Traffic Impact Analysis

Transcription

1 LA PALMA VILLAGE INITIAL STUDY CITY OF ANAHEIM Appendices Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis September 2015

2 LA PALMA VILLAGE INITIAL STUDY CITY OF ANAHEIM Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks

3 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: August 2015 OC

4 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Findings INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES... 2 Project Description... 2 Project Study Area... 2 Data Collection... 5 Analysis Scenarios... 6 Analysis Methodologies... 6 Future Forecasting... 8 Project Opening Year (2019) Conditions... 8 Traffic Impact and Mitigation Criteria... 8 Traffic Impacts... 8 Mitigation Requirements EXISTING CONDITIONS... 9 Existing Roadway Facilities... 9 Regional Roads... 9 Local Access Roads... 9 Existing Transit Facilities Existing Bicycle Facilities Existing Pedestrian Facilities Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Operations Intersection Operations Roadway Segment Operations EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...18 Project Intersection Geometries Project Traffic Volumes... 18

5 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Trip Generation Trip Distribution Trip Assignment Intersection Operations Intersection Impact Assessment Roadway Segment Operations Roadway Segment Impact Assessment OPENING YEAR (2019) NO PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...25 Traffic Forecasts Intersection Operations Roadway Operations OPENING YEAR (2019) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...29 Traffic Forecasts Intersection Operations Intersection Impact Assessment Roadway Segment Operations Roadway Segment Impact Assessment GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) NO PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...34 Intersection Operations GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS...35 Intersection Improvements Intersection Operations Micro-Simulation Assessment Intersection Impact Assessment MITIGATION MEASURES...42 Summary of Project Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS...45 CMP Traffic Impact Analysis... 45

6 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August NON-AUTOMOTIVE ASSESSMENT...46 Goals and Policies Transit Analysis Bicycle Analysis Pedestrian Analysis PARKING, SITE ACCESS, AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION...49 Parking Site Access Vehicle Access Bicycle Access Transit Access On-Site Circulation... 50

7 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Reports Appendix C: Micro-Simulation Reports Appendix D: Traffic Signal Warrants Appendix E: Mitigated LOS Reports Appendix F: Parking Demand Study Appendix G: Mitigation Fair Share Calculations

8 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Project... 3 Figure 2 Study Area... 4 Figure 3 Existing Transit Facilities Figure 4 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities Figure 5 Existing Peak Hour Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes Figure 6 Existing Traffic Controls, Lane Configurations, and Peak Hour Volumes Figure 7 Project Only Volumes Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Volumes Figure 9 Opening Year (2019) No Project Volumes Figure 10 Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Volumes Figure 11 Striping Exhibit Proposed Layout... 36

9 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 List of Tables Table ES-1 Impacts Summary... 1 Table 1 Intersection and Roadway Segment Level of Service Criteria... 7 Table 2 Significance Criteria... 8 Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Existing Conditions Table 4 Roadway Level of Service Existing Conditions Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates Table 6 Intersection Level of Service Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 7 Existing Plus Project Significant Intersection Impacts Table 8 Roadway Level of Service Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 9 Year 2019 Approved Projects Trip Generation Estimates Table 10 Intersection Level of Service Opening Year (2019) Conditions Table 11 Roadway Level of Service Opening Year (2019) Conditions Table 12 Intersection Level of Service Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions Table 13 Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Significant Intersection Impacts Table 14 Roadway Level of Service Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions Table 15 Intersection Level of Service General Plan Buildout (2035) No Project Conditions Table 16 Intersection Level of Service General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions Table 17 Anaheim Boulevard Through Movement Origin-Destination Count Summary Table 18 Intersection Level of Service and Delay General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions Table 19 Average maximum Queue Length General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions Table 20 Network-Wide Performance General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions... 41

10 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fehr & Peers has completed a transportation impact analysis for the proposed Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Project in Anaheim, California. The proposed project is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard (West), and Lemon Street. The project consists of a 164-home development on an existing industrial site. The development proposes to eliminate the free westbound right turn lane at the intersection of La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard (West), and Lemon Street. The project also proposes to create full-access driveways at the north leg of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (East) and La Palma Avenue and at a new location off Anaheim Boulevard (West) (though, this driveway was modeled as a right-in/right-out driveway as a conservative approach for this study). As part of the transportation impact study, and consistent with the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the following scenarios were analyzed: Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Opening Year (2019) No Project Conditions Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions General Plan Buildout (2035) No Project Conditions General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions FINDINGS The proposed project results in impacts to study intersections as identified in Table ES-1. Mitigation measures have been recommended for identified impacts. Impacts were not identified for any study roadway segments. TABLE ES-1 IMPACTS SUMMARY Intersection Scenario(s) Where Impact Occurs Possible Mitigation? Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Wy Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave Existing (AM) Existing (PM) 2019 (AM) 2019 (PM) Existing (PM) 2019 (PM) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1

11 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES This chapter outlines the geographic scope of the traffic impact analysis, including the study area, analysis methodologies, and significance criteria employed in the study. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Project consists of 164 households (54 duplexes and 110 townhomes) on a developed site located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of La Palma Avenue/Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street. The proposed development is shown on Figure 1. Due to the offset configuration of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, in this report the portion of Anaheim Boulevard north of La Palma is referred to as Anaheim Boulevard (West) and the portion south of La Palma Avenue is referred to as Anaheim Boulevard (East). The project proposes to eliminate the free westbound right turn lane at the intersection of La Palma Avenue/Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street. The project also proposes to accommodate an off-street bicycle facility adjacent to the property line which is in line with OCTA s Fourth District Bikeway Strategy, The project also proposes to create full-access driveways at the north leg of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (East) and La Palma Avenue and at a new location off Anaheim Boulevard (West) (though, this driveway was modeled as a right-in/right-out driveway as a conservative approach for this study). PROJECT STUDY AREA The study area, analyzed intersections, and analyzed roadway segments were delineated by the City of Anaheim. The following study intersections and roadway segments were also confirmed by City staff and were included in the study as shown on Figure 2. Study Intersections 1. Anaheim Boulevard (West) & Carl Karcher Way 2. Anaheim Boulevard (West) & La Palma Parkway 3. Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue 4. Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street & La Palma Avenue 5. Anaheim Boulevard (East) & La Palma Avenue 6. Anaheim Boulevard (West) & New Project Driveway Study Roadway Segments 1. La Palma Avenue between Harbor Boulevard & Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street 2. La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street and Anaheim Boulevard (East) 3. Anaheim Boulevard (West) between La Palma Avenue & Carl Karcher Way 2

12 Figure 1 Site Plan N:\Jobs\Active\OC Jobs\OC _AnaheimBlvd_LaPalma\AI

13 Document Path: N:\Jobs\Active\OC Jobs\OC _AnaheimBlvd_LaPalma\GIS\MXD\Figure 1_Study Intersections.mxd N Ralston St! N Riviera St N Citron St N Raleigh St W Romneya Dr W Victor Ave W Julianna Ave La Palma Ave Study Intersections 72 Study Segments Project Location Orangefair Ave N Janss St S Harbor Blvd! 3 N Dickel St N Harbor Blvd N Pine St S Pomona Ave W Carl Karcher Way N La Palma Pkwy 1 W La Verne St N Lemon St! 1 Anaheim Blvd! 6! 2! 3 N Lemon St W Commercial St N Anaheim Blvd N Zeyn St! N Kemp St N Patt St E Mills Dr E North St 91 }þ E Julianna Ave Figure 2 Project Area and Study Locations

14 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 DATA COLLECTION Morning (AM, 7:00 to 9:00) and afternoon (PM, 4:00 to 6:00) peak period vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle turning movement counts were conducted at the following intersections in October and December of 2014: 1. Anaheim Boulevard (West) & Carl Karcher Way 2. Anaheim Boulevard (West) & La Palma Parkway 3. Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue 4. Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street & La Palma Avenue 5. Anaheim Boulevard (East) & La Palma Avenue 24-hour machine (tube) counts were conducted at the following study roadway segments: 1. La Palma Avenue between Harbor Boulevard & Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street 2. La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street and Anaheim Boulevard (East) 3. Anaheim Boulevard (West) between La Palma Avenue & Carl Karcher Way Though, the intersection counts were conducted in 2014, they are still valid for the 2015 Existing Conditions analysis as they represent the ambient condition at the time the environmental analysis commenced (CEQA Guidelines 15125(a)) The City identified a need to account for north/south through traffic on Anaheim Boulevard due to its offset configuration at La Palma Avenue. Fehr & Peers completed origin-destination (OD) counts at the study intersections to identify the total number of vehicles making the north-south through movement on Anaheim Boulevard. Fehr & Peers also collected the following information in a field visit to the study area: Lane configurations Signal phasing Land uses in the study area Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities On-street parking conditions Rail and bus transit service 5

15 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Consistent with the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the following scenarios were analyzed: Existing Conditions Consists of existing (October and December 2014) counts collected at study intersections and roadway segments. Existing Plus Project Conditions Proposed project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment estimates were added to the existing intersection and roadway segment counts. Opening Year (2019) No Project Conditions A 2% ambient growth rate per year was applied to the existing counts and trips from approved projects were manually assigned to the network. Opening Year (2019) Plus Project The proposed project trip estimates were added to the Opening Year No Project forecasts. General Plan Buildout (2035) No Project Conditions This scenario consists of General Plan Buildout traffic provide by the City of Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model. General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions The proposed project trip estimates were added to the General Plan Development Forecasts at project driveways. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES For signalized intersections, the traffic analysis was evaluated in accordance with City of Anaheim and County of Orange CMP requirements using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. For unsignalized intersections, methodologies consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) were applied. The ICU methodology is considered a standard approach for evaluating signalized intersection operations in Orange County and in the City of Anaheim. It reports the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio at the intersection for signalized intersections, which evaluates the critical movements for each intersection and compares them to the critical movement capacity of the intersection. Three of the six study intersections are currently signalized. For the three side-street stop-controlled study intersections, the HCM methodology estimates the longestdelayed turning movement. In cases where there are shared lanes, the average delay in that lane is reported. After the quantitative V/C and delay estimates are complete, the methodologies assign a qualitative letter grade that represents the operations of the intersection. These grades range from level of service (LOS) A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for intersections are provided in Table 1. 6

16 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Service Description Signalized Intersections and Roadway Segments Volume-to- Capacity (V/C) Ratio Unsignalized Intersections Delay (seconds) A B C D E F Signalized: Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. Unsignalized: Little or no delay. Signalized: Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Unsignalized: Short traffic delays. Signalized: Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Unsignalized: Average traffic delays. Signalized: Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Unsignalized: Long traffic delays. Signalized: Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Unsignalized: Very long traffic delays. Signalized: Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Unsignalized: Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 10.0 to > 15.0 to > 25.0 to > 35.0 to 50.0 Greater than Greater than 50.0 LOS grades for the three study roadway segments were determined based on each segment s V/C ratio. Capacity estimates for each roadway are consistent with capacities documented in the City s General Plan. In addition to the V/C assessment described above, a micro-simulation assessment was completed using the Synchro/SimTraffic analysis software for the segment of La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard 7

17 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 (West) and Anaheim Boulevard (East). Although this assessment is not required by the City s impact analysis guidelines, given the volume of traffic that travels north-south on Anaheim Boulevard (and the off-set nature of the intersection), micro-simulation accounts for delay and queuing associated with this situation by modeling the origins and destinations (ODs) of the trips. This provides a more accurate estimate for ensuring the proposed design along the project frontage. FUTURE FORECASTING PROJECT OPENING YEAR (2019) CONDITIONS Future volumes for Project Opening Year (2019) Conditions were developed by applying a 2% per year growth rate to existing volumes and manually assigning trips from pending and approved development projects to the network. TRAFFIC IMPACT AND MITIGATION CRITERIA TRAFFIC IMPACTS In accordance with City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Study Criteria, a transportation impact on an intersection or roadway segment shall be deemed significant in accordance with Table 2 below. TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Level of Service Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C > Equal or greater than D > Equal or greater than E, F >0.900 Equal or greater than For unsignalized intersections, the project would result in a significant impact if it causes the intersection to degrade from acceptable operations to unacceptable operations, or it adds traffic to an intersection operating at an unacceptable level. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS In accordance with City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Study Criteria, when an impact is determined at an intersection or roadway segment, mitigation measures must be identified in order to improve the operations to minimum LOS D at intersections and LOS C at roadway segments. 8

