0 91.7 16.5 17.1 81.4 17.5 18.1 LnGrp LOS D A D E A E F B B F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 32 51 1398 1684 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.6 72.1 18.4 19.0 Approach LOS D E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.3 7.9 80.2 8.7 8.1 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 4.3 27.0 4.2 4.4 21.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.1 0.0 12.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.8 HCM 6th LOS B 2-324 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 15 1286 3 0 1588 Future Vol, veh/h 0 15 1286 3 0 1588 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 16 1398 3 0 1726 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 701 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 327 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 327 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.6 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 327 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.05 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.6 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - 2-325 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 292 167 46 00001408 38 689 1109 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 292 167 46 00001408 38 689 1109 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 176 48 0 1482 40 725 1167 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 360 286 78 0 1770 48 977 3499 0 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.57 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1415 386 0 5280 138 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 0 224 0 987 535 725 1167 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1801 0 1702 1846 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.3 0.0 9.1 0.0 21.4 21.4 12.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.3 0.0 9.1 0.0 21.4 21.4 12.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 0.00 0.07 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 360 0 364 0 1179 639 977 3499 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.74 0.33 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1179 639 977 3499 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.8 0.0 29.1 0.0 24.1 24.1 15.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 7.2 12.4 2.0 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 9.1 10.8 3.5 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 0.0 31.4 0.0 31.2 36.5 17.2 0.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A C A C D B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 531 1522 1892 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.5 33.1 6.7 Approach LOS D C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s27.1 32.2 20.7 59.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.7 27.7 18.1 52.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s14.6 23.4 15.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 3.3 0.9 10.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3 HCM 6th LOS C 2-326 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 116 59 0 140 0 85 00000 Future Vol, veh/h 0 116 59 0 140 0 85 00000 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 140 71 0 169 0 102 00000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.6 8.8 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 66% 100% 100% Vol Right, %0% 34% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 85 175 140 0 LT Vol 85 0 0 0 Through Vol 0 116 140 0 RT Vol 0 59 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 102 211 169 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.141 0.245 0.207 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.957 4.177 4.413 4.903 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 724 862 815 0 Service Time 2.984 2.194 2.431 2.937 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 0.245 0.207 0 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.5 8.6 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 1 0.8 0 2-327 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 627 950 497 443 425 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 627 950 497 443 425 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 660 0 523 466 447 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1462 570 3383 778 864 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.32 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 660 0 523 466 447 135 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 0.0 22.6 2.7 9.2 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 0.0 22.6 2.7 9.2 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1462 570 3383 778 864 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.92 0.14 0.57 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1462 679 3383 778 864 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh23.4 0.0 26.2 5.0 27.6 9.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 15.8 0.1 3.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.4 0.0 11.6 0.8 4.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.4 0.0 42.0 5.1 30.7 9.4 LnGrp LOS C D A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 660 A 989 582 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.4 24.6 25.7 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s30.1 27.4 57.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.5 18.0 53.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s24.6 10.5 4.7 11.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 2.6 3.6 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-328 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 587 104 25 11 148 461 186 440 52 185 109 424 Future Volume (veh/h) 587 104 25 11 148 461 186 440 52 185 109 424 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 618 109 26 12 156 485 196 463 55 195 363 280 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 672 555 132 26 711 317 366 658 78 356 374 317 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.38 0.38 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1460 348 1781 3554 1585 1781 3201 379 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 618 0 135 12 156 485 196 256 262 195 363 280 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1808 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1802 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 0.0 4.5 0.6 3.3 18.0 8.8 12.0 12.2 8.9 17.3 15.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 0.0 4.5 0.6 3.3 18.0 8.8 12.0 12.2 8.9 17.3 15.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 687 26 711 317 366 365 370 356 374 317 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.20 0.47 0.22 1.53 0.54 0.70 0.71 0.55 0.97 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 687 99 711 317 366 365 370 356 374 317 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh35.6 0.0 18.7 44.0 30.1 36.0 31.9 33.2 33.2 32.3 35.7 35.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.9 0.0 0.1 12.7 0.2 253.9 5.5 10.7 10.8 5.9 39.7 28.0 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/ln8.2 0.0 1.9 0.4 1.4 29.1 4.3 6.2 6.3 4.3 11.8 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 0.0 18.8 56.7 30.3 289.9 37.4 43.9 44.1 38.3 75.4 63.0 LnGrp LOS D A B E C F DDDDEE Approach Vol, veh/h 753 653 714 838 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.3 223.6 42.2 62.6 Approach LOS D F D E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 5.8 38.7 22.5 22.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 5.0 30.5 18.0 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 2.6 6.5 19.3 17.8 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 89.3 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-329 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL2 SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)30 12 73 95 21 89 239 859 103 108 1342 138 Future Volume (vph)30 12 73 95 21 89 239 859 103 108 1342 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1798 1583 1790 1583 3433 5004 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1399 1583 1370 1583 3433 5004 1770 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 31 12 75 98 22 92 246 886 106 111 1384 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 64 0 0 78 0000092 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 43 11 0 120 14 246 992 0 111 1384 50 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 8.6 30.4 6.1 27.9 27.9 Effective Green, g (s)12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 8.6 30.4 6.1 27.9 27.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.38 0.08 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)213 241 208 241 369 1901 134 1773 552 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.20 0.06 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.09 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.05 0.58 0.06 0.67 0.52 0.83 0.78 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 29.6 28.9 31.5 29.0 34.3 19.2 36.4 23.3 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 3.8 0.1 3.8 0.9 32.5 3.5 0.3 Delay (s)30.1 29.0 35.3 29.1 23.2 13.6 68.9 26.8 17.8 Level of Service C C D C C B E C B Approach Delay (s)29.4 32.6 15.5 28.9 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-330 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 311 6 Future Volume (vph) 311 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)2787 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 321 6 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 0 Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 9 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 Clearance Time (s)4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 463 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 31.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 Delay (s) 36.4 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 2-331 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 224 485 146 9 978 712 121 1319 70 334 16 Future Volume (vph) 224 485 146 9 978 712 121 1319 70 334 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3271 3433 5085 1583 3433 5047 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3271 3433 5085 1583 3433 5047 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 236 511 154 9 1029 749 127 1388 74 352 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 0 262 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 658 0 9 1029 487 127 1462 0 369 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.2 28.2 4.1 31.3 11.7 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.2 28.2 4.1 31.3 11.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.39 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 735 42 1792 558 175 1974 407 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.20 0.00 0.20 0.04 c0.29 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.90 0.21 0.57 0.87 0.73 0.74 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 30.1 39.1 21.0 24.2 37.4 20.9 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.36 1.00 0.47 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 13.4 1.5 0.8 10.7 9.9 1.8 23.2 Delay (s)30.1 43.5 37.3 18.6 43.8 47.3 11.6 56.8 Level of Service C D D B D D B E Approach Delay (s)40.3 29.3 14.5 Approach LOS D C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-332 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Broadway & I-5 SB Off-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 914 0 442 614 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 914 0 442 614 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - Free - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 952 0 460 640 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - - - 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy ------ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 - - 0 Platoon blocked, %- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ------ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 - HCM Lane LOS - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 2-333 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 01000191260 0 1 1595 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 01000191260 0 1 1595 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 01000211385 0 1 1753 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 683 0 555 0 654 0 30 2676 0 2 2660 18 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 5274 0 1781 5232 36 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 01000211385 0 1 1140 625 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1864 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 21.3 0.0 0.1 29.7 29.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 21.3 0.0 0.1 29.7 29.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 683 0 555 0 654 0 30 2676 0 2 1730 947 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.66 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 683 0 555 0 654 0 193 2676 0 193 1730 947 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.7 18.7 0.0 59.9 21.8 21.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.7 0.0 82.7 1.1 2.0 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/ln0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 8.4 0.0 0.1 11.8 13.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.5 19.4 0.0 142.6 22.9 23.8 LnGrp LOS C A C A A A F B A F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 3 0 1406 1766 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 0.0 20.3 23.3 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.0 7.0 66.0 47.0 5.1 67.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 13.0 61.0 31.0 13.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 3.4 31.7 0.0 2.1 23.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 13.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.0 HCM 6th LOS C 2-334 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 1282 12 0 1600 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 1282 12 0 1600 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 1 1393 13 0 1739 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 703 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 326 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 326 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.1 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 326 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 2-335 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 199 26 00001024 42 787 1629 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 199 26 00001024 42 787 1629 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 129 212 28 0 1089 45 837 1733 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 159 280 38 0 1715 71 1399 4016 0 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.81 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1210 2129 289 0 5198 208 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 193 0 176 0 737 397 837 1733 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1810 0 1818 0 1702 1833 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 10.2 0.0 20.0 20.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 0.0 10.2 0.0 20.0 20.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.67 0.16 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 0 239 0 1160 625 1399 4016 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.63 0.64 0.60 0.43 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 321 0 322 0 1160 625 1399 4016 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh46.4 0.0 45.9 0.0 30.5 30.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.7 4.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 8.5 9.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.1 0.0 51.7 0.0 33.1 35.4 7.4 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A C D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 369 1134 2570 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.5 33.9 2.5 Approach LOS D C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s49.0 42.0 19.0 91.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s39.5 37.5 19.5 81.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.8 22.1 13.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 6.8 1.1 24.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.0 HCM 6th LOS B 2-336 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 101 68 0 192 0 59 01000 Future Vol, veh/h 2 101 68 0 192 0 59 01000 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 2 122 82 0 231 0 71 01000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 9 8.7 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %98% 1% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 59% 100% 100% Vol Right, %2% 40% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 60 171 192 0 LT Vol 59 2 0 0 Through Vol 0 101 192 0 RT Vol 1 68 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 72 206 231 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.102 0.236 0.278 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.057 4.127 4.328 4.98 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 710 871 833 0 Service Time 3.081 2.141 2.342 3.011 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 0.237 0.277 0 HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.4 9 8 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.9 1.1 0 2-337 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 293 416 480 922 475 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 293 416 480 922 475 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 402 0 462 533 1024 528 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1195 496 2904 1102 947 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.28 0.57 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 402 0 462 533 1024 528 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 0.0 20.2 4.0 23.0 16.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 0.0 20.2 4.0 23.0 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1195 496 2904 1102 947 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.93 0.18 0.93 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1195 501 2904 1102 947 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.5 0.0 28.1 8.3 26.4 9.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 24.3 0.1 14.7 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.1 0.0 11.5 1.4 11.2 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.2 0.0 52.4 8.4 41.1 12.1 LnGrp LOS C D A D B Approach Vol, veh/h 402 A 995 1552 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.2 28.9 31.2 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s26.8 23.2 50.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s22.5 18.5 45.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s22.2 7.2 6.0 25.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.0 4.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-338 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 337 132 170 99 127 132 95 180 28 328 301 645 Future Volume (veh/h) 337 132 170 99 127 132 95 180 28 328 301 645 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 379 148 191 111 143 148 107 202 31 369 628 532 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 365 186 240 137 790 352 356 619 94 485 509 431 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 741 957 1781 3554 1585 1781 3095 468 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 379 0 339 111 143 148 107 115 118 369 628 532 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1698 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1786 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 16.8 5.5 2.9 7.2 4.6 5.0 5.1 17.1 24.5 24.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 16.8 5.5 2.9 7.2 4.6 5.0 5.1 17.1 24.5 24.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 365 0 426 137 790 352 356 355 357 485 509 431 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.00 0.79 0.81 0.18 0.42 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.76 1.23 1.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 0 426 137 790 352 356 355 357 485 509 431 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh40.3 0.0 31.5 40.9 28.4 30.0 30.6 30.8 30.8 30.1 32.8 32.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 57.6 0.0 14.2 29.9 0.5 3.7 2.2 2.4 2.5 10.7 121.2 123.6 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/ln6.9 0.0 8.4 3.5 1.3 3.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 8.6 27.9 23.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 97.9 0.0 45.7 70.8 28.9 33.7 32.8 33.2 33.3 40.8 154.0 156.3 LnGrp LOS F A D E CCCCCDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 718 402 340 1529 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.2 42.2 33.1 127.5 Approach LOS E D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.4 27.1 29.0 14.0 24.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.9 22.6 24.5 9.5 20.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.5 18.8 26.5 11.5 9.2 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 92.2 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-339 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 155 94 499 93 68 0 1533 0 698 22 Future Volume (vph) 155 94 499 93 68 0 1533 0 698 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 4965 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 4965 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 102 542 101 74 0 1666 0 759 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 88 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 14 643 0 74 0 1666 0 783 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 32169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 34.9 7.7 47.1 34.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 34.9 7.7 47.1 34.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.07 0.43 0.31 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 215 1575 123 2177 871 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.04 c0.33 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.06 0.41 0.60 0.77 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 45.3 41.4 29.5 49.7 26.7 36.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 0.1 0.8 8.0 2.6 12.0 Delay (s)53.8 41.5 13.1 57.7 29.4 48.1 Level of Service D D B E C D Approach Delay (s) 49.2 13.1 30.6 48.1 Approach LOS D B C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-340 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 125 418 204 7 470 667 91 1490 107 699 32 Future Volume (vph) 125 418 204 7 470 667 91 1490 107 699 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3224 3433 5085 1583 3433 5034 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3224 3433 5085 1583 3433 5034 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 133 445 217 7 500 710 97 1585 114 744 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 0 423 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 629 0 7 500 287 97 1699 0 778 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 33.2 33.2 8.8 41.0 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 33.2 33.2 8.8 41.0 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.37 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 300 600 31 1534 477 274 1876 747 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.20 0.00 0.10 0.03 c0.34 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.40 1.05 0.23 0.33 0.60 0.35 0.91 1.04 Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 44.8 54.1 29.7 32.8 47.9 32.7 40.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.46 3.17 0.61 0.40 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 49.8 2.9 0.5 4.4 0.5 5.3 44.2 Delay (s)40.2 94.6 39.5 14.1 108.2 29.9 18.4 84.5 Level of Service D F D B F C B F Approach Delay (s)86.4 69.1 19.0 Approach LOS F E B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-341 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Broadway & I-5 SB Off-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 890 0 789 578 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 890 0 789 578 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - Free - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 927 0 822 602 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - - - 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy ------ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 - - 0 Platoon blocked, %- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ------ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 - HCM Lane LOS - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 2-342 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 0 0 0 25 1444 0 1 1621 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 0 0 0 25 1444 0 1 1621 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 23 0 0 0 27 1553 0 1 1743 2 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 678 0 550 0 649 0 35 2691 0 2 2678 3 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 5274 0 1781 5267 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 0 23 0 0 0 27 1553 0 1 1126 619 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1869 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 24.8 0.0 0.1 29.2 29.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 24.8 0.0 0.1 29.2 29.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 678 0 550 0 649 0 35 2691 0 2 1730 950 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.58 0.00 0.51 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 678 0 550 0 649 0 193 2691 0 193 1730 950 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.52 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.7 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.5 19.3 0.0 59.9 21.7 21.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.9 0.0 80.3 1.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 9.8 0.0 0.1 11.6 13.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.8 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 20.2 0.0 140.2 22.7 23.5 LnGrp LOS C A C A A A F C A F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 32 0 1580 1746 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 0.0 21.3 23.0 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.6 7.4 66.0 46.6 5.1 68.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 13.0 61.0 31.0 13.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 3.8 31.2 0.0 2.1 26.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3 HCM 6th LOS C 2-343 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 9 1460 3 0 1643 Future Vol, veh/h 0 9 1460 3 0 1643 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 10 1587 3 0 1786 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 795 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 284 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 284 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.1 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 284 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.034 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 18.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 2-344 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 295 169 47 00001532 51 670 1205 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 295 169 47 00001532 51 670 1205 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 314 180 50 0 1630 54 713 1282 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 366 289 80 0 1897 63 871 3483 0 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.25 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1409 391 0 5244 168 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 314 0 230 0 1093 591 713 1282 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1800 0 1702 1840 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.6 0.0 9.3 0.0 23.7 23.7 15.6 8.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 0.0 9.3 0.0 23.7 23.7 15.6 8.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 366 0 370 0 1272 688 871 3483 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.37 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1272 688 871 3483 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.7 0.0 29.0 0.0 23.1 23.1 28.2 5.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 7.7 13.2 3.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.2 0.0 4.1 0.0 10.2 12.1 6.6 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 0.0 31.5 0.0 30.8 36.3 31.4 5.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A C A C D C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 544 1684 1995 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.0 32.7 14.8 Approach LOS D C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s24.7 34.4 20.9 59.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.5 29.9 18.1 52.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s17.6 25.7 15.6 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.4 0.8 12.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2 HCM 6th LOS C 2-345 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 120 59 0 145 0 86 00114 Future Vol, veh/h 0 120 59 0 145 0 86 00114 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 145 71 0 175 0 104 00115 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.7 8.9 7.6 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 17% Vol Thru, %0% 67% 100% 17% Vol Right, %0% 33% 0% 67% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 86 179 145 6 LT Vol 86 0 0 1 Through Vol 0 120 145 1 RT Vol 0 59 0 4 Lane Flow Rate 104 216 175 7 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.144 0.252 0.215 0.009 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.995 4.209 4.44 4.562 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 718 854 811 783 Service Time 3.024 2.228 2.46 2.599 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.145 0.253 0.216 0.009 HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.6 8.7 7.6 HCM Lane LOS AAAA HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 1 0.8 0 2-346 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 653 997 526 469 439 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 653 997 526 469 439 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 687 0 554 494 462 224 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1381 598 3383 778 889 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.00 0.34 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 687 0 554 494 462 224 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 0.0 24.0 2.9 9.6 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 0.0 24.0 2.9 9.6 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1381 598 3383 778 889 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.93 0.15 0.59 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1381 679 3383 778 889 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh24.6 0.0 25.6 5.0 27.7 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 17.5 0.1 3.3 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.7 0.0 12.5 0.9 4.2 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.9 0.0 43.1 5.1 31.1 9.7 LnGrp LOS C D A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 687 A 1048 686 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 25.2 24.1 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s31.4 26.1 57.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.5 18.0 53.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s26.0 11.1 4.9 11.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.6 3.9 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-347 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 619 181 90 65 171 458 215 461 73 275 159 488 Future Volume (veh/h) 619 181 90 65 171 458 215 461 73 275 159 488 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 652 191 95 68 180 482 226 485 77 289 427 340 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 672 407 202 88 711 317 366 632 100 356 374 317 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1179 586 1781 3554 1585 1781 3074 486 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 652 0 286 68 180 482 226 279 283 289 427 340 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1765 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1783 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.9 0.0 11.4 3.4 3.8 18.0 10.4 13.3 13.5 13.9 18.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.9 0.0 11.4 3.4 3.8 18.0 10.4 13.3 13.5 13.9 18.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 609 88 711 317 366 365 366 356 374 317 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.00 0.47 0.77 0.25 1.52 0.62 0.76 0.77 0.81 1.14 1.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 609 178 711 317 366 365 366 356 374 317 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.0 0.0 23.0 42.3 30.3 36.0 32.5 33.7 33.8 34.4 36.0 36.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.4 0.0 0.6 13.4 0.2 249.8 7.6 14.1 14.5 17.9 90.9 71.2 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/ln9.5 0.0 4.7 1.8 1.6 28.8 5.2 7.1 7.2 7.7 17.4 13.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.4 0.0 23.6 55.7 30.5 285.8 40.1 47.8 48.3 52.3 126.9 107.2 LnGrp LOS E A C E C F DDDDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 938 730 788 1056 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 201.4 45.8 100.1 Approach LOS D F D F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 8.9 35.6 22.5 22.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 9.0 26.5 18.0 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 5.4 13.4 20.0 18.9 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 95.9 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-348 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 123 95 963 120 111 0 1533 0 400 10 Future Volume (vph) 123 95 963 120 111 0 1533 0 400 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 5001 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 5001 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 98 993 124 114 0 1580 0 412 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 86 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 12 1117 0 114 0 1580 0 422 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 32169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 29.6 6.0 40.1 16.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 29.6 6.0 40.1 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.37 0.08 0.50 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 191 1850 132 2548 581 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.06 c0.31 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.60 0.86 0.62 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 31.1 20.4 36.6 14.4 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.1 1.2 40.4 1.1 4.5 Delay (s)37.6 31.3 19.9 77.0 15.6 34.0 Level of Service D C B E B C Approach Delay (s) 34.9 19.9 19.7 34.0 Approach LOS C B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-349 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 207 535 148 9 877 940 276 1314 66 431 16 Future Volume (vph) 207 535 148 9 877 940 276 1314 66 431 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5049 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5049 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 225 582 161 10 953 1022 300 1428 72 468 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 261 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 738 0 10 953 761 300 1500 0 485 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 26.9 26.9 5.0 30.9 12.1 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 26.9 26.9 5.0 30.9 12.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.39 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 737 42 1709 532 214 1950 421 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.23 0.00 0.19 c0.09 0.30 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.48 v/c Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.24 0.56 1.43 1.40 0.77 1.15 Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 31.0 39.1 21.7 26.6 37.5 21.4 34.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.82 1.25 1.16 0.48 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 33.5 1.7 0.7 200.0 202.8 2.5 92.4 Delay (s)29.3 64.5 36.1 18.5 233.1 246.1 12.8 126.3 Level of Service C E D B F F B F Approach Delay (s)57.2 129.1 51.7 Approach LOS E F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 88.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-350 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 44 0 30 19 1260 16 11 1595 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 44 0 30 19 1260 16 11 1595 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 0 1 48 0 33 21 1385 18 12 1753 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 378 0 337 74 0 66 55 2997 39 27 2938 20 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 5195 68 1781 5232 36 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 1 48 0 33 21 908 495 12 1140 625 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1702 1858 1781 1702 1864 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 2.6 1.5 20.0 20.0 0.9 28.7 28.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 2.6 1.5 20.0 20.0 0.9 28.7 28.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 378 0 337 74 0 66 55 1964 1072 27 1912 1047 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.50 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.60 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 378 0 337 343 0 305 96 1964 1072 82 1912 1047 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 0.45 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh40.4 0.0 40.3 61.4 0.0 61.0 61.8 15.9 15.9 63.4 18.8 18.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 5.9 4.3 0.8 1.4 4.9 0.6 1.1 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/ln0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.7 7.7 8.6 0.4 11.1 12.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 0.0 40.4 70.7 0.0 66.9 66.1 16.6 17.3 68.3 19.4 19.9 LnGrp LOS D A D EAEEBBEBB Approach Vol, veh/h 3 81 1424 1777 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.4 69.1 17.6 19.9 Approach LOS D E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.6 9.0 78.0 10.4 7.0 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 3.5 30.7 5.5 2.9 22.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.2 0.0 13.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2 HCM 6th LOS C 2-351 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 1298 14 0 1644 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 1298 14 0 1644 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 1 1411 15 0 1787 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 713 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 321 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 321 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.3 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 321 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.3 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 2-352 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 199 26 00001027 42 802 1639 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 199 26 00001027 42 802 1639 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 209 27 0 1081 44 844 1725 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 157 277 37 0 1670 68 1436 4025 0 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.83 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1211 2134 284 0 5201 205 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 190 0 173 0 731 394 844 1725 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1810 0 1819 0 1702 1834 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.2 0.0 10.1 0.0 20.1 20.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.2 0.0 10.1 0.0 20.1 20.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.67 0.16 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 0 236 0 1130 608 1436 4025 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.59 0.43 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 321 0 323 0 1130 608 1436 4025 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh46.5 0.0 46.0 0.0 31.3 31.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 0.0 5.5 0.0 2.9 5.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.7 0.0 4.9 0.0 8.5 9.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 0.0 51.5 0.0 34.1 36.5 6.3 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A C D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 363 1125 2569 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.3 35.0 2.1 Approach LOS D C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s50.2 41.0 18.8 91.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s40.5 36.5 19.5 81.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s10.9 22.1 13.2 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 6.3 1.1 22.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9 HCM 6th LOS B 2-353 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 101 68 0 192 0 59 01000 Future Vol, veh/h 0 101 68 0 192 0 59 01000 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 122 82 0 231 0 71 01000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 9 8.6 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %98% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 60% 100% 100% Vol Right, %2% 40% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 60 169 192 0 LT Vol 59 0 0 0 Through Vol 0 101 192 0 RT Vol 1 68 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 72 204 231 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.101 0.233 0.278 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.051 4.12 4.323 4.974 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 711 874 833 0 Service Time 3.076 2.134 2.337 3.004 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 0.233 0.277 0 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.4 9 8 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.9 1.1 0 2-354 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 343 133 170 99 128 132 95 184 28 328 302 646 Future Volume (veh/h) 343 133 170 99 128 132 95 184 28 328 302 646 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 385 149 191 111 144 148 107 207 31 369 629 532 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 365 187 240 137 790 352 356 621 92 485 509 431 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 744 954 1781 3554 1585 1781 3106 458 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 385 0 340 111 144 148 107 117 121 369 629 532 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1699 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1788 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 16.9 5.5 3.0 7.2 4.6 5.1 5.2 17.1 24.5 24.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 16.9 5.5 3.0 7.2 4.6 5.1 5.2 17.1 24.5 24.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 365 0 427 137 790 352 356 355 358 485 509 431 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.00 0.80 0.81 0.18 0.42 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.76 1.24 1.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 0 427 137 790 352 356 355 358 485 509 431 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 0.0 31.6 40.9 28.4 30.0 30.6 30.8 30.9 30.1 32.8 32.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 62.5 0.0 14.3 29.9 0.5 3.7 2.2 2.5 2.5 10.7 122.0 123.6 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 7.1 0.0 8.4 3.5 1.3 3.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 8.6 28.0 23.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 102.7 0.0 45.9 70.8 28.9 33.7 32.8 33.3 33.4 40.8 154.8 156.3 LnGrp LOS F A D E CCCCCDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 725 403 345 1530 Approach Delay, s/veh 76.1 42.2 33.2 127.8 Approach LOS E D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 27.1 29.0 14.0 24.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.9 22.6 24.5 9.5 20.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 18.9 26.5 11.5 9.2 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 93.0 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-355 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 365 299 416 481 925 475 Future Volume (veh/h) 365 299 416 481 925 475 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 406 0 462 534 1028 528 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 1195 496 2904 1102 947 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.28 0.57 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 406 0 462 534 1028 528 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 0.0 20.2 4.0 23.1 16.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 0.0 20.2 4.0 23.1 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1195 496 2904 1102 947 V/C Ratio(X)0.34 0.93 0.18 0.93 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1195 501 2904 1102 947 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 0.0 28.1 8.3 26.4 9.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 24.3 0.1 15.2 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 11.5 1.4 11.3 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.3 0.0 52.4 8.4 41.6 12.1 LnGrp LOS C D A D B Approach Vol, veh/h 406 A 996 1556 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 28.8 31.6 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.8 23.2 50.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 18.5 45.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.2 7.3 6.0 25.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.0 4.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-356 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 155 94 510 92 68 0 1577 0 703 22 Future Volume (vph) 155 94 510 92 68 0 1577 0 703 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 4969 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 4969 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 102 554 100 74 0 1714 0 764 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 88 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 14 654 0 74 0 1714 0 788 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 82169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 35.2 7.5 47.2 34.3 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 35.2 7.5 47.2 34.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.07 0.43 0.31 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 215 1590 120 2181 869 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.04 c0.34 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.06 0.41 0.62 0.79 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 45.3 41.4 29.3 49.9 27.0 36.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 0.1 0.8 9.1 2.9 12.9 Delay (s)53.8 41.5 10.0 58.9 30.0 49.3 Level of Service D D B E C D Approach Delay (s) 49.2 10.0 31.2 49.3 Approach LOS D B C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-357 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave & Sasnta Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 132 418 204 7 474 667 103 1514 115 699 32 Future Volume (vph) 132 418 204 7 474 667 103 1514 115 699 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3223 3433 5085 1583 3433 5031 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3223 3433 5085 1583 3433 5031 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 139 440 215 7 499 702 108 1594 121 736 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 0 398 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 623 0 7 499 304 108 1715 0 770 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.6 23.6 1.0 30.9 30.9 10.1 40.0 27.4 Effective Green, g (s) 23.6 23.6 1.0 30.9 30.9 10.1 40.0 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.36 0.25 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 345 691 31 1428 444 315 1829 694 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.19 0.00 0.10 0.03 c0.34 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.90 0.23 0.35 0.69 0.34 0.94 1.11 Uniform Delay, d1 36.8 42.1 54.1 31.5 35.2 46.8 33.8 41.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.74 2.97 0.56 0.32 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 14.9 2.9 0.5 6.7 0.4 7.3 68.3 Delay (s)37.4 57.0 26.3 24.0 111.3 26.4 18.1 109.6 Level of Service D E C C F C B F Approach Delay (s)53.9 74.7 18.6 Approach LOS D E B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-358 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 29 0 19 29 1444 45 31 1621 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 0 21 29 0 19 29 1444 45 31 1621 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 23 31 0 20 31 1553 48 33 1743 2 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 387 0 345 50 0 45 39 2936 91 42 3047 3 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 5089 157 1781 5267 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 0 23 31 0 20 31 1039 562 33 1126 619 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1702 1842 1781 1702 1869 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.3 24.2 24.2 2.4 27.1 27.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.3 24.2 24.2 2.4 27.1 27.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 387 0 345 50 0 45 39 1964 1063 42 1969 1081 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.45 0.79 0.53 0.53 0.79 0.57 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 345 343 0 305 96 1964 1063 82 1969 1081 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 0.54 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh40.0 0.0 40.4 62.5 0.0 62.2 63.3 16.7 16.7 63.1 17.3 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.4 11.6 0.0 6.8 28.4 1.0 1.9 15.8 0.7 1.2 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/ln0.2 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.3 9.5 10.6 1.3 10.6 11.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.1 0.0 40.8 74.1 0.0 69.0 91.7 17.8 18.6 78.9 17.9 18.5 LnGrp LOS D A D E A E F BBEBB Approach Vol, veh/h 32 51 1632 1778 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.6 72.1 19.5 19.2 Approach LOS D E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.3 7.9 80.2 8.7 8.1 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 4.3 29.1 4.2 4.4 26.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.1 0.0 17.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.3 HCM 6th LOS C 2-359 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 15 1503 3 0 1676 Future Vol, veh/h 0 15 1503 3 0 1676 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 16 1634 3 0 1822 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 819 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 273 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 273 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 273 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.06 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - 2-360 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 296 169 47 00001542 51 680 1211 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 296 169 47 00001542 51 680 1211 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 315 180 50 0 1640 54 723 1288 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 367 290 81 0 1758 58 965 3481 0 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1409 391 0 5246 167 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 0 230 0 1099 595 723 1288 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1800 0 1702 1840 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.6 0.0 9.3 0.0 24.9 25.0 15.3 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 0.0 9.3 0.0 24.9 25.0 15.3 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 367 0 371 0 1179 637 965 3481 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.37 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1179 637 965 3481 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.6 0.0 28.9 0.0 25.3 25.3 26.3 5.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 14.4 22.5 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 11.8 14.2 6.2 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.4 0.0 31.4 0.0 39.6 47.8 27.7 5.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A C A D D C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 545 1694 2011 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.1 42.5 13.5 Approach LOS D D B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s26.8 32.2 21.0 59.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.7 27.7 18.1 52.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s17.3 27.0 15.6 10.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.6 0.8 12.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.5 HCM 6th LOS C 2-361 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 121 60 0 145 0 86 00000 Future Vol, veh/h 0 121 60 0 145 0 86 00000 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 146 72 0 175 0 104 00000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.7 8.9 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 67% 100% 100% Vol Right, %0% 33% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 86 181 145 0 LT Vol 86 0 0 0 Through Vol 0 121 145 0 RT Vol 0 60 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 104 218 175 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.144 0.254 0.215 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.986 4.192 4.425 4.936 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 719 859 812 0 Service Time 3.014 2.21 2.445 2.973 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.145 0.254 0.216 0 HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.6 8.7 8 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 1 0.8 0 2-362 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 655 1001 526 472 449 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 655 1001 526 472 449 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 689 0 554 497 473 224 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1381 598 3383 778 889 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.00 0.34 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 689 0 554 497 473 224 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 0.0 24.0 2.9 9.8 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 0.0 24.0 2.9 9.8 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1381 598 3383 778 889 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.93 0.15 0.61 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1381 679 3383 778 889 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh24.6 0.0 25.6 5.0 27.8 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 17.5 0.1 3.5 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.7 0.0 12.5 0.9 4.3 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.9 0.0 43.1 5.1 31.4 9.7 LnGrp LOS C D A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 689 A 1051 697 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 25.2 24.4 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s31.4 26.1 57.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.5 18.0 53.