18 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the existing transportation conditions in the project study area. This discussion addresses the roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES Regional access to the proposed project is provided by State Route 91 to the north. Roadways in the study area are classified per the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element. REGIONAL ROADS State Route 91 (SR-91) SR-91 is an east-west freeway that extends from Interstate 110 in Gardena to State Route 50 in San Bernardino where it turns into Interstate 215. Within the study area, SR-91 has an east-west orientation and provides four general travel lanes and one high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction. Access to the project site is provided with the Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard on-ramps. LOCAL ACCESS ROADS Anaheim Boulevard The City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation element classifies Anaheim Boulevard as a Primary Arterial south of La Palma Avenue and as a Secondary Arterial north of La Palma Avenue. Anaheim Boulevard runs in the north-south direction directly south of the project site before terminating at La Palma Avenue. The roadway resumes north of La Palma to the west, directly adjacent to the project site, before terminating at SR-91. There are two travel lanes in each direction and left turn pockets are generally provided. The posted speed limit varies between 35 and 40 MPH. On-street parking is generally allowed south of La Palma Avenue. Lemon Street The City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element classifies Lemon Street as a Secondary Arterial north of SR-91. Lemon Street runs in the north-south direction to the west of the project site. Between La Palma Avenue and SR-91, Lemon Street is known as Anaheim Boulevard (West). South of La Palma Avenue Lemon Street provides one travel lane in each direction. Southbound traffic at the intersection of Lemon Street and La Palma Avenue is not allowed due to a half street closure at the intersection. Street parking is generally allowed. The speed limit is 25 MPH. La Palma Avenue The City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element classifies La Palma Avenue as a Primary Arterial. La Palma Avenue runs in the east-west direction adjacent to the project site, with two travel lanes in each direction, left turn pockets, and street parking. The speed limit is 35 MPH. 9

19 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Harbor Boulevard The City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element classifies Harbor Boulevard as a Major Arterial. Harbor Boulevard runs in the north-south direction to the west of the project site. There are two to three travel lanes in each direction, with left turn pockets at most intersections. The speed limit is 35 MPH. Carl Karcher Way The City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element classifies Carl Karcher Way as a Collector Street. Karl Karcher way runs in the east-west direction to the northwest of the project site. There is one lane in each direction, and street parking is generally allowed. The speed limit is 30 MPH. La Palma Parkway La Palma Parkway runs in the east-west direction to the west of the project site. There is one travel lane in each direction with street parking. The speed limit is 30 MPH. EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES The study area is serviced by multiple Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes. Additionally, several bus stops existing adjacent to the project site and along surrounding roadways. Bus routes and bus stops are displayed on Figure 3. Bus routes are described below. Route 38 (Lakewood to Anaheim Hills via Del Amo Blvd./La Palma Ave.) This route runs between Lakewood and Anaheim Hills and also provides access to Yorba Linda, Buena Park, La Palma, and Cerritos. In the study area, Route 38 runs on La Palma Avenue. This route operates on 15-minute headways during the weekday peak periods and on 45-minute headways on weekends. Route 43 (Fullerton to Costa Mesa via Harbor Blvd.) This route runs between Fullerton and Costa Mesa and provides access to Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Fountain Valley. Near the project site, Route 43 runs along Harbor Boulevard. This route operates on 20-minute headways during the weekday peak periods and on weekends. Route 47 (Fullerton to Newport Beach via Anaheim Blvd./Fairview St.) This route runs between Fullerton and Newport Beach and provides access to Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. Near the project site, Route 47 runs along Anaheim Boulevard. This route operates on 15- minute headways during the weekday peak periods and on 20- to 30-minute headways on weekends. Route 213 (Brea to Irvine Express via 55 Fwy.) This route runs between Brea and Irvine and provides access to Fullerton, Placentia, Orange, Tustin, and Santa Ana. Near the project site, Route 213 runs along Lemon Street and SR-91. Route 213 is a limited-service express bus with four southbound buses in the weekday mornings and four northbound buses on the weekday evenings. 10

20 Document Path: N:\Jobs\Active\OC Jobs\OC _AnaheimBlvd_LaPalma\GIS\MXD\Figure 3_Existing Bus Routes and Bus Stops.mxd N Ralston St N Riviera St " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " N Citron St Transit Facilities Routes 38 W Romneya Dr N Raleigh St W Victor Ave W Julianna Ave La Palma Ave Orangefair Ave ") Stops N Janss St S Harbor Blvd " " N Pine St W Carl Karcher Way N La Palma Pkwy W La Verne St N Harbor Blvd " " S Pomona Ave N Dickel St N Lemon St " Anaheim Blvd " " N Lemon St W Commercial St N Zeyn St " N Anaheim Blvd N Kemp St " " N Patt St E Mills Dr E North St 91 }þ E Julianna Ave Figure 3 Existing Bus Routes and Bus Stops

21 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Route 543 (Fullerton Transportation Center to Santa Ana via Harbor Blvd.) This route runs between Fullerton and Santa Ana and provides access to Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana. Near the project site, Route 543 runs on Harbor Boulevard. This route only operates on weekdays, with 10- to 15-minute headways during the weekday peak periods. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES The City of Anaheim is served by Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities, described below: Class I bicycle paths: Provide a dedicated right-of-way for bicyclists, completely separated from roadway traffic. Class II bicycle lanes: Provide a dedicated striped or stenciled lane for one-way travel along a roadway. Class III bicycle routes: Provide for a roadway shared between automobile traffic and bicyclists. Currently, the only bicycle facilities consist of a Class II bicycle lane in each direction on Anaheim Boulevard (East), south of La Palma Avenue. However, the City of Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan has proposed several additional Class II bicycle lanes in the study area, along La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard (West) and Lemon Street (south of La Palma Avenue). Existing and future bicycle facilities in the study area are shown on Figure 3. Existing morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period bicycle counts at the analyzed intersections were conducted on December 9, Count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Figure 5 summarizes the existing AM and PM bicycle volumes at the analyzed intersections. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing controls. Sidewalks are provided throughout the area. Some intersections in the study area lack crosswalks, and some signalized intersections do not provide crossing controls on all legs. Existing morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period pedestrian counts at the analyzed intersections were conducted on December 9, Count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Figure 5 summarizes the existing AM and PM pedestrian volumes at the analyzed intersections. 12

22 Document Path: N:\Jobs\Active\OC Jobs\OC _AnaheimBlvd_LaPalma\GIS\MXD\Figure 2_Existing Bikeways.mxd! N Ralston St Bicycle Facilities N Riviera St W Romneya Dr N Citron St W Victor Ave W Julianna Ave Study Intersection Project Location Existing; Class II La Palma Ave 72 Proposed; Class II Orangefair Ave N Raleigh St N Janss St S Harbor Blvd! 3 N Pine St W Carl Karcher Way N La Palma Pkwy W La Verne St N Harbor Blvd S Pomona Ave N Dickel St N Lemon St! 1 Anaheim Blvd! 6! 2! N Lemon St W Commercial St N Zeyn St! 4 5 N Anaheim Blvd N Kemp St N Patt St E Mills Dr E North St 91 }þ E Julianna Ave Figure 4 Bicycle Facilities

23 N Riviera St N Raleigh St N Lemon St Anaheim Blvd N Kemp St N Patt St 1. Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Way 2. Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy 3. Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave N:\Jobs\Active\OC Jobs\OC _AnaheimBlvd_LaPalma\GIS\MXD\Figure4_Vol_Ex_PedBike.mxd N Citron St Romneya Dr Orangefair Ave W Victor Ave W Julianna Ave La Palma Ave # S Harbor Blvd N Janss St 3 N Dickel St N Harbor Blvd N Pine St Analyzed Intersections Project Location S Pomona Ave W Carl Karcher Way N La Palma Pkwy W La Verne St N Zeyn St N Lemon St W Commercial St N Anaheim Blvd E Mills Dr E North St 91 6(12) 3(1) 15(39) 6(4) 2(12) 2(7) 1(0) 0(0) 4. Lemon St & La Palma Ave 7.Long Beach Blvd & PCH AM (PM) Peak 6(9) Hour Bike Volume 80(45) AM (PM) Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume 7(8) 10. Long Beach Blvd & Anaheim St 13(18) Anaheim Blvd Lemon St 122(181) 164(178) 1(7) 5. Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Ave 1(9) 0(0) 0(8) 11(28) 3(2) 10(15) 55(31) 375(380) 130(114) 210(150) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 3(4) 9(17) 5(15) 0(0) 4(4) 8. Atlantic Ave & PCH 11. Atlantic Ave & Anaheim St 5(9) 71(70) 78(85) 5(2) 0(4) 63(51) 0(0) 1(4) 0(0) 1(5) 82(63) 94(84) 20(21) 13(14) 19(13) 1(1) 3(7) 3(7) 11(8) Anaheim Blvd Anaheim Blvd 149(70) 59(57) 3(14) 39(21) 107(66) 240(67) 141(96) 0(0) 27(22) 11(7) 13(28) 14(21) 46(34) 6(26) 6(8) 6. Anaheim Blvd & N/W corner of project 5(13) Harbor Blvd 58(63) 105(86) 7(11) 57(79) Future Intersection 135(160) 15(23) 9. Pacific Ave & Anaheim St 9(8) 64(96) 42(76) 9(20) 88(66) 56(49) 34(33) 6(6) 12(12) 6(13) 319(355) 91(94) 21(30) 11(26) Figure 5 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes

24 N 1. Anaheim Blvd W./Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd W./La Palma Pkwy 3. Harbor Blvd/La Palma Ave 4. Anaheim Blvd W.Lemon St/La Palma Ave Carl Karcher Wy 83 (113) 648 (801) ce 85 (56) 62 (97) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 85 (162) 693 (964) La Palma Pkwy 3 (8) 720 (906) ce 1 (2) 15 (19) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 11 (21) 777 (1,096) La Palma Ave 223 (335) 1,155 (934) 118 (157) accf 239 (245) 712 (692) 121 (75) Harbor Blvd accf ace 72 (99) 570 (919) 174 (177) ace 74 (110) 697 (995) 75 (74) La Palma Ave 224 (294) 534 (503) aaf 228 (184) 960 (600) Anaheim Blvd W. acc Lemon St ccff 491 (597) 674 (844) d 14 (11) 108 (95) 14 (13) La Palma Ave 5. Anaheim Blvd E./La Palma Ave 3 (0) f 8 (14) 661 (763) 503 (474) acef Anaheim Blvd E. ace 1 (3) 860 (1,078) 89 (126) aaf 461 (654) 116 (152) Figure 6 Existing Traffic Controls, Lane Configurations and Peak Hour Volumes

25 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Existing morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods intersection counts were conducted at Anaheim Boulevard (West)/Lemon Street & La Palma Avenue on October 15, Counts at the remaining four study intersections were conducted on December 9, hour daily traffic counts at the three analyzed roadway segments were also conducted on December 9, Traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Figure 6 summarizes the existing AM and PM peak traffic volumes, lane configurations, and intersection controls. The City also identified a need for this study to account for north/south through traffic on Anaheim Boulevard due to its off-set configuration at La Palma Avenue. Origin-destination counts at the intersections were conducted on December 9, 2014 to identify the total number of vehicles making the north-south through movement on Anaheim Boulevard and are provided in Appendix A. As part of its field inventory, Fehr & Peers also collected the following information: Lane configurations Signal phasing Land uses in the study area Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities On-street parking conditions Transit service EXISTING OPERATIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Existing traffic volumes, lane configurations, collected on the field, and signal timing information provided by City staff were used to analyze operations at the study intersections for existing AM and PM peak hour conditions using the ICU and HCM 2000 methodologies. The results are summarized in Table 4. LOS sheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 3, Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way performs deficiently in both the AM and PM peak hours and Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue performs deficiently in the PM peak hour. 16

26 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 3 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS 1. Anaheim Blvd (West) & Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Pkwy Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop 40.8 E >50.0 F 11.6 B 14.4 B 3. Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave Signal C E 4. Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St & La Palma Ave Signal B B 5. Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave Signal A A Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing traffic volumes were used to analyze operations at the study roadway segments. The results are summarized in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, all study roadway segments perform at LOS C or better. TABLE 4 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Volume Capacity V/C Ratio LOS 1. La Palma Ave between Harbor Blvd & Anaheim Blvd (West) Lemon St 2. La Palma Ave between Lemon St and Anaheim Blvd (East) 3. Anaheim Blvd (West) between La Palma Ave & Carl Karcher Wy 23,026 37, C or better 31,137 56, C or better 20,772 37, C or better Source: Fehr & Peers,

27 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This chapter evaluates the Existing Plus Project conditions. This scenario includes the addition of traffic generated from the proposed project. PROJECT INTERSECTION GEOMETRIES The proposed project includes a redesign of the section of La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard (east) and Anaheim Boulevard (west). The modified geometrics are included in the with project assessment. PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic was estimated for the proposed project using a three-step process. First, the numbers of project trips were estimated. Next, the distribution of those trips to the broader network was estimated. Finally, the trips were assigned to the study network based on the distribution of those trips. This process is described below. TRIP GENERATION Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and on a daily basis were estimated using rates provided in the Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 5 summarizes the anticipated daily, AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project. The proposed land use mix on site includes 54 Duplexes and 110 townhomes. The Residential Condominium / Townhouse ITE trip rate was used to develop the townhome trip estimates. It is believed by the City of Anaheim that the Duplex sites would more accurately be represented by the Single Family Detached Housing ITE trip rate than the Residential Condominium / Townhouse ITE trip rate, so that was ultimately used to develop trip generation estimates. This will result in a more conservative analysis approach. Though there are existing uses on the project site, no trip credit was taken. The existing uses (automotive services, shipping company, a food truck company, and a multi-tenant retail uses) at the time the counts were conducted were struggling and several were not occupied. Discussions with the City of Anaheim led to the conclusion that existing trips on-site would be considered negligible and were not included as trip credits. This will result in a more conservative analysis approach. 18

28 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ITE Reference ITE (9th Edition) Trip Generation Rates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached Housing (210) % 75% % 37% 1 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse (230) % 83% % 33% 0.52 Trip Generation Estimates 54 DU Single Family DU Townhouse Subtotal 1, Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project trip distribution was determined based on 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin Destination Employment Statistics. Travel data was analyzed for the existing developments similar in land use and adjacent to the proposed project site and was assumed to apply to the proposed project. Given the close proximity to State Route 91, it is assumed that a large percentage of the easterly and westerly traffic would travel north of the project site to access the state route. Based on that analysis, the general project trip distribution is: 10% of trips coming from/going to the East 20% of trips coming from/going to the West 20% of trips coming from/going to the South 50% of trips coming from/going to the North TRIP ASSIGNMENT Based on the trip generation and trip distribution estimates developed and described above, project trips were assigned to the study area roadway network. The assignment of project only trips for the development is shown on Figure 7. Existing Plus Project volumes are shown on Figure 8. 19

29 N 1. Anaheim Blvd W./Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd W./La Palma Pkwy 3. Harbor Blvd/La Palma Ave 4. Anaheim Blvd W.Lemon St/La Palma Ave Carl Karcher Wy 0 (0) 2 (7) ce 0 (0) g 0 (0) Anaheim Blvd W. acc 18 (10) 14 (8) La Palma Pkwy 0 (0) 2 (7) ce 0 (0) 0 (0) Anaheim Blvd W. g acc 0 (0) 21 (12) La Palma Ave 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (29) accf 0 (0) 4 (14) 0 (0) Harbor Blvd accf ace 7 (4) 11 (6) 4 (2) ace 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) La Palma Ave 0 (0) 2 (7) aaf 5 (22) 6 (25) acc Anaheim Blvd W. ccff 0 (0) 21 (12) d 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) STOP STOP Lemon St 5. Anaheim Blvd E./La Palma Ave 6. Anaheim Blvd W./New Project Driveway La Palma Ave 21 (12) 11 (6) 7 (4) ae 8 (32) 0 (0) 0 (0) acef Anaheim Blvd E. ace 2 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) aad 0 (0) 3 (11) 0 (0) 2 (7) cc Anaheim Blvd W. STOP f ce 0 (0) 5 (22) 32 (18) Figure 7 Project Only Volumes

30 Source: Google Maps path:c:\whatever\it\is\is\not\important\right\now. N 1. Anaheim Blvd W./Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd W./La Palma Pkwy 3. Harbor Blvd/La Palma Ave 4. Anaheim Blvd W.Lemon St/La Palma Ave Carl Karcher Wy 83 (113) 650 (808) ce 85 (56) 62 (97) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 103 (172) 707 (972) La Palma Pkwy 3 (8) 722 (913) ce 1 (2) 15 (19) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 11 (21) 798 (1,108) La Palma Ave 223 (335) 1,155 (934) 125 (186) accf 239 (245) 716 (706) 121 (75) Harbor Blvd accf ace 79 (103) 581 (925) 178 (179) ace 74 (110) 697 (995) 76 (78) La Palma Ave 224 (294) 536 (510) aaf 233 (206) 966 (625) acc Anaheim Blvd W. Lemon St ccff 491 (597) 695 (856) d 14 (11) 108 (95) 14 (13) 5. Anaheim Blvd E./La Palma Ave 6. Anaheim Blvd W./New Project Driveway La Palma Ave 24 (12) 11 (6) 7 (4) ae 16 (46) 661 (763) 503 (474) acef Anaheim Blvd E. ace 3 (10) 860 (1,078) 89 (126) aad 461 (654) 3 (11) 116 (152) 712 (905) cc Anaheim Blvd W. STOP f 32 (18) ce 778 (1,098) 5 (22) Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Volumes

31 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection LOS results for Existing Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 6. LOS sheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 4, Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way will operate deficiently in both the AM and PM peak hours, and Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue will operate deficiently in the PM peak hour. TABLE 6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS 1. Anaheim Blvd (West) & Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Pkwy Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop 47.2 E >50.0 F 11.6 B 14.5 B 3. Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave Signal C E 4. Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St & La Palma Ave Signal B B 5. Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave Signal A A 6. Anaheim Blvd (West) & New Project Driveway Side-Street Stop 11.2 B 12.8 B Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 INTERSECTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT As shown in Table 7, the addition of project traffic will cause a significant impact at Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way in the AM and PM peak hours and at Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue in the PM peak hour. In addition at Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way, both AM and PM peak hour volumes satisfy the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Warrant for Traffic Signal Installation (provided in Appendix D). 22

32 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 7 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTION IMPACTS Intersection Peak Hour Existing No Project V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 Existing Plus Project LOS Project Change 1. Anaheim Blvd (West) & Carl Karcher Wy AM PM 40.8 >50.0 E F 47.2 >50.0 E F Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave PM E E Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Roadway segment LOS results for Existing Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, study roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS C or better. TABLE 8 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Volume Capacity V/C Ratio LOS 1. La Palma Ave between Harbor Blvd & Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St 2. La Palma Ave between Lemon St and Anaheim Blvd (East) 3. Anaheim Blvd (West) between La Palma Ave & Carl Karcher Wy 23,574 37, C or better 31,569 56, C or better 21,089 37, C or better Source: Fehr & Peers,

33 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 ROADWAY SEGMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Based on the significant criteria outline by the City of Anaheim, the addition of project traffic will not cause significant impacts at study roadway segments under Existing Plus Project conditions. 24

34 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August OPENING YEAR (2019) NO PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This chapter evaluates the Opening Year (2019) No Project conditions. This scenario includes the addition of ambient growth from Existing Conditions volumes to Year 2019 and added trips from pending and approved projects. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Future volumes for Project Opening Year (2019) Conditions were developed by applying a 2% per year growth rate to existing volumes. Future volumes also included trips generated form an approved mixeduse development in the City of Anaheim as directed by City of Anaheim Planning Department staff. The approved development is located on Lincoln Boulevard & Anaheim Boulevard. The approved development consists of 220 residential units and 18,000 square feet of retail. Table 9 summarizes the anticipated daily, AM and PM peak hour trips generated by this project. These trips were assigned to the study intersections as appropriate to represent Opening Year (2019) No Project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, as presented on Figure 9. TABLE 9 YEAR 2019 APPROVED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ITE Reference ITE (9th Edition) Trip Generation Rates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Apartment (220) % 80% % 35% 0.62 Shopping Center (820) % 38% % 52% 3.71 Trip Generation Estimates 220 DU Apartments 1, KSF Shopping Center Total 2, Source: Fehr & Peers,

35 N 1. Anaheim Blvd W./Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd W./La Palma Pkwy 3. Harbor Blvd/La Palma Ave 4. Anaheim Blvd W.Lemon St/La Palma Ave Carl Karcher Wy 91 (124) 718 (899) ce 94 (62) 68 (107) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 94 (178) 776 (1,072) La Palma Pkwy 3 (9) 797 (1,015) ce 1 (2) 17 (21) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 12 (23) 869 (1,218) La Palma Ave 245 (369) 1,271 (1,027) 135 (191) accf 263 (270) 783 (761) 133 (83) accf Harbor Blvd ace 93 (121) 627 (1,011) 191 (195) ace 81 (121) 767 (1,095) 83 (81) La Palma Ave 246 (323) 592 (571) aaf 251 (202) 1,061 (678) acc Anaheim Blvd W. Lemon St ccff 554 (669) 755 (940) d 15 (12) 119 (105) 15 (14) La Palma Ave 5. Anaheim Blvd E./La Palma Ave 3 (0) f 9 (15) 727 (839) 563 (557) acef Anaheim Blvd E. ace aaf 536 (744) 1 (3) 946 (1,186) 98 (139) 128 (167) Figure 9 Opening Year (2019) No Project Volumes

36 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection LOS results for Opening Year No Project Conditions are summarized in Table 10. LOS sheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 10, Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way performs deficiently in both the AM and PM peak hours and Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue performs deficiently in the PM peak hour. TABLE 10 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE OPENING YEAR (2019) CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS 1. Anaheim Blvd (West) & Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Pkwy Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop >50.0 F >50.0 F 12.1 B 15.8 C 3. Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave Signal D E 4. Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St & La Palma Ave Signal B C 5. Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave Signal A B Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 ROADWAY OPERATIONS Roadway segment LOS results for Opening Year No Project Conditions are summarized in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, all study roadway segments perform at LOS C or better. 27

37 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 11 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE OPENING YEAR (2019) CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Volume Capacity V/C Ratio LOS 1. La Palma Ave between Harbor Blvd & Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St 2. La Palma Ave between Lemon St and Anaheim Blvd (East) 3. Anaheim Blvd (West) between La Palma Ave & Carl Karcher Wy 25,664 37, C or better 34,921 56, C or better 23,184 37, C or better Source: Fehr & Peers,

38 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August OPENING YEAR (2019) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This chapter evaluates the Opening Year (2019) Plus Project conditions. This scenario analyzes the intersection and roadway conditions with the addition of traffic volumes generated from the proposed project to Opening Year (2019) No Project traffic volumes. TRAFFIC FORECASTS To estimate Opening Year Plus Project traffic volumes, the project-only volumes were added to Opening Year No Project traffic volumes based on the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions summarized previously. The resulting Opening Year Plus Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 10. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection LOS results for Opening Year Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 12. LOS sheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 12, Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way will operate deficiently in both the AM and PM peak hours, and Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue will operate deficiently in the PM peak hour. 29

39 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 12 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE OPENING YEAR (2019) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS 1. Anaheim Blvd (West) & Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Pkwy Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop >50.0 F >50.0 F 12.1 B 15.9 C 3. Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave Signal D F 4. Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St & La Palma Ave Signal B C 5. Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave Signal B B 6. Anaheim Blvd (West) & New Project Driveway Side-Street Stop 11.7 B 13.6 B Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers,

40 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 INTERSECTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT As shown in Table 13, the addition of project traffic will cause a significant impact at Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way in the AM and PM peak hours and at Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue in the PM peak hour. In addition at Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way, both AM and PM peak hour volumes satisfy the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Warrant for Traffic Signal Installation (provided in Appendix D). TABLE 13 OPENING YEAR (2019) PLUS PROJECT SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTION IMPACTS Intersection Peak Hour Opening Year (2019) No Project V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 Opening Year (2019) Plus Project LOS Project Change 1. Anaheim Blvd (West) & Carl Karcher Wy AM PM >50.0 >50.0 F F >50.0 >50.0 F F Harbor Blvd & La Palma Ave PM E F Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers,