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s26.0 11.1 4.9 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.6 3.9 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-363 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 623 182 90 65 173 458 215 464 73 275 161 492 Future Volume (veh/h) 623 182 90 65 173 458 215 464 73 275 161 492 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 656 192 95 68 182 482 226 488 77 289 431 344 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 672 408 202 88 711 317 366 632 99 356 374 317 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1181 584 1781 3554 1585 1781 3077 483 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 656 0 287 68 182 482 226 281 284 289 431 344 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1765 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1783 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 0.0 11.4 3.4 3.9 18.0 10.4 13.4 13.6 13.9 18.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 0.0 11.4 3.4 3.9 18.0 10.4 13.4 13.6 13.9 18.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 609 88 711 317 366 365 367 356 374 317 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.00 0.47 0.77 0.26 1.52 0.62 0.77 0.78 0.81 1.15 1.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 609 178 711 317 366 365 367 356 374 317 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.0 0.0 23.0 42.3 30.4 36.0 32.5 33.7 33.8 34.4 36.0 36.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 28.7 0.0 0.6 13.4 0.2 249.8 7.6 14.4 14.8 17.9 94.8 75.2 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/ln9.7 0.0 4.7 1.8 1.7 28.8 5.2 7.1 7.2 7.7 17.9 13.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.8 0.0 23.6 55.7 30.5 285.8 40.1 48.1 48.6 52.3 130.8 111.2 LnGrp LOS E A C E C F DDDDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 943 732 791 1064 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.3 200.9 46.0 103.1 Approach LOS D F D F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 8.9 35.6 22.5 22.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 9.0 26.5 18.0 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 5.4 13.4 20.0 19.0 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 97.0 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-364 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 121 93 993 120 113 0 1564 0 415 10 Future Volume (vph) 121 93 993 120 113 0 1564 0 415 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 5003 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 5003 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 96 1024 124 116 0 1612 0 428 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 84 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 12 1148 0 116 0 1612 0 438 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 32169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 28.2 7.0 39.7 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 9.6 28.2 7.0 39.7 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.09 0.50 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 189 1763 154 2523 599 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.23 0.07 c0.32 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.65 0.75 0.64 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 31.2 21.8 35.7 14.9 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.1 1.6 18.6 1.3 4.6 Delay (s)37.5 31.3 20.7 54.3 16.1 33.8 Level of Service D C C D B C Approach Delay (s) 34.8 20.7 18.7 33.8 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-365 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 227 535 148 9 888 940 284 1330 71 431 16 Future Volume (vph) 227 535 148 9 888 940 284 1330 71 431 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5047 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5047 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 247 582 161 10 965 1022 309 1446 77 468 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 210 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 740 0 10 965 812 309 1523 0 485 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.0 28.0 6.5 33.5 9.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.0 28.0 6.5 33.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.42 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 737 42 1779 554 278 2113 330 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.23 0.00 0.19 c0.09 0.30 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.51 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.24 0.54 1.47 1.11 0.72 1.47 Uniform Delay, d1 27.9 31.0 39.1 20.9 26.0 36.8 19.4 35.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.87 1.23 1.20 0.43 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 34.2 1.4 0.6 214.4 82.6 1.8 227.2 Delay (s)30.9 65.2 38.0 18.8 246.3 126.6 10.1 262.5 Level of Service C E D B F F B F Approach Delay (s)57.5 135.3 29.8 Approach LOS E F C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 96.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-366 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Broadway & I-5 SB Off-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 929 0 573 685 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 929 0 573 685 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - Free - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 978 0 603 721 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - - - 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy ------ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 - - 0 Platoon blocked, %- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ------ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 - HCM Lane LOS - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 2-367 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 01000211482 0 1 1729 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 01000211482 0 1 1729 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 01000221560 0 1 1820 13 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 682 0 554 0 653 0 31 2678 0 2 2659 19 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 5274 0 1781 5230 37 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 01000221560 0 1 1184 649 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1864 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 25.1 0.0 0.1 31.5 31.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 25.1 0.0 0.1 31.5 31.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 682 0 554 0 653 0 31 2678 0 2 1730 947 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.58 0.00 0.51 0.68 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 682 0 554 0 653 0 193 2678 0 193 1730 947 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.7 19.5 0.0 59.9 22.2 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.9 0.0 61.1 0.8 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 9.9 0.0 0.1 12.5 13.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.7 20.5 0.0 121.0 23.1 23.8 LnGrp LOS C A C A A A F C A F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 3 0 1582 1834 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 0.0 21.4 23.4 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.9 7.1 66.0 46.9 5.1 67.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 13.0 61.0 31.0 13.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 3.5 33.5 0.0 2.1 27.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 15.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4 HCM 6th LOS C 2-368 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 1502 13 0 1729 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 1502 13 0 1729 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 1 1581 14 0 1820 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 798 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 282 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 282 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.8 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 282 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.8 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 2-369 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 209 27 00001196 44 826 1710 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 209 27 00001196 44 826 1710 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 142 220 28 0 1259 46 869 1800 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 175 290 38 0 1724 63 1375 3981 0 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.80 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1260 2095 274 0 5225 185 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 204 0 186 0 848 457 869 1800 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1807 0 1821 0 1702 1837 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 24.0 24.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 24.0 24.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 251 0 252 0 1160 626 1375 3981 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.63 0.45 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 337 0 339 0 1160 626 1375 3981 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh46.0 0.0 45.5 0.0 31.8 31.8 7.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.6 0.0 5.6 0.0 4.1 7.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 10.4 11.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.6 0.0 51.1 0.0 35.9 39.2 8.2 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A D D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 390 1305 2669 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.9 37.0 2.7 Approach LOS D D A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s48.3 42.0 19.7 90.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s38.5 37.5 20.5 80.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s13.4 26.0 14.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 6.5 1.2 26.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.6 HCM 6th LOS B 2-370 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 107 74 0 200 0 64 01000 Future Vol, veh/h 2 107 74 0 200 0 64 01000 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 2 113 78 0 211 0 67 01000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.8 8.5 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %98% 1% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 58% 100% 100% Vol Right, %2% 40% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 65 183 200 0 LT Vol 64 2 0 0 Through Vol 0 107 200 0 RT Vol 1 74 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 68 193 211 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.095 0.219 0.252 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.984 4.087 4.313 4.896 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 720 880 838 0 Service Time 3.006 2.1 2.313 2.923 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.094 0.219 0.252 0 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.2 8.8 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.8 1 0 2-371 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 416 308 437 520 968 527 Future Volume (veh/h) 416 308 437 520 968 527 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 438 0 460 547 1019 555 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 1245 479 2904 1102 931 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.27 0.57 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 438 0 460 547 1019 555 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 0.0 20.4 4.1 22.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 20.4 4.1 22.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1245 479 2904 1102 931 V/C Ratio(X)0.35 0.96 0.19 0.93 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1245 479 2904 1102 931 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.0 0.0 28.8 8.3 26.3 10.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 31.2 0.1 14.2 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 12.4 1.4 11.0 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.8 0.0 60.1 8.5 40.5 13.3 LnGrp LOS C E A D B Approach Vol, veh/h 438 A 1007 1574 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.8 32.0 30.9 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 24.0 50.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 19.5 45.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.4 7.7 6.1 24.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 4.3 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-372 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 354 146 196 104 133 139 100 189 33 344 340 677 Future Volume (veh/h) 354 146 196 104 133 139 100 189 33 344 340 677 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 154 206 109 140 146 105 199 35 362 624 536 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, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 365 174 233 137 750 335 356 606 105 505 530 449 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 725 970 1781 3554 1585 1781 3029 524 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 373 0 360 109 140 146 105 115 119 362 624 536 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1696 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1776 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 18.4 5.4 2.9 7.2 4.5 5.0 5.2 16.5 25.5 25.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 18.4 5.4 2.9 7.2 4.5 5.0 5.2 16.5 25.5 25.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 365 0 407 137 750 335 356 355 355 505 530 449 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.88 0.80 0.19 0.44 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.72 1.18 1.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 0 407 137 750 335 356 355 355 505 530 449 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 0.0 33.0 40.9 29.2 30.8 30.6 30.8 30.9 29.0 32.3 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 53.0 0.0 23.4 27.4 0.5 4.1 2.1 2.4 2.5 8.5 98.2 107.2 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 6.7 0.0 10.0 3.4 1.3 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.4 8.0 25.6 22.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 93.2 0.0 56.4 68.2 29.7 34.9 32.7 33.2 33.4 37.5 130.5 139.4 LnGrp LOS F A E E CCCCCDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 733 395 339 1522 Approach Delay, s/veh 75.1 42.3 33.1 111.5 Approach LOS E D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 26.1 30.0 14.0 23.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.9 21.6 25.5 9.5 19.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 20.4 27.5 11.5 9.2 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 84.5 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-373 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 160 101 688 98 71 0 1658 0 726 24 Future Volume (vph) 160 101 688 98 71 0 1658 0 726 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 4990 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 4990 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 106 724 103 75 0 1745 0 764 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 90 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 16 827 0 75 0 1745 0 789 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 32169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 35.2 7.8 47.5 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 35.2 7.8 47.5 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.07 0.43 0.31 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 215 1596 125 2195 861 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.17 0.04 c0.34 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.08 0.52 0.60 0.79 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 45.3 41.4 30.5 49.6 27.0 36.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 0.1 1.1 7.5 3.1 14.2 Delay (s)53.8 41.6 14.0 57.1 30.1 50.9 Level of Service D D B E C D Approach Delay (s) 49.1 14.0 31.2 50.9 Approach LOS D B C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-374 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 181 458 223 8 605 717 148 1555 115 744 36 Future Volume (vph) 181 458 223 8 605 717 148 1555 115 744 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3224 3433 5085 1583 3433 5033 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3224 3433 5085 1583 3433 5033 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 191 482 235 8 637 755 156 1637 121 783 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 0 392 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 690 0 8 637 363 156 1758 0 821 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 34.3 34.3 9.7 43.0 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 34.3 34.3 9.7 43.0 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.09 0.39 0.25 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 300 600 31 1585 493 302 1967 696 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.21 0.00 0.13 0.05 c0.35 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 v/c Ratio 0.57 1.15 0.26 0.40 0.74 0.52 0.89 1.18 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 44.8 54.1 29.8 33.8 47.9 31.4 41.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.46 2.33 0.60 0.38 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 85.9 3.2 0.5 6.9 0.9 4.3 95.2 Delay (s)43.4 130.7 46.8 14.4 85.6 29.8 16.1 136.5 Level of Service D F D B F C B F Approach Delay (s)114.1 53.0 17.2 Approach LOS F D B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 64.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-375 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Broadway & I-5 SB Off-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 883 0 910 607 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 883 0 910 607 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - Free - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 929 0 958 639 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - - - 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy ------ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 0 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 - - 0 Platoon blocked, %- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ------ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 - HCM Lane LOS - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 2-376 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 0 24 0 0 0 28 1731 0 1 1781 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 0 24 0 0 0 28 1731 0 1 1781 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 25 0 0 0 29 1822 0 1 1875 2 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 676 0 548 0 647 0 37 2695 0 2 2678 3 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 5274 0 1781 5268 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 0 25 0 0 0 29 1822 0 1 1212 665 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 0 1870 0 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1869 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 31.4 0.0 0.1 32.6 32.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 31.4 0.0 0.1 32.6 32.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 676 0 548 0 647 0 37 2695 0 2 1730 950 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.68 0.00 0.51 0.70 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 676 0 548 0 647 0 193 2695 0 193 1730 950 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.41 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.8 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.5 20.8 0.0 59.9 22.5 22.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 1.4 0.0 66.4 1.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 12.5 0.0 0.1 12.9 14.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.8 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 22.2 0.0 126.3 23.5 24.3 LnGrp LOS C A C A A A F C A F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 34 0 1851 1878 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.1 0.0 23.2 23.8 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.5 7.5 66.0 46.5 5.1 68.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 13.0 61.0 31.0 13.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 3.9 34.6 0.0 2.1 33.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 16.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6 HCM 6th LOS C 2-377 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 9 1750 3 0 1805 Future Vol, veh/h 0 9 1750 3 0 1805 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 9 1842 3 0 1900 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 923 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 233 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 233 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 21.1 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 233 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.041 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 21.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 2-378 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 369 177 49 00001721 54 721 1266 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 369 177 49 00001721 54 721 1266 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 388 186 52 0 1812 57 759 1333 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 403 318 89 0 1901 60 799 3376 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.46 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1406 393 0 5254 160 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 388 0 238 0 1212 657 759 1333 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1800 0 1702 1842 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.2 0.0 9.4 0.0 27.7 27.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.2 0.0 9.4 0.0 27.7 27.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1272 688 799 3376 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.39 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1272 688 799 3376 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.6 0.0 27.6 0.0 24.4 24.4 21.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 35.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 16.2 24.7 9.6 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln11.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 13.2 16.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.7 0.0 29.7 0.0 40.6 49.1 30.7 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C A D D C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 626 1869 2092 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.0 43.6 11.2 Approach LOS D D B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s23.0 34.4 22.6 57.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.5 29.9 18.1 52.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s18.8 29.8 19.2 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.0 HCM 6th LOS C 2-379 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 128 64 0 156 0 94 00114 Future Vol, veh/h 0 128 64 0 156 0 94 00114 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 135 67 0 164 0 99 00114 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.5 8.7 7.6 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 17% Vol Thru, %0% 67% 100% 17% Vol Right, %0% 33% 0% 67% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 94 192 156 6 LT Vol 94 0 0 1 Through Vol 0 128 156 1 RT Vol 0 64 0 4 Lane Flow Rate 99 202 164 6 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.136 0.234 0.201 0.008 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.94 4.177 4.407 4.5 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 726 861 816 795 Service Time 2.964 2.195 2.425 2.53 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.136 0.235 0.201 0.008 HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.5 8.5 7.6 HCM Lane LOS AAAA HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.9 0.7 0 2-380 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 669 1047 576 484 461 224 Future Volume (veh/h) 669 1047 576 484 461 224 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 704 0 606 509 485 236 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1251 643 3383 778 929 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.00 0.36 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 704 0 606 509 485 236 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 0.0 26.3 3.0 10.1 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 26.3 3.0 10.1 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1251 643 3383 778 929 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.94 0.15 0.62 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1251 679 3383 778 929 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh26.4 0.0 24.7 5.1 27.9 8.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 20.9 0.1 3.8 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.0 0.0 14.1 0.9 4.4 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 0.0 45.7 5.2 31.7 8.7 LnGrp LOS C D A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 704 A 1115 721 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.3 27.2 24.2 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s33.4 24.1 57.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.5 18.0 53.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s28.3 11.7 5.0 12.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.5 4.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-381 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 650 190 95 68 174 481 247 462 77 289 167 512 Future Volume (veh/h) 650 190 95 68 174 481 247 462 77 289 167 512 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 684 200 100 72 183 506 260 486 81 304 448 358 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 672 403 201 93 711 317 366 627 104 356 374 317 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1176 588 1781 3554 1585 1781 3050 506 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 684 0 300 72 183 506 260 282 285 304 448 358 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1764 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1779 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 0.0 12.1 3.6 3.9 18.0 12.2 13.5 13.6 14.8 18.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 0.0 12.1 3.6 3.9 18.0 12.2 13.5 13.6 14.8 18.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 604 93 711 317 366 365 366 356 374 317 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.50 0.77 0.26 1.60 0.71 0.77 0.78 0.85 1.20 1.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 604 182 711 317 366 365 366 356 374 317 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.3 0.0 23.5 42.1 30.4 36.0 33.3 33.8 33.8 34.7 36.0 36.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 39.3 0.0 0.6 12.7 0.2 282.7 11.1 14.6 15.1 22.0 112.1 90.2 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/ln10.9 0.0 5.0 1.9 1.7 31.7 6.3 7.2 7.3 8.4 19.6 14.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.5 0.0 24.1 54.8 30.6 318.7 44.4 48.4 48.9 56.8 148.1 126.2 LnGrp LOS F A C D C F D D D E F F Approach Vol, veh/h 984 761 827 1110 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.9 224.4 47.3 116.0 Approach LOS E F D F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 9.2 35.3 22.5 22.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 9.2 26.3 18.0 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 5.6 14.1 20.0 19.5 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 108.0 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-382 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 134 101 1232 128 118 0 1687 0 420 11 Future Volume (vph) 134 101 1232 128 118 0 1687 0 420 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 5013 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 5013 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 141 106 1297 135 124 0 1776 0 442 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 91 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 15 1432 0 124 0 1776 0 454 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 32169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 11.6 26.4 6.3 37.2 17.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 11.6 26.4 6.3 37.2 17.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.33 0.08 0.47 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 229 1654 139 2364 616 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.29 0.07 c0.35 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.07 0.87 0.89 0.75 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 29.5 25.1 36.5 17.6 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.1 4.8 45.5 2.3 4.6 Delay (s)34.3 29.7 36.1 82.0 19.9 33.6 Level of Service C C D F B C Approach Delay (s) 32.3 36.1 23.9 33.6 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-383 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 277 586 162 10 1082 1010 356 1397 68 467 18 Future Volume (vph) 277 586 162 10 1082 1010 356 1397 68 467 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5050 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5050 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 292 617 171 11 1139 1063 375 1471 72 492 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 207 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 789 0 11 1139 856 375 1543 0 511 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.0 28.0 6.5 33.5 9.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.0 28.0 6.5 33.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.42 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 737 42 1779 554 278 2114 330 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.24 0.00 0.22 c0.11 0.31 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.54 v/c Ratio 0.73 1.07 0.26 0.64 1.54 1.35 0.73 1.55 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 31.0 39.1 21.8 26.0 36.8 19.5 35.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.49 0.84 1.52 0.51 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 53.7 1.2 0.6 248.3 172.4 1.5 261.4 Delay (s)35.8 84.7 27.9 11.3 270.2 228.2 11.5 296.6 Level of Service D F C B F F B F Approach Delay (s)72.8 135.7 53.9 Approach LOS E F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 110.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-384 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 44 0 30 21 1482 16 11 1729 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 44 0 30 21 1482 16 11 1729 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 0 1 46 0 32 22 1560 17 12 1820 13 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 340 0 302 71 0 63 96 3004 33 69 2937 21 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.58 0.58 0.04 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 5207 57 1781 5230 37 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 1 46 0 32 22 1020 557 12 1184 649 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1702 1860 1781 1702 1864 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.0 2.6 1.5 23.5 23.5 0.8 30.4 30.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.0 2.6 1.5 23.5 23.5 0.8 30.4 30.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 340 0 302 71 0 63 96 1964 1073 69 1912 1047 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.50 0.23 0.52 0.52 0.18 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 340 0 302 343 0 305 96 1964 1073 82 1912 1047 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 0.41 0.41 0.41 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh42.6 0.0 42.6 61.5 0.0 60.1 58.9 16.6 16.6 60.5 19.2 19.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 6.1 5.5 1.0 1.8 0.5 0.6 1.1 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/ln0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.8 9.1 10.2 0.4 11.7 13.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.6 0.0 42.6 70.9 0.0 66.2 64.4 17.6 18.4 61.0 19.8 20.3 LnGrp LOS D A D EAEEBBEBC Approach Vol, veh/h 3 78 1599 1845 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 69.0 18.5 20.2 Approach LOS D E B C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.8 12.0 78.0 10.2 10.0 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 3.5 32.4 5.3 2.8 25.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.2 0.0 16.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.6 HCM 6th LOS C 2-385 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 1518 15 0 1773 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 1518 15 0 1773 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 1 1598 16 0 1866 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 807 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 279 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 279 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 279 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 18 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 2-386 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 209 27 00001199 44 841 1720 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 209 27 00001199 44 841 1720 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 142 220 28 0 1262 46 885 1811 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 173 288 38 0 1752 64 1360 3987 0 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.79 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1260 2095 274 0 5225 184 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 204 0 186 0 849 459 885 1811 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1807 0 1821 0 1702 1837 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 0.0 10.8 0.0 23.9 23.9 12.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 0.0 10.8 0.0 23.9 23.9 12.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 248 0 250 0 1179 636 1360 3987 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.65 0.45 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 320 0 323 0 1179 636 1360 3987 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh46.1 0.0 45.6 0.0 31.3 31.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 3.8 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.2 0.0 5.3 0.0 10.2 11.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.4 0.0 52.2 0.0 35.1 38.2 8.7 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A D D A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 390 1308 2696 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.5 36.2 2.9 Approach LOS E D A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s47.8 42.6 19.6 90.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s38.9 38.1 19.5 81.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s14.3 25.9 14.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.5 6.6 1.1 25.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 6th LOS B 2-387 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 107 74 0 200 0 64 01000 Future Vol, veh/h 0 107 74 0 200 0 64 01000 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 113 78 0 211 0 67 01000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.8 8.5 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %98% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 59% 100% 100% Vol Right, %2% 41% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 65 181 200 0 LT Vol 64 0 0 0 Through Vol 0 107 200 0 RT Vol 1 74 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 68 191 211 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.095 0.216 0.252 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.979 4.082 4.31 4.891 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 721 882 838 0 Service Time 3 2.095 2.31 2.917 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.094 0.217 0.252 0 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.2 8.8 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.8 1 0 2-388 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 314 437 521 971 527 Future Volume (veh/h) 419 314 437 521 971 527 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 441 0 460 548 1022 555 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 1245 456 2840 1145 931 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.26 0.56 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 441 0 460 548 1022 555 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 0.0 20.5 4.3 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 20.5 4.3 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1245 456 2840 1145 931 V/C Ratio(X)0.35 1.01 0.19 0.89 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1245 456 2840 1145 931 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.0 0.0 29.8 8.8 25.4 10.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 44.1 0.2 10.7 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 14.0 1.5 10.4 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.8 0.0 73.8 9.0 36.1 13.3 LnGrp LOS C F A D B Approach Vol, veh/h 441 A 1008 1577 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.8 38.6 28.1 Approach LOS C D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 24.0 49.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.5 44.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 7.7 6.3 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 4.3 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-389 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 10/06/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 360 147 196 104 134 139 100 193 33 344 341 678 Future Volume (veh/h) 360 147 196 104 134 139 100 193 33 344 341 678 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 379 155 206 109 141 146 105 203 35 362 625 536 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, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 365 186 247 129 790 352 356 608 103 485 509 431 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 728 968 1781 3554 1585 1781 3039 515 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 379 0 361 109 141 146 105 117 121 362 625 536 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1696 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1778 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 18.1 5.4 2.9 7.1 4.5 5.1 5.2 16.7 24.5 24.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 18.1 5.4 2.9 7.1 4.5 5.1 5.2 16.7 24.5 24.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 365 0 433 129 790 352 356 355 356 485 509 431 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.00 0.83 0.85 0.18 0.41 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.75 1.23 1.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 0 433 129 790 352 356 355 356 485 509 431 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 0.0 31.7 41.3 28.3 30.0 30.6 30.8 30.9 29.9 32.8 32.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 57.6 0.0 16.9 38.0 0.5 3.6 2.1 2.5 2.6 10.0 118.8 127.3 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 6.9 0.0 9.2 3.7 1.3 3.0 2.1 2.4 2.5 8.3 27.5 24.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 97.9 0.0 48.6 79.3 28.8 33.6 32.7 33.3 33.5 40.0 151.6 160.1 LnGrp LOS F A D E CCCCCDFF Approach Vol, veh/h 740 396 343 1523 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.8 44.5 33.2 128.0 Approach LOS E D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 27.5 29.0 14.0 24.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 23.0 24.5 9.5 20.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 20.1 26.5 11.5 9.1 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 92.8 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-390 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 160 101 699 97 71 0 1702 0 731 24 Future Volume (vph) 160 101 699 97 71 0 1702 0 731 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 4992 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 4992 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 106 736 102 75 0 1792 0 769 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 90 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 16 838 0 75 0 1792 0 794 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 82169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 35.2 7.4 47.1 34.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 35.2 7.4 47.1 34.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.07 0.43 0.31 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 215 1597 119 2177 871 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.17 0.04 c0.35 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.08 0.52 0.63 0.82 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 45.3 41.4 30.6 50.0 27.8 36.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 0.1 1.1 10.4 3.7 13.6 Delay (s)53.8 41.6 10.9 60.4 31.5 49.9 Level of Service D D B E C D Approach Delay (s) 49.1 10.9 32.6 49.9 Approach LOS D B C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-391 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave & Sasnta Clara Ave 09/12/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 188 458 223 8 609 717 160 1579 123 744 36 Future Volume (vph) 188 458 223 8 609 717 160 1579 123 744 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3224 3433 5085 1583 3433 5030 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3224 3433 5085 1583 3433 5030 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 198 482 235 8 641 755 168 1662 129 783 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 0 403 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 691 0 8 641 352 168 1791 0 821 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 32.8 32.8 10.2 42.0 28.5 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 32.8 32.8 10.2 42.0 28.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.38 0.26 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 300 600 31 1516 472 318 1920 722 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.21 0.00 0.13 0.05 c0.36 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.59 1.15 0.26 0.42 0.75 0.53 0.93 1.14 Uniform Delay, d1 40.9 44.8 54.1 31.0 34.8 47.6 32.6 40.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.50 2.42 0.59 0.36 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 86.6 3.1 0.6 7.5 0.9 6.2 78.0 Delay (s)44.1 131.3 42.1 16.1 91.8 29.2 18.0 118.8 Level of Service D F D B F C B F Approach Delay (s)114.3 57.0 19.0 Approach LOS F E B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-392 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 0 24 29 0 19 32 1731 45 31 1781 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 0 24 29 0 19 32 1731 45 31 1781 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 25 31 0 20 34 1822 47 33 1875 2 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 387 0 345 50 0 45 43 2953 76 42 3035 3 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 5119 132 1781 5268 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 0 25 31 0 20 34 1211 658 33 1212 665 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1702 1847 1781 1702 1869 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 1.6 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.5 30.4 30.4 2.4 30.5 30.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.6 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.5 30.4 30.4 2.4 30.5 30.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 387 0 345 50 0 45 43 1964 1065 42 1961 1077 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.45 0.78 0.62 0.62 0.79 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 345 343 0 305 96 1964 1065 82 1961 1077 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 0.44 0.44 0.44 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh40.0 0.0 40.4 62.5 0.0 61.2 63.1 18.1 18.1 63.1 18.1 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.4 11.6 0.0 6.8 25.7 1.5 2.7 13.2 0.7 1.2 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/ln0.2 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.4 12.0 13.4 1.2 11.9 13.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.1 0.0 40.9 74.1 0.0 68.0 88.8 19.5 20.8 76.3 18.8 19.3 LnGrp LOS D A D E A E F B C E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 34 51 1903 1910 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.7 71.7 21.2 20.0 Approach LOS D E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.3 8.2 79.9 8.7 8.1 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 4.5 32.5 4.2 4.4 32.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.1 0.0 21.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4 HCM 6th LOS C 2-393 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Main St & Project Driveway 1 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 15 1793 3 0 1838 Future Vol, veh/h 0 15 1793 3 0 1838 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 16 1887 3 0 1935 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 945 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 226 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 226 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 22.1 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 226 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.07 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 22.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - 2-394 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 370 177 49 00001731 54 731 1272 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 370 177 49 00001731 54 731 1272 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 389 186 52 0 1822 57 769 1339 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 022220 Cap, veh/h 403 318 89 0 1761 55 894 3376 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.66 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1406 393 0 5255 159 3456 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 389 0 238 0 1219 660 769 1339 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1800 0 1702 1842 1728 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.3 0.0 9.4 0.0 27.7 27.7 17.0 9.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.3 0.0 9.4 0.0 27.7 27.7 17.0 9.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1179 638 894 3376 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.03 1.04 0.86 0.40 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403 0 407 0 1179 638 894 3376 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.6 0.0 27.6 0.0 26.1 26.2 28.3 6.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 35.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 35.4 45.1 3.1 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln11.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 16.3 19.3 7.1 2.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.3 0.0 29.7 0.0 61.5 71.2 31.4 6.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C A F F C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 627 1879 2108 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.5 64.9 15.5 Approach LOS D E B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s25.2 32.2 22.6 57.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.7 27.7 18.1 52.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s19.0 29.7 19.3 11.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 13.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.6 HCM 6th LOS D 2-395 HCM 6th AWSC 13: Bush St/Driveway 2 & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 129 65 0 156 0 94 00000 Future Vol, veh/h 0 129 65 0 156 0 94 00000 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 136 68 0 164 0 99 00000 Number of Lanes 0 10010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.5 8.7 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 66% 100% 100% Vol Right, %0% 34% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 94 194 156 0 LT Vol 94 0 0 0 Through Vol 0 129 156 0 RT Vol 0 65 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 99 204 164 0 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.136 0.236 0.201 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.933 4.164 4.396 4.873 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 727 864 818 0 Service Time 2.957 2.179 2.413 2.903 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.136 0.236 0.2 0 HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.5 8.5 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A N HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.9 0.7 0 2-396 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 671 1051 576 487 471 224 Future Volume (veh/h) 671 1051 576 487 471 224 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 706 0 606 513 496 236 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222 Cap, veh/h 1251 643 3383 778 929 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.00 0.36 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 706 0 606 513 496 236 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 0.0 26.3 3.0 10.4 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 26.3 3.0 10.4 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1251 643 3383 778 929 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.94 0.15 0.64 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1251 679 3383 778 929 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh26.5 0.0 24.7 5.1 28.1 8.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 20.9 0.1 4.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.0 0.0 14.1 0.9 4.6 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 0.0 45.7 5.2 32.0 8.7 LnGrp LOS C D A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 706 A 1119 732 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.3 27.1 24.5 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s33.4 24.1 57.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.5 18.0 53.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s28.3 11.7 5.0 12.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.5 4.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 2-397 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 654 191 95 68 176 481 247 464 77 289 169 516 Future Volume (veh/h) 654 191 95 68 176 481 247 464 77 289 169 516 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 688 201 100 72 185 506 260 488 81 304 452 360 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 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 672 403 201 93 711 317 366 627 104 356 374 317 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1179 586 1781 3554 1585 1781 3052 504 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 688 0 301 72 185 506 260 283 286 304 452 360 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1765 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1780 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 0.0 12.2 3.6 4.0 18.0 12.2 13.6 13.7 14.8 18.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 0.0 12.2 3.6 4.0 18.0 12.2 13.6 13.7 14.8 18.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 604 93 711 317 366 365 366 356 374 317 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.50 0.77 0.26 1.60 0.71 0.78 0.78 0.85 1.21 1.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 604 182 711 317 366 365 366 356 374 317 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.3 0.0 23.5 42.1 30.4 36.0 33.3 33.8 33.8 34.7 36.0 36.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 40.9 0.0 0.6 12.7 0.2 282.7 11.1 14.8 15.2 22.0 116.3 92.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln11.0 0.0 5.0 1.9 1.7 31.7 6.3 7.2 7.3 8.4 20.1 14.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.2 0.0 24.1 54.8 30.6 318.7 44.4 48.6 49.1 56.8 152.3 128.4 LnGrp LOS F A C D C F D D D E F F Approach Vol, veh/h 989 763 829 1116 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.0 223.9 47.4 118.6 Approach LOS E F D F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 9.2 35.3 22.5 22.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 9.2 26.3 18.0 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.7 5.6 14.2 20.0 19.5 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 109.0 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2-398 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL2 SBL SBT NWL NWR NWR2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 132 99 1262 128 120 0 1718 0 435 11 Future Volume (vph) 132 99 1262 128 120 0 1718 0 435 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1583 5015 1770 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1583 5015 1770 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 139 104 1328 135 126 0 1808 0 458 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 89 00000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 15 1463 0 126 0 1808 0 470 0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 82169 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 11.5 26.1 6.3 36.9 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 11.5 26.1 6.3 36.9 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.33 0.08 0.46 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 254 227 1636 139 2345 630 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.29 0.07 c0.36 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.07 0.89 0.91 0.77 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 29.6 25.6 36.6 18.0 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.1 6.0 48.8 2.5 4.8 Delay (s)34.2 29.7 28.7 85.4 20.5 33.6 Level of Service C C C F C C Approach Delay (s) 32.3 28.7 24.8 33.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-399 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 310 586 162 10 1081 1010 364 1413 73 467 18 Future Volume (vph) 310 586 162 10 1081 1010 364 1413 73 467 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5048 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1610 3278 3433 5085 1583 3433 5048 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 326 617 171 11 1138 1063 383 1487 77 492 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 0 207 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 293 794 0 11 1138 856 383 1564 0 511 0 Turn Type Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6 9 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.0 28.0 6.5 33.5 9.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 1.0 28.0 28.0 6.5 33.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.42 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 737 42 1779 554 278 2113 330 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.24 0.00 0.22 c0.11 0.31 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.54 v/c Ratio 0.81 1.08 0.26 0.64 1.54 1.38 0.74 1.55 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 31.0 39.1 21.8 26.0 36.8 19.6 35.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.87 1.19 1.26 0.35 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.5 55.9 0.3 0.2 245.8 184.2 1.6 261.4 Delay (s)41.9 86.9 37.6 19.1 276.7 230.5 8.5 296.6 Level of Service D F D B F F A F Approach Delay (s)75.1 143.0 52.2 Approach LOS E F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 112.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 2-400 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 2 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Santa Clara Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBT 2.0 3,400 295 0.19 620 0.31 NBR 0.0 P 0 342 0.00 420 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 37 0.02 97 0.06 SBT 2.0 3,400 1,459 0.43 * 1,307 0.38 * SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 134 0.00 144 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 321 0.38 * 233 0.26 * EBR 0.0 P 0 193 0.00 67 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 76 0.05 * 90 0.06 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 6 0.00 14 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.43 0.38 E/W Critical Movements 0.43 0.32 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.908 0.751 Level of Service (LOS)E C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 22-401 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 3 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Buffalo Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 9 0.01 * 6 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 597 0.22 1,009 0.37 * NBR 0.0 P 0 141 0.00 253 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 210 0.13 139 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,495 0.44 * 1,267 0.38 SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 7 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 4 0.01 * 1 0.01 * EBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 10 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.45 0.46 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.504 0.514 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 32-402 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 4 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/La Veta Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: La Veta Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,400 75 0.02 * 287 0.08 * NBT 3.0 5,100 613 0.12 962 0.19 NBR 1.0 O 1,700 274 0.00 455 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,400 197 0.06 161 0.05 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,071 0.24 * 897 0.22 * SBR 0.0 P 0 135 0.00 223 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,400 305 0.09 326 0.10 * EBT 3.0 5,100 456 0.13 * 427 0.12 EBR 0.0 P 0 190 0.00 201 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,400 295 0.09 * 268 0.08 WBT 2.0 3,400 317 0.09 514 0.15 * WBR 1.0 O 1,700 207 0.00 237 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.26 0.30 E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.25 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.522 0.601 Level of Service (LOS)A B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 42-403 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 5 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Town and Country Road NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Town and Country Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 49 0.02 66 0.02 NBT 3.0 5,100 860 0.17 * 1,101 0.22 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 140 0.00 187 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 262 0.08 * 401 0.13 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,075 0.21 1,025 0.20 SBR 1.0 O 1,600 31 0.00 118 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 21 0.01 128 0.08 EBT 2.0 3,400 64 0.02 * 136 0.04 * EBR 1.0 O 1,600 68 0.02 * 139 0.05 * WBL 1.0 1,600 271 0.17 * 195 0.12 * WBT 2.0 3,400 52 0.02 99 0.03 WBR 2.0 O 3,200 378 0.02 * 414 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.25 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.19 0.16 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.05 0.05 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.534 0.600 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 52-404 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 6 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/E Memory Lane NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: E Memory Lane Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 29 0.01 * 104 0.03 * NBT 3.0 5,100 870 0.22 955 0.22 NBR 0.0 P 0 252 0.00 159 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 33 0.01 35 0.01 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,115 0.27 * 1,113 0.25 * SBR 0.0 P 0 248 0.00 154 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 155 0.05 * 263 0.08 EBT 3.0 5,100 222 0.05 309 0.09 * EBR 0.0 P 0 47 0.00 126 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 168 0.05 207 0.07 * WBT 2.0 3,400 209 0.06 * 162 0.05 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 63 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.28 0.28 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.15 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.435 0.481 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 62-405 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 7 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 19 0.01 * 25 0.02 * NBT 3.0 5,100 1,249 0.25 1,227 0.24 NBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 1 0.00 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,351 0.27 * 1,534 0.30 * SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 2 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 2 0.00 * 8 0.01 * EBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 1 0.00 21 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.28 0.32 E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.330 0.372 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 72-406 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 12 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/17th Street NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: 17th Street Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 189 0.06 * 200 0.06 NBT 2.0 3,400 762 0.22 1,061 0.31 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 174 0.00 162 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 178 0.06 187 0.06 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,082 0.34 * 810 0.28 SBR 0.0 P 0 82 0.00 141 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 141 0.04 199 0.06 EBT 3.0 5,100 1,250 0.26 * 1,219 0.25 * EBR 0.0 P 0 78 0.00 58 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 306 0.10 * 186 0.06 * WBT 3.0 5,100 1,335 0.27 1,064 0.22 WBR 0.0 P 0 16 0.00 59 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.40 0.37 E/W Critical Movements 0.36 0.31 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.807 0.728 Level of Service (LOS)D C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 122-407 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 16 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Memory Lane/Lawson Way NORTH/SOUTH: Memory Lane EAST/WEST: Lawson Way Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 9 0.01 NBT 1.0 1,700 3 0.00 * 2 0.01 * NBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 6 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 17 0.01 * 17 0.01 * SBT 1.0 1,700 1 0.00 4 0.00 SBR 1.0 P 1,600 168 0.05 * 149 0.02 * EBL 2.0 3,200 180 0.06 * 284 0.09 * EBT 2.0 3,400 272 0.08 262 0.08 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 15 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 0 0.00 4 0.00 WBT 3.0 5,100 285 0.06 * 212 0.05 * WBR 0.0 P 0 8 0.00 18 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.13 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.05 0.02 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.230 0.216 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 162-408 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 2 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Santa Clara Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBT 2.0 3,400 295 0.19 620 0.31 NBR 0.0 P 0 345 0.00 428 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 41 0.03 109 0.07 SBT 2.0 3,400 1,459 0.43 * 1,307 0.38 * SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 134 0.00 144 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 321 0.38 * 233 0.26 * EBR 0.0 P 0 193 0.00 67 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 84 0.05 * 95 0.06 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 6 0.00 14 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.43 0.38 E/W Critical Movements 0.43 0.32 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.913 0.754 Level of Service (LOS)E C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 2 P Santiago2-409 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 3 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Buffalo Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 9 0.01 * 6 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 600 0.22 1,017 0.37 * NBR 0.0 P 0 141 0.00 254 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 210 0.13 139 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,503 0.45 * 1,272 0.38 SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 7 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 4 0.01 * 1 0.01 * EBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 10 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.45 0.46 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.506 0.517 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 3 P Santiago2-410 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 4 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/La Veta Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: La Veta Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,400 77 0.02 * 288 0.09 * NBT 3.0 5,100 618 0.12 965 0.19 NBR 1.0 O 1,700 283 0.00 461 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,400 197 0.06 161 0.05 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,073 0.24 * 902 0.22 * SBR 0.0 P 0 135 0.00 223 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,400 305 0.09 326 0.10 * EBT 3.0 5,100 456 0.13 * 427 0.12 EBR 0.0 P 0 191 0.00 203 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,400 299 0.09 * 281 0.08 WBT 2.0 3,400 317 0.09 514 0.15 * WBR 1.0 O 1,700 207 0.00 237 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.26 0.31 E/W Critical Movements 0.22 0.25 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.525 0.603 Level of Service (LOS)A B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 4 P Santiago2-411 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 5 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Town and Country Road NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Town and Country Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 49 0.02 66 0.02 NBT 3.0 5,100 876 0.17 * 1,112 0.22 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 147 0.00 192 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 262 0.08 * 401 0.13 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,082 0.21 1,045 0.21 SBR 1.0 O 1,600 31 0.00 118 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 21 0.01 128 0.08 EBT 2.0 3,400 64 0.02 * 136 0.04 * EBR 1.0 O 1,600 68 0.02 * 139 0.05 * WBL 1.0 1,600 273 0.17 * 200 0.13 * WBT 2.0 3,400 52 0.02 99 0.03 WBR 2.0 O 3,200 378 0.02 * 414 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.25 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.19 0.17 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.05 0.05 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.539 0.605 Level of Service (LOS)A B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 5 P Santiago2-412 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 6 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/E Memory Lane NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: E Memory Lane Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 29 0.01 * 104 0.03 * NBT 3.0 5,100 894 0.23 970 0.22 NBR 0.0 P 0 258 0.00 163 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 33 0.01 35 0.01 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,124 0.27 * 1,139 0.25 * SBR 0.0 P 0 248 0.00 154 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 155 0.05 * 263 0.08 EBT 3.0 5,100 222 0.05 309 0.09 * EBR 0.0 P 0 47 0.00 126 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 170 0.05 212 0.07 * WBT 2.0 3,400 209 0.06 * 162 0.05 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 63 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.28 0.29 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.15 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.437 0.488 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 6 P Santiago2-413 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 7 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 19 0.01 * 29 0.02 * NBT 3.0 5,100 1,249 0.25 1,227 0.25 NBR 0.0 P 0 16 0.00 45 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 11 0.01 31 0.02 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,351 0.27 * 1,534 0.30 * SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 2 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 2 0.00 * 8 0.01 * EBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 1 0.00 21 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 44 0.00 29 0.00 WBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.03 * WBR 0.0 P 0 30 0.00 19 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.28 0.32 E/W Critical Movements 0.05 0.03 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.374 0.402 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 7 P Santiago2-414 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 12 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/17th Street NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: 17th Street Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 189 0.06 * 200 0.06 NBT 2.0 3,400 763 0.22 1,065 0.31 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 174 0.00 162 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 180 0.06 188 0.06 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,086 0.35 * 812 0.28 SBR 0.0 P 0 86 0.00 143 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 142 0.04 203 0.06 EBT 3.0 5,100 1,250 0.26 * 1,219 0.25 * EBR 0.0 P 0 78 0.00 58 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 306 0.10 * 186 0.06 * WBT 3.0 5,100 1,335 0.27 1,064 0.22 WBR 0.0 P 0 17 0.00 61 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.40 0.37 E/W Critical Movements 0.36 0.31 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.810 0.730 Level of Service (LOS)D C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 12 P Santiago2-415 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 16 ALTERNATIVE: Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot INTERSECTION NAME: Memory Lane/Lawson Way NORTH/SOUTH: Memory Lane EAST/WEST: Lawson Way Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 9 0.01 NBT 1.0 1,700 3 0.00 * 2 0.01 * NBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 6 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 17 0.01 * 17 0.01 * SBT 1.0 1,700 1 0.00 4 0.00 SBR 1.0 P 1,600 169 0.05 * 151 0.02 * EBL 2.0 3,200 184 0.06 * 286 0.09 * EBT 2.0 3,400 274 0.08 263 0.08 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 15 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 0 0.00 4 0.00 WBT 3.0 5,100 286 0.06 * 214 0.05 * WBR 0.0 P 0 8 0.00 18 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.12 0.13 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.05 0.02 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.233 0.217 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Exist W/ Opt. E - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Existing 16 P Santiago2-416 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 2 ALTERNATIVE: Opening Year Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Santa Clara Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 300 0.19 629 0.31 * NBR 0.0 P 0 347 0.00 426 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 49 0.03 141 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,480 0.44 * 1,327 0.39 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 136 0.00 146 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 326 0.39 * 236 0.27 * EBR 0.0 P 0 196 0.00 68 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 77 0.05 * 91 0.06 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 6 0.00 14 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.44 0.40 E/W Critical Movements 0.44 0.32 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.920 0.770 Level of Service (LOS)E C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Opening Year Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 22-417 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 3 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Buffalo Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 9 0.01 * 6 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 607 0.22 1,025 0.38 * NBR 0.0 P 0 143 0.00 257 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 213 0.13 141 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,517 0.45 * 1,286 0.38 SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 7 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 4 0.01 * 1 0.01 * EBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 10 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.46 0.47 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.510 0.521 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 32-418 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 4 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/La Veta Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: La Veta Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,400 81 0.02 * 294 0.09 * NBT 3.0 5,100 749 0.15 1,042 0.20 NBR 1.0 O 1,700 347 0.00 506 0.00 * SBL 2.0 3,400 211 0.06 175 0.05 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,132 0.25 * 1,059 0.25 * SBR 0.0 P 0 142 0.00 234 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,400 317 0.09 338 0.10 * EBT 3.0 5,100 469 0.13 * 435 0.13 EBR 0.0 P 0 194 0.00 209 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,400 315 0.09 * 303 0.09 WBT 2.0 3,400 328 0.10 523 0.15 * WBR 1.0 O 1,700 221 0.00 252 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.27 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.22 0.25 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.547 0.647 Level of Service (LOS)A B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 42-419 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 5 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Town and Country Road NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Town and Country Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 53 0.02 69 0.02 NBT 3.0 5,100 962 0.19 * 1,188 0.23 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 160 0.00 238 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 269 0.08 * 519 0.16 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,149 0.23 1,114 0.22 SBR 1.0 O 1,600 33 0.00 120 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 21 0.01 132 0.08 EBT 2.0 3,400 70 0.02 * 157 0.05 * EBR 1.0 O 1,600 69 0.02 * 141 0.04 * WBL 1.0 1,600 296 0.19 * 229 0.14 * WBT 2.0 3,400 69 0.02 108 0.03 WBR 2.0 O 3,200 498 0.05 * 458 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.27 0.40 E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.19 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.07 0.04 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.603 0.676 Level of Service (LOS)B B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 52-420 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 6 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/E Memory Lane NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: E Memory Lane Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 35 0.01 * 123 0.04 * NBT 3.0 5,100 931 0.22 1,047 0.26 NBR 0.0 P 0 195 0.00 265 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 36 0.01 40 0.01 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,189 0.29 * 1,186 0.27 * SBR 0.0 P 0 269 0.00 200 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 201 0.06 297 0.09 EBT 3.0 5,100 237 0.06 * 332 0.09 * EBR 0.0 P 0 65 0.00 139 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 319 0.10 * 208 0.07 * WBT 2.0 3,400 230 0.07 179 0.05 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 29 0.00 77 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.30 0.31 E/W Critical Movements 0.16 0.16 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.506 0.517 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 62-421 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 7 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 19 0.01 * 25 0.02 * NBT 3.0 5,100 1,260 0.25 1,444 0.28 NBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 1 0.00 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,595 0.32 * 1,621 0.32 * SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 2 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 2 0.00 * 8 0.01 * EBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 1 0.00 21 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.33 0.33 E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.378 0.389 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 72-422 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 12 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/17th Street NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: 17th Street Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 210 0.07 * 208 0.07 NBT 2.0 3,400 761 0.22 1,137 0.33 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 196 0.00 214 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 194 0.06 213 0.07 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,197 0.39 * 853 0.30 SBR 0.0 P 0 126 0.00 165 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 160 0.05 221 0.07 EBT 3.0 5,100 1,295 0.27 * 1,286 0.27 * EBR 0.0 P 0 86 0.00 67 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 363 0.11 * 213 0.07 * WBT 3.0 5,100 1,411 0.28 1,103 0.23 WBR 0.0 P 0 37 0.00 79 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.46 0.40 E/W Critical Movements 0.38 0.33 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.889 0.783 Level of Service (LOS)D C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 122-423 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 16 ALTERNATIVE: Cumulative Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Memory Lane/Lawson Way NORTH/SOUTH: Memory Lane EAST/WEST: Lawson Way Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 9 0.01 NBT 1.0 1,700 3 0.00 * 2 0.01 * NBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 6 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 17 0.01 * 17 0.01 * SBT 1.0 1,700 1 0.00 4 0.00 SBR 1.0 P 1,600 341 0.17 * 190 0.02 * EBL 2.0 3,200 149 0.05 * 398 0.12 * EBT 2.0 3,400 259 0.08 279 0.08 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 15 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 0 0.00 4 0.00 WBT 3.0 5,100 304 0.06 * 200 0.04 * WBR 0.0 P 0 8 0.00 18 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.17 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.17 0.02 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.341 0.248 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 162-424 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 2 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Santa Clara Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 300 0.19 629 0.31 * NBR 0.0 P 0 350 0.00 434 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 53 0.03 153 0.10 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,480 0.44 * 1,327 0.39 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 136 0.00 146 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 326 0.39 * 236 0.27 * EBR 0.0 P 0 196 0.00 68 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 85 0.05 * 96 0.06 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 6 0.00 14 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.44 0.41 E/W Critical Movements 0.44 0.33 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.925 0.783 Level of Service (LOS)E C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 2 P Santiago2-425 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 3 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Buffalo Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 9 0.01 * 6 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 610 0.22 1,033 0.38 * NBR 0.0 P 0 143 0.00 258 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 213 0.13 141 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,525 0.45 * 1,291 0.38 SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 7 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 4 0.01 * 1 0.01 * EBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 10 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.46 0.47 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.513 0.524 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 3 P Santiago2-426 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 4 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/La Veta Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: La Veta Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,400 83 0.02 * 295 0.09 * NBT 3.0 5,100 754 0.15 1,045 0.21 NBR 1.0 O 1,700 356 0.00 512 0.00 * SBL 2.0 3,400 211 0.06 175 0.05 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,134 0.25 * 1,064 0.26 * SBR 0.0 P 0 142 0.00 234 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,400 317 0.09 338 0.10 * EBT 3.0 5,100 469 0.13 * 435 0.13 EBR 0.0 P 0 195 0.00 211 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,400 319 0.09 * 316 0.09 WBT 2.0 3,400 328 0.10 523 0.15 * WBR 1.0 O 1,700 221 0.00 252 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.27 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.22 0.25 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.548 0.648 Level of Service (LOS)A B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 4 P Santiago2-427 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 5 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Town and Country Road NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Town and Country Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 53 0.02 69 0.02 NBT 3.0 5,100 978 0.19 * 1,199 0.24 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 167 0.00 243 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 269 0.08 * 519 0.16 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,156 0.23 1,134 0.22 SBR 1.0 O 1,600 33 0.00 120 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 21 0.01 132 0.08 EBT 2.0 3,400 70 0.02 * 157 0.05 * EBR 1.0 O 1,600 69 0.02 * 141 0.04 * WBL 1.0 1,600 298 0.19 * 234 0.15 * WBT 2.0 3,400 69 0.02 108 0.03 WBR 2.0 O 3,200 498 0.05 * 458 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.28 0.40 E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.19 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.07 0.04 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.607 0.681 Level of Service (LOS)B B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 5 P Santiago2-428 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 6 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/E Memory Lane NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: E Memory Lane Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 35 0.01 * 123 0.04 * NBT 3.0 5,100 955 0.23 1,062 0.26 NBR 0.0 P 0 201 0.00 269 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 36 0.01 40 0.01 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,198 0.29 * 1,212 0.28 * SBR 0.0 P 0 269 0.00 200 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 201 0.06 297 0.09 EBT 3.0 5,100 237 0.06 * 332 0.09 * EBR 0.0 P 0 65 0.00 139 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 321 0.10 * 213 0.07 * WBT 2.0 3,400 230 0.07 179 0.05 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 29 0.00 77 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.30 0.32 E/W Critical Movements 0.16 0.16 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.508 0.524 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 6 P Santiago2-429 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 7 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 19 0.01 * 29 0.02 * NBT 3.0 5,100 1,260 0.25 1,444 0.29 NBR 0.0 P 0 16 0.00 45 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 11 0.01 31 0.02 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,595 0.32 * 1,621 0.32 * SBR 0.0 P 0 11 0.00 2 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 2 0.00 * 8 0.01 * EBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 1 0.00 21 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 44 0.00 29 0.00 WBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.03 * WBR 0.0 P 0 30 0.00 19 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.33 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.05 0.03 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.422 0.419 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 7 P Santiago2-430 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 12 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/17th Street NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: 17th Street Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 210 0.07 * 208 0.07 NBT 2.0 3,400 762 0.22 1,141 0.34 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 196 0.00 214 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 196 0.06 214 0.07 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,201 0.39 * 855 0.30 SBR 0.0 P 0 130 0.00 167 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 161 0.05 225 0.07 EBT 3.0 5,100 1,295 0.27 * 1,286 0.27 * EBR 0.0 P 0 86 0.00 67 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 363 0.11 * 213 0.07 * WBT 3.0 5,100 1,411 0.28 1,103 0.23 WBR 0.0 P 0 38 0.00 81 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.46 0.40 E/W Critical Movements 0.38 0.33 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.891 0.785 Level of Service (LOS)D C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 12 P Santiago2-431 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 16 ALTERNATIVE: Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Memory Lane/Lawson Way NORTH/SOUTH: Memory Lane EAST/WEST: Lawson Way Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 9 0.01 NBT 1.0 1,700 3 0.00 * 2 0.01 * NBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 6 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 17 0.01 * 17 0.01 * SBT 1.0 1,700 1 0.00 4 0.00 SBR 1.0 P 1,600 342 0.17 * 192 0.02 * EBL 2.0 3,200 153 0.05 * 400 0.13 * EBT 2.0 3,400 261 0.08 280 0.08 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 15 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 0 0.00 4 0.00 WBT 3.0 5,100 305 0.06 * 202 0.04 * WBR 0.0 P 0 8 0.00 18 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.17 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.17 0.02 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.341 0.250 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Cumul. W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way and SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\Cumul 16 P Santiago2-432 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 2 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Santa Clara Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 393 0.22 730 0.35 * NBR 0.0 P 0 364 0.00 447 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 51 0.03 148 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,568 0.46 * 1,393 0.41 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 177 0.00 172 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 342 0.43 * 248 0.29 * EBR 0.0 P 0 206 0.00 72 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 81 0.05 * 96 0.06 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 6 0.00 15 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.46 0.44 E/W Critical Movements 0.48 0.35 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.988 0.838 Level of Service (LOS)E D Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 22-433 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 3 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Buffalo Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 9 0.01 * 6 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 648 0.24 1,054 0.39 * NBR 0.0 P 0 150 0.00 270 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 224 0.14 148 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,552 0.46 * 1,350 0.40 SBR 0.0 P 0 12 0.00 7 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 4 0.01 * 1 0.01 * EBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 11 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.47 0.48 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.521 0.539 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 32-434 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 4 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/La Veta Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: La Veta Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,400 94 0.03 * 335 0.10 * NBT 3.0 5,100 950 0.19 1,446 0.28 NBR 1.0 O 1,700 364 0.00 531 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,400 225 0.07 184 0.05 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,499 0.33 * 1,080 0.26 * SBR 0.0 P 0 158 0.00 258 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,400 437 0.13 387 0.11 * EBT 3.0 5,100 515 0.15 * 457 0.13 EBR 0.0 P 0 263 0.00 219 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,400 331 0.10 * 318 0.09 WBT 2.0 3,400 344 0.10 549 0.16 * WBR 1.0 O 1,700 226 0.00 302 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.35 0.36 E/W Critical Movements 0.25 0.28 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.653 0.686 Level of Service (LOS)B B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 42-435 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 5 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Town and Country Road NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Town and Country Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 56 0.02 73 0.02 NBT 3.0 5,100 1,226 0.24 * 1,607 0.32 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 168 0.00 250 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 318 0.10 * 545 0.17 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,519 0.30 1,203 0.24 SBR 1.0 O 1,600 40 0.00 126 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 26 0.02 135 0.08 EBT 2.0 3,400 74 0.02 * 165 0.05 * EBR 1.0 O 1,600 72 0.02 * 143 0.04 * WBL 1.0 1,600 311 0.19 * 240 0.15 * WBT 2.0 3,400 72 0.02 113 0.03 WBR 2.0 O 3,200 523 0.04 * 475 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.34 0.49 E/W Critical Movements 0.22 0.20 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.07 0.04 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.671 0.775 Level of Service (LOS)B C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 52-436 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 6 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/E Memory Lane NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: E Memory Lane Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 37 0.01 * 129 0.04 NBT 3.0 5,100 1,130 0.27 1,363 0.32 * NBR 0.0 P 0 239 0.00 278 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 37 0.01 42 0.01 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,443 0.34 * 1,264 0.29 SBR 0.0 P 0 310 0.00 210 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 238 0.07 398 0.12 * EBT 3.0 5,100 249 0.06 * 349 0.10 EBR 0.0 P 0 68 0.00 154 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 335 0.11 * 223 0.07 WBT 2.0 3,400 242 0.07 188 0.06 * WBR 1.0 P 1,600 30 0.00 84 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.36 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.17 0.18 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.573 0.564 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 62-437 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 7 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 21 0.01 * 28 0.02 * NBT 3.0 5,100 1,482 0.29 1,731 0.34 NBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 1 0.00 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,729 0.34 * 1,781 0.35 * SBR 0.0 P 0 12 0.00 2 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 2 0.00 * 9 0.01 * EBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 1 0.00 24 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.35 0.37 E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.405 0.424 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 72-438 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 12 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/17th Street NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: 17th Street Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 221 0.07 * 240 0.08 NBT 2.0 3,400 821 0.24 1,194 0.35 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 201 0.00 225 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 223 0.07 224 0.07 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,257 0.41 * 896 0.31 SBR 0.0 P 0 132 0.00 173 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 168 0.05 223 0.07 EBT 3.0 5,100 1,486 0.31 * 1,306 0.27 * EBR 0.0 P 0 90 0.00 70 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 381 0.12 * 224 0.07 * WBT 3.0 5,100 1,482 0.30 1,211 0.25 WBR 0.0 P 0 39 0.00 83 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.48 0.42 E/W Critical Movements 0.43 0.34 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.956 0.811 Level of Service (LOS)E D Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 122-439 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 16 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Memory Lane/Lawson Way NORTH/SOUTH: Memory Lane EAST/WEST: Lawson Way Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 9 0.01 NBT 1.0 1,700 3 0.00 * 2 0.01 * NBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 7 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 18 0.01 * 22 0.01 * SBT 1.0 1,700 1 0.00 4 0.00 SBR 1.0 P 1,600 358 0.17 * 200 0.01 * EBL 2.0 3,200 173 0.05 * 418 0.13 * EBT 2.0 3,400 296 0.09 355 0.10 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 16 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 0 0.00 4 0.00 WBT 3.0 5,100 315 0.06 * 233 0.05 * WBR 0.0 P 0 8 0.00 19 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.12 0.18 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.17 0.01 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.354 0.262 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 162-440 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 2 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Santa Clara Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Santa Clara Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 393 0.22 730 0.35 * NBR 0.0 P 0 367 0.00 455 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 55 0.03 160 0.10 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,568 0.46 * 1,393 0.41 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 177 0.00 172 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 342 0.43 * 248 0.29 * EBR 0.0 P 0 206 0.00 72 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 89 0.06 * 101 0.06 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1.0 P 1,600 6 0.00 15 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.46 0.45 E/W Critical Movements 0.48 0.35 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.993 0.851 Level of Service (LOS)E D Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 2 P Santiago2-441 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 3 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Broadway/Buffalo Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Broadway EAST/WEST:Buffalo Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 9 0.01 * 6 0.00 NBT 2.0 3,400 651 0.24 1,062 0.39 * NBR 0.0 P 0 150 0.00 271 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 224 0.14 148 0.09 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,560 0.46 * 1,355 0.40 SBR 0.0 P 0 12 0.00 7 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 4 0.01 * 1 0.01 * EBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 11 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * WBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.47 0.49 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.01 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.523 0.542 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 3 P Santiago2-442 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 4 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/La Veta Avenue NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: La Veta Avenue Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,400 96 0.03 * 336 0.10 * NBT 3.0 5,100 955 0.19 1,449 0.28 NBR 1.0 O 1,700 373 0.00 537 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,400 225 0.07 184 0.05 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,501 0.33 * 1,085 0.26 * SBR 0.0 P 0 158 0.00 258 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,400 437 0.13 387 0.11 * EBT 3.0 5,100 515 0.15 * 457 0.13 EBR 0.0 P 0 264 0.00 221 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,400 335 0.10 * 331 0.10 WBT 2.0 3,400 344 0.10 549 0.16 * WBR 1.0 O 1,700 226 0.00 302 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.35 0.36 E/W Critical Movements 0.25 0.28 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.655 0.687 Level of Service (LOS)B B Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 4 P Santiago2-443 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 5 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Town and Country Road NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Town and Country Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 56 0.02 73 0.02 NBT 3.0 5,100 1,242 0.24 * 1,618 0.32 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 175 0.00 255 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 318 0.10 * 545 0.17 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,526 0.30 1,223 0.24 SBR 1.0 O 1,600 40 0.00 126 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 26 0.02 135 0.08 EBT 2.0 3,400 74 0.02 * 165 0.05 * EBR 1.0 O 1,600 72 0.02 * 143 0.04 * WBL 1.0 1,600 313 0.20 * 245 0.15 * WBT 2.0 3,400 72 0.02 113 0.03 WBR 2.0 O 3,200 523 0.04 * 475 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.34 0.49 E/W Critical Movements 0.22 0.20 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.07 0.04 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.677 0.780 Level of Service (LOS)B C Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 5 P Santiago2-444 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 6 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/E Memory Lane NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: E Memory Lane Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 37 0.01 * 129 0.04 NBT 3.0 5,100 1,154 0.27 1,378 0.33 * NBR 0.0 P 0 245 0.00 282 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 37 0.01 42 0.01 * SBT 3.0 5,100 1,452 0.35 * 1,290 0.29 SBR 0.0 P 0 310 0.00 210 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 238 0.07 398 0.12 * EBT 3.0 5,100 249 0.06 * 349 0.10 EBR 0.0 P 0 68 0.00 154 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 337 0.11 * 228 0.07 WBT 2.0 3,400 242 0.07 188 0.06 * WBR 1.0 P 1,600 30 0.00 84 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.36 0.34 E/W Critical Movements 0.17 0.18 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.574 0.567 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 6 P Santiago2-445 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 7 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: Walkie Way-Santiago Park-Driveway Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 21 0.01 * 32 0.02 * NBT 3.0 5,100 1,482 0.29 1,731 0.35 NBR 0.0 P 0 16 0.00 45 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 11 0.01 31 0.02 SBT 3.0 5,100 1,729 0.34 * 1,781 0.35 * SBR 0.0 P 0 12 0.00 2 0.00 EBL 1.0 1,600 2 0.00 * 9 0.01 * EBT 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 1 0.00 24 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 44 0.00 29 0.00 WBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.03 * WBR 0.0 P 0 30 0.00 19 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.35 0.37 E/W Critical Movements 0.05 0.03 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.449 0.454 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 7 P Santiago2-446 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 12 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Main Street/17th Street NORTH/SOUTH: Main Street EAST/WEST: 17th Street Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 2.0 3,200 221 0.07 * 240 0.08 NBT 2.0 3,400 822 0.24 1,198 0.35 * NBR 1.0 P 1,600 201 0.00 225 0.00 SBL 2.0 3,200 225 0.07 225 0.07 * SBT 2.0 3,400 1,261 0.41 * 898 0.32 SBR 0.0 P 0 136 0.00 175 0.00 EBL 2.0 3,200 169 0.05 227 0.07 EBT 3.0 5,100 1,486 0.31 * 1,306 0.27 * EBR 0.0 P 0 90 0.00 70 0.00 WBL 2.0 3,200 381 0.12 * 224 0.07 * WBT 3.0 5,100 1,482 0.30 1,211 0.25 WBR 0.0 P 0 40 0.00 85 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.48 0.42 E/W Critical Movements 0.43 0.34 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.958 0.812 Level of Service (LOS)E D Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 12 P Santiago2-447 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 16 ALTERNATIVE:Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lo INTERSECTION NAME: Memory Lane/Lawson Way NORTH/SOUTH: Memory Lane EAST/WEST: Lawson Way Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 1.0 1,600 1 0.00 9 0.01 NBT 1.0 1,700 3 0.00 * 2 0.01 * NBR 0.0 P 0 3 0.00 7 0.00 SBL 1.0 1,600 18 0.01 * 22 0.01 * SBT 1.0 1,700 1 0.00 4 0.00 SBR 1.0 P 1,600 359 0.17 * 202 0.01 * EBL 2.0 3,200 177 0.06 * 420 0.13 * EBT 2.0 3,400 298 0.09 356 0.11 EBR 1.0 P 1,600 7 0.00 16 0.00 WBL 1.0 1,600 0 0.00 4 0.00 WBT 3.0 5,100 316 0.06 * 235 0.05 * WBR 0.0 P 0 8 0.00 19 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.12 0.18 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.17 0.01 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.356 0.264 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Year 2040 W/ Opt. D - Main Street/Walkie Way & SP Lot AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet 2\2040 16 P Santiago2-448 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 13 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Bush Street/Edgewood Road NORTH/SOUTH: Bush Street EAST/WEST:Edgewood Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 58 0.00 85 0.00 NBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.05 * NBR 0.0 P 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 1 0.00 * SBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 1 0.00 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 4 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 2 0.00 * 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 96 0.10 115 0.10 * EBR 0.0 P 0 67 0.00 58 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * WBT 1.0 1,700 180 0.11 * 140 0.08 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.10 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.191 0.202 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet for HCM\Existing 132-449 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 13 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Bush Street/Edgewood Road NORTH/SOUTH: Bush Street EAST/WEST:Edgewood Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 58 0.00 85 0.00 NBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.05 * NBR 0.0 P 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 96 0.10 116 0.10 * EBR 0.0 P 0 67 0.00 59 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * WBT 1.0 1,700 180 0.11 * 140 0.08 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.10 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.191 0.203 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet for HCM\Existing 13 P Santiago2-450 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 13 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Bush Street/Edgewood Road NORTH/SOUTH: Bush Street EAST/WEST:Edgewood Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 59 0.00 86 0.00 NBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.05 * NBR 0.0 P 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 1 0.00 * SBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 1 0.00 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 4 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 2 0.00 * 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 101 0.10 120 0.11 * EBR 0.0 P 0 68 0.00 59 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * WBT 1.0 1,700 192 0.11 * 145 0.09 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.11 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.198 0.206 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet for HCM\Cumul 132-451 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 13 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Bush Street/Edgewood Road NORTH/SOUTH: Bush Street EAST/WEST:Edgewood Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 59 0.00 86 0.00 NBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.05 * NBR 0.0 P 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 101 0.10 121 0.11 * EBR 0.0 P 0 68 0.00 60 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * WBT 1.0 1,700 192 0.11 * 145 0.09 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.11 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.198 0.207 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet for HCM\Cumul 13 P Santiago2-452 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 13 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Bush Street/Edgewood Road NORTH/SOUTH: Bush Street EAST/WEST:Edgewood Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 64 0.00 94 0.00 NBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.06 * NBR 0.0 P 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 1 0.00 * SBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 1 0.00 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 4 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 2 0.00 * 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 107 0.11 128 0.11 * EBR 0.0 P 0 74 0.00 64 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * WBT 1.0 1,700 200 0.12 * 156 0.09 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.06 E/W Critical Movements 0.12 0.11 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.206 0.218 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet for HCM\2040 132-453 the transportation solutions company... INTERSECTION: 13 ALTERNATIVE: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION NAME: Bush Street/Edgewood Road NORTH/SOUTH: Bush Street EAST/WEST:Edgewood Road Right Turn # of Turn Lanegroup Mvmt. Lanes Cond. Capacity Vol. V/C Vol. V/C NBL 0.0 0 64 0.00 94 0.00 NBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.04 * 0 0.06 * NBR 0.0 P 0 1 0.00 0 0.00 SBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBT 1.0 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 EBT 1.0 1,700 107 0.11 129 0.11 * EBR 0.0 P 0 74 0.00 65 0.00 WBL 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * WBT 1.0 1,700 200 0.12 * 156 0.09 WBR 0.0 P 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.06 E/W Critical Movements 0.12 0.11 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05 ICU 0.206 0.219 Level of Service (LOS)A A Notes: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: F - Free Right Turn O - Overlap Phase P - Permitted Right Turn N - No Right Turn on Red Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Analysis Offset September 2019 Revised\ICU Worksheet for HCM\2040 13 P Santiago2-454 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving 17th St On to Main St Off 1530 6 2 Basic Basic Main St Off to Main St On 2200 5 3 Weaving Weaving Main St On to SR-22 Connector 1730 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 8990 13380 0.89 16.2 92.6 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 7470 11485 0.94 16.1 92.9 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 4068 4068 2.01 15.1 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 15.9 76.5 72.2 3.9 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 15.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 72.2 Average Travel Time, min 3.9 Density, pc/mi/ln 76.5 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:20:43 PM NB Exist AM.xuf 2-455 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving 17th St On to Main St Off 1530 6 2 Basic Basic Main St Off to Main St On 2200 5 3 Weaving Weaving Main St On to SR-22 Connector 1730 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 8500 13488 0.73 14.7 96.6 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 7491 11485 0.81 16.9 88.8 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5032 5032 1.63 18.6 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 16.4 76.3 71.9 3.8 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 16.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 71.9 Average Travel Time, min 3.8 Density, pc/mi/ln 76.3 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:20:58 PM NB Exist PM.xuf 2-456 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Diverge Diverge Broadway Off-Ramp 1500 3 2 Diverge Basic Main Street Off-Ramp 700 3 3 Basic Basic 5280 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 4991 1060 7200 2000 0.69 0.53 60.4 55.4 27.5 31.8 D Segment 2: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 3930 712 7200 2000 0.55 0.36 69.9 -18.7 -C Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 3035 4774 0.64 67.8 22.4 C Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.8 23.3 22.7 1.3 C Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 22.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.3 Density, pc/mi/ln 23.3 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:21:14 PM SB Diverge AM.xuf2-457 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Diverge Diverge Broadway Off-Ramp 1500 3 2 Diverge Basic Main Street Off-Ramp 700 3 3 Basic Basic 5280 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 4828 1000 7200 2000 0.67 0.50 60.5 55.5 26.6 31.0 D Segment 2: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 3828 402 7200 2000 0.53 0.20 69.9 -18.3 -C Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 3231 4774 0.68 67.1 24.1 C Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.5 24.1 23.5 1.3 C Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 23.5 Average Travel Time, min 1.3 Density, pc/mi/ln 24.1 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:21:31 PM SB Diverge PM.xuf2-458 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 4 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic South of SR-22 2850 4 2 Merge Basic I-5 Connector 600 6 3 Basic Basic I-5 Connector Lane Drop 940 5 4 Weaving Weaving Main St On to 17th St Off 1400 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 8093 9188 0.88 56.6 35.7 E Segment 2: Merge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 11311 3218 14400 4000 0.56 0.80 69.7 -19.4 -C Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 11311 11485 0.98 51.9 43.6 E Segment 4: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 12383 13374 0.93 50.7 40.7 E Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 55.0 36.4 33.8 1.2 E Facility Overall Results 2-459 Space Mean Speed, mi/h 55.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 33.8 Average Travel Time, min 1.2 Density, pc/mi/ln 36.4 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:21:44 PM SB Exist AM.xuf 2-460 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 4 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic South of SR-22 2850 4 2 Merge Basic I-5 Connector 600 6 3 Basic Basic I-5 Connector Lane Drop 940 5 4 Weaving Weaving Main St On to 17th St Off 1400 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 9068 9188 1.10 48.3 46.9 F Segment 2: Merge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 10495 3426 14400 4000 0.70 0.86 43.2 -40.5 -E Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 10495 11485 1.18 55.0 34.6 F Segment 4: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 10523 10523 1.09 39.0 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 45.8 43.5 41.0 1.4 F Facility Overall Results 2-461 Space Mean Speed, mi/h 45.