41 N 1. Anaheim Blvd W./Carl Karcher Wy 2. Anaheim Blvd W./La Palma Pkwy 3. Harbor Blvd/La Palma Ave 4. Anaheim Blvd W.Lemon St/La Palma Ave Carl Karcher Wy 91 (124) 720 (906) ce 94 (62) 68 (107) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 112 (188) 790 (1,080) La Palma Pkwy 3 (9) 799 (1,022) ce 1 (2) 17 (21) g STOP Anaheim Blvd W. acc 12 (23) 890 (1,230) La Palma Ave 245 (369) 1,271 (1,027) 142 (220) accf 263 (270) 787 (775) 133 (83) accf Harbor Blvd ace 100 (125) 638 (1,017) 197 (190) ace 81 (121) 767 (1,095) 84 (85) La Palma Ave 246 (323) 0 (0) 594 (578) aaf 256 (224) 1,067 (703) acc Anaheim Blvd W. Lemon St ccff 554 (669) 776 (952) d 15 (12) 119 (105) 15 (14) 5. Anaheim Blvd E./La Palma Ave 6. Anaheim Blvd W./New Project Driveway La Palma Ave 24 (12) 11 (6) 7 (4) ae 17 (47) 727 (839) 563 (557) acef Anaheim Blvd E. ace 3 (10) 946 (1,186) 98 (139) aad 536 (744) 3 (11) 128 (167) 788 (1,013) cc Anaheim Blvd W. STOP f 32 (18) ce 870 (1,220) 5 (22) Figure 10 Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Volumes

42 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Roadway segment LOS results for Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, study roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS C or better. TABLE 14 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE OPENING YEAR (2019) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Volume Capacity V/C Ratio LOS 1. La Palma Ave between Harbor Blvd & Anaheim Blvd (West)/Lemon St 2. La Palma Ave between Lemon St and Anaheim Blvd (East) 3. Anaheim Blvd (West) between La Palma Ave & Carl Karcher Wy 26,212 37, C or better 35,353 56, C or better 23,501 37, C or better Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 ROADWAY SEGMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Based on the significant criteria outline by the City of Anaheim, the addition of project traffic will not cause significant impacts at study roadway segments under Opening Year (2019) Plus Project conditions. 33

43 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) NO PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This scenario consists of General Plan Buildout conditions from the City of Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model. The City provided Fehr & Peers with turning movement volumes during at the study intersections. Since this project is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, the City directed us to evaluate only the project driveways and the proposed reconfigured intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (West) and La Palma Avenue under this assessment (the other intersections are consistent with the environmental documentation from the City s General Plan.) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection LOS results for General Plan Buildout No Project Conditions are summarized in Table 15. LOS sheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 15, the intersections are forecast to perform at LOS D or better. TABLE 15 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) NO PROJECT CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS 4. Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Ave Signal C D 5. Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave Signal C D 6. Anaheim Blvd (West) & New Project Driveway 3 Side-Street Stop Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. 3. Intersection does not exist in this scenario. Source: Fehr & Peers,

44 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Similar to the results presented in Chapter 7, the Cumulative Plus Project assessment focused on the two project driveways and the proposed reconfigured intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (West) and La Palma Avenue since the project is consistent with the City s General Plan. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS The analysis in this section assumes the following improvements as part of the project: Anaheim Boulevard (West) and La Palma Avenue: The free westbound right turn lane is converted into two standard dedicated right turn lanes. Anaheim Boulevard (East) and La Palma Avenue: The north/southbound phases are converted to split phases from protected phases and the northbound approach consists of two dedicated left turn lanes and a shared left-through-right turn lane. Given the high demand for through traffic on Anaheim Boulevard, additional treatments to facilitate vehicle tracking will be needed to be implemented in conjunction with the project, as noted below. Cat tracking at the southbound left from Anaheim Boulevard (West) and the northbound left from Anaheim Boulevard (East) according to the below exhibit, as prepared by Kimley-Horn, will be needed to guide vehicles into the appropriate lanes based on vehicle size and direction of travel. Custom signage will be needed to indicate which lanes should be used to make left turns onto La Palma Avenue from Anaheim Boulevard or to continue through on Anaheim Boulevard. This will require a sign bridge at both locations to provide drivers with enough advanced notice to place their vehicles in the appropriate lane. Trucks will need to use the center left-turn lane at the northbound approach on Anaheim Boulevard (East) in order to continue north on Anaheim Boulevard. Please see the exhibit below from Kimley-Horn showing the potential cat tracking locations needed to facilitate a WB-62 design vehicle. 35

45 STRIPING EXHIBIT PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR TTM #17846 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUNE 2, 2015 LEGEND: PROJECT SITE

46 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS The intersection of Intersection LOS results for General Plan Buildout Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 16. LOS sheets are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 16, the volume-tocapacity ratio at Anaheim Boulevard (West) at La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (East) at La Palma Avenue either do not change or improve with the new signal phasing. All intersections are forecast to perform at LOS D or better. TABLE 16 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS V/C 1 or Delay 2 LOS 4. Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Ave Signal C D 5. Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave Signal C D 6. Anaheim Blvd (West) & New Project Driveway Side-Street Stop 11.8 B 17.1 C Notes: 1. V/C for signalized intersections based on application of Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology using Traffix software. V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio. 2. Delay for unsignalized intersections based on application of Highway Capacity Methodology using Traffix software. Delay reported is the worst-case approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 MICRO-SIMULATION ASSESSMENT Though, not required by the City s traffic study guidelines, the City requested that a micro-simulation assessment be conducted on the two intersections of Anaheim Boulevard (West) with La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (East) with La Palma Avenue. Given the volume of traffic that travels north-south on Anaheim Boulevard (and the off-set nature of the intersection), the micro-simulation analysis accounts for delay and queuing associated with this situation by modeling the origins and destinations (OD s) of the trips. The micro-simulation assessment is ultimately used to determine the required number of lanes and turn pocket lengths for the two intersections to operate acceptably. Signalized and unsignalized intersections were analyzed using Synchro 8.0 and its embedded intersection simulation element SimTraffic, which provides a more accurate estimate of delay because it includes the impact from upstream and downstream intersections and is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, The simulation of this project included a 15-minute seeding period and 60-minute simulation period. Traffic volumes from the City s Traffic Model were balanced between intersections and origin-destination (OD) data (located in Appendix A) was applied to 37

47 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 model the proportion of traffic making the through movement on Anaheim Boulevard. A summary of the percentages of OD movements making the through movements is provided in Table 17. These OD values were entered in the Link Origin-Destination Volumes input in the Volume Settings in Synchro. Twenty randomly seeded simulation runs were completed for each scenario and the ten most consistent runs are reported in Appendix C. The analysis is consistent with Caltrans Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software. TABLE 17 ANAHEIM BOULEVARD THROUGH MOVEMENT ORIGIN-DESTINATION COUNT SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Southbound Through Movement 1 Northbound Through Movement 2 Southbound Through Movement 1 Northbound Through Movement 2 67% 63% 69% 83% Notes: 1. Represents the proportion of vehicles making a southbound left at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (West) and La Palma Avenue that continue to make an eastbound right at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (East) and La Palma Avenue. 2. Represents the proportion of vehicles making a northbound left at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (East) and La Palma Avenue that continue to make a westbound right at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard (West) and La Palma Avenue. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 Intersection Level of Service AM and PM peak hour Level of service results are provided in Table 18 for the two intersections of Anaheim Boulevard at La Palma Avenue. Each intersection is forecast to operate acceptably except for Anaheim Boulevard (East) at La Palma Avenue. Though, Anaheim Boulevard (East) at La Palma Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS E, 96% of the demand volume is served through the intersection. 38

48 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 18 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Average Delay per Vehicle (s) LOS Percent Demand Served Average Delay per Vehicle (s) LOS Percent Demand Served Anaheim Boulevard (West) & La Palma Avenue & Lemon Street Anaheim Boulevard (East) & La Palma Avenue & Project Driveway 30.7 C 99% 31.4 C 95% 22.3 C 99% 77.2 E 96% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 Queue Length Analysis The maximum queue lengths are presented in Table 18 for General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project AM and PM peak hour conditions. This analysis was conducted for all movements of the Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue Intersections. The queues reported in Table 19 are the average of the maximum queues reported for each of ten simulation runs. Detailed result tables are provided in Appendix C. The results of the queuing assessment indicate that the westbound right turns lanes at Anaheim Boulevard (West) and La Palma Avenue and the eastbound right turn lanes at Anaheim Boulevard (East) and La Palma Avenue will need to span the entire roadway segment of La Palma Avenue between each Anaheim Boulevard in order to provide enough storage length and for tracking purposes. Observations from the simulation show that northbound queues on Anaheim Boulevard (East) at La Palma Avenue in the PM peak hour extend to 1,435 feet, indicating congested intersection operations. The southbound queues on Anaheim Boulevard (West) at La Palma Avenue extend to 125 feet north of the proposed access driveway on Anaheim Boulevard (West). Observations from the simulations along with the maximum queues along La Palma Avenue indicate that the bottle neck at these intersections is due to the signal phasing and available capacity of the northbound and southbound movements. The maximum queues on La Palma Avenue are less than the roadway segment length which indicates that there is available storage capacity since the signals are metering traffic to La Palma Avenue. The northbound left movement could operate more effectively if it had more capacity to handle the 1,200+ left turns forecasted during the PM peak hour. However, since northbound Anaheim 39

49 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Boulevard (East) is currently built out to its ultimate width, it will operate under congested conditions during the PM peak hour of the General Plan Buildout scenario. It should be noted that the proposed project is not contributing to this extensive queue, though, it is likely that the project design would change the operational characteristics through the corridor and would result in higher delays than if the free right turn lane remained; the queue is a function of the disconnected nature of Anaheim Boulevard in the City and land uses proposed as part of the City s General Plan. Due to the operational changes at each intersection of Anaheim Boulevard at La Palma Avenue, sign bridges that alert drivers of lane configurations and truck lanes are recommended as a design feature concurrent with the project. TABLE 19 AVERAGE MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Anaheim Blvd (West) & La Palma Ave & Lemon St Anaheim Blvd (East) & La Palma Ave & Project Driveway Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 Westbound Right Turn Lanes Southbound Left Turn Lanes Eastbound Right Turn Lane Northbound Left Turn Lanes 110 ft 365 ft 215 ft 215 ft 315 ft 475 ft 375 ft 1,435 ft Network-Wide Performance Table 20 presents the network-wide performance for General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project AM and PM peak hour conditions. The network study area is the two intersections of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue and any adjacent intersections up or down stream. The results of the network-wide performance in also contained in Appendix C. 40

50 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TABLE 20 NETWORK-WIDE PERFORMANCE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Performance Criteria AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) Total Delay per Vehicle (s) Fuel Consumption (gallons) Average Speed (mph) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015 INTERSECTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Based on the significant criteria outline by the City of Anaheim, there are no significant impacts at the study locations under General Plan Buildout Plus Project conditions. 41

51 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August MITIGATION MEASURES This chapter provides a summary of the key findings and project impacts for each scenario analyzed, and recommended mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS Existing Plus Project Conditions Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way In the AM peak hour the unsignalized intersection operates at LOS E and in the PM peak hour the intersection operates at LOS F. Additionally, the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Warrant for Traffic Signal Installation is met. Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue In the PM peak hour the intersection continues to operate at LOS E and the V/C ratio increases by Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way In the AM and PM peak hours the unsignalized intersection operates at LOS F. Additionally, the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Warrant for Traffic Signal Installation is met. Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue In the PM peak hour the intersection continues to operate at LOS E and the V/C ratio increases by General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions Though no project impacts were identified in the analysis, the simulations conducted show that measures need to be implemented for the proposed intersection lane configurations and cross section on La Palma Avenue to function. The City has identified these measures as conditions of approval for the project. The intersections of interest are: o o Anaheim Boulevard (West) & La Palma Avenue Anaheim Boulevard (East) & La Palma Avenue RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Improvement measures were developed to minimize the impact of the Project on study intersections. Mitigation measures were developed in order to bring impacted intersections to LOS D. Implementing the 42

52 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 mitigation measures described below would cause the with project scenarios to no longer result in a significant impact. A description of the recommended mitigation measures is provided below. LOS results for mitigation measures are provided in Appendix E. Fair share percentages are provided based on the addition of project traffic to the total General Plan build-out growth at the intersection, according to the City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. Fair share calculations are provided in Appendix G. Existing Plus Project Conditions Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way AM and PM peak hours o o Construct a traffic signal at the intersection. Implementation would improve AM peak hour operations to a V/C ratio of and LOS A and PM peak hour operations to a V/C ratio of and LOS A. o The project s fair share contribution towards this improvement shall be 60%. Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue PM peak hour o o Improve the northbound approach by adding a northbound through lane. This improvement is consistent with the City s General Plan assumptions for this intersection. Implementation of an additional northbound through lane would improve PM peak hour operations to a V/C ratio of and LOS D. o The project s fair share contribution towards this improvement shall be 9%. Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Conditions Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way AM and PM peak hours o o Construct a traffic signal at the intersection, as previously recommended under Existing Plus Project mitigation measures. Implementation would improve AM peak hour operations to a V/C ratio of and LOS A and PM peak hour operations to a V/C ratio of and LOS A. o The project s fair share contribution towards this improvement shall be 60%. Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue PM peak hour o Improve the northbound approach by adding a northbound through lane and improve the westbound approach by adding a westbound through lane. This improvement is consistent with the City s General Plan assumptions for this intersection. 43