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 41.0 Average Travel Time, min 1.4 Density, pc/mi/ln 43.5 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:21:58 PM SB Exist PM.xuf 2-462 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving SR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp 1100 4 2 Basic Basic Town & Country Off to Town & Country On 1480 3 3 Weaving Weaving Town & Country Rd On to Grand Ave Off 1300 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 2181 2181 3.24 12.1 45.0 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5660 6951 1.44 55.6 29.2 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 4831 4831 1.30 26.8 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 29.3 40.0 37.7 1.5 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 29.3 Density, veh/mi/ln 37.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.5 Density, pc/mi/ln 40.0 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:20:03 PM EB Exist AM.xuf2-463 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 6/14/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving SR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp 1100 4 2 Basic Basic Town & Country Off to Town & Country On 1480 3 3 Weaving Weaving Town & Country Rd On to Grand Ave Off 1300 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 2675 2675 2.65 14.9 45.0 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5660 6951 1.28 55.9 29.2 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5163 5163 1.42 28.7 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 31.0 40.0 37.7 1.4 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 31.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 37.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.4 Density, pc/mi/ln 40.0 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:20:28 PM EB Exist PM.xuf2-464 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave Off to Grand Ave On 1080 4 2 Basic Basic La Veta Ave Off to La Veta Ave On 1580 3 3 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave On to I-5/SR-57 Connector 1530 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 8205 8205 1.03 45.6 45.0 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 6951 6951 1.00 55.6 41.7 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 7483 8804 0.85 48.3 38.7 E Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 49.7 41.4 40.0 1.0 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 49.7 Density, veh/mi/ln 40.0 Average Travel Time, min 1.0 Density, pc/mi/ln 41.4 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:22:11 PM WB Exist AM.xuf 2-465 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave Off to Grand Ave On 1080 4 2 Basic Basic La Veta Ave Off to La Veta Ave On 1580 3 3 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave On to I-5/SR-57 Connector 1530 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 6043 8555 0.95 17.2 87.6 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5302 6951 1.08 22.6 78.4 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 3236 3236 1.88 18.0 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 19.3 67.5 64.7 2.5 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 19.3 Density, veh/mi/ln 64.7 Average Travel Time, min 2.5 Density, pc/mi/ln 67.5 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:22:24 PM WB Exist PM.xuf 2-466 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving 17th St On to Main St Off 1530 6 2 Basic Basic Main St Off to Main St On 2200 5 3 Weaving Weaving Main St On to SR-22 Connector 1730 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 8843 13397 0.89 15.6 94.3 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 7330 11485 0.95 15.5 94.7 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 3589 3589 2.23 13.3 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 15.1 77.7 73.3 4.1 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 15.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 73.3 Average Travel Time, min 4.1 Density, pc/mi/ln 77.7 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:24:00 PM NB 2040 AM.xuf 2-467 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving 17th St On to Main St Off 1530 6 2 Basic Basic Main St Off to Main St On 2200 5 3 Weaving Weaving Main St On to SR-22 Connector 1730 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 7733 13530 0.76 12.0 107.1 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 6713 11485 0.86 13.4 100.1 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 2939 2939 2.50 10.9 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 12.4 83.5 78.7 5.0 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 12.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 78.7 Average Travel Time, min 5.0 Density, pc/mi/ln 83.5 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:24:17 PM NB 2040 PM.xuf 2-468 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 4 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic South of SR-22 2850 4 2 Merge Basic I-5 Connector 600 6 3 Basic Basic I-5 Connector Lane Drop 940 5 4 Weaving Weaving Main St On to 17th St Off 1400 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 8412 9188 0.93 43.9 47.9 F Segment 2: Merge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 10694 3700 14400 4000 0.59 0.93 35.5 -50.3 -F Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 10694 11485 1.07 52.7 35.8 F Segment 4: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 11822 11822 1.01 43.8 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 44.0 45.3 42.7 1.5 F Facility Overall Results 2-469 Space Mean Speed, mi/h 44.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 42.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.5 Density, pc/mi/ln 45.3 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:24:34 PM SB 2040 AM.xuf 2-470 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 4 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic South of SR-22 2850 4 2 Merge Basic I-5 Connector 600 6 3 Basic Basic I-5 Connector Lane Drop 940 5 4 Weaving Weaving Main St On to 17th St Off 1400 6 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 9064 9188 1.11 48.3 47.0 F Segment 2: Merge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 10483 3691 14400 4000 0.71 0.92 37.5 -46.6 -F Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 10483 11485 1.21 53.3 34.5 F Segment 4: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 10303 10303 1.12 38.2 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 44.6 44.3 41.7 1.5 F Facility Overall Results 2-471 Space Mean Speed, mi/h 44.6 Density, veh/mi/ln 41.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.5 Density, pc/mi/ln 44.3 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:24:50 PM SB 2040 PM.xuf 2-472 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Diverge Diverge Broadway Off-Ramp 1500 3 2 Diverge Basic Main Street Off-Ramp 700 3 3 Basic Basic 5280 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 5629 1041 7200 2000 0.78 0.52 60.5 55.4 31.0 34.4 D Segment 2: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 4588 887 7200 2000 0.64 0.44 68.7 -22.3 -C Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 3489 4774 0.73 65.8 26.5 D Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.6 27.2 26.5 1.3 D Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.6 Density, veh/mi/ln 26.5 Average Travel Time, min 1.3 Density, pc/mi/ln 27.2 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:25:06 PM SB Diverge AM.xuf2-473 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed pM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Diverge Diverge Broadway Off-Ramp 1500 3 2 Diverge Basic Main Street Off-Ramp 700 3 3 Basic Basic 5280 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 5300 1056 7200 2000 0.74 0.53 60.5 55.4 29.2 33.1 D Segment 2: Diverge Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.95 0.95 0.943 0.943 4244 553 7200 2000 0.59 0.28 69.5 -20.4 -C Segment 3: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 3481 4774 0.73 65.8 26.4 D Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.7 26.4 25.8 1.3 D Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.7 Density, veh/mi/ln 25.8 Average Travel Time, min 1.3 Density, pc/mi/ln 26.4 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:25:22 PM SB Diverge PM.xuf2-474 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking Access Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving SR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp 1100 4 2 Basic Basic Town & Country Off to Town & Country On 1480 3 3 Weaving Weaving Town & Country Rd On to Grand Ave Off 1300 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 2056 2056 3.48 11.4 45.0 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5634 6951 1.49 55.5 29.0 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 4573 4573 1.40 25.4 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 28.4 40.0 37.7 1.6 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 28.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 37.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.6 Density, pc/mi/ln 40.0 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:23:15 PM EB 2040 AM.xuf2-475 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving SR-57 SB Collector to Town & Country Rd Off-Ramp 1100 4 2 Basic Basic Town & Country Off to Town & Country On 1480 3 3 Weaving Weaving Town & Country Rd On to Grand Ave Off 1300 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 2932 2932 2.43 16.3 45.0 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 6046 6951 1.32 56.1 32.3 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5706 5706 1.37 31.7 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 33.1 41.0 38.7 1.3 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 33.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 38.7 Average Travel Time, min 1.3 Density, pc/mi/ln 41.0 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:23:36 PM EB 2040 PM.xuf2-476 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave Off to Grand Ave On 1080 4 2 Basic Basic La Veta Ave Off to La Veta Ave On 1580 3 3 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave On to I-5/SR-57 Connector 1530 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 7817 8054 1.03 39.7 49.3 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 6064 6951 0.96 32.3 62.6 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 6854 6939 0.99 46.7 36.7 E Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 39.0 48.4 46.5 1.2 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 39.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 46.5 Average Travel Time, min 1.2 Density, pc/mi/ln 48.4 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:25:38 PM WB 2040 AM.xuf 2-477 HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report Project Information Analyst TR Agency Translutions, INC. Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way Access and Surface Parking Lot Date 9/3/2019 Project Description The Addington Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, %7 Total Segments 3 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Segment Geometric Data No.Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave Off to Grand Ave On 1080 4 2 Basic Basic La Veta Ave Off to La Veta Ave On 1580 3 3 Weaving Weaving La Veta Ave On to I-5/SR-57 Connector 1530 4 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 5803 8539 1.02 15.9 91.5 F Segment 2: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 0.943 4872 6951 1.15 18.6 87.1 F Segment 3: Weaving Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1 0.95 1.000 2198 2198 2.54 12.2 45.0 F Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 15.9 71.4 68.3 3.0 F Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 15.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 68.3 Average Travel Time, min 3.0 Density, pc/mi/ln 71.4 Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Freeways Version 7.5 Generated: 9/3/2019 5:25:50 PM WB 2040 PM.xuf 2-478 Memorandum: The Addington Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis P:\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\ANALYSIS OFFSET SEPTEMBER 2019\MEMO SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS.DOCX September 3, 2019 the transportation solutions company...ATTACHMENT C: QUEUE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 2-479 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 309 193 240 8 33 1290 38 1567 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.21 0.56 0.22 0.01 0.17 0.60 0.14 0.69 Control Delay 58.5 28.3 58.4 32.4 0.0 64.6 35.4 51.1 27.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.5 28.3 58.4 32.4 0.0 64.6 35.4 51.1 27.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 68 57 74 73 0 13 223 13 358 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 79 109 105 0 31 352 30 405 Internal Link Dist (ft)486 468 678 587 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 357 1472 343 1067 585 343 2159 343 2279 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.21 0.56 0.22 0.01 0.10 0.60 0.11 0.69 Intersection Summary 2-480 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1 21 1373 1 1497 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.24 0.42 0.01 0.48 Control Delay 33.0 0.0 64.4 12.4 88.0 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.0 0.0 64.4 12.8 88.0 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 0 17 167 1 19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 m31 193 m1 30 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 110 675 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 150 80 Base Capacity (vph) 364 563 191 3262 191 3135 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1201 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000177 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.67 0.01 0.51 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-481 Queues 9: Main St & I-5 NB Ramps/Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBT EBR2 WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL2 SBT SBR NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 86 156 99 84 602 70 1386 18 800 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.25 0.81 0.29 0.59 0.36 0.53 0.74 0.03 0.92 Control Delay 44.2 3.3 80.2 5.1 76.0 36.6 48.3 22.7 0.5 55.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.2 3.3 80.2 5.1 76.0 36.6 48.3 23.3 0.5 55.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 0 117 0 27 99 48 367 0 330 Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 11 #219 23 m#59 m140 91 423 m0 #450 Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 268 811 225 Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 60 175 150 130 450 Base Capacity (vph) 244 359 212 359 143 1684 151 1885 646 917 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000017400 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.24 0.74 0.28 0.59 0.36 0.46 0.81 0.03 0.87 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-482 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 649 7 536 621 62 1516 663 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.93 0.05 0.29 0.65 0.43 0.73 0.93 Control Delay 45.1 64.2 85.3 12.5 15.1 33.6 9.2 64.2 Queue Delay 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.1 91.0 85.3 12.5 19.3 33.6 9.2 64.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 252 2 30 183 21 54 282 Queue Length 95th (ft) 153 #370 m4 62 244 m29 101 #403 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 328 702 146 1856 961 145 2077 731 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000258000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 84 000010 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 1.05 0.05 0.29 0.88 0.43 0.73 0.91 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-483 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 453 216 169 66 108 1161 36 1319 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.28 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.42 0.57 0.13 0.70 Control Delay 56.2 25.1 60.7 32.2 0.4 38.7 34.3 51.0 34.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.2 25.1 60.7 32.2 0.4 38.7 34.3 51.0 34.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 76 83 51 0 45 344 12 309 Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 108 124 80 0 69 394 30 377 Internal Link Dist (ft)489 501 678 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 443 1606 371 1032 571 343 2067 338 1882 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.28 0.58 0.16 0.12 0.31 0.56 0.11 0.70 Intersection Summary 2-484 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 23 27 1319 1 1651 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.25 0.41 0.01 0.55 Control Delay 33.6 0.1 72.6 10.7 45.0 30.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.6 0.1 72.6 11.0 45.0 30.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 0 20 117 1 478 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 m45 390 m1 531 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 110 679 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 150 80 Base Capacity (vph) 364 558 191 3254 191 3008 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1109 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.61 0.01 0.55 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-485 Queues 9: Main St & I-5 NB Ramps/Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBT EBR2 WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL2 SBT SBR NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 75 122 94 246 961 109 1352 142 311 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.23 0.69 0.29 0.65 0.43 0.49 0.58 0.18 0.74 Control Delay 49.1 1.7 69.4 4.6 58.6 41.3 26.9 5.3 1.3 59.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.1 1.7 69.4 4.6 58.6 41.3 26.9 5.4 1.3 59.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 0 91 0 104 241 61 19 0 131 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 1 152 18 m148 m289 113 75 0 181 Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 268 811 225 Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 60 175 150 130 450 Base Capacity (vph) 220 383 233 383 419 2216 224 2339 779 499 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000013800 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.52 0.25 0.59 0.43 0.49 0.61 0.18 0.62 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-486 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 708 10 1051 774 123 1487 380 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.93 0.07 0.50 0.85 0.72 0.60 0.87 Control Delay 47.9 61.1 29.9 6.2 15.5 88.5 21.4 69.8 Queue Delay 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.2 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.9 74.6 29.9 6.4 35.0 88.5 21.4 69.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 152 274 4 67 147 52 177 164 Queue Length 95th (ft) m192 m#355 m4 80 #195 #102 304 #250 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 368 769 143 2118 912 170 2463 452 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 361 152 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 66 0000130 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 1.01 0.07 0.60 1.02 0.72 0.61 0.84 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-487 Queues 2: Broadway & Santa Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 682 88 6 674 43 1536 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.91 0.03 0.49 0.46 0.96 Control Delay 106.7 117.6 0.2 16.7 62.7 41.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 106.7 117.6 0.2 16.7 62.7 41.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~477 55 0 103 26 461 Queue Length 95th (ft) #798 #164 0 181 #74 #740 Internal Link Dist (ft) 394 243 218 Turn Bay Length (ft)160 Base Capacity (vph) 608 97 398 1373 94 1603 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.12 0.91 0.02 0.49 0.46 0.96 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-488 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 309 195 240 8 33 1325 38 1577 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.20 0.62 0.22 0.01 0.17 0.61 0.14 0.69 Control Delay 58.5 27.9 61.0 32.4 0.0 55.8 27.6 51.1 28.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.5 27.9 61.0 32.4 0.0 55.8 27.6 51.1 28.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 68 57 75 73 0 12 300 13 362 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 79 110 105 0 28 338 30 408 Internal Link Dist (ft)347 457 678 361 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 357 1509 343 1067 585 343 2159 343 2279 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.20 0.57 0.22 0.01 0.10 0.61 0.11 0.69 Intersection Summary 2-489 Queues 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1 48 33 21 1391 12 1497 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.36 0.28 0.22 0.36 0.15 0.40 Control Delay 62.5 62.0 63.4 61.2 63.4 6.6 64.1 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.5 62.0 63.4 61.2 63.4 7.0 64.1 8.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 1 39 27 17 110 10 187 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 8 78 60 45 214 32 256 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 96 287 678 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 90 100 80 Base Capacity (vph)54 48 340 304 103 3861 81 3731 Starvation Cap Reductn 000001726 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.11 0.20 0.65 0.15 0.40 Intersection Summary 2-490 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBT EBR2 WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL2 SBT SBR NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 81 148 94 79 582 66 1360 18 764 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.23 0.76 0.27 0.51 0.35 0.49 0.73 0.03 0.91 Control Delay 39.6 1.5 69.4 3.2 34.9 9.0 60.5 34.8 0.1 52.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.6 1.5 69.4 3.2 34.9 9.0 60.5 34.8 0.1 52.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 0 100 0 29 34 45 329 0 284 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 0 #182 11 m55 m42 90 390 0 #403 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 268 811 44 Turn Bay Length (ft)140 60 175 150 130 450 Base Capacity (vph) 263 383 225 383 156 1665 154 1856 644 883 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000900 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.66 0.25 0.51 0.35 0.43 0.74 0.03 0.87 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-491 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave & Sasnta Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 643 7 535 615 74 1534 656 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.92 0.04 0.29 0.65 0.47 0.74 0.97 Control Delay 42.0 58.1 29.0 15.8 18.6 31.8 9.2 69.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 42.0 58.1 29.0 15.8 25.1 31.8 9.2 69.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 224 2 129 345 26 52 262 Queue Length 95th (ft) 150 #336 m3 149 455 m32 61 #394 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 329 708 156 1841 941 159 2082 677 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000272000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.91 0.04 0.29 0.92 0.47 0.74 0.97 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-492 Queues 11: Main St & Buffalo Ave/I-5 SB On-Ramp 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Lane Group EBT NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 358 1066 771 1503 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.57 0.63 0.38 Control Delay 50.5 29.5 18.2 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 Total Delay 50.5 29.6 18.8 1.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 125 216 141 32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 279 m163 m40 Internal Link Dist (ft) 501 421 357 Turn Bay Length (ft)170 Base Capacity (vph) 646 1871 1232 3911 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 166 1193 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 76 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.59 0.72 0.55 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-493 Queues 14: SR-22 WB Ramps & La Veta Avenue 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 252 280 479 949 504 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.16 0.77 0.18 0.78 0.48 Control Delay 24.3 0.2 44.5 9.9 28.2 6.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.3 0.2 44.5 9.9 28.2 6.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 0 128 42 213 68 Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 0 #218 59 285 129 Internal Link Dist (ft) 465 261 309 Turn Bay Length (ft)330 275 185 Base Capacity (vph) 1367 1583 409 2701 1223 1077 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.16 0.68 0.18 0.78 0.47 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-494 Queues 15: Lawson Way/SR-22 EB Ramps & Town and Country Road 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 235 68 68 113 26 160 366 506 462 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.44 0.58 0.09 0.25 0.07 0.23 0.76 1.06 0.62 Control Delay 69.1 23.4 61.7 28.2 6.0 30.0 27.9 42.0 89.5 6.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.1 23.4 61.7 28.2 6.0 30.0 27.9 42.0 89.5 6.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 95 82 38 16 0 12 35 191 ~322 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #173 153 #96 33 35 34 63 #320 #528 80 Internal Link Dist (ft)484 439 376 296 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 180 160 100 450 Base Capacity (vph) 362 531 118 786 450 354 707 481 478 745 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.90 0.44 0.58 0.09 0.25 0.07 0.23 0.76 1.06 0.62 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-495 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 453 221 169 66 108 1180 36 1346 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.28 0.65 0.16 0.12 0.42 0.57 0.14 0.72 Control Delay 56.2 25.2 61.1 32.2 0.4 57.3 29.0 51.9 34.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.2 25.2 61.1 32.2 0.4 57.3 29.0 51.9 34.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 77 85 51 0 41 271 13 318 Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 108 127 80 0 70 323 30 387 Internal Link Dist (ft)414 461 678 442 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 443 1602 371 1032 571 343 2065 314 1881 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.28 0.60 0.16 0.12 0.31 0.57 0.11 0.72 Intersection Summary 2-496 Queues 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 23 31 20 31 1367 33 1651 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.35 0.20 0.30 0.36 0.41 0.44 Control Delay 68.4 92.9 67.7 60.7 64.8 6.7 76.1 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.4 92.9 67.7 60.7 64.8 7.0 76.1 8.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 20 26 16 26 153 28 211 Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 #61 58 43 58 196 64 285 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 96 287 676 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 100 100 80 Base Capacity (vph)54 48 265 304 111 3818 81 3765 Starvation Cap Reductn 000001566 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.12 0.07 0.28 0.61 0.41 0.44 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-497 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBT EBR2 WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL2 SBT SBR NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 75 120 92 246 992 111 1384 142 327 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.18 0.57 0.22 0.67 0.51 0.68 0.78 0.22 0.71 Control Delay 30.0 1.0 41.5 1.2 29.3 14.4 57.1 28.2 4.8 41.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.0 1.0 41.5 1.2 29.3 14.4 57.1 28.2 4.8 41.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 0 56 0 66 168 55 236 0 86 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 0 101 0 m#122 m215 #127 #302 38 #159 Internal Link Dist (ft) 193 268 811 44 Turn Bay Length (ft)140 60 175 150 130 450 Base Capacity (vph) 314 515 308 515 368 1957 168 1772 645 467 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.15 0.39 0.18 0.67 0.51 0.66 0.78 0.22 0.70 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-498 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Existing With Option E Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 689 9 1029 749 127 1462 369 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.90 0.04 0.56 0.90 0.58 0.66 0.90 Control Delay 35.3 45.5 32.7 18.6 26.0 44.7 10.4 61.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.3 45.5 32.7 18.6 33.3 44.7 10.4 61.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 104 174 2 209 303 22 195 104 Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 #281 m3 253 m#492 m34 336 #191 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 362 766 214 1850 833 218 2200 408 Starvation Cap Reductn 000063000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.90 0.04 0.56 0.97 0.58 0.66 0.90 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-499 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 218 329 347 250 32 38 1224 39 1584 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.24 1.01 0.25 0.06 0.20 0.60 0.13 0.72 Control Delay 63.2 28.1 105.2 34.5 0.2 77.0 24.8 50.2 30.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.2 28.1 105.2 34.5 0.2 77.0 24.8 50.2 30.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 58 ~142 79 0 16 165 13 377 Queue Length 95th (ft) 127 86 #242 116 0 36 234 31 449 Internal Link Dist (ft)487 449 678 504 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 343 1395 343 992 555 343 2079 365 2190 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.24 1.01 0.25 0.06 0.11 0.59 0.11 0.72 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-500 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1 21 1385 1 1765 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.20 0.43 0.01 0.57 Control Delay 33.0 0.0 57.8 11.6 72.0 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.0 0.0 57.8 12.1 72.0 10.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 0 16 169 0 135 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 42 260 m0 m151 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 110 681 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 150 80 Base Capacity (vph) 364 556 191 3254 191 3118 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1249 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.69 0.01 0.57 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-501 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 102 643 74 1666 783 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.76 0.90 Control Delay 60.6 10.8 13.8 61.1 30.7 50.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 Total Delay 60.6 10.8 13.8 61.1 31.9 50.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 114 0 51 50 377 289 Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 46 m69 99 456 #388 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 225 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 289 346 1617 162 2179 926 Starvation Cap Reductn 00002850 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.29 0.40 0.46 0.88 0.85 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-502 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 675 7 500 710 97 1699 778 v/c Ratio 0.40 1.04 0.04 0.29 0.76 0.60 0.83 1.04 Control Delay 44.0 87.5 34.6 12.8 22.1 42.2 16.2 84.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.0 87.5 34.6 12.8 72.7 42.2 16.2 84.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 ~265 2 117 411 33 69 ~338 Queue Length 95th (ft) 146 #390 m3 110 529 m42 #532 #470 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 300 647 156 1701 932 162 2041 747 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000286000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 1.04 0.04 0.29 1.10 0.60 0.83 1.04 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-503 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 309 491 217 186 80 128 1367 42 1443 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.33 0.58 0.19 0.15 0.46 0.74 0.15 0.81 Control Delay 60.9 27.7 57.9 34.0 0.6 83.0 29.3 51.5 39.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.9 27.7 57.9 34.0 0.6 83.0 29.3 51.5 39.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 88 84 58 0 55 171 15 363 Queue Length 95th (ft) 169 121 125 89 0 88 278 34 438 Internal Link Dist (ft)488 344 678 527 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 429 1481 371 973 547 343 1852 314 1771 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.33 0.58 0.19 0.15 0.37 0.74 0.13 0.81 Intersection Summary 2-504 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 23 27 1553 1 1745 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.25 0.48 0.01 0.58 Control Delay 33.6 0.1 58.7 12.2 64.0 9.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.6 0.1 58.7 12.9 64.0 9.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 0 20 199 1 131 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 51 303 m1 146 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 110 678 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 150 80 Base Capacity (vph) 364 557 191 3254 191 3008 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1190 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.75 0.01 0.58 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-505 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 98 1117 114 1580 422 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.29 0.57 0.70 0.61 0.73 Control Delay 39.0 4.4 21.6 59.6 16.8 37.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.0 4.4 21.6 59.6 16.8 37.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 0 203 56 211 110 Queue Length 95th (ft) 106 18 m260 #133 287 165 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 225 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 398 467 1961 165 2606 593 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.21 0.57 0.69 0.61 0.71 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-506 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 OY Cumulative Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 766 10 953 1022 300 1500 485 v/c Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.05 0.56 1.29 1.40 0.69 1.15 Control Delay 34.3 64.4 31.4 18.7 156.0 237.6 11.5 125.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.3 64.4 31.4 18.7 156.4 237.6 11.5 125.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 ~202 2 186 ~629 ~98 48 ~164 Queue Length 95th (ft) 172 #331 m3 m228 m#826 #177 #90 #266 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 362 765 214 1709 793 214 2177 421 Starvation Cap Reductn 000054000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.05 0.56 1.38 1.40 0.69 1.15 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-507 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 347 369 264 33 40 1329 41 1686 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.23 1.08 0.25 0.06 0.21 0.66 0.13 0.77 Control Delay 62.4 27.1 120.9 33.1 0.2 56.0 30.8 50.4 31.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.4 27.1 120.9 33.1 0.2 56.0 30.8 50.4 31.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 61 ~163 82 0 15 307 14 402 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 84 #249 114 0 32 345 31 452 Internal Link Dist (ft)347 457 678 361 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 357 1477 343 1047 577 343 2023 343 2181 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.23 1.08 0.25 0.06 0.12 0.66 0.12 0.77 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-508 Queues 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1 48 33 21 1403 12 1765 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.36 0.28 0.22 0.36 0.15 0.47 Control Delay 62.5 62.0 63.4 61.2 63.4 6.6 64.1 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.5 62.0 63.4 61.2 63.4 7.0 64.1 9.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 1 39 27 17 112 10 239 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 8 78 60 45 216 32 323 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 96 287 678 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 90 100 90 Base Capacity (vph)54 48 340 304 103 3861 81 3731 Starvation Cap Reductn 000001720 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.11 0.20 0.66 0.15 0.47 Intersection Summary 2-509 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 102 654 74 1714 788 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.33 0.40 0.53 0.78 0.91 Control Delay 60.6 10.8 10.4 62.6 31.2 51.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Total Delay 60.6 10.8 10.4 62.6 32.7 51.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 114 0 42 50 395 290 Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 46 m68 100 469 #414 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 44 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 289 346 1635 153 2185 911 Starvation Cap Reductn 00002820 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.29 0.40 0.48 0.90 0.86 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-510 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave & Sasnta Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 669 7 499 702 108 1715 770 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.91 0.04 0.31 0.80 0.53 0.86 1.11 Control Delay 40.1 55.5 22.1 21.9 28.7 34.3 15.1 108.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.1 55.5 22.1 21.9 55.1 34.3 15.1 108.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 232 2 130 376 38 51 ~359 Queue Length 95th (ft) 145 #341 m3 170 493 m45 #555 #491 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 352 752 156 1594 876 202 1993 693 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000198000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.89 0.04 0.31 1.04 0.53 0.86 1.11 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-511 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 309 491 222 186 80 128 1386 42 1471 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.31 0.65 0.18 0.14 0.46 0.72 0.15 0.79 Control Delay 59.2 25.8 61.1 32.4 0.5 57.8 33.4 51.5 37.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.2 25.8 61.1 32.4 0.5 57.8 33.4 51.5 37.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 85 85 56 0 49 332 15 362 Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 117 127 87 0 80 391 34 437 Internal Link Dist (ft)362 381 678 493 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 443 1602 371 1032 571 343 1934 314 1856 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.31 0.60 0.18 0.14 0.37 0.72 0.13 0.79 Intersection Summary 2-512 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 23 31 20 31 1601 33 1745 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.35 0.20 0.30 0.42 0.41 0.46 Control Delay 68.4 92.9 67.7 60.7 64.8 7.2 76.1 8.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.4 92.9 67.7 60.7 64.8 7.6 76.1 8.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 20 26 16 26 191 28 229 Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 #61 58 43 58 242 64 309 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 96 287 677 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 90 100 90 Base Capacity (vph)54 48 265 304 111 3822 81 3765 Starvation Cap Reductn 000001465 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.12 0.07 0.28 0.68 0.41 0.46 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-513 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 96 1148 116 1612 438 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.29 0.63 0.75 0.62 0.73 Control Delay 39.1 4.2 21.8 66.6 17.3 37.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.1 4.2 21.8 66.6 17.3 37.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 0 204 58 222 113 Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 17 m258 #142 296 171 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 44 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 398 467 1820 154 2580 606 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.21 0.63 0.75 0.62 0.72 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-514 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 OY Cumulative With Option E - Main St./Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 768 10 965 1022 309 1523 485 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.05 0.54 1.34 1.11 0.65 1.47 Control Delay 36.2 65.0 33.3 19.0 177.9 124.8 8.6 256.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.2 65.0 33.3 19.0 178.3 124.8 8.6 256.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 109 ~204 3 194 ~659 ~84 28 ~192 Queue Length 95th (ft) 189 #333 m3 m217 m#775 #165 61 #293 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 362 765 214 1779 764 278 2339 330 Starvation Cap Reductn 000043000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.05 0.54 1.42 1.11 0.65 1.47 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-515 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 251 334 353 255 32 39 1441 39 1845 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.24 1.03 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.69 0.14 0.84 Control Delay 67.5 28.3 109.1 34.7 0.2 76.7 26.2 51.1 34.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 67.5 28.3 109.1 34.7 0.2 76.7 26.2 51.1 34.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 60 ~150 81 0 16 182 14 479 Queue Length 95th (ft) #152 87 #247 118 0 m34 294 31 #602 Internal Link Dist (ft)480 364 678 516 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 343 1395 343 982 551 343 2080 343 2189 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.24 1.03 0.26 0.06 0.11 0.69 0.11 0.84 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-516 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1 22 1560 1 1833 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.48 0.01 0.61 Control Delay 33.0 0.0 58.0 12.3 73.0 9.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.0 0.0 58.0 12.9 73.0 9.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 0 17 200 0 126 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 44 305 m0 m136 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 110 679 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 150 80 Base Capacity (vph) 364 555 191 3254 191 3016 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1187 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.75 0.01 0.61 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-517 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 106 827 75 1745 789 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.35 0.50 0.52 0.79 0.92 Control Delay 60.6 11.7 14.5 61.1 31.1 53.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Total Delay 60.6 11.7 14.5 61.1 33.1 53.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 114 1 65 51 405 291 Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 50 m101 99 472 #427 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 225 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 289 346 1642 164 2199 886 Starvation Cap Reductn 00002940 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.31 0.50 0.46 0.92 0.89 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-518 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 736 8 637 755 156 1758 821 v/c Ratio 0.57 1.14 0.05 0.36 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.18 Control Delay 49.3 118.5 41.0 13.0 24.6 54.3 14.4 132.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.3 118.5 41.0 13.0 74.9 54.3 14.5 132.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 ~316 2 149 448 52 70 ~395 Queue Length 95th (ft) 203 #445 m3 132 569 m#76 #541 #530 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 300 646 156 1752 919 190 2132 696 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000278000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000070 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 1.14 0.05 0.36 1.18 0.82 0.83 1.18 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-519 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 419 529 235 198 88 136 1728 44 1552 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.35 0.68 0.20 0.16 0.48 0.93 0.16 0.88 Control Delay 90.6 27.7 62.2 34.1 0.6 81.7 39.9 51.6 43.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 90.6 27.7 62.2 34.1 0.6 81.7 39.9 51.6 43.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 96 91 62 0 58 ~224 16 405 Queue Length 95th (ft) #272 130 134 94 1 93 #578 35 #512 Internal Link Dist (ft)478 366 678 524 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 429 1514 371 973 547 343 1850 314 1765 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.98 0.35 0.63 0.20 0.16 0.40 0.93 0.14 0.88 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-520 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 25 29 1822 1 1877 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.05 0.26 0.56 0.01 0.63 Control Delay 33.7 0.2 58.8 13.4 62.0 9.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.7 0.2 58.8 14.5 62.0 9.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 0 22 252 1 142 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 53 381 m1 157 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 110 680 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 150 80 Base Capacity (vph) 364 555 191 3254 191 3002 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1095 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.84 0.01 0.63 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-521 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 106 1432 124 1776 454 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.30 0.87 0.89 0.75 0.74 Control Delay 39.2 4.8 37.6 92.2 20.7 38.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Delay 39.2 4.8 37.6 92.2 20.7 38.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 0 291 63 270 115 Queue Length 95th (ft) 114 23 m#366 #161 331 #211 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 225 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 398 467 1653 139 2363 615 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000390 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.23 0.87 0.89 0.76 0.74 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-522 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/03/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 Conditions - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 817 11 1139 1063 375 1543 511 v/c Ratio 0.73 1.07 0.05 0.64 1.40 1.35 0.66 1.55 Control Delay 42.2 82.9 24.4 11.4 200.2 214.6 10.0 289.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 42.2 82.9 24.4 11.4 200.9 214.6 10.0 289.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 134 ~244 3 135 ~685 ~135 42 ~207 Queue Length 95th (ft) #251 #364 m3 m151 m#754 m#206 160 #311 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 362 765 214 1779 761 278 2341 330 Starvation Cap Reductn 000077000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 1.07 0.05 0.64 1.55 1.35 0.66 1.55 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-523 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 251 334 355 255 32 39 1473 39 1854 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.23 1.03 0.24 0.06 0.20 0.68 0.14 0.82 Control Delay 64.8 26.8 110.4 33.1 0.2 55.9 29.9 51.1 32.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 64.8 26.8 110.4 33.1 0.2 55.9 29.9 51.1 32.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 58 ~152 79 0 14 356 14 468 Queue Length 95th (ft) 143 85 #250 115 0 33 416 31 552 Internal Link Dist (ft)347 457 678 361 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 357 1477 343 1042 575 343 2162 343 2273 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.23 1.03 0.24 0.06 0.11 0.68 0.11 0.82 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-524 Queues 7: Main St & Walkie Way/Project Driveway 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1 46 32 22 1577 12 1833 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.28 0.21 0.07 0.42 0.15 0.63 Control Delay 62.5 62.0 56.9 55.6 51.0 8.2 64.1 20.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.5 62.0 56.9 55.6 51.0 8.6 64.1 20.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 1 35 25 17 168 10 364 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 8 75 57 44 266 32 413 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 96 287 678 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 90 100 90 Base Capacity (vph)54 48 340 304 296 3764 81 2892 Starvation Cap Reductn 000001508 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.70 0.15 0.63 Intersection Summary 2-525 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 106 838 75 1792 794 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.35 0.51 0.54 0.82 0.91 Control Delay 60.6 11.7 11.3 63.1 32.7 51.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 Total Delay 60.6 11.7 11.3 63.1 35.4 51.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 114 1 60 51 427 290 Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 50 m70 100 499 #421 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 44 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 289 346 1638 153 2178 910 Starvation Cap Reductn 00002670 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.31 0.51 0.49 0.94 0.87 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-526 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave & Sasnta Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/12/2019 Year 2040 With Option E Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - AM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 737 8 641 755 168 1791 821 v/c Ratio 0.59 1.14 0.05 0.38 0.83 0.82 0.86 1.14 Control Delay 50.1 119.1 36.8 14.6 25.9 51.0 15.4 116.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.1 119.1 36.8 14.6 75.9 51.0 15.4 116.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 127 ~317 2 157 442 55 65 ~385 Queue Length 95th (ft) 210 #445 m3 157 #563 m#71 #570 #519 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 300 646 156 1682 907 205 2084 722 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000259000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000080 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 1.14 0.05 0.38 1.17 0.82 0.86 1.14 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-527 Queues 6: Main St & Memory Lane 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 419 529 240 198 88 136 1748 44 1579 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.33 0.69 0.19 0.15 0.48 0.90 0.16 0.85 Control Delay 83.2 26.3 62.8 32.5 0.6 58.1 42.6 51.6 40.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 83.2 26.3 62.8 32.5 0.6 58.1 42.6 51.6 40.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 168 93 93 60 0 52 475 16 404 Queue Length 95th (ft) #267 126 137 92 1 84 #590 35 482 Internal Link Dist (ft)475 347 678 458 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 230 470 230 160 Base Capacity (vph) 443 1593 371 1032 571 343 1933 314 1848 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 0.33 0.65 0.19 0.15 0.40 0.90 0.14 0.85 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-528 Queues 7: Main St & Santiago Park/Walkie Way 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 25 31 20 34 1869 33 1877 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.52 0.35 0.20 0.31 0.49 0.41 0.50 Control Delay 68.3 97.4 67.8 60.7 65.3 8.0 76.1 9.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 Total Delay 68.3 97.4 67.8 60.7 65.3 8.5 76.1 9.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 21 26 16 28 242 28 258 Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 #64 58 43 62 305 64 347 Internal Link Dist (ft)118 96 287 679 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 90 100 90 Base Capacity (vph)54 48 265 304 113 3821 81 3760 Starvation Cap Reductn 000001347 0 730 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.52 0.12 0.07 0.30 0.76 0.41 0.62 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2-529 Queues 9: Main St & Edgewood Rd 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL2 SBT NWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 104 1463 126 1808 470 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.30 0.90 0.91 0.77 0.74 Control Delay 39.2 4.7 31.1 95.2 21.5 37.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.2 4.7 31.1 95.2 21.5 37.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 293 64 282 119 Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 22 m#382 #164 345 #213 Internal Link Dist (ft) 268 811 44 Turn Bay Length (ft)60 150 450 Base Capacity (vph) 398 467 1632 139 2341 631 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000180 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.22 0.90 0.91 0.78 0.74 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-530 Queues 10: Main St & Santa Clara Ave 09/13/2019 The Addington 09/03/2019 Year 2040 With Option E - Main St/Walkie Way and Surface Parking - PM Peak hour Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SER Lane Group Flow (vph) 293 821 11 1138 1063 383 1564 511 v/c Ratio 0.81 1.07 0.05 0.64 1.40 1.38 0.67 1.55 Control Delay 48.7 85.1 33.8 19.3 200.7 220.8 7.5 289.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.7 85.1 33.8 19.3 201.1 220.8 7.5 289.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 152 ~247 3 231 ~704 ~125 22 ~207 Queue Length 95th (ft) #293 #367 m3 m230 m#693 m#190 85 #311 Internal Link Dist (ft)562 357 811 Turn Bay Length (ft)70 300 450 630 Base Capacity (vph) 362 764 214 1779 761 278 2341 330 Starvation Cap Reductn 000047000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 1.07 0.05 0.64 1.49 1.38 0.67 1.55 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2-531 Clarification to the 2525 N Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project Final EIR City of Santa Ana October 2019 Attachment C: Parking Analysis 2-532 | translutions, inc. | 17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200, Tustin, California 92780 | P (949) 656-3131 | solutions@translutions.com | m e m o r a n d u m DATE: September 13, 2019 TO: Ms. Selena Kelaher, AICP City of Santa Ana FROM: Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., TE, AICP, ENV-SP SUBJECT: 2525 Main Street – Parking Analysis Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is has prepared this memorandum for the proposed 2525 Main Street Residential Project in the City of Santa Ana. The project proposes the following types of multi-family units: Studio - 68 units (25.19%) 1 Bedroom - 123 units (45.56%) 2 Bedroom - 75 units (27.78%) 3 Bedroom - 4 units (1.48%) City Code. Section 41 of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), Off-Street Parking Requirements discusses off-street parking requirements for development projects. Sec. 41-1322 discusses the off-street parking requirements for multi-family dwellings. a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for each dwelling unit in multiple-family dwellings are as follows: one (1) space in a garage or carport. b) Each multiple-family dwelling site shall provide off-street parking spaces, in addition to the minimum requirements of subsection (a) of this section, in an amount not less than the number of bedrooms on the site. Such spaces may be open or covered and may be assigned to particular units or not so assigned. Bachelor units shall be considered as one-bedroom units. c) In addition to the minimum requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, each multiple-family dwelling site shall provide guest parking, identified as such, in an amount of spaces not less than twenty-five (25) per cent of the minimum required spaces under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, but in no case less than three (3) spaces. The SAMC also requires that a portion of the required off-street parking spaces be designed for physically handicapped persons. Parking for handicapped persons at a rate of 2% of total parking for parking facilities between 501 and 1,000 stalls, and 1% thereafter is required. Note that handicapped parking is portion of the required parking and not an additional requirement. Table A calculates the required parking using the SAMC. As seen on Table A, the residential parking requirement for the project would be 779 spaces based on City Code. Table A: Project Parking Demand Code Subsection Land Use Units Rate Parking Required (a) Total Units 270 1 270 (b) Studio 68 1 68 1 Bedroom 123 1 123 2 Bedroom 75 2 150 3 Bedroom 4 3 12 Parking Required (Residential) 623 Handicap (2% up to 1000 spaces, 1% thereafter - Included in Residential) 192 Parking Required (Guest - 25% of Minimum of a & b) 156 Handicap (2% of Guest - Included in Guest) 3 Total Parking Required 779 translutionsthe transportation solutions company... 2-533 Memorandum: 2525 Main Parking Analysis D:\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\PARKING ANALYSIS\PARKING 270\PARKING MEMO_REV1.DOCX 2 the transportation solutions company...General Plan Circulation Element. The City’s General Plan acknowledges that while adequate supply of parking is essential to the economic success of businesses, parking needs should be evaluated to determine needed changes based upon changing circumstances in land use patterns and the public’s mode of travel. Policy 7.4 of the General Plan Circulation Element also states that parking requirements be re-evaluated and updated on a regular basis. It should be noted that the City’s parking ratios are from 1997 and are over 20 years old. With changes in demographics, increased transit, and increased uses of active transportation modes in the City, an update to the parking standards is needed. Parking Study & Rate Calculation. Translutions surveyed two similar facilities in the area to identify parking generation factors for similar multi-family residential projects. The two facilities surveyed are Nineteen01 and The Marke. Both properties are similar to the proposed project in terms of rents, target population, apartment types, and amenities. Nineteen01 is located at 1901 East First Street in the City of Santa Ana and has 254 units. The unit breakdown for Noneteen01 is as follows: 1 Bedroom - 123 units (48.4%) 2 Bedroom - 125 units (49.2%) 3 Bedroom - 6 units (2.4%) The Marke is located at 100 E MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Santa Ana and has 300 units. The unit breakdown for Noneteen01 is as follows: 1 Bedroom - 155 units (51.7%) 2 Bedroom - 131 units (43.6%) 3 Bedroom - 14 units (4.7%) To identify parking demand for the two projects, Translutions contracted with Counts Unlimited, Inc. to conduct a parking occupancy survey for the two facilities identified above. The surveys were conducted on one weekday (Thursday) and one weekend day (Saturday) in April 2018 for a period of 24 hours. Table B shows the findings of this analysis. Detailed parking accumulation data is included in Attachment A. Table B: Parking Survey Summary Survey Location Units Day of Week Parking Parking Nineteen01 254 Peak Weekday 344 1.354 Peak Weekend 342 1.346 The Marke 300 Peak Weekday 230 0.767 Peak Weekend 193 0.643 Average Demand (Weekday) 1.060 Average Demand (Weekend) 0.995 Peak Parking Demand Per Unit (Weekday & Weekend) 1.354 Project Maximum Parking Demand (270 Units) 270 366 As seen on Table B, the peak weekday parking demand is 1.354 spaces per unit observed at Nineteen01. The peak weekend parking demand is 1.346 spaces per unit observed at Nineteen01. Therefore, the peak parking demand based on empirical data occurred at Nineteen01, at the rate of 1.354 parking spaces per unit. Parking Needs for Proposed Project. Applying the peak parking rate based on empirical data, the peak parking demand for the proposed project is anticipated to be 366 spaces. The project will include 539 parking spaces, which is approximately 32% more than the number of spaces forecast based on empirical data. Shared Parking Analysis. Shared parking is based on the use of a single parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour at the individual land use and the relationship among the land uses that result in visiting multiple lands on the same auto trip. A shared 2-534 Memorandum: 2525 Main Parking Analysis D:\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\PARKING ANALYSIS\PARKING 270\PARKING MEMO_REV1.DOCX 3 the transportation solutions company...parking analysis was conducted to identify the parking demand when considering the variations in parking demand among the project and Discovery Cube. The forecast parking demand for the project was calculated based on rates from ULI’s Shared Parking (2nd Edition). The rates for low- rise apartments range from 0.68 to 1.94 spaces per dwelling unit. The rates for high-rise apartments range from 1.15 to 1.52 spaces per dwelling unit. To provide a conservative analysis the higher rate of 1.94 spaces per dwelling unit were used under weekday and weekend conditions. The parking demand for the Discovery Cube was provided by data from the Science Center. It is anticipated that 60 patrons will utilize the parking lot on weekdays and 90 patrons will utilize the parking lot on weekends. Table C summarizes the forecast parking demand for the project after applying parking rates from ULI. As shown in Table C, the weekday parking demand is 584 parking spaces and the weekend parking demand is 614 parking spaces. The parking needs of individual land uses vary by hour of day. Since parking needs may peak at different times, it generally means that fewer parking spaces are required to serve a mixed-use project than if each land use has its own dedicated parking. As such, time-of- day factors for weekdays/weekends were applied to the forecast parking demand to develop the total shared parking demand. The time- of-day factors for the proposed project are based on Land Use “Residential” from ULI’s Shared Parking (2nd Edition). The time-of-day factors for the Discovery Cube are based on data provided by the Science Center. The time-of-day factors for weekdays were applied to the parking demand for each land use to develop the shared parking demand. The shared parking demand on weekdays is illustrated in Table D. As shown in Table D, the total peak shared parking demand on weekdays is 571 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 148 parking spaces on weekdays. The time-of-day factors for weekends were applied to the parking demand for each land use to develop the shared parking demand. The shared parking demand on weekends is illustrated in Table E. As shown in Table E, the total peak shared parking demand on weekends is 601 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 118 parking spaces on weekdays. The Discovery Cube hosts an event each year called Bubblefest that will draw higher than normal patrons. A shared parking analysis on weekdays and weekends was conducted for the Bubblefest. It is anticipated that 200 parking spaces will be used on weekdays and 200 parking spaces will be used on weekends during Bubblefest. The shared parking demand for the Bubblefest on weekdays is illustrated in Table F. As shown in Table F, the total peak shared parking demand on weekdays is 711 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 8 parking spaces on weekdays. The shared parking demand for the Bubblefest on weekends is illustrated in Table G. As shown in Table G, the total peak shared parking demand on weekends is 711 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 8 parking spaces on weekdays. Conclusion. The parking supply required for the project using parking rates from the SAMC is 779 spaces. Since the parking requirements in the SAMC are over 20 years old, Translutions conducted surveys at two similar facilities currently in operation. The peak parking demand was observed to be 1.354 spaces per unit. Using the parking demand rates from empirical data, the project parking needs are forecast to be 366 spaces. The project will include 539 parking spaces, which is approximately 32% more than the number of spaces forecast based on empirical data. A shared parking analysis was conducted on weekdays and weekends for the project and Discovery Cube. The total peak shared parking demand on weekdays is 571 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 148 parking spaces on weekdays. Also, the total peak shared parking demand on weekends is 601 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 118 parking spaces on weekdays. The shared parking demand for the Bubblefest on weekdays is 711 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 8 parking spaces on weekdays. The shared parking demand for the Bubblefest on weekends is 711 parking spaces. Given the parking supply of 719 parking spaces, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus of 8 parking spaces on weekdays. 2-535 Memorandum: 2525 Main Parking Analysis D:\PROJECTS\RE - 2525 MAIN STREET\PARKING ANALYSIS\PARKING 270\PARKING MEMO_REV1.DOCX 4 the transportation solutions company...If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 656-3131. 2-536 Resident Guest Total Resident Guest TotalResident Guest Total Resident Guest TotalResidential (Project)1.55 0.39 1.94 1.55 0.39 1.941 space per DU1270 DU 419 105 524 419 105 524Discovery Cube ------ -----60--90WeekendWeekday/Weekend TotalsTable C: Forecast Parking DemandLand UseULI Base Parking Rates Parking DemandUnit Unit584Notes: DU= dwelling units. 1Base parking rates from ULI's Shared Parking (2nd Edition). WeekdayWeekdayWeekend6142-537 the transportation solutions company... Hour of Day Resident Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Guest Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Time of Day Factor2 Parking Spaces Required 6:00 100% 419 0%0 -419 719 300 7:00 90%377 10%11 -388 719 331 8:00 85%356 20%21 -377 719 342 9:00 80%335 20%21 -356 719 363 10:00 75%314 20%21 100%60 395 719 324 11:00 70%293 20%21 100%60 374 719 345 12:00 65%272 20%21 100%60 353 719 366 13:00 70%293 20%21 100%60 374 719 345 14:00 70%293 20%21 100%60 374 719 345 15:00 70%293 20%21 100%60 374 719 345 16:00 75%314 20%21 100%60 395 719 324 17:00 85%356 40%42 100%60 458 719 261 18:00 90%377 60%63 100%60 500 719 219 19:00 97%406 100%105 100%60 571 719 148 20:00 98%411 100%105 516 719 203 21:00 99%415 100%105 520 719 199 22:00 100% 419 100%105 524 719 195 23:00 100% 419 80%84 503 719 216 0:00 100% 419 50%53 472 719 247 Peak Hour Shared Parking Required 571 Parking Supply 719 Parking Surplus/(Parking Deficit) 148 Discovery CubeProposed Project Table D: Weekday Shared Parking Demand Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided Parking Surplus/( Parking Deficit) 2Time-of-day factors provided from the Discovery Cube. 1Time-of-day factors from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 2nd Edition. D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Parking Analysis\Parking 270\Shared Parking\Weekday Shared Parking (9/13/2019 )2-538 the transportation solutions company... Hour of Day Resident Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Guest Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Time of Day Factor2 Parking Spaces Required 6:00 100% 419 0%0 -419 719 300 7:00 90%377 20%21 -398 719 321 8:00 85%356 20%21 -377 719 342 9:00 80%335 20%21 -356 719 363 10:00 75%314 20%21 100%90 425 719 294 11:00 70%293 20%21 100%90 404 719 315 12:00 65%272 20%21 100%90 383 719 336 13:00 70%293 20%21 100%90 404 719 315 14:00 70%293 20%21 100%90 404 719 315 15:00 70%293 20%21 100%90 404 719 315 16:00 75%314 20%21 100%90 425 719 294 17:00 85%356 40%42 100%90 488 719 231 18:00 90%377 60%63 100%90 530 719 189 19:00 97%406 100%105 100%90 601 719 118 20:00 98%411 100%105 516 719 203 21:00 99%415 100%105 520 719 199 22:00 100% 419 100%105 524 719 195 23:00 100% 419 80%84 503 719 216 0:00 100% 419 50%53 472 719 247 Peak Hour Shared Parking Required 601 Parking Supply 719 Parking Surplus/(Parking Deficit) 118 1Time-of-day factors from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 2nd Edition. 2Time-of-day factors provided from the Discovery Cube. Table E: Weekend Shared Parking Demand Proposed Project Discovery Cube Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided Parking Surplus/( Parking Deficit) D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Parking Analysis\Parking 270\Shared Parking\Weekend Shared Parking (9/13/2019 )2-539 the transportation solutions company... Hour of Day Resident Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Guest Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Time of Day Factor2 Parking Spaces Required 6:00 100% 419 0%0 -419 719 300 7:00 90%377 10%11 -388 719 331 8:00 85%356 20%21 -377 719 342 9:00 80%335 20%21 -356 719 363 10:00 75%314 20%21 100%200 535 719 184 11:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 12:00 65%272 20%21 100%200 493 719 226 13:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 14:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 15:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 16:00 75%314 20%21 100%200 535 719 184 17:00 85%356 40%42 100%200 598 719 121 18:00 90%377 60%63 100%200 640 719 79 19:00 97%406 100%105 100%200 711 719 8 20:00 98%411 100%105 516 719 203 21:00 99%415 100%105 520 719 199 22:00 100% 419 100%105 524 719 195 23:00 100% 419 80%84 503 719 216 0:00 100% 419 50%53 472 719 247 Peak Hour Shared Parking Required 711 Parking Supply 719 Parking Surplus/(Parking Deficit) 8 1Time-of-day factors from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 2nd Edition. 2Time-of-day factors provided from the Discovery Cube. Table F: Weekday With Bubblefest Shared Parking Demand Proposed Project Discovery Cube Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided Parking Surplus/( Parking Deficit) D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Parking Analysis\Parking 270\Shared Parking\Weekday Bubble Shared Parking (9/13/2019 )2-540 the transportation solutions company... Hour of Day Resident Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Guest Time of Day Factor1 Parking Spaces Required Time of Day Factor2 Parking Spaces Required 6:00 100% 419 0%0 -419 719 300 7:00 90%377 20%21 -398 719 321 8:00 85%356 20%21 -377 719 342 9:00 80%335 20%21 -356 719 363 10:00 75%314 20%21 100%200 535 719 184 11:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 12:00 65%272 20%21 100%200 493 719 226 13:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 14:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 15:00 70%293 20%21 100%200 514 719 205 16:00 75%314 20%21 100%200 535 719 184 17:00 85%356 40%42 100%200 598 719 121 18:00 90%377 60%63 100%200 640 719 79 19:00 97%406 100%105 100%200 711 719 8 20:00 98%411 100%105 516 719 203 21:00 99%415 100%105 520 719 199 22:00 100% 419 100%105 524 719 195 23:00 100% 419 80%84 503 719 216 0:00 100% 419 50%53 472 719 247 Peak Hour Shared Parking Required 711 Parking Supply 719 Parking Surplus/(Parking Deficit) 8 1Time-of-day factors from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 2nd Edition. 2Time-of-day factors provided from the Discovery Cube. Table G: Weekend with Bubblefest Shared Parking Demand Proposed Project Discovery Cube Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided Parking Surplus/( Parking Deficit) D:\Projects\RE - 2525 Main Street\Parking Analysis\Parking 270\Shared Parking\Weekend Bubble Shared Parking (9/13/2019 )2-541 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 332 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 1000333 0:15 1210333 0:30 3421333 0:45 1302329 1:00 0122328 1:15 2010331 1:30 0101329 1:45 3100331 2:00 0010332 2:15 1010334 2:30 1010336 2:45 0000336 3:00 0010337 3:15 1000338 3:30 0100337 3:45 0001336 4:00 0000336 4:15 0000336 4:30 0000336 4:45 2001337 5:00 0102334 5:15 0123332 5:30 1403326 5:45 1202323 6:00 2105319 6:15 1402314 6:30 0304307 6:45 3516300 7:00 2516292 7:15 2209283 7:30 2 14 0 11 260 7:45 3717250 8:00 3 6 2 11 238 8:15 2539229 8:30 6 11 2 12 214 8:45 9513216 9:00 6625213 9:15 5311215 9:30 2806203 9:45 4205200 10:00 1518189 10:15 0639177 10:30 3319169 10:45 6413169 11:00 3412167 11:15 3415162 11:30 3217157 11:45 5218153 4/26/2018 Santa Ana Ninteen01 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-542 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 332 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 4/26/2018 Santa Ana Ninteen01 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy 12:00 8537152 12:15 4463155 12:30 3713149 12:45 10 4 2 6 151 13:00 6136153 13:15 5363158 13:30 5554159 13:45 4335158 14:00 2444156 14:15 8633158 14:30 9206159 14:45 7344163 15:00 8236166 15:15 9446169 15:30 6536167 15:45 11 5 4 4 173 16:00 7342179 16:15 5316176 16:30 7509169 16:45 9261181 17:00 10 4 9 8 188 17:15 16 2 6 6 202 17:30 10 3 5 3 211 17:45 12 2 5 4 222 18:00 9482233 18:15 15 2 6 15 237 18:30 12 5 5 11 238 18:45 14 8 5 3 246 19:00 12 5 8 4 257 19:15 2684257 19:30 8156263 19:45 9777265 20:00 9574272 20:15 9265280 20:30 12 3 6 7 288 20:45 6753289 21:00 9200296 21:15 2452297 21:30 8 1 10 5 309 21:45 7195319 22:00 5141326 22:15 1721321 22:30 6464325 22:45 3215322 23:00 8242330 23:15 1121331 23:30 6221336 23:45 4051344 0:00 0003341 TOTAL 452 307 252 388 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-543 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 331 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 3031330 0:15 2452331 0:30 3110334 0:45 1222333 1:00 4530335 1:15 2412332 1:30 4212333 1:45 2302330 2:00 2221331 2:15 0010332 2:30 1000333 2:45 4221336 3:00 4023339 3:15 0000339 3:30 1110340 3:45 0012339 4:00 0010340 4:15 0100339 4:30 0021340 4:45 1010342 5:00 0001341 5:15 0001340 5:30 0010341 5:45 2200341 6:00 0200339 6:15 0012338 6:30 0222336 6:45 0102333 7:00 0210332 7:15 0004328 7:30 1 11 0 6 312 7:45 1014310 8:00 6516306 8:15 1203302 8:30 1426295 8:45 2407286 9:00 4205283 9:15 5317279 9:30 6107277 9:45 3216273 10:00 7557273 10:15 0915260 10:30 4404256 10:45 4447253 11:00 5 3 1 10 246 11:15 5504242 11:30 4 2 3 13 234 11:45 6337233 Santa Ana Ninteen01 4/28/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-544 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 331 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total Santa Ana Ninteen01 4/28/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count First St Dwy Cabrillo Park Dwy 12:00 7119231 12:15 4 2 3 11 225 12:30 6 4 4 12 219 12:45 7877218 13:00 2633214 13:15 4158214 13:30 9653219 13:45 9445223 14:00 5226222 14:15 4112224 14:30 2225221 14:45 5625217 15:00 11 2 7 8 225 15:15 3156226 15:30 9 1 3 11 226 15:45 4455226 16:00 11 9 4 6 226 16:15 9326228 16:30 3353230 16:45 7 1 2 10 228 17:00 9036234 17:15 7536233 17:30 9358236 17:45 8306235 18:00 9346239 18:15 12 4 11 4 254 18:30 7936249 18:45 8339248 19:00 5167251 19:15 7967248 19:30 6637244 19:45 5337242 20:00 7176249 20:15 11 4 5 4 257 20:30 3 5 6 11 250 20:45 7363257 21:00 6342262 21:15 8333267 21:30 6137268 21:45 7232274 22:00 5245276 22:15 5324276 22:30 9323281 22:45 9622284 23:00 5345285 23:15 6020293 23:30 5243297 23:45 4441300 0:00 0000300 TOTAL 417 266 240 416 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-545 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 219 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 0044219 0:15 0020221 0:30 0010222 0:45 0011222 1:00 0022222 1:15 0001221 1:30 0020223 1:45 0002221 2:00 0010222 2:15 0020224 2:30 0020226 2:45 0010227 3:00 0020229 3:15 0000229 3:30 0010230 3:45 0013228 4:00 0022228 4:15 0021229 4:30 0003226 4:45 0024224 5:00 0003221 5:15 0005216 5:30 0026212 5:45 00210204 6:00 0014201 6:15 0019193 6:30 0334189 6:45 1644184 7:00 0 3 2 11 172 7:15 2 7 2 11 158 7:30 0 5 3 10 146 7:45 0 8 1 10 129 8:00 0 4 3 12 116 8:15 1 5 1 11 102 8:30 1 6 2 12 87 8:45 084974 9:00 164667 9:15 006766 9:30 055759 9:45 095352 10:00 034350 10:15 136648 10:30 043245 10:45 226546 11:00 045740 11:15 134537 11:30 153531 11:45 224530 4/26/2018 Santa Ana The Marke Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-546 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 219 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 4/26/2018 Santa Ana The Marke Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy 12:00 3 2 16 2 45 12:15 043440 12:30 135934 12:45 3 4 4 10 27 13:00 159428 13:15 0 1 10 6 31 13:30 148729 13:45 033524 14:00 3 3 10 11 23 14:15 027622 14:30 018326 14:45 117231 15:00 127235 15:15 0 8 10 7 30 15:30 148530 15:45 1 3 11 1 38 16:00 133237 16:15 3 4 11 6 41 16:30 118544 16:45 359744 17:00 0 6 14 5 47 17:15 1 5 24 1 66 17:30 0 3 15 1 77 17:45 2 3 14 5 85 18:00 0 7 24 8 94 18:15 0 4 24 4 110 18:30 1 0 11 12 110 18:45 0 0 13 8 115 19:00 0 0 10 12 113 19:15 0 0 17 5 125 19:30 0 0 22 8 139 19:45 0 0 14 7 146 20:00 0 0 19 8 157 20:15 0 0 17 10 164 20:30 0 0 15 8 171 20:45 1 0 13 8 177 21:00 0 0 13 4 186 21:15 0 0 10 7 189 21:30 0 0 11 7 193 21:45 0 0 11 5 199 22:00 0 0 10 4 205 22:15 0094210 22:30 0073214 22:45 0052217 23:00 0095221 23:15 0073225 23:30 0022225 23:45 0011225 0:00 0000225 TOTAL 42 192 632 476 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-547 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 166 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 0:00 0074169 0:15 0074172 0:30 0053174 0:45 0066174 1:00 0011174 1:15 0042176 1:30 0053178 1:45 0021179 2:00 0032180 2:15 0020182 2:30 0030185 2:45 0000185 3:00 0040189 3:15 0010190 3:30 0021191 3:45 0020193 4:00 0000193 4:15 0000193 4:30 0000193 4:45 0000193 5:00 0000193 5:15 0001192 5:30 0001191 5:45 0021192 6:00 0001191 6:15 0010192 6:30 0001191 6:45 2012192 7:00 1132193 7:15 0114189 7:30 0424183 7:45 0214178 8:00 0222176 8:15 0324171 8:30 0535164 8:45 2229157 9:00 3845151 9:15 0447144 9:30 1752141 9:45 1318132 10:00 0452131 10:15 0312127 10:30 0454124 10:45 0556118 11:00 1 10 7 4 112 11:15 1244111 11:30 1464110 11:45 0782109 Santa Ana The Marke 4/26/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-548 City: Location: Date: Count Type: 166 Beginning Occupancy Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total Santa Ana The Marke 4/26/2018 Parking Occupancy / Driveway Count Main St Dwy Rear Dwy 12:00 1343108 12:15 0598104 12:30 0494105 12:45 276898 13:00 136399 13:15 063294 13:30 138496 13:45 148695 14:00 229698 14:15 2 8 12 2 102 14:30 2 5 11 3 107 14:45 2 8 10 6 105 15:00 061199 15:15 201597 15:30 255198 15:45 2 7 12 5 100 16:00 014697 16:15 067593 16:30 3 6 14 3 101 16:45 0131102 17:00 2451104 17:15 1453103 17:30 3555101 17:45 4553102 18:00 2383106 18:15 2160113 18:30 0054114 18:45 1086117 19:00 1 0 14 8 124 19:15 0 0 12 10 126 19:30 0 0 17 4 139 19:45 1 1 10 11 138 20:00 1 1 13 8 143 20:15 0063146 20:30 0088146 20:45 0095150 21:00 0039144 21:15 0 0 10 10 144 21:30 0086146 21:45 0 0 11 4 153 22:00 0094158 22:15 0 0 12 8 162 22:30 0097164 22:45 0046162 23:00 0 0 11 5 168 23:15 0063171 23:30 0093177 23:45 0052180 0:00 0000180 TOTAL 54 195 504 349 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-62682-549 This page left blank intentionally. 2-550 EXHIBIT 2 2-551 This page left blank intentionally. 2-552 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 1 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65864, ET SEQ. WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana (“City”) is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to enter into development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing certainty for both City and owner in the development process; and WHEREAS, the City has found that development agreements strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning by providing a greater degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic costs of development, allow for the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved; and WHEREAS, the City enters into this Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies; and WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC (“Developer”) proposes to develop a 5.93-acre site located in the City of Santa Ana, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Property”) for residential uses on the Property (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated for a 45-day review period beginning August 7, 2018 and ending September 21, 2018; and EXHIBIT 2 2-553 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work study session to review the Project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were received, with three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition; and nine (9) written comments were received with one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition; and WHEREAS, in response to a request from Chatten-Brown & Cartens LLP, on behalf of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, the City extended the Draft Environmental Impact Report public review and comment period to October 4, 2018 to allow additional time for public review and input; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 59-day review period, from August 7, 2018 to October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued a duly noticed public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019. A second study session was held to review the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received with twenty-five (25) in support; thirty-one (31) in opposition and two (2) neutral; and eleven (11) written comments were received with two (2) in support and nine (9) in opposition; and WHEREAS, staff recommended additional changes to the project for the Planning Commission consideration at their January 14, 2019 meeting and City Council consideration at their meetings on February 5 and 19, 2019. These recommendations included reducing the number of units and increasing the parking capacity. Staff recommendations were incorporated into the project entitlements prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. The project reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council proposed construction of 476-units (81 dwelling units per acre), with 904 parking spaces (1.82 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity for 2.0 parking spaces, within a 5-story residential building with mezzanines wrapped around an eight-level parking structure. The height of the residential buildings along the east property line was tiered from two, to three to four to five stories. The unit mix was 53 studios, 280 one bedrooms, 114 two bedrooms and 29 three bedrooms; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48) speakers opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not certify the EIR or adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project; and 2-554 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 10 WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131) members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted to that the project be taken back to the Planning Commission after consultation with staff, Developer and community; and WHEREAS, in June 2019, the Developer submitted a revised plan consisting of development 347 multi-family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces (1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4- story residential building wrapped around a five-level parking structure with an amenity deck on the sixth-level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 655,826 square feet of total development, including 386,444 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 347 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 269,382 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure, the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-seven (77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and one speaker was neutral. In addition, one-hundred (100) written comments were received with six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission vote resulted in an impasse; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the Developer submitted revised plans including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot which also reduced 2-555 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 4 of 10 the Project’s height, increased the Project’s setbacks, and modified the Project entrance (“Modified Project”); and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2019, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing, for consideration of Development Agreement No. 2018-01 by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and on October 17, 2019 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project and posting on the project site; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for consideration of Development Agreement No. 2018-01, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, entering into this Development Agreement would provide the City with extraordinary and significant benefits that are of regional significance, related to existing deficiencies in public facilities, require the owner of 2525 North Main Street to contribute a greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and to contribute benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the development process; and WHEREAS, the Project and the use that the Developer proposes in connection with the Property have been extensively reviewed and considered by the City, and such proposed development and use have been found to accommodate the City’s recommendations and suggestions in order to protect the public’s interest to enhance the desirability of such proposed development and use. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have been found to be fair, just and reasonable, and the City has concluded that the pursuit of the Project will serve the interests of the City; and WHEREAS, the City and Developer have reached mutual agreement and desire to voluntarily enter into the Development Agreement to facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that by entering into the Development Agreement: (i) the City will promote orderly growth and quality development on the Property in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan; and, (ii) significant benefits will be created for City residents and the public generally from increased employment, housing, parks and/or park improvements; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement have undergone review by the Planning Commission at a publicly noticed hearing and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable, and consistent with the General Plan; and 2-556 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 5 of 10 WHEREAS, the proposed Project will not adversely affect the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, as is expressly set forth in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 28, 2019, together with all supporting documents, including but not limited to, proposed resolutions, which are incorporated herein by this reference. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the following environmental documents have been prepared and made available to the public: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 for the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project, Clarification to the 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Family Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Clarification), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in these documents and the administrative record for the Project, including all oral and written comments received during the comment period. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the EIR, including the Clarifications thereto, contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Planning Commission further recommends that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact, certify the EIR, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the MMRP. Any project approvals issued by the Planning Commission in this Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the City Council has completed the actions described above. SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. Pursuant to California Government Code section 65867.5(b) and based on the entire record before the Planning Commission, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Development Agreement is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. 2-557 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 6 of 10 B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the goals/objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan for the following reasons: i. The existing General Plan land use designations for the project is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and professional offices; with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the construction of a multi-family housing project with a maximum floor area ratio of 1.43, the general plan land use designation needs to be changed to District Center (DC), which permits a high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. ii. The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 347 rental housing units. The amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a connection between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site by providing a residential development that will support a mixed-use environment. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional 2-558 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 7 of 10 economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City’s image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is within ½ mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Main Street which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center which provides rail service throughout California; and the project is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent uses, the residential use is consistent with the residential uses to the east and south. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and 2-559 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 8 of 10 significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards that are open to the public right-of-way, and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has street frontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The setback along the east side of the project has been increased to 66 feet to minimize impacts to the neighboring single-family residences. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. C. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Development Agreement will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment SECTION 3. The Development Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby recommended for City Council approval. SECTION 4. The Development Agreement shall not be effective unless and until Resolution No. 2019- (Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01), Resolution No. 2019- (General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06) and Ordinance No. NS- (Amendment Application No. 2018-10) are adopted and become effective. If said resolution, ordinance and Development Agreement are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then the Development Agreement shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, 2-560 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 9 of 10 equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Developer shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Developer of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Developer in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 2018-01, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as follows: A. The Development Agreement shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 is certified by the City Council, and General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 and Amendment Application No. 2018-10, are each adopted by the City Council. SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ***Signature page to follow*** 2-561 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 10 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 28, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-562 2-563 2-564 2-565 This page left blank intentionally. 2-566 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF: ) ) AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: ) City of Santa Ana ) 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) ) Santa Ana, CA 92702 ) Attention: Clerk of the Council ) ) ______________________________________________________________________________ Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code §27383 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SANTA ANA and AC 2525 MAIN, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2-567 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 This Development Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into as of this ___ day of ___________, 2019 by and between the City of Santa Ana, California (hereinafter “CITY”), and AC 2525 Main, a California limited liability company (hereinafter “OWNER”): RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, This Agreement constitutes a current exercise of CITY’S police powers to provide predictability to OWNER in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use, and timing and phasing of development consistent with the Development Plan in exchange for OWNER’S commitment to provide significant public benefits to CITY as set forth in Section 4, below. WHEREAS, OWNER has requested CITY to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of CITY; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that this Agreement is of major significance because it will enable the CITY to fund much needed capital improvements and provide much needed public services and will therefore also have a major, beneficial economic impact on the City; and WHEREAS, the provision by OWNER of the public benefits allows the CITY to realize significant economic, recreational, park, open space, educational, social and public facilities benefits. The public benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of Santa Ana residents and visitors to a significantly greater extent than would development of the Property without this Agreement. WHEREAS, the physical effects, if any, of the Project and this Agreement have been analyzed pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act as amended to date and as documented in the Final Environmental Impact Report entitled “Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project” (State Clearinghouse House No. 2018021031 and City of Santa Ana DP No. 2017.34); and WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Santa Ana General Plan and any specific plan applicable thereto; and WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters; and WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which 2-568 development agreements under Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code are intended; COVENANTS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows: 1.1.1 “Agreement” means this Development Agreement. 1.1.2 “CITY” means the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and California municipal corporation. 1.1.3 “City Council” means the duly elected city council of the City of Santa Ana. 1.1.4 “Commencement Date” means the date the Term of this Agreement commences. 1.1.5 “Development” means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. “Development” does not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof. 1.1.6 “Development Exaction” means any requirement of CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or development approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests. 1.1.7 “Development Impact Fee” a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include park “in lieu” fees specified in Government Code Section 66477, fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, or fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4. 1.1.8 “Development Plan” means the plan for development of the Property as set forth in Exhibit “C”. 2-569 1.1.9 "Discretionary Action(s)" or "Discretionary Approval(s)" means an action which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation or discretion on the part of the City, including any board, agency, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the process of approving or disapproving Development of the Project, as distinguished from an activity which is defined herein as a Ministerial Permit or Ministerial Approval. 1.1.10 “Effective Date” means the date the ordinance approving and authorizing this Agreement becomes effective. 1.1.11 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, laws, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations, policies, requirements, guidelines or other actions of City, including but not limited to the provisions set forth in the City's General Plan, Municipal Code which affect, govern or apply to the Development of the Project and use of the Property in a manner consistent with this Agreement, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property, subject to the terms of this Agreement, whether adopted by the City Council or the voters in an initiative, which are in effect on the Effective Date, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866. 1.1.12 "Existing Project Approvals" means all Project Approvals approved or issued on or before the Effective Date. 1.1.13 “Land Use Regulations” means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property. “Land Use Regulations” does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing: (a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) taxes (special or general) and assessments; (c) the control and abatement of nuisances; (d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain. 1.1.14 Reserved. 1.1.15 “OWNER” means the persons and entities listed as OWNER on page 1 of this Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. 2-570 1.1.16 "Ministerial Approvals(s)," or "Ministerial Act(s)" means any approval or act that is not a Discretionary Approval. 1.1.17 “Mortgagee” means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns. 1.1.18 “Project” means the development of the Property located at 2525 Main Street, Santa Ana, CA, contemplated by the Development Plan as such Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 1.1.19 “Project Approvals” means all site-specific (meaning specifically applicable to the Project only and not generally applicable to some or all other properties within the City) plans, maps, permits, and entitlements to use of every kind and nature that are sought or agreed to in writing by OWNER in its sole and absolute discretion to Develop the Project and that have been approved by the City. Project Approvals include, but are not limited to, general plan amendments, site plans, tentative and final subdivision maps, design guidelines, variances, zoning designations, conditional use permits, grading, building, and other similar permits, the site-specific provisions of general plans, environmental assessments, including environmental impact reports and negative declarations. 1.1.20 “Property” means the real property described on Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” to this Agreement. 1.1.21 “Public Benefit” refers to those benefits provided to the CITY and the community by OWNER pursuant to Section 4 below. 1.1.22 “Reservation of Rights” means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under Section 3.3 of this Agreement. 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement: Exhibit “A” – Legal Description of the Property Exhibit “B” – Map showing Property and its location Exhibit “C” – Development Plan Exhibit “D” – Development Impact Fees Exhibit "E" - Development Impact Fee Credits Exhibit “F” – Santiago Park Access Rights Exhibit “G” – Santiago Park Improvements Exhibit “H” – Park Santiago Patrol Area Map Exhibit “I” – Conditions of Discretionary Approvals 2-571 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the terms of the Development Plan and this Agreement. 2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is the owner of the fee simple title to, or has an equitable interest in, the Property or a portion thereof. 2.3 City Council Findings. The City Council finds that: 2.3.1 This Agreement is consistent with the CITY’S General Plan. 2.3.2 This Agreement ensures a desirable and functional community environment, provides effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate for the development of the Project, enhances effective utilization of resources within the City. 2.3.3 This Agreement provides public benefits beyond those which are necessary to mitigate the development of the Project. 2.3.4 This Agreement strengthens the public planning process, encourages private participation in comprehensive planning and reduces costs of development and government. 2.3.5 The best interests of the citizens of the CITY and the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement. 2.4 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date (the “Commencement Date”) that is the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of four (4) years thereafter, unless this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vested right under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not OWNER has paid any Development Impact Fee. 2.4.1 The Term of this Agreement may be extended upon the mutual written agreement of the City’s City Manager and the OWNER for no more than two (2) additional consecutive one (1) year periods (“Extension Term”). Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence or any other part of this Agreement, in no event shall the Development Agreement Period exceed 2160 consecutive calendar days from the Effective Date. Prior to the City granting each Extension Term: (a) OWNER shall demonstrate to the City Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that OWNER has and will continue to diligently pursue the development of the Project; (b) OWNER shall pay to the City Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to partially compensate the City for the significant lost revenue to be received by the City had the Project been completed. 2-572 2.4.2 If any party other than OWNER initiates litigation that challenges the Project or the Existing Project Approvals, the OWNER will have the right to toll commencement of the Term and any obligations of OWNER under the Agreement during the period of such litigation. The tolling shall commence upon receipt by the City of written notice from OWNER invoking this right to tolling. The tolling shall terminate when (1) a final order is issued in said litigation that upholds the Project and the Existing Project Approvals or (2) the litigation is dismissed with prejudice by all Parties; whichever occurs first. 2.5 Assignment. 2.5.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property to which such rights or interests apply. Any sale, transfer or assignment shall require the consent of the City which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. (b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, OWNER shall notify CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide CITY with an executed agreement (“Assignment and Assumption Agreement”), in a form reasonably acceptable to CITY, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties, obligations, agreements, covenants, waivers of OWNER under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the covenants not to sue and waivers contained in Sections 7.2 and 8.4 hereof. (c) OWNER shall provide CITY with such information reasonably requested by CITY that demonstrates such transferee or assignee has sufficient development experience and financial capability to complete the Project and perform all obligations assumed. (d) Any sale, transfer or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection 2.5.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed. (e) The Executive Director for the Planning and Building Agency shall have the administrative authority to determine that OWNER has complied with the above conditions. Such determination shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 2.5.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment, a transferring OWNER shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to the transferred Property or any transferred portion thereof, unless such transferring 2-573 OWNER is given a release in writing by CITY, which release shall be provided by CITY upon the full satisfaction by such transferring OWNER of the following conditions: (a) OWNER no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Property subject to the transfer. (b) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement. (c) OWNER has provided CITY with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 2.5.1 above. (d) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security previously provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations hereunder. 2.5.3 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer or assignment after an initial sale, transfer or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section. 2.5.4 Utilities. The Project shall be connected to all utilities necessary to provide adequate water, sewer, gas, electric, and other utility service to the Project, prior to the issuance of final approval for occupancy or the certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project. 2.5.5 Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 2.5.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot that has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. This Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: (a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and (b) City final approval for occupancy or the certificate of occupancy has been issued for a building on the lot, and the fees for such lot set forth in this Agreement have been paid. 2.6 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. This provision shall not limit any remedy of CITY or OWNER as provided by this Agreement. 2.7 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the stated Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.4. (b) Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement. 2-574 (c) The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the ordinance approving this Agreement. (1) Within five (5) days of receipt of a referendum petition by the CITY, OWNER shall deposit Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) (“Referendum Deposit”) with the CITY. CITY may use the funds to pay any and all costs associated with the said referendum measure. If at any time the Referendum Deposit account has Five Thousand Dollars ($5000) or less remaining, Developer shall, within three (3) days of receiving notice from the CITY, deposit with the City additional funds as requested by the CITY to cover all costs and expenses associated with processing the referendum and holding the related election. Following certification of the election results, any funds remaining in the Referendum Deposit account shall be returned to the OWNER. (d) Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement including issuance of all required occupancy permits, final approval for occupancy by the City, and acceptance by CITY or applicable public agency of all required dedications. (e) Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any other land use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performa nce of the provisions of this Agreement that has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations that are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any Development Impact Fees paid by OWNER to CITY for residential units on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to OWNER by CITY. 2.8 Notices. (a) As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder. (b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to CITY: City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor PO Box 1988 M-30 Santa Ana, Ca 82702 Copy to: City Manager City Attorney Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency 2-575 If to OWNER: AC 2525 MAIN, LLC 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Attn: Manager Telephone: [__________________________] Facsimile: [__________________________] (c) Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement including the Reservation of Rights, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, this Agreement. Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, the Project shall remain subject to all Existing Land Use Regulations and Development Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and notwithstanding the authority of the CITY to further revise the Land Use Regulations pursuant to Government Code section 65866, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Land Existing Use Regulations and Development Approvals. OWNER shall comply with all mitigation measures required to be undertaken pursuant to any document prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to the Project. 3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement including the Reservation of Rights, the rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations and Development Approvals. In connection with any subsequently adopted Project Approvals and except as specifically provided otherwise herein, CITY may exercise its discretion in accordance with the Land Use Regulations then in effect, as provided by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Reservation of Rights. CITY shall accept for processing, review and action all applications for subsequent Project Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the same manner and the CITY shall exercise its discretion, when required or authorized to do so, to the same extent it would otherwise be entitled in the absence of this Agreement. 3.3 Reservation of Rights. 2-576 3.3.