53 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 o Implementation of an additional northbound through lane would improve PM peak hour operations to a V/C ratio of and LOS D. o The project s fair share contribution towards this improvement shall be 9%. General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions Anaheim Boulevard (West) & La Palma Avenue o o Cat tracking at the southbound left from Anaheim Boulevard (West) according to Figure 11 will be needed to guide vehicles into the appropriate lanes based on vehicle size and direction of travel. Custom signage on a sign bridge (mast arm) will be needed to indicate which lanes should be used to make left turns onto La Palma Avenue from Anaheim Boulevard (West) or continue through on Anaheim Boulevard. The sign needs to notify drivers far enough in advance that vehicles can queue in the correct turn lane. The sign also needs to dictate which lane trucks are allowed to use. Anaheim Boulevard (East) & La Palma Avenue o Cat tracking at the northbound left from Anaheim Boulevard (East) according to Figure 11 will be needed to guide vehicles into the appropriate lanes based on vehicle size and direction of travel. o Custom signage on a sign bridge (mast arm) will be needed to indicate which lanes should be used to make left turns onto La Palma Avenue from Anaheim Boulevard (West) or continue through on Anaheim Boulevard. The sign needs to notify drivers far enough in advance that vehicles can queue in the correct turn lane. The sign also needs to dictate which lane trucks are allowed to use. 44

54 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS This chapter presents the regional transportation system impact analysis for the proposed project. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the transportation impact analysis procedures outlined in 2013 Orange County Congestion Management Program (Orange County Transportation Authority, 2013). The CMP requires that when an environmental impact report is prepared for a project, traffic impact analyses must be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project traffic expected to use these facilities. CMP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The CMP guidelines require that projects with the potential to create an impact of more than 3% of LOS E capacity on the CMP highway system links should require a traffic impact analysis. All projects generating 2,400 or more daily trips should require evaluation. If a project will have direct access to a CMP link, the threshold is reduced to 1,600 or more daily trips. A traffic impact analysis is not required if one has already been performed for the project as part of an earlier development approval which takes the impact on the CMP highway system into account. The nearest OCTA CMP intersection is Harbor Boulevard at SR-91 Eastbound Off-Ramp. Based on the estimated project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment, the proposed project would not add sufficient new traffic to exceed the 3% criteria. Since the project will not have direct access to an OCTA CMP facility and the project is anticipated to generate 1,153 daily trips, the roadway capacities would not be significantly affected. As stated in the OCTA CMP, for intersections, a 3% level of impact applied to the sum of critical volume (1,700 vehicles per hour) would be 51 vehicles per hour. Applying a conservative analysis utilizing the project only trip assignment for the worst case peak hour at the analyzed intersections closest to the CMP intersections, the maximum amount of trips that could reach the CMP intersection is 33 trips in the PM peak hour. 45

55 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August NON-AUTOMOTIVE ASSESSMENT The Non-Automotive assessment evaluates the project s consistency with existing and planned bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities in the area. As such, the following significance criteria is applied: Non-Automotive Threshold A significant impact occurs if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities. GOALS AND POLICIES Based on a review of the City of Anaheim General Plan, the following goals and policies were found which apply to future bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities: Goal 5.1: Promote bus service and paratransit improvements. o o Policy 1: Support the efforts of regional, State and Federal agencies to provide additional local and express bus service in the City. Policy 3: Support transit supportive land uses in new development. o Policy 6: Improve pedestrian access to transit facilities. Goal 7.1: Protect and encourage bicycle travel. o Policy 1: Provide safe, direct, and continuous bicycle routes for commuter and recreational cyclists. o Policy 3: Support bicycle routes that minimize cyclist/motorist conflicts. o Policy 4: Support roadway design policies that promote attractive circulation corridors and pleasant traveling experiences for bicyclists.\ o Policy 9: Require that new streets or developments contain adequate right of way for bicycle lanes, where appropriate. o Policy 10: Where space and appropriate roadway conditions currently exist, continue to install bike routes. Goal 8.1: Protect and encourage pedestrian travel. o o Policy 1: Encourage and improve pedestrian facilities that link development to the circulation network and that serve as a transition between other modes of travel. Policy 2: Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections from residential neighborhoods to retail activity centers, employment centers, schools, parks, open space areas and community centers. 46

56 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 o o o o o Policy 4: Support the planning of sidewalks of appropriate width to allow the provision of buffers to shield non-motorized traffic from vehicles. Policy 5: Add raised, landscaped medians and bulbouts, where appropriate, to reduce exposure to cross traffic at street crossings. Policy 7: Ensure that streets and intersections are designed to provide visibility and safety for pedestrians. Policy 9: Enhance and encourage pedestrian amenities and recreation, retail and employment opportunities in mixed-use areas to enhance non-motorized transportation. Policy 10: Coordinate with appropriate agencies to ensure that transit stops are accessible to pedestrians. TRANSIT ANALYSIS Existing transit routes 38 and 47 along with existing bus stops are adjacent to the project site and across the street from the project site. Upon completion of the project, it is recommended that the bus stop (Route 47) adjacent south of the site be relocated to the west side of the site along Anaheim Boulevard (West). The bus stop (Route 38 and 47) on the south side of La Palma Avenue Pedestrian connectivity will be provided from the project site to the bus stop and several other bus stops are also located in a walking proximity to the project site. Existing transit service will be maintained upon completion of the project. Since the proposed project is consistent with policies related to transit facilities and that it is not expected to degrade transit operations, the impact to transit is considered less than significant. BICYCLE ANALYSIS An existing Class II bike path is available on Anaheim Boulevard (East) south of La Palma Avenue. Future Class II bicycle facilities are planned on the following facilities within the study area: La Palma Avenue Lemon Street (south of La Palma Avenue) As noted in the project description, the project plans to accommodate an off-street bicycle facility adjacent to the property line along La Palma Avenue. As such, the project is consistent with this planed facility on La Palma Avenue. 47

57 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 Since the project does not conflict with any existing or planned bicycle facility in the area, the project impact to bicycle facilities is considered less than significant. PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS The proposed project includes a high level of internal accessibility and proposes sidewalks along all internal project roadways. The signalized intersection at the project driveway at La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (East) provides pedestrian crosswalks to cross both La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (East). With the implementation of the improvements at Anaheim Boulevard (West) at La Palma Avenue, a crosswalk is proposed to access the neighboring park. The project also provides excellent onsite and offsite pedestrian access since sidewalks and crosswalks are provided within and around the project site. Given that the project provides adequate pedestrian facilities onsite and along the project frontage, the proposed project is considered consistent with relevant pedestrian related plans and policies. Since the project is consistent with policies related to pedestrian facilities, the impact is considered less than significant. 48

58 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August PARKING, SITE ACCESS, AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION This chapter summarizes our review of parking, site access, and on-site circulation. Fehr & Peers review is based on the site plan for the project dated November 25, PARKING As part of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code requirements, IBI Group conducted a detailed parking demand assessment for the project. This study is provided in Appendix F. Based on the results of the study, the 423 parking spaces proposed by the project would be sufficient to meet the proposed parking demand. Fehr & Peers also recommends that, at the community pool area and at the park at the southwest corner of the project site, the project sponsor consider providing bicycle parking for its residents. SITE ACCESS VEHICLE ACCESS Vehicle access to the project site is provided from Anaheim Boulevard (Secondary Arterial) and La Palma Avenue (Primary Arterial) which are heavily used streets in the City of Anaheim. The project access driveway on La Palma Avenue is proposed to be full access and controlled by a traffic signal while the driveway on Anaheim Boulevard is proposed to be right-in and right-out only. Given that there are multiple access driveways, including one signalized driveway, motorists are provided with adequate vehicle access to the project site. In addition to this vehicular access, Fehr & Peers recommends that the City s fire and police departments review the site plan to ensure adequate accessibility is provided for emergency responders. BICYCLE ACCESS The City of Anaheim proposes to install Cass II bike lanes on Anaheim Boulevard (south of La Palma Avenue) and on La Palma Avenue adjacent to the project site. These bike paths will connect the study area to the region from a bicycle connectivity perspective. Fehr & Peers recommends that the project sponsor ensure that direct, convenient, and safe connectivity to the bicycle paths are provided. 49

59 Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis August 2015 TRANSIT ACCESS Bus stops are provided directly adjacent to the site on La Palma Avenue along with across the street from the project site and on adjacent blocks in any direction. These stops access multiple routes throughout the City and County. The stop adjacent to the project will be relocated after construction but will remain within walking proximity of the project (within one to two blocks). Given the close proximity and number of transit facilities, the transit access is deemed adequate. ON-SITE CIRCULATION On-site circulation is provided by a 26-foot wide horseshoe shaped road with four 20-foot alleys that create a grid. The alleys provide direct access to most covered garages and twenty open parking spaces while the 26-foot primary circulatory road provides access to the alleys and remaining garages and open spaces. The two legs of the horseshoe shaped road span approximately 400 feet and offer opportunities to potential speeding given their unimpeded path. This path crosses several proposed marked pedestrian crossings. Fehr & Peers recommends that the project sponsor consider potential speed control measures (such as raised crosswalks, speed humps, or other similar treatments to minimize the potential for speeding along these roadways. The site plan shows marked crosswalks and pedestrian sidewalks that provide pedestrian access to the pool and community area, all buildings, garages and parking spaces. The sidewalks also provide direct access from the project site to the sidewalks available on Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. The site has made appropriate considerations for both vehicles and pedestrians and therefore on-site circulation is deemed adequate. 50

60 APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC COUNTS

61 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Anaheim Blvd and La Palma Ave, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 12/9/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Tuesday Anaheim Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 800 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 500 PM Eastbound Approach La Palma Ave AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Signalized Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 592 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 600 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 3 9 AM 12 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON 0 17 PM 17 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 1169 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 1406 South Leg South Leg

62 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Anaheim Blvd and La Palma Pkwy, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 12/9/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Tuesday Anaheim Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 715 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 445 PM Eastbound Approach La Palma Pkwy AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Way Stop (EB) Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 735 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 925 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg AM 1501 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON PM 2012 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 1523 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 2042 South Leg South Leg

63 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Anaheim Blvd and Carl Karcher Way, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 12/9/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Tuesday Anaheim Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 715 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 445 PM Eastbound Approach Carl Karcher Way AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Way Stop (EB) Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 710 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 898 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg AM 1509 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON PM 1934 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 1488 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 2024 South Leg South Leg

64 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Harbor Blvd and La Palma Ave, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 12/9/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Tuesday Harbor Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 730 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 500 PM Eastbound Approach La Palma Ave AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Signalized Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 1450 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 1186 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg AM 2504 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON PM 2765 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 2296 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 2365 South Leg South Leg

65 PROJECT#: N/S Street: E/W Street: DATE: Anaheim Blvd La Palma Ave 12/9/2014 CITY: Anaheim A M PEDESTRIANS NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES BIKES DAY: Tuesday T I M E WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 7:00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM TOTALS TOTALS P M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 4:00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM TOTALS TOTALS

66 PROJECT#: N/S Street: E/W Street: DATE: Anaheim Blvd La Palma Pkwy 12/9/2014 PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES DAY: Tuesday CITY: Anaheim A M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 7:00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM TOTALS TOTALS P M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 4:00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM TOTALS TOTALS

67 PROJECT#: N/S Street: E/W Street: DATE: Anaheim Blvd Carl Karcher Way 12/9/2014 CITY: Anaheim A M PEDESTRIANS NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES BIKES DAY: Tuesday T I M E WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 7:00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM TOTALS TOTALS P M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 4:00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM TOTALS TOTALS

68 PROJECT#: N/S Street: E/W Street: DATE: Harbor Blvd La Palma Ave 12/9/2014 PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES DAY: Tuesday CITY: Anaheim A M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 7:00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM TOTALS TOTALS P M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 4:00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM TOTALS TOTALS

69 PROJECT#: N/S Street: E/W Street: DATE: Lemon St La Palma Ave 12/9/2014 CITY: Anaheim A M PEDESTRIANS NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES BIKES DAY: Tuesday T I M E WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 7:00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM :00 AM :00 AM :15 AM :15 AM :30 AM :30 AM :45 AM :45 AM TOTALS TOTALS P M PEDESTRIANS BIKES T I M E NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG NB SB EB WB T I M E EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 4:00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM :00 PM :00 PM :15 PM :15 PM :30 PM :30 PM :45 PM :45 PM TOTALS TOTALS