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following regulations shall apply to the development of the Property: (a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to cover the actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued. (b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure. (c) Regulations, policies and rules governing engineering and construction standards and specifications applicable to public and private improvements, including, without limitation, all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes adopted by the CITY, including, without limitation, the CITY's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, and Grading Ordinance. (d) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no such Development Exaction adopted after the Effective Date shall apply to development of the Property under this Agreement unless agreed to by OWNER. In the event any such subsequently adopted Development Exaction, agreed to by OWNER, fulfills the same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, CITY shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted Development Exaction for the fees paid under Section 4 of this Agreement to the extent such fees fulfill the same purposes. (e) Regulations that may be in material conflict with this Agreement but that are reasonably necessary to protect the residents of the pr oject or the immediate community from a condition perilous to their health or safety. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. (f) Regulations that are not in material conflict with this Agreement or the Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Property shall be deemed to materially conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property. (g) Regulations that are in material conflict with the Development Plan; provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to devel opment of that Property in which the OWNER has a legal or equitable interest. (h) Regulations that impose, levy, alter or amend fees, or charges relating to consumers or end users, including, without limitation, trash can placement, service charges and limitations on vehicle parking. (i) Regulations of other public agencies, including Development Impact Fees adopted or imposed by such other public agencies, although collected by CITY. 3.3.2 Subsequent Project Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on subsequent Project Approvals and to the same extent it would otherwise be authorized to do so absent this Agreement, from applying subsequently adopted or amended Land Use Regulations that do not materially conflict with this Agreement. 2-577 3.3.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State, County or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. 3.3.4 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that CITY is restricted in its authority to limit certain aspects of its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to CITY all of its police power that cannot be or are not expressly so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to CITY all such power and authority that cannot be or is not by this Agreement's express terms so restricted. 3.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of CITY may possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with CITY and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. 3.5 Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties in that case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later- adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over t he parties’ agreement, it is the specific intent of the Parties to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the Parties acknowledge and provide that OWNER shall have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in s uch order, at such rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub-phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment 3.6 Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions 3.6.1 OWNER shall have the ability to reserve and record such covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) against the Property as OWNER deems appropriate, in its sole and absolute discretion. Such CC&Rs may not conflict with this Agreement or the General Plan. Before recording any CC&Rs, OWNER shall provide a copy of the CC&Rs to the CITY for review and approval by the City Attorney, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3.6.2 The City Attorney’s review shall be limited to determining if the CC&Rs substantially comply with this Agreement and Project’s conditions of approval as approved by the City Council and that the CC&Rs incorporate and reference the following information regarding the approved development: (a) The Parking Management Plan (b) The Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan (c) The Property Maintenance Plan 2-578 (d) The project Conditions of Approval 3.6.3 Within thirty (30) days after receiving a copy of the proposed CC&Rs from OWNER, the City Attorney shall provide OWNER with either (i) a statement that the CC&Rs comply with this Agreement (“CC&R Approval”) or (ii) written comments identifying each aspect of the CC&Rs which the City Attorney believes not to be in compliance with this Agreement (a “Statement of Non-Compliance”). If the City Attorney fails to provide OWNER with either CC&R Approval or a Statement of Non-Compliance within thirty (30) days following a written request by OWNER, City shall be deemed to have approved the CC&Rs and OWNER may record the CC&Rs against the Property. If the City Attorney provides a Statement of Non-Compliance, OWNER shall have thirty (30) days in which to respond to the Statement of Non-Compliance. Upon submittal of OWNER’S response, the procedure described above for the initial submittal and City Attorney review of proposed CC&Rs shall again be followed. This procedure shall be followed until OWNER either (1) receives CC&R Approval, (2) submits the compliance issues to binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association, (3) files an action for declaratory relief in Orange County Superior Court seeking a judicial determination of the compliance of the proposed CC&Rs, or (4) agreement is otherwise reached between the Parties allowing for the recording of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs may run with the land and bind OWNER’S successors and assigns. Except as provided above, any dispute between the Parties regarding the CITY’S approval or rejection of the CC&Rs shall be subject to immediate and binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. 3.7 Moratoria. Except as specifically set forth in this section, City agrees that no moratorium or other similar limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the development of the Project or any part thereof and whether or not enacted by local initiative or otherwise) affecting subdivision/tract maps, grading or building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlements approved, issued, or granted within the City, after the Effective Date of this Agreement, shall apply to the Project. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that the provisions hereof shall not preclude the application to the Project of a moratorium or other similar limitation (of the type described in the preceding sentence) enacted in order to protect an imminent threat to the public health or safety. 3.8 Development Agreement/Project Approvals. In the event of any inconsistency between any Existing Land Use Regulation and a Project Approval, the provisions of the Project Approval shall control. In the event of any inconsistency between any Existing Land Use Regulation, any Project Approval and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 3.9 LEED Certification. OWNER shall design and construct the building to achieve not less than a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Silver Standard equivalent. OWNER shall focus design efforts to ensure the Project meets the environmental needs of the community, as well as, the Project, itself, maintains an eco-friendly design. It is anticipated the Project will include, but is not limited to, drought tolerant landscaping and irrigation systems, solar and EV systems, and reclaimed water. 4. PUBLIC BENEFITS. 2-579 4.1 Intent. The Parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Property will result in substantial public needs that will not be fully met by the Development Plan and further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers substantial private benefits on OWNER that should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. 4.2 Public Benefits. OWNER has committed by this Agreement to contribute to the acquisition, construction and maintenance of certain "Public Benefits” as provided below 4.2.1 CITY Facilities. OWNER shall provide the following benefits towards the acquisition, construction and maintenance of the CITY Facilities, as follows: (a) Public Art. OWNER shall create, install, and maintain a public art project with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total construction cost of the Project. Total construction cost shall mean all design, engineering and construction costs. OWNER shall prepare and submit to the City, no later than one hundred eighty (180) days before final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a public art plan that is consistent with Chapter 15 of the Citywide Design Guidelines, Public Art Guidelines. The approved art shall be installed prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. (b) Santiago Park Improvement Construction. At the City’s determination, Owner shall manage and construct the Santiago Park Phase II Park Improvements (“Park Improvements”) subject to review and approval by the City. The Park Improvements shall include, but are not limited to design, engineering, permitting, construction, and installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancement, as described in more detail on Exhibit G. The total expenditure for the Park Improvements shall not exceed One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) (“Phase II Expenditure”). The State Coastal Conservancy has notified the City that it has allocated up to Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for the Design of the Park Improvements. If and when the City receives the funds, in the event that the Design work for the Park Improvements is less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), the City at its sole discretion, may make a request to State Coastal Conservancy, and if approved by the Agency, the City will apply the excess grant funds to construction as part of the City’s contribution to the Park Improvements. Owner shall be responsible for all aspects of the Park Improvements. Prior to issuance of permits, City shall have the rights to review, approve, and accept the design and material quality of the Park Improvements. Owner shall complete the Park Improvements in a timely fashion, by the earlier of 36 months following issuance by the City the first building permit for the construction of the Development, or prior to issuance of final approval of occupancy for the Development. Following completion of the Park Improvements, and no later than three years from the issuance of a notice of acceptance of Park Improvements, City shall reimburse Owner an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of the Park Improvements, up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) (“Reimbursement Amount”) for actual, third party costs associated with the Park Improvements. 2-580 2-581 (2) Security patrol in the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park a. Patrol area: Project, Park Santiago and Park Santiago area as depicted on attached Exhibit "H" b. Type of patrol: Periodic roving security twenty four (24) hours a day. c. Term: 55 years subject to annual review during which review it may be determined that such term shall end earlier. (d) Park Santiago Public Improvements and Traffic Calming. Subject to the approval by the Executive Director of Public Works Agency and the Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency and meeting City design specifications and standards, OWNER shall design and construct the public improvements identified below prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Owner shall be solely responsible for all aspects of the public improvements including, but not limited to, the analysis, design, engineering, construction and inspection/administration of: (1) Santiago Park neighborhood improvements at up to three locations on Edgewood and/or Bush Street to achieve traffic calming. Improvements may be based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association and may include, but not be limited to, bulb-outs, traffic circles and medians within the neighborhood streets. (2) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing non LED light and/or fixture with LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood. (3) A street light at the Santiago Park Drive / Main Street intersection. (4) Decorative concrete pavement within the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way and Main Street/Santiago Park Drive. 4.2.2 Reserved. 4.2.3 Graffiti Removal. OWNER shall also install and maintain graffiti protection on new surfaces and shall, within 24 hours of discovery of graffiti, cause it to be removed and associated restorations completed throughout the Project. 4.3 Development Impact Fees. 4.3.1 Amount of Fee. The Development Impact Fees set forth in Exhibit “D” shall be charged to the Project. These fee amounts are estimated and will be subject to change based on the fee rate applicable at the time of issuance of the Building Permit. 4.3.2 Time of Payment. The fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.3.1 shall be paid to CITY prior to the issuance of building permits for each residential unit. No fees shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, but the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.3.1 shall be paid prior to the re-issuance or extension of any building permit for a residential unit for which such fees have not previously been paid. 2-582 4.3.3 Fee Credits. OWNER shall be entitled to credit against the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.1 for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or the payment of fees as specifically set forth in Exhibit “E. 4.3.4 Future Development Impact Fee Program Changes. The Parties hereby agree that, in addition to the Development Impact Fees included in Exhibit “D”, the Project shall be subject to any increase in fees, or amendment or alteration, of Development Impact Fee programs in effect on the Effective Date. 4.3.5 Prepayment. In no event shall the prepayment of any Development Impact Fees required hereunder establish a vested right on the part of OWNER or any other owner of the Property or any person or entity with an interest therein to develop the Project or the Property following the expiration, cancellation or termination of the Term of this Agreement. Following the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement, all Development Impact Fees then in effect shall be applicable to the Project and Pro perty notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement and notwithstanding the prepayment of the Development Impact Fees set forth in Exhibit “D”, any increase or amendment of any Development Impact Fee, or any combination thereof. Nothing contained in this Subsection 4.3.5 shall be construed as limiting the right of OWNER to a credit against any Development Impact Fees as set forth in Section 4.3.3 hereof. 4.4 Dedication of On-Site Easements and Rights of Way. OWNER shall dedicate to CITY all on-site rights of way and easements deemed necessary for public improvements as indicated on the approved Development Plan for the Project within 15 days of receipt of written demand from CITY. 4.5 Timing of Construction of Off-Site Infrastructure. Approval of any issuance of final approval for occupancy on the Property shall be conditioned upon CITY's determination, in its sole discretion, that sufficient progress is being made on construction of off-site infrastructure serving development of OWNER's Property. 4.6 Santiago Park Access. OWNER shall grant the City a public use, access, ingress, and egress easement in perpetuity on and within the Development to provide public access to Santiago Park. The scope, location, and all aspects of the easement shall meet the requirements reasonably set forth by the City as determined by the Executive Directors of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services, Public Works, and the Planning and Building Agency and consistent with the conceptual design as described/depicted on Exhibit F 4.6.1 Owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the easement area. The easement area shall be maintained consistent with City standards and to City’s reasonable satisfaction at all times. 4.6.2 Reserved. 4.6.3 Reserved. 4.7 Housing Opportunity Ordinance. Project shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (the “HOO”) in effect on the Effective Date. 2-583 4.8 Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan. The City of Santa Ana has one of the highest average number of people per household in the nation at 4.34 people per household. Owner commits to limit occupancy of the residential units within the project site to levels in compliance with local, state and federal fair housing standards. Prior to applying to the City for occupancy permit, the Owner shall submit to the City an Overcrowding Mitigating Implementation Plan. Prior to changing or revising the implementation plan, Owner shall provide a 60-day minimum written notice to the City Community Development Agency and the Planning and Building Safety Agency informing of any proposed changes or revisions. 4.9 Local Live-Work Preference. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits, OWNER shall develop and submit to the City Manager or his/her designee, a local live-work plan for the Project targeting, to the extent feasible and consistent with state and federal fair housing laws, a preference or priority for persons who currently either live or work in the City of Santa Ana for the rental of units at the Project. 4.10 Local Sourcing Plan. Developer agrees to make a good faith effort to encourage contractors and suppliers to hire and procure locally, to the extent that it is cost effective and does not delay the overall project development schedule. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits, Developer shall develop and submit to the Planning Agency (the “PBA”) a local sourcing plan for the Project targeting, to the extent feasible, the hiring of qualified workers, construction contractors, or the purchasing of goods locally within the City of Santa Ana. The plan must be reviewed in a timely manner and approved by the PBA and be implemented for the construction of the project prior to issuance of any Building Permits. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 5. FINANCING & MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES OWNER may propose, and if requested by CITY shall cooperate in, the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism to pay for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public infrastructure facilities required as part of the Development Plan by providing up to $50,000 toward the costs of CITY in preparing a study to determine the need for any such district or alternate financing mechanism. To the extent any such district or other financing entity is formed and sells bonds in order to finance such reimbursements, OWNER may be reimbursed to the extent that OWNER spends funds or dedicates land for the establishment of public facilities. If such a district or other financing entity is proposed OWNER agrees not to oppose such formation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring CITY or the City Council to form any such district or other fin ancing entity or to issue and sell bonds. In addition, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring OWNER to vote in support of or annex to such district or other financing entity. It shall be the sole right of OWNER to determine whether to be in or out of any such district or other financing entity. 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. 6.1 Periodic Review. The CITY shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the compliance by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. OWNER shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, within thirty (30) days 2-584 after written notice from the City Manager. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council. 6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall conduct such special reviews. 6.3 Procedure. (a) During either a periodic review or a special review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. (b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall submit a report to the Planning Commission setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue. (c) If the Planning Commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded. (d) If the Planning Commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Commission shall provide written notice to OWNER of such findings setting forth the nature of the problem and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such problem and, where the problem can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such problem within thirty (30) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such problem cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such problem within such thirty (30) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such problem. If OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement. OWNER may appeal a Planning Commission determination pursuant to this Section 6.3(d) pursuant to CITY’s rules for consideration of appeals in zoning matters then in effect. Notice of default as provided under Section 7.3 of this Agreement shall be given to OWNER prior to or concurrent with proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5. 6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.3, CITY determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, CITY shall give written notice to OWNER of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain: (a) The time and place of the hearing; (b) A statement as to whether or not CITY proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and, 2-585 (c) Such other information that the CITY considers necessary to inform OWNER of the nature of the proceeding. 6.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, OWNER shall be given an opportunity to be heard. OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the CITY. The decision of the City Council shall be final. 6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance ("Certificate") to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City Manager and City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect; and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder. 6.6.1 Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or OWNER, CITY shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the City Manager or City Council. 6.7 Conditions of Discretionary Approvals. The requirements imposed as conditions of any discretionary approval received through the City's existing regulatory process shall be governed by the terms of those approvals, and in no event shall such conditions be affected by the termination, cancellation, rescission, revocation, or default or expiration of this Development Agreement (although such conditions must comply with the Applicable Rules). The Conditions of approval are incorporated herein by reference an as attached as Exhibit "I". 7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 7.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that CITY would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that CITY shall not be liable in damages to OWNER, or to any successor in interest of OWNER, or to any other person, and OWNER covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages: (a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action that arises out of this 2-586 2-587 7.4 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to CITY of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by CITY to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, CITY has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 8. LITIGATION. 8.1 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, or the approval of any permit or entitlement granted pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any claim, action, proceeding or determination included within this Section 8.1, and CITY shall cooperate in the defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action, proceeding or determination, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless CITY. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, proceeding or determination. 8.2 Environmental Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, CITY, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action. 8.3 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Section 8.1 and Section 8.2 herein, CITY reserves, the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) that the indemnifying party selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend the indemnified party hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense; provided, however, that the indemnifying party shall reimburse the indemnified party forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys' fees, upon billing and accounting therefor. 8.4 Challenge to Existing Land Use Approvals. By accepting the benefits of this Agreement, OWNER, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, hereby expressly agrees and covenants not to sue or otherwise challenge any land use approval affecting the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date. Such agreement and covenant includes, without limitation, the covenant against any direct suit by 2-588 2-589 (c) If CITY timely receives a request from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.5 of this Agreement. 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the Clerk of the City Council within ten (10) days after the City enters into the Agreement, in accordance with Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. If the Parties to this Agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel this Agreement, or if the CITY terminates or modifies this Agreement as provided herein for failure of the OWNER to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the Orange C ounty Recorder. 10.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 10.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the Development Impact Fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever. 2-590 10.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, with venue in Orange County. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 10.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 10.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 10.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one OWNER, all obligations of such OWNERS under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such OWNER shall be the default of all such OWNERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no OWNER of a single lot that has been finally subdivided and sold to such OWNER as a member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as expressly provided for herein. 10.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 10.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 10.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by: (1) strikes, lockouts or labor disputes; (2) inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes therefor; (3) inclement weather which delays or precludes construction; (4) acts of God, including but not limited to earthquakes, or the public enemy or civil commotion; (5) condemnation, (6) fire or other casualty; (7) shortage of fuel, electricity or natural gas; (8) action or nonaction of public utilities or of local, state or federal governments, affecting the work, including, but not limited to, any delays in the permitting process as a result of the action or inaction or such governmental authorities; (9) criminal acts or acts of terrorism; or (10) other conditions similar to those enumerated above which are beyond the reasonable 2-591 anticipation or control of such Party, or other causes beyond the Party's reasonable control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agree ment and the time for performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, , provided that the Term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. 10.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 10.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. 10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 10.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court. 10.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property. 10.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 2-592 10.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain. 10.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event OWNER is not a resident of the State of California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, OWNER shall file with the City Manager, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally served with such process and such service shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. OWNER is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto. 10.20 Certificate of Compliance. At any time during the term of this Agreement, any lender or either Party may request either Party to this Agreement to confirm that (1) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such modifications); (2) to the best of such Party’s knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement or if defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such defaults; and (3) any other information reasonably requested. Each Party hereby agrees to provide a Certificate to such lender or other Party within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written request therefor. 10.21 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 2-593 2-594 EXHIBIT “A” (Legal Description of the Property) 2-595 EXHIBIT “B” (Map of the Property) 2-596 EXHIBIT “C” Development Plans Development Plans and entitlement applications as presented in the City Staff Report Dated ________ are incorporated herein by reference. Project entitlements and applications include, but may not be limited to the following entitlements: 1. Development Agreement No. 2018-01 2. General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 3. Amendment Application No. 2018-10 4. Specific Development No. 93 5. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 2-597 EXHIBIT “D” Development Impact Fees (Estimated) The estimated amount of Development Impact Fees associated with the project based upon the site plan documentation submitted as part of the Project Approvals include but are not limited to the following fees and deposits; applicable sewer fee, street fee, storm drain fee, traffic fee, deposits, and all applicable fees associated with demolition of existing structures, drainage, site development, and construction are based on actual square footage of any commercial development and number of residential units. Based on 256 Residential Units, the Development Impact Fees are estimated at: Fee Estimated Total Sewer $199,344 Capital Facilities Capacity Charges (Orange County Sanitation District Charges) $607,279 Storm Drain $55,776 Traffic $305,009 Parks & Recreation $974,250 Fire Facilities Fee $252,326 Santa Ana Unified School Fees $1,050,895 Estimated Total $3,444,878 2-598 EXHIBIT “E” Development Impact Fees Credits, if any will be determined at time of building permit issuance and shall be incorporated herein by reference. 2-599 EXHIBIT “F” Santiago Park Access Rights (Conceptual) 2-600 EXHIBIT “G” Park Design and Improvements (Conceptual) 2-601 EXHIBIT H Park Santiago Security Patrol Area Map (Conceptual) 2-602 EXHIBIT I Conditions of Discretionary Approvals 2525 N. Main - Project Approval Conditions: The project is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the conditions of approval articulated in the sections below. The Applicant or Owner, or Owner’s successor(s) or assignee(s) (collectively, “Applicant”) with the City’s consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, must comply with each and every condition listed below The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may also result in breach of the Development Agreement. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Project Description and Entitlements: Approval of this application is to build (Insert Final Approved Project Description and specific entitlements) with such additions, revisions, changes or modifications as required by the Planning Commission as articulated in Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX, dated XXXX. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be consistent with the Planning Commission’s approval and in compliance with the applicable land use regulations of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and any applicable State law and the associated plans presented to the Planning Commission on (Insert PC hearing date) and on file with the City. 2. Acknowledgment of Conditions of Approval. The Applicant shall file an Acknowledgment of Conditions of Approval with the Planning and Building Agency within 30 days of final approval of all resolutions. The property Applicant shall be required to record the Acknowledgment of these Conditions of Approval with the Office of the Orange County Recorder and proof of such recordation shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Agency. 3. Enforcement of Conditions. In case of violation of any of the conditions of approval of applicable law, the property owner and tenant will be issued a Notice of Correction pursuant City regulations or pursuant to applicable terms of the Development Agreement, the Maintenance Agreement, and the CC&Rs if said violation is not remedied in accordance with the specified period of time and/or subsequent violations of the conditions of approval and/or City law occurs within ninety days of any Notice of Correction, the property owner shall be held responsible to reimburse the City for all Staff time directly attributable to enforcement of the conditions of approval, mitigation measures as stipulated in the various agreements and/or City law including but not limited to, revocation of the herein approvals. 4. Project Plans. Project plans for the development shall be subject to a complete code compliance review with the Planning and Building Agency when the plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable City of Santa Ana ordinances, regulations, and policies prior to building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, the requirements established or authorized by Chapter 8 (Building and Structures) and Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code. 2-603 LEGAL 5. Indemnity. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Ana, its agents, officers, or employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the City, its legislative body, advisory agencies or administrative officers the subject application. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding against the City and the Applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City’s associated legal costs, or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the Applicant’s consent, but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except the City’s decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 6. Approval Time Period. The approval of the entitlements herein shall be valid for a time period consistent with the Development Agreement. IMPACT FEES 7. Project Development Impact Fees. The following Development Impact Fees shall be charged to the Project. These fee amounts are estimated and will be subject to change based on the fee rate applicable at the time of issuance of the Building Permit. Fee Estimated Total Sewer $199,344 Capital Facilities Capacity Charges (Orange County Sanitation District Charges) $607,279 Storm Drain $55,776 Traffic $305,009 Parks & Recreation $974,250 Fire Facilities Fee $252,326 Santa Ana Unified School Fees $1,050,895 Estimated Total $3,444,878 1. City Invoices. All invoices the Applicant has received from the City shall be paid to a zero balance prior final approval for occupancy by the City or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. PROJECT DESIGN AND OPERATIONS 2-604 2. The approved project is a multi-family apartment rental project. Any proposal in the future to convert the rental units to condominium ownership, the Owner shall comply with the requirements for a condominium project in accordance with local and state zoning and subdivision requirements. 3. Unit Mix: Number of family units to be a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the proposed units to contain 2 & 3 bedrooms. 4. Onsite Property Manager. The Project shall include the provision to have 24-hour on-site Property Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the on- site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis: (a) Police Department (b) Fire Department (c) Planning and Building Agency (d) Community Development Agency 5. Emergency Evacuation Plan. Developer shall submit and obtain approval of an Emergency Evacuation Plan (the “EEP”) from City Police and Fire Protection agencies prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Up-to-date 24-hour emergency contact information for the on-site personnel shall be provided to the City on an ongoing basis and the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be submitted to the following City Agencies: (a) Police Department (b) Fire Department (c) Planning and Building Agency (d) Community Development Agency 6. Crime Free Housing Plan. Applicant shall work with City Staff to develop a crime free housing policy, procedure, and design plan (the “CFH Plan”) and shall submit and obtain approval from the Planning and Building Agency of the CFH Plan prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The approved CFH Plan shall be implemented and administered by Property Management. The approved CFH Plan shall be implemented, adhered to, and be enforced by the Project at all times. 7. Onsite Parking Management Plan. Developer shall provide onsite parking for residents and visitors of the Project and actively monitor the parking demand of the Project site. Developer shall continually monitor and take appropriate measures to manage the parking demand of the Project site to mitigate the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or right-of-way. Prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Developer shall submit and obtain approval from the PBA a Parking Management Plan (the “PMP”) meeting the requirements of this Condition. The approved PMP shall be adhered to and be enforced by the Project at all times. 8. Good Neighbor Policy. The Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Division a good neighbor policy implementation plan that will provide a process for the neighborhood to report nuisance issues to the property management to help manage and address potential nuisance issues including but not limited to noise, lighting, property maintenance, parking overflow into the street and neighborhood, and landscape maintenance. 2-605 9. Parking Ratio. Number of spaces and onsite ratio of parking shall be a minimum of two (2) spaces per unit. 10. Privacy along east property line. To ensure maximum privacy screening between the project site and the residential uses along the eastern property, the Applicant is constructing an eight (8) foot tall property line decorative block wall. In addition to this wall, and installation and maintenance of all existing mature trees along the eastern property line, all windows facing the eastern property with a direct line of sight to the adjacent properties bordering the eastern property line shall be design incorporating opaque view obscuring glass. 11. Protect and Preserve Existing Mature Trees along the Eastern Property Line. To ensure maximum privacy screening between the project site and the residential uses along the eastern property, the Applicant shall protect and preserve all existing mature trees along the east property line. 12. Protect and Preserve Existing Mature Trees on the Property not Located Along the East Property Line. To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall protect and preserve all other mature trees on the property. If the perseveration of the existing matures trees in not feasible because of the location of the approved structures on the property, the Applicant shall work with Staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating the tree(s) to other locations on the property. 13. Edgewood Street Improvements. Only one emergency vehicular access may be permitted along Edgewood Street. No other vehicular access or curb approach openings will be approved on this street for the project. In addition, mature canopy and vertical specimen trees shall be planted along the southern property line between the building and the adjacent sidewalk to integrate the building with the adjacent single-family development across the street. 14. Property Line Wall. The project Applicant shall install an 8-foot tall property line block wall along the entire eastern edge of the Project as part of the site construction and preparation process and prior installation of the foundation. The design of the wall shall be approved by the Planning Manager and shall be decoratively designed to include a mix of decorative materials, colors, and decorative pilasters. 15. Santiago Park Entrance and Interface. If approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall design the Project and residential units to also front onto Santiago Park, Main Street, and Santiago Street entrance. The Project façade along Santiago Park shall be consistent with and reflect the natural, current state of the Park and include articulation of the building façade to include open garden areas. The conceptual design is as shown in Attachment 1 to these conditions. The Santiago Park Entrance design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Directors to ensure compliance with the Agreement. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. 16. Green Project Features. Alternative Transportation and Energy Source, Resource Conservation, and LEED Certification. The project shall obtain Silver Standard or better LEED equivalent and shall at the minimum, incorporate bike lockers, bike sharing programing, electric vehicle charging stations, rain capturing systems, grey water capturing systems, and to the extent feasible, automobile sharing programing. 17. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan (including Irrigation) prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The 2-606 Irrigation Plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of controllers and points of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute (G.P.M.), the size and location of sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of conventional systems and drip systems; an irrigation legend with complete specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all assemblies and components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis; and a summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above information clearly and accurately. The City reserves the right to require subsequent checks, or approval of the landscape plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. 18. Water Conservation. Landscaping shall comply with the City’s water conservation ordinances in accordance with SAMC Section and the State mandated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) 2015 update. 19. Installation. Landscaping for the project shall be complete in phases by building and shall be installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the development. 20. Landscape Details. The landscape plan shall include a Plant Legend containing: plant symbol, scientific name of plant material, common name of plant material, plant container size, and plant spacing. Very low, low and medium water usage plant materials are encouraged. The applicant shall construct a landscape planter along the eastern property line. In this eastern planter, a combination of vertical and canopy specimen trees shall be planted with minimum size of 60 inch box. The landscape plan shall provide a cross section showing the planter at time of planting, after five (5) years and at full maturity. The cross section shall demonstrate the landscaping will adequately screen the project from the adjacent residential uses along the eastern portion of the Property. 21. Minimum Tree Box Size. The applicant shall install minimum 36 inch box trees, when planting trees for all required trees along street setbacks, open space areas and shared parking areas. All other tree sizes may be dependent on the location, species and spacing. The final landscaping is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. 22. Maintenance of existing site. The site and the public R.O.W. adjacent to any portions of the site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris while the property is vacant and undergoing development and during and after the construction, addition or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. All trash and refuse shall be disposed of in dumpsters and be removed from the premises on an-as needed basis. Any surplus construction materials shall be screened from public view when not actually in use and be removed from the property upon completion of construction activities. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, the Applicant or by a permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, and construction areas within the City. 23. On Going Property Maintenance. Subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained, Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall 2-607 be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: (a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); (b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the Parking Management Plan, enforcement of the Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses, etc…) (c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs and maintenance, as applicable; (d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon at all times (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); (e) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms. (f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement. (g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property and a 50% administration fee. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and expense incurred by the City and a 50% administration fee. (h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement. LIGHTING 2-608 24. Site and Building Lighting. The developer shall submit for review by the Planning Division and the Engineering Department, the design and specifications for all proposed lighting fixtures proposed for the buildings, drive aisles, parkways, parking areas, pathways, and surrounding areas within the development. The fixtures shall be reviewed for quality, aesthetics, illumination values, sustainability values such as LED and shall be decoratively and architecturally consistent with the building design. The number, location, height, style and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. UTILITIES 25. Undergrounding of Utilities. All utility service lines shall be underground. This includes all existing above ground wires that cross over the property that feed adjacent properties. 26. Composite Utility Plan. The applicant shall submit a composite utility plan depicting the location of all above ground utility appurtenances. The exact location of the equipment shall be approved by the Planning Division, during the plan check process, and shall be installed as per approved plans. They shall not be allowed within a required parking, turnaround and landscape areas or on any façade facing a public street. 27. Screening of Mechanical Equipment. All mechanical equipment placement and screening shall be included on the development plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. Where practicable and as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission in the course of obtaining the requested entitlements, mechanical equipment, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, satellite dish systems, solar panels, thermal solar heaters, utility meters, above ground utility and fire safety connections will be, screened, located out of public view or be architectural integrated into the project design. CONSTRUCTION 28. Construction Information. During construction, the Applicant will display signs visible to the public from the public right-of-way with a contact number of the construction superintendant to address any questions or concerns about demolition, grading, and construction activities including dust, noise and vibration. 29. Vehicles and Equipment. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of an existing dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 30. Warning Devices. Replace backup audible warning devices with backup strobe lights or other warning devices during evening construction activity to the extent permitted by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. 31. Pest Control. The Applicant shall have rodent and pest controls on site during demolition and grading activities to mitigate impacts to the surrounding properties and neighborhood. 32. Perimeter Fence. Prior to demolition and construction, a perimeter security fence not exceeding seven feet in height, shall be installed around the project site. The fencing shall include a green 2-609 screen material or approved equivalent. The fence/screen material shall be properly maintained and be free of rips, tears, fraying, graffiti, and any other damage or vandalism. 33. Site Maintenance. The site and the public R.O.W. adjacent to any portions of the site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris, trash, weeds and overgrown vegetation both during and after the construction, addition or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. All trash and refuse shall be disposed of in dumpsters and be removed from the premises on an as needed basis. Any surplus construction materials shall be stored so as to be screened from public view when not actually in use and be removed from the property upon completion of construction activities. 34. Construction Traffic Management Plan. A truck/traffic construction management plan is required for this project pursuant to the City’s Public Works Department. All construction traffic regarding the movement of heavy equipment and graded materials are limited to off peak hours. This plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 35. Construction Staging. During the construction process all related activities, including but not limited to, loading, unloading, storage of equipment and materials, and parking of employee vehicles are prohibited within the public R.O.W. All such activities shall be conducted only on the project site and not in the public R.O.W. All staging areas and storage of equipment and materials shall be set back from adjacent residential uses. 36. Construction Hours. In accordance with SAMC Section 18.314(e), Demolition, grading, and exterior building construction activities shall be limited to the hours of between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be allowed on Sundays or federal holidays. Compliance with this measure is subject to field inspection by City Staff. 37. Noise. All onsite activities shall comply with the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance at all times. 38. Fire Protection. Fire protection facilities; including access, must be provided prior to and during construction. 39. Fencing. Prior to commencing demolition and site preparation activities, the project site shall be secured with a fence to prevent unauthorized access to the site and the fence shall contain a screening material to screen construction activities from view. The temporary screening fence shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Economic Development Department and shall be maintained in good condition (free of tears, holes, crack lines, debris, etc.) at all times. At the primary entrance to the site, the screening material shall be reduced to a maximum height of four feet to provide visibility into the site at all times and for public safety purposes. The project site shall also have a minimum of one sign of quality material depicting the proposed development, which shall include renderings, project opening date, and City Council information. The signs shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Economic Development Department and maintained in good condition (free of tears, graffiti, holes, cracks, fading, debris, etc.) at all times. 40. Fence Coordination. Prior to the demolition of any existing property line walls and/or fences and construction of a new property line concrete block wall(s), the developer shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate and obtain approval from neighboring property owner(s) to remove any existing wall(s) and/or fence(s). Written authorization from the neighboring property owner shall be provided for the removal of an existing wall and construction of a new shared property line wall upon submittal for plan check. 2-610 41. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to the commencement of construction on the site, the developer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting between the general superintendent or field representative and the Planning Division to discuss the approved plans and construction requirements. ENGINEERING 42. The Applicant shall submit Improvement Plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for public works (off-site) improvements, and on-site improvements. Plan check fees shall be paid in advance. 43. An on-site grading and drainage plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Plan shall be 24" x 36", with elevations to nearest 0.01 foot, minimum scale 1" = 20'. Plan shall be prepared by Registered Civil Engineer. Public works improvements may be shown on this plan. Grading plan check fees must be paid in advance. 44. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations demonstrating adequate site drainage from a 10-year return frequency storm (25-year frequency in sump areas) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted with the Grading Plan. 45. Driveway slope shall be a minimum slope of one (1) percent for asphalt and .5% for concrete. 46. If utility cuts are excessive in the street the street must have a grid and overlay placed on it per the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 47. All existing off-site public improvements (sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveways, and street paving) at the development site which are in a damaged condition or demolished due to the proposed work shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and per OCPFRD Standard Plan. 48. A City Encroachment (Public Works) permit shall be taken out for all work in public right-of-way prior to start of work. All work shall be done in accordance with APWA Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and must be completed prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 49. A bond or surety device shall be posted with the City in an amount and type sufficient to cover the amount of off-site work to be done, as approved by the City Engineer. 50. Pad certification by the Design Civil Engineer and Soil Engineer is required prior to the commencement of structural construction. 51. Final compaction report prepared by a qualified Soil Engineer shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the commencement of structural construction. 52. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits or prior to recordation upon subdivision of land if determined applicable by the City Building Official, the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that: 2-611 Addresses Site Design BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as minimizing impe rvious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. 2-612 Attachment 1 Building Articulation and Setback Along Santiago Park (Conceptual) 2-613 This page left blank intentionally. 2-614 EXHIBIT 3 2-615 This page left blank intentionally. 2-616 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 1 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06 AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO DISTRICT CENTER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to develop The Addington, a Multi-Family Residential Project (“proposed Project”), originally proposed as a 496-unit multi-family project on a 5.93-acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, California (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, during the entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the public and the City’s elected officials, the Applicant has proposed several modifications to the original proposal; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails (1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and 442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot with residential and commercial parking; (3) approval of Development Agreement No. 2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana (“City”) and Applicant; (4) approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site’s existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93) designation; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and to update text portions of the City’s Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the multi-family housing Project; and EXHIBIT 3 2-617 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the City received a request for consultation from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and a conference call between the City and Chairman Salas occurred on March 15, 2018 during which the history of uses and development of the Project Site and the depth of previous and existing infrastructure on the site was discussed and Chairman Salas requested additional information. On March 21, 2018 the City sent the requested information to Chairman Salas. Chairman Salas did not respond to the City with any information or evidence pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2018, the Applicant submitted a plan for a 496-units (84 dwelling units per acre), with 908 parking spaces (1.83 parking spaces per unit) within a 5-story residential building with mezzanines wrapped around an eight-level parking structure, tiered the height of the residential buildings along the east property line from two, to three to four to five-stories and revised the unit mix to 73 studios, 307 one bedrooms, 88 two bedrooms, and 28 three bedrooms; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated for a 45-day review period beginning August 7, 2018 and ending September 21, 2018; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work study session to overview the Project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were received, with three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition; and nine (9) written comments were received with one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition; and WHEREAS, in response to a request from Chatten-Brown & Cartens LLP, on behalf of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, the City extended the Draft Environmental Impact Report public review and comment period to October 4, 2018 to allow additional time for public review and input; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 59-day review period, from August 7, 2018 to October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued a duly noticed public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019. A second study session was held to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received with twenty-five (25) in support; thirty-one (31) in opposition and two (2) neutral; and eleven (11) written comments were received with two (2) in support and nine (9) in opposition; and 2-618 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 10 WHEREAS, staff recommended additional changes to the project for the Planning Commission consideration at their January 14, 2019 meeting and City Council consideration at their meetings on February 5 and 19, 2019. These recommendations included reducing the number of units and increasing the parking capacity. Staff recommendations were incorporated into the project entitlements prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. The project reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council proposed construction of 476-units (81 dwelling units per acre), with 904 parking spaces (1.82 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity for 2.0 parking spaces, within a 5-story residential building with mezzanines wrapped around an eight-level parking structure. The height of the residential buildings along the east property line was tiered from two, to three to four to five stories. The unit mix was 53 studios, 280 one bedrooms, 114 two bedrooms and 29 three bedrooms; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48) speakers opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not certify the EIR or adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131) members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted to that the project be taken back to the Planning Commission after consultation with staff, Applicant and community; and WHEREAS, in June 2019, the applicant submitted a revised plan consisting of development 347 multi-family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces (1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4- story residential building wrapped around a five-level parking structure with an amenity 2-619 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 4 of 10 deck on the sixth-level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project on a 5.93- acre site; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 655,826 square feet of total development, including 386,444 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 347 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 269,382 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure, the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-seven (77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and one speaker was neutral. In addition, one-hundred (100) written comments were received with six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission vote resulted in an impasse; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the Applicant submitted revised plans including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot which also reduced the Project’s height, increased the Project’s setbacks, and modified the Project entrance (“Modified Project”); and WHEREAS, October 18, 2019, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 by advertising in the Orange County Register a newspaper of general circulation, and on October 17, 2019 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project and posting on the project site; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for consideration of for consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the following environmental documents have been prepared and made available to the public: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 for the Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project, Clarification to the 2525 N. Main Street (Magnolia at the Park) Multi-Family Residential 2-620 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 5 of 10 Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Clarification), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in these documents and the administrative record for the Project, including all oral and written comments received during the comment period. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the EIR, including the Clarifications thereto, contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Planning Commission further recommends that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance”, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact, certify the EIR, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the MMRP. Any project approvals issued by the Planning Commission in this Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the City Council has completed the actions described above. SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to the Land Use Element and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 4. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the goals/objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons: i. The existing General Plan land use designation for the project is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and professional offices; with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the 2-621 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 6 of 10 construction of a multi-family housing project with a maximum floor area ratio of 1.43, the general plan land use designation the proposed amendment changes the designation to District Center (DC), which permits high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. Focusing growth within District Centers and along major corridors reduces the pressure for growth in low density residential neighborhoods. ii. The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 256 rental housing units. The amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a connection between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site by providing a residential development that will support a mixed-use environment. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City’s image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not 2-622 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 7 of 10 exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is within ½ mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Main Street which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center which provides rail service throughout California; and the project is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent uses, the residential use is consistent with the residential uses to the east and south. In addition, multi-family uses are often used in planning and zoning practice to buffer higher intensity uses like commercial or industrial uses from single-family residential uses. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has street frontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as 2-623 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 8 of 10 an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The setback along the east side of the project has been increased to 90 feet to minimize impacts to the neighboring single-family residences. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. C. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action: 1. The Planning Commission recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 2-624 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 9 of 10 No. 2018-06 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Land Use Element map and text shall be amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 is certified and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 is approved by the City Council, and the associated Development Agreement No. 2018-01 is approved by the City Council and executed by all parties thereto. SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney 2-625 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 28, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-626 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element 1998 City of Santa Ana Planning Division Adopted February 2, 1998 (Reformatted January 2010) The following is a chronology of the approved general plan amendments that have been incorporated into this document since the comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element adopted by the Santa Ana City Council February 2, 1998 (GPA 1997- 05): GPA 2018-06 (Pending) GPA 2019-02 (October 1, 2019) GPA 2019-01 (June 4, 2019) GPA 2017-03 (June 4, 2019) GPA 2018-05 (December 4, 2018) GPA 2018-03 (September 18, 2018) GPA 2018-02 (May 15, 2018) GPA 2015-01 (May 15, 2018) GPA 2017-02 (December 19,2017) GPA 2017-01 (June 20, 2017) GPA 2016-03 (February 21, 2017) GPA 2016-02 (May 17, 2016) GPA 2016-01 (April 19, 2016) GPA 2015-03 (February 2, 2016) GPA 2014-02 (October 21, 2014) GPA 2014-01 (June 3, 2014) GPA 2011-03 (March 19, 2012) GPA 2011-02 (June 6, 2011) GPA 2010-01 (June 7, 2010) GPA 2008-02 (July 20, 2009) GPA 2007-03 (May 18, 2009) GPA 2004-03 (February 2, 2009) GPA 2008-01 (May 5, 2008) GPA 2007-02 (June 18, 2007) GPA 2007-01 (March 19, 2007) GPA 2006-01 (October 2, 2006) GPA 2005-01 (December 5, 2005) GPA 2005-02 (October 17, 2005) GPA 2004-01 (April 5, 2005, as passed by the voters of Santa Ana) GPA 2004-04 (July 19, 2004) GPA 2004-06 (July 6, 2004) GPA 2003-02 (June 16, 2003) GPA 2003-01 (February 18, 2003) GPA 2002-01 (September 3, 2002) GPA 2002-03 (August 19, 2002) GPA 2001-03 (February 19, 2002) GPA 2001-02 (January 7, 2002) GPA 2000-09 (May 7, 2001) GPA 2000-08 (February 5, 2001) GPA 2000-03 (December 4, 2000) GPA 2000-02 (November 20, 2000) GPA 1999-02 (October 18, 1999) GPA 1999-01 (August 16, 1999) GPA 1998-04 (October 5, 1998) GPA 1998-05 (September 21, 1998) GPA 1998-01 (May 4, 1998) 2-627 LAND USE ELEMENT 14 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Goal 6 Reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. Policy 6.1 Support legislative and regulatory changes to laws and codes concerning safe occupancy standards. Policy 6.2 Support reducing the number of units in multiple-family developments by allowing the property owner to combine two or more units into a larger unit. Policy 6.3 Prohibit new development and building alterations which can readily be converted to improper occupancy. Policy 6.4 Target educational programs concerning overcrowding to tenants, owners, and property managers. Policy 6.5 Promote health and safety programs which address the occupancy of housing units and overcrowding. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan is comprised of three components that direct and regulate land use in Santa Ana. These include a Land Use Map, development intensity standards, and adopted Specific Plans. These key components establish a framework for land use and development in the City. The Land Use Plan indicates the location, types, and extent of development and land uses throughout Santa Ana. It consists of a map which designates land use categories and their relative location, as well as development intensity standards for each category. The Land Use Plan is further supported by Specific Plans which correlate to the Land Use Plan. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY STANDARDS As required by State law, the Land Use Element also establishes standards for development intensity. These standards ensure that the types of development permitted under each land use designation are well understood by the property owner, decision-makers, developer, and the general public. Development intensity refers to the size or degree of development possible within a particular land use category. The development intensity standard used for nonresidential development is floor area ratio, which is the ratio of the building’s floor area to the total area of the lot on which the building is located. The development intensity standard for residential developments is “units per acre” which is a measure of the number of units allowed for each acre of land - with the exception of Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, Harbor Corridor District Center, Heritage District Center, 2525 North Main District 2-628 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 15 Center and Urban Neighborhood areas. To encourage a dynamic mixture of residential, office and commercial uses, within these areas both building intensity and residential density is based on floor area ratio and zoning development standards. In calculating either the allowable floor area or the allowabl e residential density, it is the City ’s policy to not allow upward rounding. The Land Use Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 2. Additional information concerning the Land Use Plan and the land use designations is provided in Table 1 (Land Use Development Intensity Standards), and in the Appendix. Table 1 Development Intensity Standards Land Use Designation Density/Intensity Standards (du/acre - FAR)1 Residential Land Use Designations Low Density Residential (LR-7) 7 du/acre Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) 11 du/acre Medium Density Residential (MR-15) 15 du/acre Mixed Use Land Use Designations District Center2(DC) Other District Center (Midtown, MacArthur Place, etc.) 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0-2.0 2525 North Main District Center FAR 1.43 Heritage District Center FAR 1.7 Downtown District Center FAR 3.0 Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 Transit Village District Center FAR 5.0 Harbor Corridor District Center FAR 5.0 Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Area/ Segerstrom, First, Fifth & 17th Corridor FAR 0.5-1.80 Harbor Corridor FAR 3.0 Metro East FAR 0.75-1.5 Commercial Land Use Designations 3 Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial (GC) FAR 0.5-1.0 One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) 4 FAR 2.9 Industrial Land Use Designations Industrial (IND) FAR 0.45 Other Land use Designations Institutional (INS) FAR 0.5 Open Space (O) FAR 0.2 Notes: 1 The intensity standards shown refer to the theoretical maximum amount of development permitted for each land use designation (du-dwelling units; FAR-floor area ratio). Development must also adhere to zoning regulations, and/or specific plan requirements. 2 The District Center and Urban Neighborhood land use designations permit both residential and non-residential development. 3 Commercial intensities may vary. Baseline FAR is 0.5. Specific areas allowing greater intensities are indicated in Exhibit A-3. 4 One Broadway Plaza District Center land use designation permits office, restaurant and ancillary retail for a master planned development. *Refer to Appendix for description of Land Use designations. 2-629 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 17 Exhibit 2 Land Use Plan 2-630 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-11 LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To effectively achieve the broad range of goals outlined for the City ’s future growth and development, a variety of plans, programs, and regulations must be relied upon. This section of the Element discusses these tools, and how they correlate with implementation of the City ’s land use goals. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY STANDARDS Table A-1 summarizes the development intensity standard for each of the General Plan designations, and provides land use distribution by acreage for the land use. The intensity standards for the categories permitting residential development are expressed in density, measured in “units per acre,” or floor area ratio and zoning development standards in the case of certain Mixed Use land use designations. The intensity standards for non-residential development are expressed as “floor area ratio” or FAR. The FAR concept is illustrated in Exhibit A-3. The intensity standards in concert with the zoning and development standards regulate the massing, form and building size. Table A-1 Development Intensity Standards Land Use Density/Intensity Standards Residential Land Use Designations Low Density 7 du/acre Low-Medium Density 11 du/acre Medium Density 15 du/acre Mixed Use Land Use Designations District Center Other District Centers (Midtown, etc.) 90 du/acre and FAR 1.0-2.0 2525 North Main District Center FAR 1.43 Heritage District Center FAR 1.7 Downtown District Center FAR 3.0 Metro East District Center FAR 3.0 Transit Village District Center FAR 5.0 Harbor Corridor District Center FAR 5.0 Urban Neighborhood Transit Zoning Code Area/ Segerstrom, First, Fifth & 17th Corridor FAR 0.5-1.80 Harbor Corridor FAR 3.0 Metro East FAR 0.75-1.5 Commercial Land Use Designations Professional/Admin. Office FAR 0.5-1.0 General Commercial FAR 0.5-1.0 One Broadway Plaza District Center* FAR 2.9 Industrial Land Use Designations Industrial FAR 0.45 Other Land Use Designations Institutional FAR 0.5 Open Space FAR 0.2 Notes: du - dwelling unit, FAR - floor area ratio * Residential development is not a permitted use. 2-631 LAND USE ELEMENT A-12 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN The City established development intensity standards in 1988, for nonresidential land use designations. The standards measure intensity through the use of floor area ratios. The floor area ratios proposed for the City ’s major commercial corridors are expected to remain in place over the life of the Land Use Element. Those areas of the City proposed for the most intensive levels of development include district centers, professional and administrative office districts, and several other commercial centers with a unique character, or special development concerns. Some of these areas correspond to those for which Specific Plans have been prepared. The proposed floor area ratio(s) for most of the City ’s commercial corridors allows structures of two to three stories with surface parking. The major development areas-the District Centers and Professional/Administrative Office Districts along Tustin Avenue and East First Street-allow mid-rise and high-rise buildings with structured parking. These areas are expected to generate the highest level of development activity in the City as centers of commerce. These areas are listed in Table A-2 and are shown in Exhibit A-4. The floor area ratios indicated in Table A-2 are the maximum building intensity allowed for development. Table A-2 Key Area- Floor Area Ratios Area Project/Area FAR 1 MainPlace 2.1 2 City Place 2.54 3 North Main Street 1.5 4 North Broadway 1.0 5 Museum District 1.5 6 Hutton Development 1.0 7 Civic Center Specific Development Plan 1.0 8 Midtown Specific Plan 0.5–1.0 9 Civic Center 1.0 10 Downtown 3.0 11 Orange County Register 1.15 12 First Street/Tustin Avenue 1.0 13 Bentall Center Development 1.5 14 2720 Hotel Terrace Drive 1.0 15 1951 East Carnegie Avenue 0.55 16 4040 West Carriage Avenue 0.47 17 Lake Center Development 0.72 18 South Coast Metro 1.0 19 MacArthur Place North 2.0 20 MacArthur Place South 1.0 21 Pac Tel Office 1.5 22 Metro East 3.0 23 Transit Village 5.0 24 Town & Country Manor 1.27 25 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor 5.0 26 Heritage 1.7 27 2525 North Main 1.43 2-632 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-17 Exhibit A-4 Land Use Plan & Development Intensity Standards/FAR 2-633 LAND USE ELEMENT A-20 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Commercial The Land Use Plan identifies three land use designations that encourage a variety of office, retail and commercial enterprises to serve the community. The Professional/Administrative Office (PAO) designation applies to those areas where professional and/or administrative offices are predominant, or where such development is being encouraged. Land included in this designation is found primarily near the Civic Center, and along the First Street and Tustin Avenue Corridors in close proximity to freeways. There are other smaller PAO areas in the City such as along North Broadway and along portions of east and west Seventeenth Street. A total of 594.9600.8 acres is included in this land use designation. The floor area ratio intensity standard applicable to this land use designation ranges from 0.5 to 1.0. The Professional and Administrative Office areas are intended to provide a unique environment for office development in those areas of the City where office uses are the predominant land use. The purpose for maintaining and supporting these areas exclusively for office and office-related uses is to encourage major employment centers at locations which significantly lessen the impact to the City ’s local street system. The First Street/Tustin Avenue office corridor between the Santa Ana (I-5) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways serves this purpose. In addition, the orderly, well-maintained quality of existing development supports a continuation of these areas as functional office/employment centers. The Professional and Administrative Office designation includes a range of floor area ratios to differentiate development intensity and character in relation to adjacent land uses. The areas with a FAR of 0.5 are not major office centers, but rather have an established character of lower intensity garden office and professional service uses. These areas are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses. Office development along East Fourth Street, between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, is typical of this low-rise office character. The PAO area located adjacent to the Civic Center contains a range of office development intensity which supports the City ’s functional role as the government center of the County. The types of uses typically located in the PAO district include the following: Professional and administrative offices/office parks; Service activities such as copy centers, courier services, travel agencies, and restaurants when such uses are an integral component of a planned office development; and Professional uses such as accountants, attorneys, doctors, engineers, and insurance brokers. 2-634 LAND USE ELEMENT A-22 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Mixed Use The Land Use Plan provides for two distinct mixed use land use designations. These designations allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use developments, with an emphasis on linkages to a range of transportation options: The District Center (DC) land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City. Seven areas of the City, totaling 687.0 681.1 acres, are designated as District Center. The intensity standard for the District Center designation ranges from a floor ratio of 1.0 to 5.0. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City ’s commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high- rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments within some District Centers are allowed at a density of up to 90 units per acre when developed as an integral component of a master planned mixed use project. In Harbor Corridor, Metro East, Downtown, and Transit Village District Centers residential development intensity is based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning overlay and/or development standards. Some District Centers serve as major retail and employment centers locally and regionally, and should include development which promotes the City as a regional activity center while creating an environment conducive to business on a regional scale. District Centers in Santa Ana include the following: The Main Place/City Place District Center includes a regional shopping center and office complex, as well as high intensity housing and mixed-use development. The Museum District located between the Downtown and MainPlace/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowers Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers. The Downtown District serves as one of the County ’s major employment and governmental operations centers complemented with a mix of residential, commercial, and services uses to enhance its urban vibrancy. Emphasis on streets that accommodate all modes of transportation, including mass transit, pedestrian and bicyclist is key in this urban setting. 2-635 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-23 The South Coast Metro District serves as a regional retail shopping area which includes a range of commercial services and office projects. The MacArthur Place District Center contains an existing office/hotel complex and a proposed major mixed use project which will include professional offices, supporting commercial, and mid and high-rise residential components. The Metro East District is envisioned as a vibrant urban village with a balance of office, residential, and service uses. Pedestrian and transportation linkages are key in this urban setting. The Transit Village District is envisioned as a vibrant intense urban village with a balance of employment centers, residential and service uses. Pedestrian and transit linkages to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center is key in this district. The Harbor Corridor Mixed Use Transit Corridor creates a vision for a more livable, sustainable setting through higher intensity housing and mixed use development, convenient access to transit, complete streets, and amenities that promotes active lifestyles. The Heritage District allows for mixed use development with higher density residential and supportive commercial and office uses within proximity to surrounding employment centers. The 2525 North Main District allows for higher density residential development along the North Main Street corridor, in proximity to employment centers, the MainPlace Mall, and cultural destinations. District Centers are considered to be the City ’s “major development areas.” The most intense development in the City is targeted to these areas. The Tustin Avenue corridor is a major development area even though it is not a designated District Center. This area has developed over the years as a prime office corridor and employment area. The PAO designation facilitates the continued development of this area with high intensity, high quality regional office projects. The Urban Neighborhood (UN) land use designation applies to primarily residential areas with pedestrian oriented commercial uses, schools and small parks. The Urban Neighborhood allows for a mix of residential uses and housing types, such as mid to low rise multiple family, townhouses and single family dwellings; with some opportunities for live-work, neighborhood serving retail and service, public spaces and use, and other amenities. Either vertical or horizontal integration of uses is permitted based on zoning standards, with an emphasis on tying together the uses with pedestrian linkages and street frontages. Street connectivity is 2-636 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-33 interagency Development Review Committee (DRC) to ensure consistent and comprehensive application of City regulations and policies for all projects. Redevelopment Plans. The City will apply redevelopment tools associated with the implementation of the adopted redevelopment plans, as appropriate. The City will encourage the further development of industrial, commercial, and residential projects in suitable locations to strengthen the City ’s tax and employment base. Special Studies. In certain instances, a special study may be required to address a particular issue. In these cases, a specific effort to identify staff resources needed to conduct the appropriate investigation and analysis will be identified. Zoning Code Review. The zoning code serves as a primary tool used by the City to regulate development. The City will develop a program to revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and standards are consistent with community needs and high quality development. The City will initiate appropriate changes to the ordinance to ensure, where appropriate, conformity between the Land Use Element and Zoning Map. LAND USE PLAN BUILDOUT As indicated previously, the City of Santa Ana has been almost completely developed for many years. As a result, any new development will necessarily consist of redevelopment and infill development on the remaining vacant and underutilized parcels. Many parcels with nonresidential land use designations will never be developed to the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan. Table A-4 indicates the development possible under the build-out of the Land Use Plan. The build-out for residential land uses considered two scenarios. Effective build-out for residential development is calculated by adding the 21,73721,481 units possible in the areas designated as District Center and Urban Neighborhood to the existing 74,588 units presently found in the City per Census 2000. Theoretical build-out for residential development considered the development possible if all of the areas designated as residential were developed according to the permitted Land Use Plan intensities. Since the Land Use Element does not contemplate the elimination of existing housing in the City, the effective build-out figure represents a more realistic estimate of future residential development. As indicated in Table A-4, three of the non-residential land use designations have a range in FAR intensities. For the non-residential land use designations, effective build-out considered the development possible under the lower range of FAR intensities while theoretical build-out considered the upper FAR range. Typically, parking and landscaping requirements will result in significantly less floor area 2-637 LAND USE ELEMENT A-34 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN for commercial and industrial developments than that which is permitted under the General Plan. As indicated in Table A-4, between 76,97276,716 to 96,32596,069 housing units are allowed by the Land Use Plan. The additional units which presently exist in the City beyond the maximum number permitted under the theoretical buildout scenario are a reflection of the higher density multiple -family developments constructed in the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, the purpose of the Land Use Plan as it applies to the residential areas is to preserve and maintain the stability of existing neighborhoods, regardless of the character of development. The intent of the Plan is not to create any displacement, nor decrease existing development densities. Rather, it is to ensure a safe, healthy, and livable environment for City residents. Existing residential development entitlements are protected through this Land Use Element, applicable Zoning regulations, and sections of the City code pertaining to legal nonconforming uses. The Land Use Element’s implementation may result in an increase in the amount of commercial, office, and industrial development in the City. As indicated in Table A-4, up to 37,271,727 square feet of commercial, 25,913,84426,714,041 square feet of office, and 42,199,991 square feet of industrial development are possible under the effective capacity parameters of Land Use Plan. 2-638 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN A-35 Table A-4 Land Use Plan Build-out Capacities Land Use Acres Intensity/ Density Standards Effective Buildout1 Theoretical Buildout Residential Low Density Residential LR-7 6,448.3 7 du/ac 45,138 du Low Medium Density Residential LMR-11 420.6 11 du/ac 4,627 du Medium Density Residential MR-15 364.7 15 du/ac 5,471 du Subtotal 7,233.6 96,325 96,069 du1 55,235 du Mixed Use Non Res. Res. Non-Res. Res. District Center Other2 DC 309.5 90 du /ac FAR 1.0-2.0 11,955,583 sf 3,017 du 23,764,534 sf 3,017 du 2525 North Main DC 5.9 FAR 1.43 256 du 256 du Heritage DC 18.8 FAR 1.7 54,090 sf 1,221 du 54,090 sf 1,221 du Downtown DC 62.5 FAR 3.0 2,057,824 sf 1,661du 2,057,824 sf 1,661 du Metro East DC 113.9 FAR 0.75- 3.0 2,464,776 sf 5,037 du 2,464,776 sf 5,037 du Transit Village DC 51.4 FAR 5.0 402,864 sf 2,761 du 402,864 sf 2,761 du Harbor Corridor DC 125.0 FAR 5.0 1,836,155 sf 2,029 du 1,836,155 sf 2,029 du Urban Neighborhood UN 317.0 FAR 0.5-3.0 1,656,955 sf 5,755 du 1,656,955 sf 5,755 du Subtotal 1,004.0 998.1 20,428,247 sf 21,737 21,481 du 32,237,198 sf 21,737 21,481 du Commercial Professional & Admin. Office PAO 594.9 600.8 FAR 0.5-1.0 12,956,922 13,085,424 sf 25,913,844 26,170,848 sf General Commercial GC 855.6 FAR 0.5-1.0 18,635,863 sf 37,271,727 sf One Broadway Plaza District Ctr3 OBPDC 4.3 FAR 2.9 543,193 sf 543,193 sf Subtotal 1,454.8 1,460.7 32,135,979 32,264,481 sf 63,728,764 63,985,768 sf Industrial Industrial IND 2,152.8 FAR 0.45 42,199,991 sf 42,199,991 sf Other Institutional INS 800.6 FAR 0.2-0.5 6,974,740 sf 17,436,850 sf Open Space OS 1,010.9 FAR 0.2 8,806,961 sf 8,806,961 sf Subtotal 1,811.5 15,781,701 sf 26,243,811 sf FAR=floor area ratio; d.u.=dwelling unit; s.f.=square feet (of floor area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-of-way. 1 Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, Heritage District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas. The Harbor Corridor District Center, Metro East District Center, Transit Village District Center, Downtown District Center, and Urban Neighborhood areas allow a range of intensity for mixture of residential and non-residential development based on the zoning development standards. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 21,73721,481 units possible in the District Center and Urban Neighborhood with the existing 74,588 (Census 2000) housing units. 2 Land use designation permits both residential and non-residential development. Build-out assumes 90% of land area will be developed as commercial and 10% will be developed as residential; with the exception of Town and Country Manor project intended for continuum of care and housing seniors. 3 Land use designation permits high intensity office development with ancillary retail use. This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. Notes: This table has been revised to correspond with the GIS Land Use Map illustrated in Exhibit 2. FAR - floor area ratio, d.u. -dwelling units, s.f. -square feet (of floor area). Acreage shown in table does not include roads in right-of-way. 1 Effective capacity for non-residential development assumes development possible under the lower range of FAR intensity standards with the exception of the Metro East District Center. Residential effective capacity was calculated by adding the 8,783 units possible in the District 2-639 This page left blank intentionally. 2-640 EXHIBIT 4 2-641 This page left blank intentionally. 2-642 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 1 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) (AA NO. 2018-10) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) FOR SAID PROPERTY WHEREAS, Chapter 41, Article 1, Division 1, Section 41-1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes the necessity of segregating the location of residences, businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land regulation; the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of yards and open space; the City is divided into land-use districts of such number, shape and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement; and WHEREAS, the regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to develop The Addington a Multi-Family Residential Project (“proposed Project”), originally proposed as a 496-unit multi-family project on a 5.93-acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, California (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, during the entitlement and environmental review process, and in response to comments and concerns raised by the public and the City’s elected officials, the Applicant has proposed several modifications to the original proposal; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails (1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and 442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot with residential and commercial parking; (3) approval of Development Agreement No. EXHIBIT 4 2-643 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 2 of 12 2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana (“City”) and Applicant; (4) approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site’s existing land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and (5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which would change the zoning of the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD- 93) designation; and WHEREAS, the requested Amendment Application would change the zoning designation of the property from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93) and adoption of Specific Development No. 93 to reflect this change in order to facilitate the construction of the proposed multi-family housing project and a commercial parking lot; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated between August 7, 2018 and October 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development No. 93; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work study session to overview the project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were received (three in support and 29 in opposition) and nine (9) written comments were received (one in support and eight in opposition); and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019 and held a second study session to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were received (25 in support; 31 in opposition and two neutral) and eleven (11) written comments were received (two in support and nine in opposition); and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48) speakers opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council does not certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the Project; and 2-644 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 3 of 12 WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131) members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the City Council voted that the project be taken back to the Planning Commission after consultation with staff, Applicant and community; and WHEREAS, in June 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised plan consisting of development 347 multi-family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces (1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4- story residential building wrapped around a five-level parking structure with an amenity deck on the sixth-level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project on a 5.93- acre site; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 655,826 square feet of total development, including 386,444 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 347 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 269,382 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure, the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-seven (77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and one speaker was neutral. In addition, one-hundred (100) written comments were received with six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission vote resulted in an impasse; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the Applicant submitted revised plans including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 256 for-rent multi-family residential units and a 167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 292 space surface level parking lot which also reduced 2-645 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 4 of 12 the Project’s height, increased the Project’s setbacks, and modified the Project entrance (“Modified Project”); and WHEREAS, October 18, 2019, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing for consideration of Amendment Application No. 2018-10 by advertising in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and on October 17, 2019 by mailing to owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project and posting on the project site; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the following environmental documents have been prepared and made available to the public: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 the Multi-Family Residential Project, Clarification to the 2525 N. Main Street (Magnolia at the Park) Multi-Family Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Clarification), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in these documents and the administrative record for the Project, including all oral and written comments received during the comment period. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the EIR, including the Clarifications thereto, contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Planning Commission further recommends that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance”, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact, certify the EIR, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the MMRP. Any project approvals issued by the Planning Commission in this Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the City Council has completed the actions described above. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT APPLICATION: The Amendment Application consists of amendments to the zoning map (SDM 6-5-9) and adoption of Specific Development No. 93, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The Amendment Application, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are on file and available 2-646 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 5 of 12 for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION: In compliance with Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-662, the Planning Commission has investigated the consistency of the application with the purpose and intent of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the conformity of the application with the General Plan and hereby makes the following findings: A. Consistency with the Intent and Purpose of Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 41. The amendment application to change the zoning designation from Professional (P) to Specific Development 93 (SD-93) is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-593.1 for the following reasons: (1) Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on the proper planning and development of adjacent and nearby properties. The site plan has been designed with the vehicular entrance on Main Street away from the residential neighborhood to the south and east. In addition, the parking structure and rooftop amenity deck, which are the tallest building elements are positioned closer to Main Street, with residential buildings wrapped around the structure to screen it. There is a 90-foot rear (east) setback requirement which creates a buffer between the multi-family buildings and single-family homes. In addition, the existing healthy trees along the east property line will be protected in place and new mature trees will be planted or replaced as needed. The wall along the eastern property line will be increased to 8-feet in height and the east side of the building will tier in height from two, to three, to four stories to provide a transition in height when compared to the single-story residential dwellings to the east. The building is also designed with courtyards rather than one large “box” to provide open space and variation in the massing. (2) Encouraging, securing and maintaining the orderly and harmonious appearance, attractiveness and aesthetic development of structures and grounds in order that the most appropriate use and value thereof be determined and protected. The property is a 5.93-acre site with street frontage along Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, 2-647 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 6 of 12 employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity of major employment centers and retail establishments. The site is also located just north of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway which provides regional access to and from the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the new building will have a variety of materials such as multiple brick veneers, stone veneer, metal panels, ceramic tile, metal canopies, flat and metal seamed roofs to assist in creating a modern contemporary design. The residential development will replace a potential office use with a residential use. Although a professional office use is typically considered a low intensity land use when compared to commercial or industrial uses, issues with parking, traffic and noise may still arise. When comparing land uses, multi-family uses are more compatible in nature with single- family residential neighborhoods than office uses. (3) Providing a method whereby specific development plans are to be based on the general plan as well as other regulations, programs, and legislation as may in the judgment of the city be required for the systematic execution of the general plan. With approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. Although the Project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element to allow for residential use of the property, the Project still supports and is consistent with several other overarching goals and policies of the General Plan. For example, as described in the associated General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06: Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community; Land Use Element Goal 4, to protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life; and, Urban Design Element, Goal 1, to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. 2-648 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 7 of 12 (4) Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved. Development of the Project would result in a substantial change in views and a significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics. However, the Project will replace an over 30-year old structure with a modern building with enhanced landscaping contributing to the character of the City. Furthermore, a Development Agreement between the developer/property owner and the City of Santa Ana has been entered into. Public benefits of the agreement include: public art, Santiago Park improvements, Park Santiago Neighborhood benefits including access to on-site amenities for Park Santiago residents, security patrol of the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park, and Park Santiago Neighborhood traffic improvements and calming such as street calming, traffic diversion, entry monuments, and street lights. (5) Insuring that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvements and beautification of streets and public facilities shall be protected by exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of private buildings, structures and open spaces. The multi-family residential development will utilize existing water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure and will not result in the expansion of infrastructure. In addition, the Project will not result in the expansion of new or altered police or fire facilities. The Project will be subject to utility user tax, property taxes based on the valuation of the new construction and management company business taxes. The building facades and new landscaping are designed to deter graffiti, existing sidewalks will be removed and replaced with new sidewalks that are constructed to City standards, new street lights will be installed and the City’s Building Security Ordinance will be implemented which includes security and crime preventing measures to help reduce City expenditures on public services and maintenance. In addition, the residential development will be subject to all required development impact fees. B. Substantial Conformance with the General Plan. 2-649 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 8 of 12 The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Amendment Application is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: i. The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide 256 rental housing units. The amendment will establish new zoning for the site that provides a connection between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site by providing a residential development that will support a mixed-use environment. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City’s image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. 2-650 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 9 of 12 The Project is within ½ mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Main Street which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center which provides rail service throughout California; and the project is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Main Street is a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The multi-storied development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent uses, the residential use is consistent with the residential uses to the east and south. In addition, multi-family uses are often used in planning and zoning practice to buffer higher intensity uses like commercial or industrial uses from single-family residential uses. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards that are open to the public right-of-way, and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has street frontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The setback along the east side of the project 2-651 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 10 of 12 has been increased to 90 feet to minimize impacts to the neighboring single-family residences. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. C. The proposed Amendment Application will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Amendment Application will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2018-10 as follows: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the property at 2525 North Main Street shall be amended to 2-652 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 11 of 12 Specific Development No. 93 and Specific Development No. 93 plan shall be adopted as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The Amendment Application shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 and General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 are each certified and adopted by the City Council, and the associated Development Agreement No. 2018-01 is approved by the City Council and executed by all parties thereto. SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chairperson shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Recording Secretary shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2019. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: _______________________ Mark McLoughlin Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney 2-653 Resolution No. 2019-xx Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2019-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 28, 2019. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 2-654 MAIN ST17TH ST M E M O R Y L N LAWSON WYGRAND AVFAIRHAVEN AV SANTA CLARA AV ASPEN ST SANTA CLARA AV 20TH ST LINCOLN AVSANTA CLARA AV SANTIAGO STJOANA DR FAIRMONTSTEDGEWOOD RD 22ND ST HATHAWAY STAVALONAVCLEMENSENAVPARKLN 18TH ST HATHAWAY STJESSEEDR18TH ST BUFFALO AV 19TH ST CHERRYST BEECHWOODST PARK LN 21ST ST LINCOLNAVVALENCIA STHATHAWAY STBUFFALOAV SANTIAGO STSANTACLARAAV EASTWOOD AVVALENCIASTPARK LN SANTAFESTOBARR PLLARCHMONT AVOAKMONT A V BEECHWOODST POINSETTIA STFRENCH STFAIRHAVEN AV CITY PLACEDRBUSH STP EN N W Y GROVEMONT ST JOANA DR CHERRY ST BEECHWOODST ASPEN ST MAINPLACE DR 21ST ST WALKIEWY VIRGINIA AV BUFFALO AV JONQUIL R D BUFFALO AV FAIRMONT AVGROVEMO N T S T EASTWOOD AVHATHAWAY ST18TH STFRENCH STEASTWOOD AVVIRGINIA AV POINSETTIA STBRYNWOOD STFRENCH STEASTWOOD AVFRENCH STOAKMONT AVFAIRMONT AVBUFFALO AV AVALON AV CATALINA AV 21ST ST 20TH ST 19TH STSPURGEON STBUSHSTBUSH STBUSH STPOINSETTIA STLARCHMONT AV20TH ST SPURGEON STA1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 C1C1C1C1 C1 C1 C1 C1-MDC1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C1-MD C4 C4 C5C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 O O O O O P P P R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1R1R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R2 R2R2 R2R2R2 R3 R3R3 R4 R4R4 SD31 SD65 SD73 SD78 SD79 SD91 SD93 SP3SP3SP3 C1-HDIIC1-HDII C1-HDII P-HDII P-HDII P-HDII R1-B R1-B R1-B R1-B R1-B R3-PRD 7-5-9 8-5-95-5-931-4-9 32-4-95-5-931-4-9 31-4-91-5-107-5-912-5-101-5-10 EXHIBIT A Print Date: 10/18/18 Sectional District Map: 6-5-9 I A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CSM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST. R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE -B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE -OZ OVERLAY ZONE C1MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - MUSEUM DIST. M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER O OPEN SPACE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT -HD2 HEIGHT DISTRICT II C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL R1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -PRD City of Santa Ana, California ZONING DISTRICTS 2-655 This page left blank intentionally. 2-656 1 of 12 EXHIBIT B SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 2525 North Main Street Development Project SECTION 1 – APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE The Specific Development Zoning District No. 93 (SD-93) for the 2525 North Main Street development project is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26 Section 41-593 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SD-93 contains specific standards and regulations for the purpose of establishing land use regulations and development and operational standards for the project site. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code are in effect unless expressly superseded by regulations contained in this ordinance. The boundaries of the 2525 North Main Street development project shall be defined pursuant to Attachment 1 (attached hereto and incorporated a though fully set forth herein). The 2525 North Main Street Development District shall have two zones, Zone 1 and Zone 2, as depicted in Attachment 1. SECTION 2 – PURPOSE The Specific Development Plan No. 93 for the 2525 North Main Street project consists of standards and regulations established for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. Objectives The objectives of the 2525 North Main Street project specific development plan include provisions of the following: 1. Promote the City’s image as providing high-quality residential projects for individuals and families of all income groups. 2. Create a clean and safe environment for the City’s residents, workers, and visitors. 3. Contribute to the North Main Street corridor by providing a high density residential development that supports nearby cultural, office and commercial uses. 4. Provide regulations that allow development, in response to market conditions while achieving overall City and community goals. 5. Provide parking opportunities for nearby museum uses and/or commercial uses. 2 of 12 SECTION 3 – Uses permitted in Zone 1 The following uses are permitted in the SD-93 district: (a) A maximum of 256 multiple-family dwelling units not exceeding a density of 58 dwelling units/acre. (1) The unit mix shall be comprised of: a. 70% studio and one-bedroom units b. 30% two-bedroom and three-bedroom units (2) Unit square footages ranging from a. 556 to 592 square foot studios b. 633 to 930 square foot one-bedrooms c. 909 to 1,179 square foot two-bedrooms d. 1,362 square foot three-bedrooms (b) Home occupations, pursuant to section 41-192.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. (c) Accessory recreational rooms, dog wash, club room, fitness room, wellness center, bike rooms, pools and spas for residential use. SECTION 4 – Uses subject to a conditional use permit in Zone 1 (a) Childcare facilities caring for more than eight (8), but no more than fourteen (14) children. SECTION 5 – Uses permitted in Zone 2 (a) Surface parking lot containing with 180 spaces (1.4 acre lot) to be used by a commercial, museum, or professional offices uses. (b) Parking may be shared with the residential development through a shared parking agreement. (c) All other uses and/or structures are prohibited. SECTION 6 – Maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) The maximum authorized building intensity for the 2525 North Main Street project is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.43, including residential areas, community-serving areas (e.g., leasing office, gym and club room) and interior corridors. SECTION 7 – Minimum lot size in Specific Development No. 93 The minimum lot size is 1.4 acres. 3 of 12 SECTION 8 – Minimum street frontage in Specific Development No. 93 Lots shall have a minimum street frontage of at least 250 feet. SECTION 9 – Building height in Specific Development No. 93 (a) No residential structure shall exceed 50 feet (four stories) in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade of the structure to the top of the structure. (b) The six level parking structure (five levels with one level subterranean) and amenity deck shall not exceed 61 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of the structure. (c) The stair tower and elevator tower shall not exceed 74 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of structure. (d) Along the east property line the building shall tier from two, three, and four stories as shown on the approved site plan. SECTION 10 – Setback standards in Specific Development No. 93 (a) North setback. A minimum building setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided between the property line and buildings along Santiago Park. (b) South setback. A minimum building setback of one hundred thirty-four (134) feet shall be provided from Edgewood Road. (c) West setback. A minimum building setback of twelve (12) feet shall be provided between the property line and buildings along Main Street. (d) East setback. A minimum building setback of ninety (90) feet shall be provided between the east property line and buildings. SECTION 11 – Off-street parking standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for the project are as follows: (1) 2.0 spaces per unit shall be provided (407 spaces within the parking structure and 104 space surface level parking lot). (2) Parking stalls shall not be less than eight (8) feet six (6) inches wide and eighteen (18) feet long. Double-striping is required, with the width of stalls measured from lines midway between each pair of stripes. Structural, mechanical, utility or similar appurtenances are only permitted adjacent to required stall areas if the required width of the stall is increased at least six (6) inches and if the appurtenance is not 4 of 12 located so as to interfere with safe and free parking movement, car door opening, or of visibility. (3) Aisles to and from parking stalls shall not be less than: Twenty-three (23) feet wide for 90-degree parking. (4) Drive aisles shall not dead-end; a turn-around method be provided to allow cars to exit if all stalls are occupied (5) The interior of the parking structure without natural lighting shall be painted white or shall be equipped with lighting devices which will provide a minimum maintained two (2) footcandle of light on the parking surface during hours of darkness. Subterranean parking areas shall maintain lighting twenty-four (24) hours a day. Lighting devices shall be protected by vandal resistant covers. (6) A minimum of ten (10) bicycle spaces shall be provided onsite. The design and materials shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project during building plan check. (7) Prior to submittal into building plan check, a parking management plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, identifying parking per unit, and guest parking. The plan is subject to approval of the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. Onsite parking shall be provided for residents and visitors of the Project and the parking demand of the Project site shall be actively monitored. Property owner “Owner” shall continually monitor and take appropriate measures to manage the parking demand of the Project site to mitigate the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or right-of-way. SECTION 12 – Vehicular Access in Specific Development No. 93 The development shall prepare all necessary plans per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to: (a) Provide public access via Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive and Main Street. The Santiago Park Entrance design and construction shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Planning & Building, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency Directors, including residential units to front onto Santiago Park, Main Street, and the Santiago Park Drive entrance. (b) Reconstruct the existing intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive to accommodate the southerly relocation the east leg of the intersection, including, but not limited to: i. Removal of all portions of the existing east leg of the intersection. ii. Construction of PCC curb, gutter and sidewalk along the east side of Main Street. iii. Reconstruct pavement within the intersection. 5 of 12 iv. Modification of the Traffic Signal for the Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive intersection for the intended signal operation shall include new signals poles, traffic cabinet, install conduits and wiring, traffic signal, interconnect, provide Accessible Pedestrian Signals pedestrian push buttons, vehicle/bike video detection, signing and striping as needed to accommodate the proposed entrance to the development and Santiago Park. (c) Remove and reconstruct the raised-curb median in Main Street between Walkie Way and Edgewood Road to provide increased left turn pocket lengths per Attachment 2, including, but not limited to: i. Reconstruct asphalt pavement in Main Street to maintain standard cross slopes, positive drainage and smooth vertical transitions. ii. Provide landscaping and irrigation in the median. iii. Modify the existing channelization striping extending through intersections. (d) Coordinate with Caltrans to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with City of Santa Ana to implement traffic signal synchronization timing along Main Street between the I-5 ramps and the modified traffic signal at Main Street and Walkie Way-Santiago Park to enhance traffic flow and reduce congestions between city streets and the State Highway System. The scope of work shall include but not limited to preparation of cooperative agreement, any required improvements, preparation and implementation of timing plans, and required permits. (e) The Emergency Vehicular Access Lane (Fire Lane) with access to Edgewood Road shall be gated per Orange County Fire Authority and City Public Works Agency requirements and standards. The emergency lane shall not be used for trash staging, trash loading and/or move-ins/outs. No other vehicular access or curb approach openings will be approved on Edgewood Road for the project. SECTION 13 – Open Space standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Pedestrian Walkways and Open Space. The project will provide a minimum of 15% of the total lot size shall be open space in the form of common, landscaped open space areas, pools, spas, deck, courtyard and lobby, interior community room, dining room, gym, business room, etc. (b) Courtyards. (1) East courtyards shall be a minimum of 34 feet wide by 100 feet in depth and shall not contain any pools, spas or recreational rooms. (2) West courtyard shall be a minimum of 48 feet wide by 58 feet in depth. (c) Private Open Space. Each residential unit shall have a patio or balcony a minimum of 50 square feet in size. 6 of 12 SECTION 14 – Walls/Fences standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) East property line. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a solid block wall with a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall be constructed along the east property line. The block wall shall be designed to contain a decorative cap, regularly-spaced decorative pilasters, and a decorative finish in accordance to the design provisions contained within the most recent version of the City’s design guidelines. (b) North property line. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a new wrought iron fence shall be constructed. The fence shall also incorporate decorative pilasters located a maximum of 50 feet on center. Any walls and/or fences are limited to eight (8) feet in height. (c) South and West property line walls are prohibited. Within the front and street side setbacks, walls and/or fences shall be limited to four (4) feet in height. SECTION 15 – Landscape standard in Specific Development No. 93 (a) A Landscape Plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Irrigation Plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of controllers and points of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute (G.P.M.), the size and location of sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of conventional systems and drip systems; an irrigation legend with complete specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all assemblies and components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis; and a summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above information clearly and accurately. The landscape plan shall include a Plant Legend containing: plant symbol, scientific name of plant material, common name of plant material, plant container size, and plant spacing. Very low, low and medium water usage plant materials are encouraged. The landscape plan shall provide a cross section of the eastern planter showing the planter at time of planting, after five (5) years and at full maturity. The cross section shall demonstrate the landscaping will adequately screen the project from the adjacent residential uses along the eastern portion of the Property. A minimum size of 36-inch box trees shall be planted along street setbacks, open space areas and shared parking areas. (b) Per the arborist report dated May 4, 2018: (1) Retain and protect in place the existing eleven (11) healthy Ficus benjamina trees adjacent to the east property line. (2) Remove the existing eight (8) unhealthy trees (Liquidambar styraciflua) in the eastern planter and plant eight (8) minimum size of 60-inch box trees in their place. 7 of 12 (3) Plant new vertical and canopy specimen trees with a minimum size of 48- inch box, 20-feet on center in the east planter within 150 feet of the front property line and within 150 feet of the rear property line. (4) The planter along the east property line shall be sized to allow for future growth and health of the trees. (5) To the extent feasible, all other healthy mature trees on the property shall be protected and preserved. If the perseveration of the existing healthy, mature trees is not feasible because of the location of the approved structures on the property, the Owner shall work with Staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating the healthy tree(s) to other locations on the property. (c) Project Landscaping: Landscaping shall be compliant with the City of Santa Ana’s Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Chapter 41, Article XVI of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. All landscape areas shall have a fully automatic irrigation system (including spray or drip) as required by the City of Santa Ana Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. (d) All meters shall be appropriately screened from public view with trellis work and vines or hedge-type shrubs, or be incorporated into the residential structure. (e) Installation: Landscaping for the project shall be completed in phases by building and shall be installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The Owner shall be responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the development. (f) Maintenance: All plant material shall be maintained per Section 41-609 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SECTION 16 – Residential Signage in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Signage for the project shall be consistent with Section 41-868 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SECTION 17 – Architectural Design in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Exterior materials. Prior to submittal into building plan check, the Owner shall submit revised architectural elevations subject to the review and approval of the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. Exterior materials and finishes for the project shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project including stone veneer, brick veneer, ceramic tile, metal canopies, flat and metal seamed roofs. All trash enclosures and similar ancillary structures shall match the texture, material and color of the building. (1) The east building wall windows (at the 90 foot building setback) shall be opaque or clerestory (above eye level) windows. 8 of 12 (2) The east wall of the parking structure shall incorporate screen materials and be designed to screen the views from the amenity deck or parking structure to the neighborhood. (b) Green Building. Alternative Transportation and Energy Source, Resource Conservation, and LEED Certification. The project shall be constructed to Silver Standard or better LEED equivalent and shall at the minimum, incorporate bike lockers, bike sharing programing, electric vehicle charging stations, rain capturing systems, grey water capturing systems, and to the extent feasible, automobile sharing programing. (c) Public Art. Public Art shall be installed, and maintained with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total construction cost of the Project. Total construction cost shall mean all design, engineering and construction costs. A public art plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City no later than one hundred eight (180) days before final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and the approved art shall be installed prior to final approval for occupancy of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. (d) Storage. A minimum of 250 cubic feet of storage, in addition to interior bedroom closets, shall be provided with minimum dimensions of 4 feet by 8 feet per unit. (e) Hardscape materials. Enhanced paving materials shall be installed at the Main Street driveway entrance. The actual paving materials shall be approved by the Planning Division. (f) Lighting standards/fixtures. The light fixtures are to integrate design elements of the building and landscape architecture. Lighting is to be designed to confine the direct rays of the artificial lighting within the boundaries of the development. Specifications of light standards/fixtures and photometrics plan shall be submitted to Planning Division for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. (g) Composite Utility Plan. Composite utilities shall not be allowed within required parking, turnaround and landscape areas or on any façade facing a public street. (h) Mechanical Equipment, Appurtenances, and Conduits. All mechanical equipment, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, satellite dish systems, solar panels, thermal solar heaters, utility meters, above ground utility and fire safety connections will be, screened, located out of public view or be architectural integrated into the project design within designated rooms, inside walls, behind parapets, or through a combination of landscape and hardscape materials. (i) Trash Enclosures. Trash bins shall be stored in designated trash enclosures. There shall be an onsite designated trash staging area only to be used on service days and the staging area and bins shall not disrupt vehicular use of the driveway. The minimum requirements needed to service the location shall be clearly indicated on the 9 of 12 plans and subject to the approval of the Public Works Agency. SECTION 18 – Property Maintenance in Specific Development No. 93 (a) Onsite Property Manager. The Project shall include 24-hour on-site Property Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the on-site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis: (1) Police Department (2) Fire Authority (3) Planning and Building Agency (4) Community Development Agency (b) Maintenance. The property shall be maintained free of trash, debris and graffiti. Graffiti shall be removed within 24-hours after its appearance in accordance with Section 10-227 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. (c) Crime Free Housing. Prior to submittal into building plan check, a Crime Free Housing Plan shall be submitted for review. The Plan shall be approved prior to occupancy of the first unit and shall be implemented and administered by the Owner. (d) Building Security. All structures and parking lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security Ordinance). (e) Emergency Evacuation Plan. An approved Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) from City Police and Fire Protection agencies shall be on file for the project. Up-to-date 24-hour emergency contact information for the on-site personnel shall be provided to the City on an ongoing basis and the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be submitted to the following City Agencies: (1) Police Department (2) Fire Authority (3) Planning and Building Agency (4) Community Development Agency (f) On Going Property Maintenance. Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Developer) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: (1) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.). 10 of 12 (2) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses). (3) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable. (4) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon at all times (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable). (5) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms. (6) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement. (7) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City. (8) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement. 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT 5 2-669 This page left blank intentionally. 2-670 Comments from November 15, 2017 Sunshine Ordinance Meeting regarding 2525 N. Main Street A presentation by the Applicant’s team was made to outline the development process and the review that the City of Santa Ana will conduct including the environmental review. A brief description of the project design was provided as well as discussion of anticipated benefits to the community. Comments and questions were received from the attendees. Responses have been provided. Land Use: 1. Why buy a property to rezone? o The site was identified in 2015 by the City of Santa Ana as a likely rezone site and the City placed it on its Envision Map, designating it as residential with unlimited height and unlimited density. In addition, the site should be residential because the proposed residential use next to single family residential is a prototypical manner in which cities are planned. Typically, it is much more common for home owners to resist commercial uses next to their homes, not a residential use. In fact, the State of California is now focusing on requiring EIRs to study the impacts of commercial uses adjacent to homes. 2. Build an office project. o Office would create significantly more traffic than the existing use, for instance, a 5-story office building would generate approximately 10,000 daily trips compared to approximately 2,812 daily trips for the proposed use (if the existing building were occupied it would create 2,938 daily trips). Additionally, office vacancy in this sub-market is approximately 20%, whereas multi-family vacancy is less than 3%. Clearly the need for housing in Santa Ana is one of the most extreme. It is well known that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios (for every 1 housing unit, there are 4.5 people; whereas Irvine is 1 to 2.6 and Newport Beach is 1 to 2.2). The existing housing ratio in Santa Ana is detrimental, by creating a shortfall of housing results in over-crowding and unaffordable housing options. 3. Putting Single family units on site will solve crime issue. o We are in the process of researching and studying the effects that a larger amount of people will have on crime in the area. We will share the data with the community once it is completed. 4. No apartments. o We are hopeful that the quality of the community will change these opinions and the neighbors will take the time to learn and better understand about the community and City benefits. 5. No re-zoning. 2-671 o We are hopeful that the quality of the community will change these opinions and the neighbors will take the time to learn and better understand about the community and City benefits. 6. Need to disclose previous mortuary use on site to people. o As a part of the environmental impact report, it will investigate all former uses and of course the report will be made public. 7. Would you rezone a property next to your neighborhood? o We believe in urban areas the future of housing is denser than in years past. The data is overwhelming that developing multi-family in close proximity to job centers will reduce traffic, reduce environmental issues, and is less taxing on the infrastructure. 8. On this site you can put 40 single family/for sale homes and they will sell. o The cost of urban infill sites such as this one (17mm) make it cost prohibitive to develop single family. In addition, this is a major thoroughfare with a mixture of uses and significant freeway noise, all making for the site to be incompatible for single family residences. 9. Oppose apartments of any kind. o It is our understanding the neighbor’s impression of an apartment project is not consistent with what we intend to develop. In the upcoming weeks, we will launch a website detailing the quality of construction and vast amenities. The project will resemble a fine resort, not some of the underwhelming projects from years ago. Keep in mind, the folks that will occupy this community will make a minimum income of $58,000 per year, with an average income of $85,000 a year. 10. Our neighborhood is a jewel, don’t want your project it will damage our neighborhood. o It is our intention to leave the community better than we found it. We intend to post on our website all of the benefits the project will bring to the City and the Community. 11. Rezone would take away our quality of life, some business use ok. o Again, we are hopeful that the quality of the community will change these opinions and the neighbors will take the time to learn and better understand about the community and City benefits. 12. If the rezoning is going to happen, why are we even talking? o The City of Santa Ana has a process for review of the application that includes an environmental review before Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The developer would not have acquired this site had City staff not identified it as an unlimited density and unlimited height residential site over 3 years ago. Nevertheless, the site is not re-zoned, City staff, Planning Commission and City Council will take into account both the needs of the City and the existing community in coming to a determination if the site is ultimately rezoned. Please be mindful that Main Street and its businesses, which include the hospitals, retail and services, are supportive of more quality housing stock to its workforce. In addition, the project application will be following the process of City 2-672 review including the CEQA environmental process before any decisions are made. 13. . So it is a foregone conclusion that the re zone will happen? o The City of Santa Ana has a process for review of the application that includes an environmental review before Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The developer would not have acquired this site had City staff not identified it as an unlimited density and unlimited height residential site over 3 years ago. Nevertheless, the site is not re-zoned, City staff, Planning Commission and City Council will take into account both the needs of the City and the existing community in coming to a determination if the site is ultimately rezoned. Please be mindful that Main Street and its businesses, which include the hospitals, retail and services, are supportive of more quality housing stock to its workforce. In addition, the project application will be following the process of City review including the CEQA environmental process before any decisions are made. 14. Why bring apartments to this neighborhood? o Office vacancy in this sub-market is approximately 20%, whereas multi- family vacancy is less than 3%. Clearly the need for housing in Santa Ana is extreme. . It is well known that Santa Ana is one of the most overcrowded/dense cities in terms of people to housing ratios (for every 1 housing unit, there are 4.5 people; whereas Irvine is 1 to 2.6 and Newport Beach is 1 to 2.2). The existing housing ratio in Santa Ana is detrimental, by creating a shortfall of housing results in over-crowding and unaffordable housing options. 15. We need apartments but not on this site. There are a lot of apartments planned for adjacent areas. o We find the location of this site, adjacent to both public transportation and major thoroughfares (the 5 Freeway and the 22 Freeway) make it ideal for multi-family housing, not to mention the adjacent retailers and employers are in desperate need for high income households in the sub- market, along with knowledgeable workers (those workers with specific skill sets). Please keep in mind that the culture has changed in that professionals today are renting in far greater numbers than the previous generation. In addition, we would sell these units as condominiums, once the market allows us to do so, however, post – recession lenders still have not loosened their requirements making it difficult for many to qualify for mortgage financing. 16. Not appropriate for our neighborhood. o We find the location of this site, adjacent to both public transportation and major thoroughfares (the 5 Freeway and the 22 Freeway) make it ideal for multi-family housing, not to mention the adjacent retailers and employers are in desperate need for high income households in the sub- market, along with knowledgeable workers (those workers with specific skill sets). Please keep in mind that the culture has changed in that professionals today are renting in far greater numbers than the 2-673 previous generation. In addition, we would sell these units as condominiums, once the market allows us to do so, however, post – recession lenders still have not loosened their requirements making it difficult for many to qualify for mortgage financing. 17. Is there any research about how it works to have apartments adjacent to older neighborhoods? o The site is situated on a main thoroughfare with all different types of uses, situating a multi-family community next to services will reduce the use of cars and support the other adjacent retailers. We are studying potential means to mitigate cut-through traffic into Santiago Park either through reconfiguration of the existing egress, or a gate. In general, most cities are planned with multi-family housing next to single family housing with commercial next to the multi-family. The site makes much more sense as a multi-family residential use. Typically residents are unhappy when commercial uses are next to their homes, not residential uses. That is why this site was identified three years ago by staff to be rezoned for residential. In addition, the park is having vagrant issues and this problem will be somewhat mitigated with professionals living at this location, because it will create a deterrent via a nighttime presence. 18. Our community opposed apartments being built in our vicinity in the 1960’s and they did not get built. o The vision and the needs of the City have changed. The City now is greatly in need of housing stock in order to prevent overcrowding and to provide affordable housing options. Again, the previous generations were able to navigate their families into home ownership, but the environment has changed and the barriers to acquire a home are significant and real. 19. What is the Sunshine Ordinance? o A City Ordinance that requires a community meeting to be held by the applicant after the application is filed to educate about the proposed project and obtain input. 20. Why doesn’t developer put money in a property in a broken neighborhood in Santa Ana? o The developer has been active in Orange County and has developed in all types of neighborhoods. The existing office building was developed as a boiler room/call center for Wells Fargo; it is now obsolete because this type of use has been farmed out to other countries. The site will be developed, and again, this type of use will provide for needs of the retailers, of the adjacent employers, produce significant revenue for the City, and is situated on a public transit corridor, ideal for reducing the use of automobiles. 21. This neighborhood has been here for 100 years. o We know this is a fantastic neighborhood and it is our objective to leave the neighborhood better than we found it. Again, the site is not in Park Santiago, it is on a main thoroughfare, and its position is ideal to work 2-674 in harmony with the adjacent retail, restaurants, office and main transit corridors. Keep in mind that for decades, this site has been a different use than the single family homes located in Park Santiago and it is our understanding that the issues were minimal. 22. No rezoning, no GPA, no apartments o Please refer to responses to comments 4 and 5. 23. Don’t want to be packed in like sardines. o The density of this project is consistent with hundreds of other Southern California projects, including those found in Santa Ana, Irvine, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Huntington Beach. The projects have added tremendous value to both the cities and the communities they are situated in by providing quality housing, bringing quality folks to the neighborhood, and supporting local businesses. The proposed project will provide more than 10x the revenue compared to the existing structure, thereby helping to reduce any fiscal challenges the City currently faces. The City is in need of a variety of new services and better services and this can only be achieved through expansion of its tax base. 24. Concerned about privacy, people would be able to see into backyards of adjacent houses. o We have purposely oriented the unit windows toward the park, toward the courtyards and away from any of the adjacent neighbor homes. We currently are studying sight lines and in the event it is determined that this is an issue, the developer will either revise the design, pay for fencing and/or landscaping to screen the backyards. It is our understanding that the adjacent 9-story office building (which is far higher) has not created privacy issues for the adjacent homes. It is also our intention to bury existing power lines, thereby beautifying the adjacent neighborhood. 25. This project would ruin our quality of life. o Please refer to responses to comments 21, 23 and 24. Traffic and Parking: 1. Where are the 900 cars? o There will be a parking structure that the buildings are wrapped around. The center of the site will contain a 7-level parking structure; the residences will be constructed around the garage, allowing residents to park on the same level as their home. This type of development is both ideal for the residents and screens and screens the parking structure from surrounding area views. 2. Streets aren’t wide enough to accommodate apartments. o We will work with our traffic engineers, architects and City staff to make the egress away from Park Santiago community and towards Main Street. 3. Cowan Heights residents cut through our streets already. 2-675 o We believe you have a wonderful community and we will look into any means to mitigate this and any existing nuisance. 4. Nearby Apartments are not full and traffic is already miserable. o Santa Ana is among the worst cities in terms of housing shortages in the nation, in fact, Santa Ana’s housing share of the housing stock in 2000 was 34% of the housing in the vicinity (including Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Irvine, Tustin); however, by 2015 Santa Ana’s share was down to 27%. As noted above, Santa Ana vacancy rate is less than 3%, it is virtually impossible to have a lower vacancy rate; it is clearly indicative of a housing under-supply. There have been countless studies and articles over the last 3.5 years documenting Orange County’s housing shortage, resulting in folks paying far too much for housing, increasing traffic, increasing pollution, and destroying the quality of life (because people end up spending hours a day in their cars commuting). If Orange County’s housing shortage is not solved, it will drive out workers and drag down the region’s robust economy. Without more places for workers to live, more 20 and 30-somethings will leave and business will struggle to recruit high quality employees. 5. Need to account for all the future apartments in Santa Ana and Orange in area in traffic analysis. o The traffic study area is extensive and will address the appropriate area as determined by City staff and will analyze up to 2040 traffic. 6. Need to assume 2 persons per apartment, this is Santa Ana, there won’t be 1 person in an apartment. o We have taken into account data from apartment communities in determining the quantity of parking that is necessary to operate an organized and quality community. 7. There is a huge problem with cars running through Park Santiago now. o We will work with our traffic engineers, architects and City staff to make the egress away from Park Santiago community and towards Main Street. 8. You think there will be a benefit of reduced traffic with apartments instead of commercial? o Office would create significantly more traffic than the existing use, for instance a 5-story buildings would generate approximately 10,000 daily trips compared to the approximately 2,812 daily trips for the proposed residential use (if the existing building were fully occupied it would create approximately 2,938 daily trips). 9. What is a trip? o The movement of one car in or out. 10. How many trips anticipated for project? You have to assume 90% of people will leave in the morning and come home at same time in evening. o Based on the traffic engineer’s study, the proposed project would generate 2,812 trips per day, whereas the existing building if fully used would generate 2,938 trips per day. 11. How many parking stalls are currently on site? 2-676 o There are 441 stalls on site. 12. The number of parking spaces on site don’t correlate to traffic. o Business uses highlight cars coming in and out all day, in addition, they have visitors and services that create trips throughout the day. Employees also contribute to the trip count with multiple daily trips. 13. Look at current traffic now. o Please keep in mind that the proposed project will result in less daily trips than the current structure would if fully leased and operational. 14. People park on our streets on Spurgeon now, it will get worse. o We are providing ample parking, it will exceed the parking needs of the project. In fact, we would be open to discussion of providing guest parking for the Park Santiago community. 15. Where will Discovery Science Center park? o The Discovery Science Center has plans for a new garage on their rocket lot. Discovery Science Center fully supports our project. 16. Take into consideration, Park Santiago only has three access points, traffic at Edgewood and Main is already impacted. o Our main egress will be off of Main Street. Residents leaving the project on Edgewood can only turn right out to Main. In addition, we are open to exploring other means to help any existing issues with cut-thrus. 17. More traffic will result in more accidents. o As stated previously, the current use produces more daily trips than the proposed use. 18. There should be no entrance to the project on Edgewood, keep project traffic on Main. o Our main egress will be off of Main Street. Residents leaving the project on Edgewood can only turn right out to Main. In addition, we are open to exploring other means to help any existing issues with cut-thrus. 19. Parking on neighborhood streets is already a problem. o 2525 N. Main is not in Park Santiago. Residents will be provided with ample parking on site. The logistics of parking blocks away from their homes makes little sense. Again, the community will be over-parked, not under-parked. 20. Can we see the traffic study? o The City will review the traffic analysis and it will be a part of the environmental document, which will be an EIR, which the community will be able to review and comment on as a part of the City review process. Affordable Housing: 1. What is a market rate unit? o It is housing that is either sold or leased at the price the market bears. 2. Would you save money including inclusionary housing? o No. 2-677 3. Will there be inclusionary housing, the application says there will be low and very low units included? o When the application was submitted on site inclusionary was considered, but the project will propose to pay in-lieu fees and not include on site. 4. Have you made any promises to groups about affordable housing? o No, in our business we meet with affordable housing developers to see what projects are planned, This project will require payment of a fee in excess of $6,500,00 in order to subsidize much needed affordable housing throughout the City. 5. No affordable units on site o It is not our current plan to provide any affordable units on site. Crime: 1. Is there security on site? o Currently there are workers on site during the day, after dusk and until dawn we have on site security. 2. Is the property as is bringing crime to the neighborhood? o Yes, we have had significant vandalism and theft of copper pipes, copper wire and fixtures. The damage is in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Currently there are dozens of vagrants camping/living in the riverbed and under the overpass from Main Street. 3. Increasing the population won’t decrease crime. o Crime is simply a reality of a urban location. We believe putting residents at this location will result in a nighttime presence, especially in the park, thereby deterring crime. In addition, we will have 24 hour security that will patrol the park and Park Santiago (if the community would like this benefit provided). 4. 1.2 million a year to the General Fund will provide 3 police officers that is nothing. o This amount of revenue will provide significantly more than 3 officers. Importantly, the City, like most City’s needs to find more sources of revenue to provide much needed services. The proposed project, unlike others, is a budget surplus for the City, it is a wonderful opportunity to bring much needed professional housing to the City and additional revenue. 5. Putting single family on the site will solve the crime issue. o We believe the more people the greater, in deterring crime in the area. 6. We have one of the first neighborhood watch groups, why haven’t you come to talk to us? o We have reached out to the community group and to date they were not available to meet. 7. It is insulting that you talk about crime in our neighborhood. o We are hopeful that crime will be mitigated in the future. 8. Was there vandalism when the building was used as a call center? o We do not have a crime report for the area, we have made a request for any such reports. 2-678 Environmental: 1. How many persons will the project bring? o Approximately 850 people. 2. We have a drought where will water come from? o Currently we are not in a drought, but we are aware historically ther has been an issue. We have verified that there is more than enough water for this and many other projects. In addition, this question will be addressed in the environmental review. 3. Look at all surrounding projects, will they be considered? o Existing and proposed development will be addressed in the environmental review. 4. What is the impact on current water supply? o This will be addressed in the environmental review. Other: 1. Are you on the Next Door site? o No. 2. Have you made any contributions to City Council persons, have you been promised anything? o The project entity has not and nothing has been promised. 3. Don’t care if project brings money for Santa Ana, we shop in Orange. o We hope and suspect it is not the sentiment of the majority of the homeowners in Park Santiago. We want to make the community better than we found it and we are confident we will do that. Keep in mind that current Park Santiago residents will have access to all the onsite amenities, that includes pools, spas, full size gym, rock climbing wall, lounge, roof top pool and much more. 4. How many developments has Vineyard been involved in that required zone changes, were they successful? Did they back up to residential neighborhoods? o The ownership group has been involved in dozens of like projects, and many of these involved successfully rezoning. Many were adjacent to single family homes and in our experience, this type of zoning is most compatible with single family homes (not an office building). Most cities are planned with single family next to multi-family, then retail and commercial uses (typically there is a mixed-sue area with multi-family and commercial). This is why more than 3 years ago the City targeted this site for multi-family housing nd this use would be most beneficial to the City. A recent project was approved at Dyer and Red Hill in an industrial area. 5. Is the powerpoint available to the Park Santiago HOA? o We will shortly launch a website with all the information that we attempted to present at the Sunshine meeting. 6. Why didn’t you meet with us before you submitted the application? 2-679 o We tried to meet but the meeting agenda had already been set, we are trying to set a meeting soon. 7. Will you meet with the HOA? o Yes. 8. We don’t need this project for Santiago Park to be restored, we have paid taxes and City owes us the park restoration. o It is our understanding the City does not have funding and certainly has not committed funds to rehab the park. The project will pay significant taxes that go directly to the City’s general fund. 2-680 2-681 2-682 2-683 2-684 2-685 2-686 2-687 2-688 2-689 2-690 2-691 2-692 EXHIBIT 6 2-693 This page left blank intentionally. 2-694 Via Electronic Mail DATE: October 10, 2019 TO: Jeremy Ogulnick 2525 MAIN ST LLC FROM: James Simon, Principal SUBJECT: SECOND ADDENDUM TO FISCAL IMPACT STUDY 256-UNIT ALTERNATIVE / 2525 MAIN STREET, SANTA ANA In December 2017, RSG provided 2525 Main LLC a fiscal and economic impact analysis of a 517-unit multifamily residential development proposed for the northeast corner of Main Street and Edgewood Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. The first addendum to the fiscal impact study was prepared based on a reduced project scope of 347 units on July 11, 2019. The most recent addendum study estimated that the 347 unit project would generate approximately $15.8 million in net new general fund tax revenues to the City over a 25-year period. RSG was recently informed that the developer is considering an even smaller project, roughly equivalent to half the original project scope, consisting of 256 multifamily residential units. This memorandum provides the approximate reduced impact of the project under this alternative, resulting in the following impacts to the City over a 25-year period: • Gross recurring General Fund revenues of $16.6 million; • General Fund operating impacts of $5.0 million • Net new General Fund impacts of $11.6 million. Our forecast of these projected impacts accompanies this memorandum, which include cumulative 25 year projections and the net present value assuming a 4% discount rate. 2-695 25-YEAR NET NEW RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTIONS (256 Unit Alternative)2525 N MAIN STREET, SANTA ANAProperty TaxProperty Tax In-LieuUtility User TaxResidential Derived Sales TaxBusiness TaxGross RevenueCity ExpendituresNet New TotalCY12019 152,796$ 99,607$ -$ -$ -$ 252,404$ -$ 252,404$ CY22020 237,539 154,851 - - - 392,390 -$ 392,390$ 12021 242,290 157,948 42,787 34,693 8,491 486,210 (135,935)$ 350,274$ 22022 247,136 161,107 44,071 35,734 8,746 496,794 (140,013)$ 356,780$ 32023 252,078 164,329 45,393 36,806 9,008 507,615 (144,214)$ 363,401$ 42024 257,120 167,616 46,755 37,910 9,278 518,679 (148,540)$ 370,139$ 52025 262,262 170,968 48,158 39,047 9,557 529,992 (152,996)$ 376,996$ 62026 267,508 174,388 49,602 40,219 9,843 541,560 (157,586)$ 383,974$ 72027 272,858 177,876 51,090 41,425 10,139 553,388 (162,314)$ 391,074$ 82028 278,315 181,433 52,623 42,668 10,443 565,482 (167,183)$ 398,299$ 92029 283,881 185,062 54,202 43,948 10,756 577,849 (172,199)$ 405,650$ 10 2030 289,559 188,763 55,828 45,267 11,079 590,495 (177,365)$ 413,130$ 11 2031 295,350 192,538 57,503 46,625 11,411 603,427 (182,685)$ 420,741$ 12 2032 301,257 196,389 59,228 48,023 11,754 616,650 (188,166)$ 428,484$ 13 2033 307,282 200,317 61,005 49,464 12,106 630,174 (193,811)$ 436,362$ 14 2034 313,428 204,323 62,835 50,948 12,469 644,003 (199,625)$ 444,377$ 15 2035 319,696 208,410 64,720 52,476 12,844 658,145 (205,614)$ 452,531$ 16 2036 326,090 212,578 66,661 54,051 13,229 672,609 (211,783)$ 460,826$ 17 2037 332,612 216,829 68,661 55,672 13,626 687,400 (218,136)$ 469,264$ 18 2038 339,264 221,166 70,721 57,342 14,034 702,528 (224,680)$ 477,848$ 19 2039 346,050 225,589 72,843 59,063 14,455 717,999 (231,420)$ 486,579$ 20 2040 352,971 230,101 75,028 60,834 14,889 733,823 (238,363)$ 495,460$ 21 2041 360,030 234,703 77,279 62,659 15,336 750,007 (245,514)$ 504,493$ 22 2042 367,231 239,397 79,597 64,539 15,796 766,560 (252,879)$ 513,680$ 23 2043 374,575 244,185 81,985 66,475 16,270 783,490 (260,466)$ 523,024$ 24 2044 382,067 249,069 84,445 68,470 16,758 800,807 (268,280)$ 532,528$ 25 2045 389,708 254,050 86,978 70,524 17,261 818,520 (276,328)$ 542,192$ TOTAL8,150,951$ 5,313,592$ 1,559,995$ 1,264,882$ 309,579$ 16,598,998$ (4,956,096)$ 11,642,903$ NPV4.00% 4,674,049$ 3,047,005$ 848,898$ 688,307$ 168,462$ 9,426,722$ (2,696,944)$ 6,729,778$ Inflation Rate2.0%2.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Year2-696 EXHIBIT 7 2-697 This page left blank intentionally. 2-698 11/19/2018 http://apps.spatialstream.com/production/dashboard/8/9/0/CurrentBuild/html/Reporting.html 1/1 . EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-102525 North Main Street Multi-family Residential Project © 2018 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved. Zoning Labels: Zoning 250 feet Exhibit 7 - Vicinity Zoning & Aerial View 2-699 This page left blank intentionally. 2-700 EXHIBIT 8 2-701 This page left blank intentionally. 2-702 EXHIBIT 8 SITE PHOTO 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-703 This page left blank intentionally. 2-704 EXHIBIT 9 2-705 This page left blank intentionally. 2-706 EXHIBIT 9 SITE PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-707 This page left blank intentionally. 2-708 EXHIBIT 10 2-709 This page left blank intentionally. 2-710 EXHIBIT 10 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-711 EXHIBIT 10 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-712 EXHIBIT 10 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-713 This page left blank intentionally. 2-714 EXHIBIT 11 2-715 This page left blank intentionally. 2-716 EXHIBIT 11 ELEVATIONS 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-717 This page left blank intentionally. 2-718 EXHIBIT 12 2-719 This page left blank intentionally. 2-720 EXHIBIT 12 RENDERINGS 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-721 EXHIBIT 12 RENDERINGS 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-722 EXHIBIT 13 2-723 This page left blank intentionally. 2-724 EXHIBIT 13 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET EIR NO. 2018-01, DA NO. 2018-01, GPA NO. 2018-06, AA NO. 2018-10 2-725 This page left blank intentionally. 2-726