70 Day: Tuesday Date: 12/9/2014 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME La Palma Ave Bet. Harbor Blvd & Lemon St City: Anaheim Project #: CA14_1324_001 DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB ,875 12,151 Total 23,026 AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 00: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : TOTALS TOTALS SPLIT % 50.8% 49.2% 36.8% SPLIT % 45.1% 54.9% 63.2% DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS ,875 12,151 23,026 AM Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07:45 PM Peak Hour 16:45 16:30 16:45 AM Pk Volume PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor Pk Hr Factor Volume Volume Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07: Peak Hour 16:45 16:30 16: Pk Volume Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor Pk Hr Factor

71 Day: Tuesday Date: 12/9/2014 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME La Palma Ave Bet. Lemon St & Anaheim Blvd City: Anaheim Project #: CA14_1324_002 DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB ,889 16,248 Total 31,137 AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 00: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : TOTALS TOTALS SPLIT % 49.1% 50.9% 36.9% SPLIT % 47.1% 52.9% 63.1% DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS ,889 16,248 31,137 AM Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 PM Peak Hour 17:00 17:00 17:00 AM Pk Volume PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor Pk Hr Factor Volume Volume Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08: Peak Hour 17:00 17:00 17: Pk Volume Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor Pk Hr Factor

72 Day: Tuesday Date: 12/9/2014 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Anaheim Blvd Bet. La Palma Ave & Carl Karcher Way City: Anaheim Project #: CA14_1324_003 DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB 10,948 9, Total 20,772 AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 00: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : TOTALS TOTALS SPLIT % 55.6% 44.4% 35.2% SPLIT % 51.1% 48.9% 64.8% DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS 10,948 9, ,772 AM Peak Hour 07:15 07:15 07:15 PM Peak Hour 16:45 16:45 16:45 AM Pk Volume PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor Pk Hr Factor Volume Volume Peak Hour 07:15 07:15 07: Peak Hour 16:45 16:45 16: Pk Volume Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor Pk Hr Factor

73 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Anaheim Blvd and La Palma Ave, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 12/9/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Tuesday Anaheim Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 715 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 445 PM Eastbound Approach La Palma Ave AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Signalized Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 357 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 349 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg AM 666 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON PM 847 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 670 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 859 South Leg South Leg

74 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Anaheim Blvd and La Palma Ave, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 10/15/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Wednesday Anaheim Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 730 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 500 PM Eastbound Approach La Palma Ave AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 0 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 0 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg AM 1585 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON PM 1673 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 136 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 119 South Leg South Leg

75 N a t i o n a l D a t a & S u r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: OD Tracking Study Anaheim Blvd and La Palma Ave, Anaheim Peak Hour Summary Date: 12/9/2014 Southbound Approach Project #: Day: Tuesday Anaheim Blvd Lanes AM AM NOON NOON City: AM Peak Hour NOON Peak Hour Anaheim 715 AM PM PM PM Peak Hour 445 PM Eastbound Approach La Palma Ave AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes CONTROL Signalized Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Westbound Approach Count Periods Start End 357 AM AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 NOON NOON NOON 349 PM PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg AM 666 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON PM 847 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM AM 670 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM PM 859 South Leg South Leg

76

77 APPENDIX B: LOS REPORTS

78 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:39 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Existing AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Existing AM Existing AM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Existing AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

79 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:39 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher E E D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway A A D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

80 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:39 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 40.8] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 731 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 883 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 883 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.10 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 241 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 3.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 40.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * E * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 40.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * E * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

81 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:39 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.6] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 723 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 889 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 889 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 562 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 11.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

82 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:39 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

83 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:40 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

84 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:40 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

85 Existing AM Tue Jan 6, :12:40 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

86 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Existing PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Existing PM Existing PM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Existing PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

87 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher F F D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma E xxxxx E xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway A A D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

88 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[105.9] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 914 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 754 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 754 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.21 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 11.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 166 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 106 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

89 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.4] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 914 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 754 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 754 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 404 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

90 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 87 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

91 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

92 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

93 Existing PM Tue Jan 6, :12:55 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

94 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:06 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Existing + Proj AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Existing plus project AM E+P AM Project Default Impact Fee Project AM Project Default Path Default Route Existing plus project AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

95 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher E E D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway B B D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

96 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 47.2] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 733 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 881 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 881 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.12 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 224 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 47.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * E * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 47.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * E * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

97 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.6] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 725 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 560 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 11.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

98 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

99 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

100 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 2 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

101 Existing + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :29:07 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.2] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 392 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 613 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 613 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.2 LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 11.2 ApproachLOS: * * * B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

102 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:02 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Existing + Proj PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Existing plus project PM E+P PM Project Default Impact Fee Project PM Project Default Path Default Route Existing plus project PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

103 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:02 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher F F D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma E xxxxx E xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway B B D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

104 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:02 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[121.5] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 921 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 750 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 750 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.23 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 11.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 158 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 122 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

105 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:02 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.5] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 921 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 750 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 750 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 400 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.5 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

106 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:02 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 101 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

107 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:02 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

108 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:03 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 2 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

109 Existing + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :30:03 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.8] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 560 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 477 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 477 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 12.8 LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.8 ApproachLOS: * * * B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

110 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Opening AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Opening AM Opening AM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Opening AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

111 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher F F D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway A A D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

112 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 73.2] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 809 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 825 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 825 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 199 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 5.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 73.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 73.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

113 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.1] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 800 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 832 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 832 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 527 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

114 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

115 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

116 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

117 Opening AM Wed Jul 15, :35:36 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

118 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Opening PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Opening PM Opening PM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Opening PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

119 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher F F D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy C C D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma E xxxxx E xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway A A D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

120 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[273.3] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1023 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 686 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 686 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.26 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 1.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 12.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 124 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 273 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

121 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.8] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1024 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 686 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 686 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 10.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 358 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * C * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

122 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

123 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

124 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

125 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :41:08 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

126 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Open + Proj AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Opening plus project AM O+P AM Project Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Opening plus project AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

127 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher F F D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway B B D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

128 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 89.5] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 811 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 824 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 824 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 184 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 89.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 89.5 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

129 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.1] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 802 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 830 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 830 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 524 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

130 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

131 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

132 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 2 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

133 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :48:32 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.7] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 438 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 573 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 573 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.7 LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 11.7 ApproachLOS: * * * B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

134 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Opening PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Opening PM Opening PM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Opening PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

135 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher F F D/V # 2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy C C D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma F xxxxx F xxxxx V/C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma B xxxxx B xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway B B D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

136 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[308.3] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1030 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 682 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 682 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.28 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 1.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 12.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 117 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 308 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

137 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Anaheim Blvd & La Palma Pkwy Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.9] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1031 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 682 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 682 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 10.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 354 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * C * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

138 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

139 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

140 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:26 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

141 Opening PM Wed Jul 15, :55:27 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.6] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 621 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 435 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 435 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 13.6 LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.6 ApproachLOS: * * * B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

142 Cum AM Tue Jun 2, :04:59 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Cum AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Cumulative AM Cum AM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Cumulative AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

143 Cum AM Tue Jun 2, :04:59 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway A A D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

144 Cum AM Tue Jun 2, :04:59 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

145 Cum AM Tue Jun 2, :04:59 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

146 Cum AM Tue Jun 2, :04:59 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

147 Cum PM Tue Jun 2, :06:16 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Cum PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Cumulative PM Cum PM Existing Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Cumulative PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

148 Cum PM Tue Jun 2, :06:16 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway A A D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

149 Cum PM Tue Jun 2, :06:16 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

150 Cum PM Tue Jun 2, :06:16 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 77 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

151 Cum PM Tue Jun 2, :06:16 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

152 Cum + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :38:40 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Cum + Proj AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Cumulative plus project AM C+P AM FutureProject Default Impact Fee Project AM Project Default Path Default Route Cumulative plus project AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

153 Cum + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :38:40 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway B B D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

154 Cum + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :38:40 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

155 Cum + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :38:40 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 2 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

156 Cum + Proj AM Tue Jun 23, :38:40 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.8] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 449 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 563 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 563 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.8 LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 11.8 ApproachLOS: * * * B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

157 Cum + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :39:44 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Cum + Proj PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Cumulative plus project PM C+P PM FutureProject Default Impact Fee Project PM Project Default Path Default Route Cumulative plus project PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

158 Cum + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :39:44 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 4 W. Anaheim/La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C # 5 Anaheim & La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C # 6 New Project Driveway C C D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

159 Cum + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :39:44 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 W. Anaheim/La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 0 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

160 Cum + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :39:44 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Anaheim & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: 2 0 1! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

161 Cum + Proj PM Tue Jun 23, :39:44 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 New Project Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.1] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 835 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 315 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 315 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.1 LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.1 ApproachLOS: * * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

162 APPENDIX C: MICRO-SIMULATION REPORTS

163 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/5/2015 1: Anaheim & Carl Karcher Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Anaheim & La Palma Pkwy Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Harbor & La Palma Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Harbor & La Palma Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 71.8 Vehicles Exited 5769 Hourly Exit Rate 5769 Input Volume 5852 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1

164 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/5/2015 4: Lemon/Anaheim & La Palma Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Anaheim & La Palma Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Anaheim & La Palma Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 22.3 Vehicles Exited 3683 Hourly Exit Rate 3683 Input Volume 3718 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 6: Anaheim & Project Driveway Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After SimTraffic Report Page 2

165 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/12/2015 Total Network Performance By Run Run Number Denied Delay (hr) Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Delay (hr) Total Del/Veh (s) Stop Delay (hr) Stop Del/Veh (s) Travel Dist (mi) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) Fuel Used (gal) Fuel Eff. (mpg) HC Emissions (g) CO Emissions (g) NOx Emissions (g) Vehicles Entered Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After Density (ft/veh) Occupancy (veh) SimTraffic Report Page 6

166 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/12/2015 Total Network Performance By Run Run Number Avg Denied Delay (hr) Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Delay (hr) Total Del/Veh (s) Stop Delay (hr) Stop Del/Veh (s) Travel Dist (mi) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) Fuel Used (gal) Fuel Eff. (mpg) HC Emissions (g) CO Emissions (g) NOx Emissions (g) Vehicles Entered Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After Density (ft/veh) 167 Occupancy (veh) SimTraffic Report Page 7

167 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 1/5/2015 Intersection: 1: Anaheim & Carl Karcher Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 Intersection: 2: Anaheim & La Palma Pkwy Movement EB NB SB SB Directions Served LR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 SimTraffic Report Page 4

168 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 1/5/2015 Intersection: 3: Harbor & La Palma Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L L T T TR L L T T TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Harbor & La Palma Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T TR L T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Lemon/Anaheim & La Palma Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R LTR L L R Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) SimTraffic Report Page 5

169 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 1/5/2015 Intersection: 5: Anaheim & La Palma Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR R L T TR L L LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: Anaheim & Project Driveway Movement WB SB SB Directions Served R T T Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 27: Movement EB EB EB NB Directions Served T T TR R Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1150 SimTraffic Report Page 6

170 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/5/2015 1: Anaheim & Carl Karcher Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Anaheim & La Palma Pkwy Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Harbor & La Palma Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Harbor & La Palma Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited 5045 Hourly Exit Rate 5045 Input Volume 5755 % of Volume 88 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 495 SimTraffic Report Page 1

171 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/5/2015 4: Lemon/Anaheim & La Palma Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Anaheim & La Palma Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After : Anaheim & La Palma Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 77.2 Vehicles Exited 4210 Hourly Exit Rate 4210 Input Volume 4392 % of Volume 96 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 6: Anaheim & Project Driveway Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Del/Veh (s) Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After SimTraffic Report Page 2

172 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 1/12/2015 Total Network Performance By Run Run Number Denied Delay (hr) Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Delay (hr) Total Del/Veh (s) Stop Delay (hr) Stop Del/Veh (s) Travel Dist (mi) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) Fuel Used (gal) Fuel Eff. (mpg) HC Emissions (g) CO Emissions (g) NOx Emissions (g) Vehicles Entered Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After Density (ft/veh) Total Network Performance By Run Run Number Avg Denied Delay (hr) Denied Del/Veh (s) Total Delay (hr) Total Del/Veh (s) Stop Delay (hr) Stop Del/Veh (s) Travel Dist (mi) Travel Time (hr) Avg Speed (mph) Fuel Used (gal) Fuel Eff. (mpg) HC Emissions (g) CO Emissions (g) NOx Emissions (g) Vehicles Entered Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before Denied Entry After Density (ft/veh) 109 SimTraffic Report Page 6

173 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 1/5/2015 Intersection: 1: Anaheim & Carl Karcher Movement EB EB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 Intersection: 2: Anaheim & La Palma Pkwy Movement EB NB SB SB Directions Served LR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 SimTraffic Report Page 4

174 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 1/5/2015 Intersection: 3: Harbor & La Palma Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L L T T TR L L T T TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 41 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Harbor & La Palma Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T TR L T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Lemon/Anaheim & La Palma Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R LTR L L R Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) SimTraffic Report Page 5

175 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 1/5/2015 Intersection: 5: Anaheim & La Palma Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR R L T TR L L LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: Anaheim & Project Driveway Movement WB NB SB SB Directions Served R T T T Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 27: Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 80 Average Queue (ft) 39 95th Queue (ft) 66 Link Distance (ft) 705 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1543 SimTraffic Report Page 6

176 APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS

177 Sheet No 1 of 1 Project Anaheim/La Palma Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Peak Hour AM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction NB SB EB WB Left x North/South Through East/West Right Total Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes or More Lanes & 1 Lane * * 1 Lane & 1 Lane Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Warrant Met Number of Approach Lanes 2 1 Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1, YES * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

178 Sheet No 1 of 1 Project Anaheim/La Palma Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction NB SB EB WB Left x North/South Through East/West Right Total 1, Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes or More Lanes & 1 Lane * * 1 Lane & 1 Lane Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Warrant Met Number of Approach Lanes 2 1 Traffic Volume (VPH) * 2, YES * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

179 Sheet No 1 of 1 Project Anaheim/La Palma Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Scenario Opening Year Plus Project Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Peak Hour AM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction NB SB EB WB Left x North/South Through East/West Right Total Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes or More Lanes & 1 Lane * * 1 Lane & 1 Lane Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Warrant Met Number of Approach Lanes 2 1 Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1, YES * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

180 Sheet No 1 of 1 Project Anaheim/La Palma Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Scenario Opening Year Plus Project Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction NB SB EB WB Left x North/South Through 1, East/West Right Total 1,268 1, Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes or More Lanes & 1 Lane * * 1 Lane & 1 Lane Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 Major Street Anaheim Boulevard Minor Street Carl Karcher Way Warrant Met Number of Approach Lanes 2 1 Traffic Volume (VPH) * 2, YES * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

181 APPENDIX E: MITIGATED LOS REPORTS

182 Existing + Proj AM Thu Jan 8, :11:32 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Existing + Proj AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Existing plus project AM E+P AM Project Default Impact Fee Project AM Project Default Path Default Route Existing plus project AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

183 Existing + Proj AM Thu Jan 8, :11:32 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma C xxxxx C xxxxx V/C Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

184 Existing + Proj AM Thu Jan 8, :11:32 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

185 Existing + Proj AM Thu Jan 8, :11:32 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

186 Existing + Proj PM Thu Jan 8, :13:40 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Scenario: Existing + Proj PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Existing plus project PM E+P PM Project Default Impact Fee Project PM Project Default Path Default Route Existing plus project PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

187 Existing + Proj PM Thu Jan 8, :13:40 Page 2-1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher A xxxxx A xxxxx V/C # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

188 Existing + Proj PM Thu Jan 8, :13:40 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK

189 Existing + Proj PM Thu Jun 25, :06:57 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

190 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :01:04 Page 1-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation AM Peak Scenario Report Scenario: Open + Proj AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Opening plus project AM O+P AM Project Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Opening plus project AM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

191 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :01:04 Page 2-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation AM Peak Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher B B D/V Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

192 Open + Proj AM Wed Jul 15, :01:04 Page 3-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.3 Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: D A A A B B C A C A A A HCM2kAvgQ: Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

193 Open + Proj PM Wed Jul 15, :12:42 Page 1-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation PM Peak Scenario Report Scenario: Open + Proj PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Opening plus project PM O+P PM Project Default Impact Fee No Project Project Default Path Default Route Opening plus project PM Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

194 Open + Proj PM Wed Jul 15, :12:42 Page 2-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation PM Peak Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher B B D/V # 3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma D xxxxx D xxxxx V/C Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

195 Open + Proj PM Wed Jul 15, :12:42 Page 3-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Anaheim Blvd & Carl Karcher Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.6 Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: ! Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: D A A A B B D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

196 Open + Proj PM Wed Jul 15, :12:42 Page 4-1 Opening Year Plus Project with Mitigation PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Harbor Blvd & La Palma Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, IRVINE, CA

197

198 APPENDIX F: PARKING DEMAND STUDY

199 La Palma Townhomes Parking Demand Study Integral Communities City of Anaheim, California Prepared for City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA January 13, 2015 Prepared by IBI Group Von Karman Ave, Suite 110 Irvine, CA (949)

200 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... II LIST OF FIGURES... III LIST OF TABLES... IV 1 INTRODUCTION Project Location Site Description Site Uses PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking Requirement Parking Supply SIMILAR SITE PARKING COUNTS Multi-family Residential Survey Sites COMPARISON TO RATES IN ADJACENT CITIES Parking Standards in Adjacent Cities METHODOLOGY OF STUDY FINDINGS Parking Space Requirements RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A. Weekday Parking Counts Survey Site #1 & B. Weekend Parking Counts Survey Site #1 & ii -

201 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Project Location... 7 Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan... 8 Figure 1.3 Zoning Map iii -

202 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Proposed Site Uses and Square Feet... 6 Table 2-1 City of Anaheim Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirements Table 2-3 Required Parking Calculation Table 3-1 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site # Table 3-2 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site # Table 4-1 Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirement Comparison Table 5-1 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand Table 7-1 Required vs Recommended Minimum Parking Comparison iv -

203 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 1 Introduction This report documents the results of a parking demand study prepared for a multi-family residential development located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The City of Anaheim s Municipal Code has an established minimum parking requirement for this type of land use, which includes 2.25 spaces for two-bedroom units, and 3 spaces for three-bedroom units, with 0.25 spaces per unit allocated for guests in a multi-family residential development and 4 spaces per unit in a single-family residential development. These rates are higher than the rates currently in place in adjacent cities and the project developer is requesting consideration of use of a lower parking rate for this project. The purpose of this parking demand study is to estimate the parking demand that would be generated by the proposed residential development. The objective is to determine if the project could be approved for a parking variance permitting a reduced number of parking spaces. All assumptions and methodologies are consistent with the City of Anaheim guidelines for a parking demand study. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and West La Palma Avenue. The project site is bounded by West Commercial Street to the north, West La Palma Avenue to the south, Anaheim Boulevard to the west, and North Kemp Street to the east. The project site is approximately one mile south of the California SR-91 freeway. The project location is illustrated in Figure SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is approximately 7 acres and consists of three developed parcels. Currently, access to the site is provided via two driveways on Anaheim Boulevard and one driveway on West La Palma Avenue. The proposed project would replace the two access points on Anaheim Boulevard with one full access driveway, while retaining the driveway access on West La Palma Avenue. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure SITE USES The project site contains three existing single story commercial buildings, two single story industrial buildings, and surface parking spaces. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site include Sunwest Metals Inc. to the north, L s Auto Upholstery, Car Stereo Warehouse, and residential homes to the south, La Palma Park and the Salvation Army to the east, and Atcheson s Express Trucking Company to the west. Per the City of Anaheim s Land Use Map, the project site is located within the City s Industrial Zone, and consists of commercial and industrial uses. Figure 1.3 provides an illustration of the existing zoning map. The proposed project would replace the existing use with multi-family for-sale residential development. It would provide a grand total of 161-units, including 109 townhome units and 52 duplexes. The unit mix for the multi-family townhome development includes 28 two-bedroom units of 1,369 square feet per unit, 28 two-bedroom units of 1,468 square feet per unit, 21 four-bedroom units of 1,679 square feet per unit, and 32 four-bedroom units of 1,775 square feet per unit. The unit mix for the multi-family duplex development includes 19 three-bedroom units of 1,900 square feet per unit, 19 four-bedroom units of 2,152 square feet per unit, and 14 four-bedroom units of 2,300 square feet per unit. The proposed square feet and unit mix of the project is summarized in Table

204 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Table 1-1 Proposed Site Uses and Square Feet Multi-Family Residential - Townhome Plan Type Sq. Ft. per Unit Number of Units Plan 1 (2 Bed) 1, Plan 2 (2 Bed + Den) 1, Plan 3 (4 Bed) 1, Plan 4 (4 Bed) 1, Total 109 Multi-Family Residential - Duplex Plan Type Sq. Ft. per Unit Number of Units Plan 1 (3 Bed) 1, Plan 2 (4 Bed) 2, Plan 3 (4 Bed + Loft) 2, Total 52 The proposed project would provide either a 2-car or 3-car attached garage for each dwelling unit, totaling to 329 garage parking spaces. In addition, 94 surface parking spaces would be provided for residential and guest parking. In total, the proposed projected would provide 423 parking spaces as illustrated in the site plan in Figure

205 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Figure 1.1 Project Location Project Location 7

206 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan 8

207 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Figure 1.3 Zoning Map 9

208 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 2 Parking Requirements 2.1 PARKING REQUIREMENT The standards for the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for multi-family and single-family residential use are located in Title 18 Section of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. These parking requirements are summarized in Table 2-1 and Table 2.2 below. Table 2-1 City of Anaheim Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirements Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces per Unit Guest Parking per Unit Studio Unit Bedroom Bedrooms or More Bedrooms 3.0 (plus 0.5 space for each bedroom over 3 bedrooms) 0.25 Note: Guest parking is designated from the minimum number of parking spaces per unit, not in addition to this number. Based on the parking requirements established in the Municipal Code, the number of off-street parking spaces required for the proposed project based is calculated in Table 2-3 below. Table 2-3 Required Parking Calculation Plan Type Multi-Family Residential - Townhome Sq. Ft. per Unit Number of Units Minimum Parking Spaces per Unit Required Spaces Plan 1 (2 Bed) 1, Plan 2 (2 Bed + Den) 1, Plan 3 (4 Bed) 1, Plan 4 (4 Bed) 1, Total Plan Type Multi-Family Residential - Duplex Sq. Ft. per Unit Number of Units Minimum Parking Spaces per Unit Required Spaces Plan 1 (3 Bed) 1, Plan 2 (4 Bed) 2, Plan 3 (4 Bed + Loft) 2, Total Grand Total

209 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Per the City of Anaheim s parking standards for multi-family and single-family residential use, the proposed project is required to provide a total of 485 parking spaces. Furthermore, of the 485 required parking spaces, 41 parking spaces shall be designated for guest parking. 2.2 PARKING SUPPLY The proposed project would provide either a 2-car or 3-car attached garage for each dwelling unit, totaling to 329 parking spaces. In addition, 94 surface parking spaces would be provided for residential and guest parking. In total, the proposed project would provide 423 parking spaces. 11

210 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 3 Similar Site Parking Counts The City of Anaheim requires a parking demand study to accompany any variance petition relating to the minimum number of parking spaces required. As a part of the parking demand study, a minimum parking ratio will be recommended for the proposed project. The recommended minimum parking ratio will be based on the typical parking demand generated at two similar for-sale residential developments in the City of Anaheim. 3.1 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SURVEY SITES In order to obtain typical parking demand generated by multi-family residential use, two for-sale residential townhome developments in Anaheim were selected for parking surveys. The survey sites were selected based on their similarities to the project site, including land use, size, and proximity. Both sites contain for-sale townhomes that include both two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The unit mix between the two-bedrooms and three-bedrooms, however, were not verifiable. Surveys were conducted on a Thursday and Saturday between 5:00 AM 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM 10:00 PM to capture the peak parking demand on a weekday and weekend Survey Site #1 The first survey site located in Anaheim, California consists of a 286-unit townhome development located on the northeast corner of Olive Street and South Street. Per the City of Anaheim s Land Use Map, the site is located within the City s Multi-Family Residential RM-3 and RM-4 zone, and consists of residential condominium and townhome uses. There are a total of 795 parking spaces provided on site, including 572 garage parking spaces (one 2-car attached garage per unit) and 223 on-street parking spaces. On-street parking spaces are open for 24-hour parking to residents and guests. The peak on-street parking demand per dwelling unit is summarized in Table 3-1. The table identifies the peak hour parking demand and peak hour occupancy rate. Table 3-1 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site #1 Time Parked Vehicles Weekday % Occupancy Parked Vehicles Weekend % Occupancy 5:00 AM % % 6:00 AM % % 7:00 AM % % 8:00 AM % % 7:00 PM % % 8:00 PM % % 9:00 PM % % 10:00 PM % % Peak 5:00 AM 7:00 PM 12

211 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Maximum weekday utilization of survey site #1 occurred at 5:00AM. At that time, 193 of the 223 onstreet parking spaces contained parked vehicles for an occupancy rate of 87%. Maximum weekend utilization of survey site #1 occurred at 7:00PM. At that time 210 of the 223 spaces contained parked vehicles for an occupancy rate of 94% Survey Site #2 The second survey site located in Anaheim, California is a combined single-family and multi-family residential development located at the northeast and southeast corners of North Magnolia Avenue and West Madison Circle. The survey site consists of a 38-unit single-family residential development and a 76-unit multi-family townhome development. Per the City of Anaheim s Land Use Map, the site is located within the City s Multi-Family Residential RM-2 zone, and consists of residential condominium and townhome uses. There are a total of 176 parking spaces provided on site, including 152 garage parking spaces (one 2-car attached garage per unit) and 24 on-street parking spaces. On-street parking spaces are open for 24-hour parking to residents and guests. The peak on-street parking demand per dwelling unit is summarized in Table 3-2. The table identifies the peak hour parking demand and peak hour occupancy rate. Table 3-2 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site #2 Time Parked Vehicles Weekday % Occupancy Parked Vehicles Weekend % Occupancy 5:00 AM 15 63% 20 83% 6:00 AM 14 58% 18 75% 7:00 AM 13 54% 17 71% 8:00 AM 13 54% 16 67% 7:00 PM 18 75% 15 63% 8:00 PM 19 79% 15 63% 9:00 PM 20 83% 13 54% 10:00 PM 18 75% 13 54% Peak 9:00 PM 5:00 AM Maximum weekday utilization of survey site #2 occurred at 9:00PM. At that time, 20 of the 24 onstreet parking spaces contained parked vehicles for an occupancy rate of 83%. Maximum weekend utilization of survey site #2 occurred at 5:00AM. At that time 20 of the 24 spaces contained parked vehicles for an occupancy rate of 83%. 13

212 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 4 Comparison to Rates in Adjacent Cities 4.1 PARKING STANDARDS IN ADJACENT CITIES For comparison, multi-family and single-family residential use parking standards were obtained from adjacent cities. These cities include Fullerton, Garden Grove, and Orange. The City of Anaheim s Municipal Code has an established minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential use, which include 2.25 spaces for two-bedroom units, 3 spaces for three-bedroom units, and 0.25 spaces per unit for guests. These rates are higher than the rates currently in place in the adjacent cities. A comparison of the required minimum parking ratio for multi-family residential land use is summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirement Comparison Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirements Number of Bedrooms Parking Anaheim Fullerton 1 Garden Grove 2 Orange 3 Guest Parking Parking Guest Parking Parking Guest Parking Parking Guest Parking 0 Bedrooms NA Bedroom NA Bedrooms NA Bedrooms NA Notes: 1. The parking standards apply to R-G, R-3R, R-3, R-3P, R-4 zones per Section E of the City of Fullerton s Municipal Code. 2. The parking standards apply to developments with 50 units or more and adjacent to any principal, major, primary or secondary arterial streets per Section of the City of Garden Grove s Municipal Code. No minimum guest parking standards are required unless the development is a mobile home park. 3. The parking standards apply to apartments, condominiums, and PUDs in Multi-Family Zone Districts per Section of the City of Orange s Municipal Code. The required minimum parking ratio for a 3-bedroom multi-family residential unit in Anaheim (including guest parking) is approximately 8% higher than in the adjacent cities of Fullerton and Garden Grove, and approximately 25% higher than the City of Orange. 14

213 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 5 Methodology of Study The proposed project is a multi-family residential development located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The project consists of 161 multi-family residential units, including 109 townhomes and 52 duplexes. The unit mix for the multifamily townhome development includes 56 two-bedroom units and 53 four-bedroom units. In addition, unit mix for the multi-family duplex development includes 19 three-bedroom units and 33 four-bedroom units. Per the City of Anaheim s Municipal Code, the minimum number of parking spaces required for this use is 485 total parking spaces. The project site provides only 423 spaces, which is 62 spaces short of the minimum parking requirement. To determine an appropriate minimum parking ratio for the proposed project, the methodology used for this study was a simplified version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual s methodology for determining parking demand generation. Two sites similar to the proposed project were identified. The sites had similar components to the proposed project, including size, land use, and proximity. Both sites contain for-sale townhomes that include both twobedroom and three-bedroom units. The unit mix between the two-bedrooms and three-bedrooms, however, were not verifiable. Parking occupancy surveys were conducted to collect data on parking demand generated by the similar sites. The parking surveys were conducted on a Thursday and Saturday during 5:00AM 8:00AM and 7:00PM 10:00PM to capture the typical weekday and weekend peak demand. A summary of the results from the parking survey is illustrated in Table 5-1. Based on the data collected from the two similar survey sites, the average peak hour parking demand per dwelling unit is 2.59 on a weekday and 2.64 on a weekend. Survey Site Total Dwelling Units Table 5-1 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand Weekday Garage Spaces Supplied Peak Hour Parking Demand (On-Street Spaces) Rate (spaces/ unit) Weekend Peak Hour Parking Demand (On-Street Spaces) Rate (spaces/ unit) Survey Site # Survey Site # Average The proposed project has reserved a total of 423 parking spaces for its 161-unit multi-family residential development, or 2.63 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4 th Edition, the typical parking demand for a residential condominium or townhome development is 1.38 spaces per dwelling unit. In addition, the typical parking demand for a singlefamily residential development is 1.83 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed project is providing parking spaces at a ratio higher than the ITE rate anticipated for multi-family residential developments. Furthermore, the proposed project is also providing parking spaces at a ratio comparable to the average peak parking demand generated by the parking surveys of two similar multi-family residential sites in Anaheim. 15

214 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 6 Findings The City of Anaheim s Municipal Code requires a parking demand study to accompany any variance petition relating to the minimum number of parking spaces required. The variance shall be granted upon finding that the evidence presented show that all of the following conditions exist: 6.1 PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS : The variance will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation. The parking variance will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for than the number of spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles under the proposed use. The proposed project would provide a total of 423 parking spaces for its 161-unit multi-family residential development. The proposed project is providing parking spaces at a ratio higher than the ITE rate anticipated for the project and comparable to the average peak parking demand generated by the two similar sites in Anaheim : The variance will not increase demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The parking variance will not increase demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project is providing parking spaces at a ratio higher than the ITE rate anticipated for the project and the average peak parking demand generated by the two similar sites in Anaheim. An overflow of parking is not anticipated to occur upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity : The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The parking variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The project is not expected to generate any additional parking demand over and above the proposed parking supply : The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use. The parking variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use. The proposed project would provide either a 2-car or 3- car garage per dwelling unit for a total of 329 off-street spaces, accessible only by residents. No queuing of vehicles is anticipated as a result of this project : The variance will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The parking variance will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The proposed project would provide two separate access driveways. Furthermore, the adjacent properties are located on exclusive lots with separate access driveways. 16

215 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study 7 Recommendations and Conclusions The proposed project is a multi-family residential development located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The project consists of 161 total units, which include 109 multi-family townhome units and 52 multi-family duplexes. The unit mix for the multi-family townhome development includes 56 two-bedroom units and 53 four-bedroom units, while the unit mix for the multi-family duplex development includes 19 three-bedroom units and 33 four-bedroom units. The City of Anaheim s Municipal Code has an established minimum parking requirement for multifamily residential land use. For a multi-family residential land use, the Municipal Code requires 2.25 spaces for two-bedroom units, 3 spaces for three-bedroom units, 0.5 spaces for each additional room exceeding three-bedrooms, and 0.25 spaces per unit for guests. These rates are higher than the rates currently in place in adjacent cities. Per the Municipal Code, the project would be required to provide a total of 485 parking spaces. The project, however, would provide 423 total parking spaces, or 62 spaces short of the total required. A parking demand study was conducted to examine the minimum parking requirements needed for the proposed project and to determine whether the project provides sufficient parking spaces to meet this demand, and if the project could be approved for a parking variance permitting a reduced number of parking spaces. The parking study results show: The average observed peak hour parking rates from two similar sites in Anaheim are 2.59 spaces per dwelling unit on a weekday and 2.64 spaces per dwelling unit on a weekend. The proposed project will provide a total of 423 parking spaces or an overall average of 2.63 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent with the average peak parking generated at both sites. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition, the typical parking demand for a residential condominium or townhome development is 1.38 spaces per dwelling unit and 1.83 spaces per dwelling unit for a single-family detached home. The proposed project will provide a parking ratio higher than the anticipated ITE rate with 2.63 spaces per dwelling unit The minimum parking requirement rates for a multi-family residential use in the City of Anaheim are higher than in the adjacent cities of Fullerton, Garden Grove, and Orange. The minimum parking requirement rate for a 3-bedroom unit in Anaheim (including guest parking) is approximately 8% higher than in the adjacent cities of Fullerton and Garden Grove and 25% higher than the required rate in the City of Orange. Parking demand is not expected to exceed the current parking supply provided by the proposed project. Parking surveys at two similar sites show that there are sufficient parking spaces to meet the proposed demand. Based on observations of the parking demand generated at similar sites, the proposed project would provide a parking ratio greater than average peak demand. A parking ratio of 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit is recommended for two-bedroom multi-family units, while a ratio of 2.75 spaces per dwelling unit is recommended for three and four-bedroom multi-family units. A comparison between the required amount of minimum parking per the City of Anaheim s Municipal Code and the recommended amount of minimum parking is illustrated in Table 7-1. The recommended minimum parking ratio is expected to provide sufficient supply to accommodate all vehicles for the anticipated land use. 17

216 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Table 7-1 Required vs Recommended Minimum Parking Comparison Multi-Family Residential - Townhome Plan Type Number of Units City of Anaheim Parking Standard Spaces per Unit Required Spaces Recommended Minimum Parking Spaces per Unit Minimum Spaces Difference 2 Bedroom Bedroom (40) TH Total (40) Multi-Family Residential - Duplex Plan Type Number of Units City of Anaheim Parking Standard Spaces per Unit Required Spaces Recommended Minimum Parking Spaces per Unit Minimum Spaces Difference 3 Bedroom (4) 4 Bedroom (25) Duplex Total Grand Total (29) (69) 18

217 La Palma Townhomes Parking Study Appendix A. WEEKDAY PARKING COUNTS SURVEY SITE #1 & 2 B. WEEKEND PARKING COUNTS SURVEY SITE #1 & 2 19

218 Date Weekday Parking Occupancy Survey S. Casita Steet, Anaheim, CA /18/14 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 1.South Olive Water Melrose Kroeger Valencia South Parking Occupancy Survey W Madison Circle, Anaheim, CA /18/14 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM Block Prepared by AimTD LLC pacific@aimtd.com Prepared by AimTD LLC pacific@aimtd.com

219 Date Weekend Parking Occupancy Survey S. Casita Steet, Anaheim, CA /13/14 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 1. South Olive Water Melrose Kroeger Valencia South Parking Occupancy Survey W Madison Circle, Anaheim, CA /13/14 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM Block Prepared by AimTD LLC pacific@aimtd.com Prepared by AimTD LLC pacific@aimtd.com

220 APPENDIX G: MITIGATION FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS

221 T = AM Project Only Volumes T = PM Project Only Volumes INTID NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL Anaheim/Carl Karcher Harbor/La Palma Existing AM Existing PM INTID NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL Anaheim/Carl Karcher , ,193 Harbor/La Palma ### , ,812 Pending & Approved Projects Vols AM Pending & Approved Projects Vols PM INTID NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL Anaheim/Carl Karcher Harbor/La Palma T E = Existing AM + Pending & Approved Projects T E = Existing PM + Pending & Approved Projects INTID NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL Anaheim/Carl Karcher , ,223 Harbor/La Palma ### , ,842 T B = 2035 GPBO NP AM T B = 2035 GPBO NP PM INTID NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL Anaheim/Carl Karcher , ,265 Harbor/La Palma ### , ,485 Existing Plus Project Anaheim Boulevard & Carl Karcher Way AM and PM peak hours AM 26% = (34) / (1,804-1,675) PM 60% = (25) / (2,265-2,223) Harbor Boulevard & La Palma Avenue PM peak hour PM 9% = (59) / (5,485-4,842)