Loading...
PC 2012/04/23 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, April 23 , 2012 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Peter Agarwal • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Victoria Ramirez • Commissioners: Paul Bostwick, Stephen Faessel, Michelle Lieberman, Harry Persaud, John Seymour • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, April 19, 2012, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 04/23/12 Page 2 of 8 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 04/23/12 Page 3 of 8 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3798A (DEV2012-00018) Location: 721 S. Weir Canyon Road, Suites 123-125 The applicant requests to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit to expand an existing restaurant and upgrade a Type 41 (beer and wine) Alcoholic Beverage Control license to a Type 47 license allowing full alcoholic beverage sales for on-premises consumption. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05593 (DEV2012-00008) Location: 1345 North Dynamics Street, Unit B The applicant requests to permit a church in an industrial building. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net 04/23/12 Page 4 of 8 ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843D AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04893 - DEV2011-00109) Location: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue The applicant requests to expand an existing automotive repair shop in order to add a new service bay, storage area and permit the sales of automobiles with a landscape setback less than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 VARIANCE NO. 2011-04878 (DEV2011-00127) Location: 5701-5799 East La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to construct a freestanding shopping center identification sign with a size that is larger than permitted by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net 04/23/12 Page 5 of 8 ITEM NO. 6 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2012-00105 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2010-05492 MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2012-00535 (DEV2010-00043A) Location: 2626 East Katella Avenue The applicant proposes an amendment to Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the approval of signs in conjunction with a transit facility, including off-site advertising, as part of a coordinated sign program; amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to revise the Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections for Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue and Katella Avenue, east of State Route 57; and, a conditional use permit for an approximate 68,000-square foot transit facility, referred to as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), with approximately 12,075 square feet allocated to commercial tenant space, which may include restaurants with on-site alcohol sales, and approximately 960 square feet allocated to indoor and outdoor retail kiosks. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 2010-00343 (Previously-Certified) and Addendum. Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Susan Kim skim@anaheim.net 04/23/12 Page 6 of 8 ITEM NO. 7 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486 (CUP-2010-05486B) (DEV2009-00083) Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard The applicant requests to amend a conditional use permit for an existing dinner theatre to allow additional entertainment and community assembly uses, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption, including: concerts; public dances; private parties, meetings and banquets; religious services; and spectator events. Environmental Determination: Previously Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Jonathan Borrego jborrego@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. 04/23/12 Page 7 of 8 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. April 18, 2012_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada. 04/23/12 Page 8 of 8 S C H E D U L E 2012 May 7 May 21 June 4 June 18 July 2 July 16 July 30 August 13 August 27 September 10 September 24 October 8 October 22 November 5 November 19 December 3 December 17 December 31 SP 88-1 (SC )R ETAILSP 88-1 (SC)OPENSPACEPUMPING STATION SP 88-1 (SC)DA4SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SP 88-1 (SC) OPENSPACE OPEN SPACE SP 88-1 (SC)DA7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SP 88-1 (SC)DA4OPEN SPACE SP 88-1 (SC)DA4SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SP 88-1 (SC)DA4SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SP 88-1 (SC)DA3SYCAMORE CANYON APARTMENTS450 DUSP 88-1 (SC)DA1CO NDO M INIUM S/TO W NHO USESS P 88-1 (S C )D A 1C O N D O M IN IU M S /TO W N H O U S E S S WEIR CANYON RD E SERRANO AVEE CANYON CREEK RD S WILDFLOWER LNE OAK RIDGE CIRS G LE N H U RST D R S MI N T L N S B U T T E R C U P L NE GOLDENROD LNS H O L L Y D A L E L N E S N A P D R A G O N L N O A K R I D G E C I R E PERIW INKLE LNE . S A N T A AN A C A N Y O N R D S. WEIR CANYO N RDE . O AK C A N Y O N DR 721 S o uth W e i r C a ny o n R o a d D E V N o. 2 0 1 2 -0 00 1 8 Subject Property APN: 354-201-22354-201-21 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P ho to:May 2 011 S WEIR CANYON RD E SERRANO AVEE CANYON CREEK RD E CANYON VISTA DRS ORCHID LNE OAK RIDGE CIRS G LE N H U RST D R S MI N T L N S B U T T E R C U P L NE GOLDENROD LNS H O L L Y D A L E L N E S N A P D R A G O N L N E T R E E P A R K L N O A K R I D G E C I R E PERIW INKLE LNE . S A N T A AN A C A N Y O N R D S. WEIR CANYO N RDE . O AK C A N Y O N DR 721 S o uth W e i r C a ny o n R o a d D E V N o. 2 0 1 2 -0 00 1 8 Subject Property APN: 354-201-22354-201-21 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P ho to:May 2 011 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3798, AND AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. ZA95-28 (DEV2012-00018) (721 SOUTH WEIR CANYON ROAD, SUITES 123-125) WHEREAS, on October 12, 1995, the Anaheim Zoning Administrator, by Resolution No. ZA95-28, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3798 to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in an existing restaurant; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 1998, the Anaheim Zoning Administrator, by Resolution No. ZA98-30, did approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3798 to permit a 900 square foot expansion to the existing 1,209 square foot restaurant with the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3798 to further expand an existing restaurant and upgrade a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 47 (On-Sale General) ABC license, which would allow the full sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, for that certain real property located at 721 South Weir Canyon Road, Suites 123-125 in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the subject property is developed with a neighborhood shopping center and is located in the SP 88-1, Development Area 2 (SC) (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan, Commercial Area, Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Center land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 23, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for an amendment to the conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: - 2 - PC2012-*** 1. The request to amend the permit for an existing restaurant is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.08.030.010 (Alcoholic Beverage Sales - On Sale) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The operation of the restaurant, including the proposed expansion, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located, as conditioned herein. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety as the operation of the restaurant is consistent with the operational characteristics of the shopping center. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the use is a bonafide full service restaurant with accessory alcoholic beverage sales and the restaurant is located within an existing commercial building at the intersection of two arterial highways. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3798 as described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend and restate the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3798, to read as stated in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which conditions are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. - 3 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this permit is approved without limitations on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as expressly amended herein, the provisions of Resolution Nos. ZA95-28 and ZA98-30, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3798, shall remain if full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** - 6 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3798 (DEV2012-00018) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 1 Subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos.1 (Site Plan) and 2 (Floor Plan), and as conditioned herein. Planning GENERAL 2 At all times when the premises is open for business, the premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Planning 3 Subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. Police 4 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police 5 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. Code Enforcement 6 Trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Public Works, Planning 7 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of Police - 7 - PC2012-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Said lighting shall be decorative and complementary to the architecture of the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 8 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police 9 There shall be no entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted on the premises at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police 10 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police 11 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. Police ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DECISIONNOZA9528ADECISIONOFTHEZONINGADMINISTRATORAPPROVINGCONDITIONALUSEPERMITNO3798OWNERWeirPartnersLtd2910RedhIIIAvenue210CostaMesaCA92626AGENTJosephDCarroll2910RedhillAvenue210CostaMesaCA92626LOCATION721SouthWeirCanyonRoadSuite12CEQASTATUSNegativeDeclarationHEARINGDATEOctober121995OPPOSITIONNooneindicatedtheirpresenceatthepublichearinginoppositionandnocorrespondenceinoppositionwasreceivedREQUESTPetitionerrequestsapprovalofaconditionalusepermitunderauthorityofCodeSections1812050010and1844050010topermitsonpremiseconsumptionofbeerandwineinconjunctionwithanexistingrestaurantHavingbeenappointedZoningAdministratorbythePlanningDirectortodecidetheabovereferencedpetitionpursuanttoAnaheimMunicipalCodeSection1812020andapublichearinghavingbeendulynoticedforandheldonthedatesetforthaboveIdoherebyfindpursuanttotheSections1802030030through1S02030035oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode1ThattheproposeduseisproperlyoneforwhichaconditionalusepermitisauthorizedbytheZoningCode2Thattheproposedusewlnotadverselyaffecttheadjoininglandusesandthegrowthanddevelopmentoftheareainwhichitisproposedtobelocated3Thatthesizeandshapeofthesitefortheproposeduseisadequatetoallowthefulldevelopmentoftheproposeduseinamannernotdetrimentaltotheparticularareanortothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfare4Thatthetrafficgeneratedbytheproposedusewillnotimposeanundueburdenuponthestreetsandhighwaysdesignedandimprovedtocarrythetrafficintheareaand5ThatthegrantingofthisconditionalusepermitundertheconditionsimposedwlncrbedetrimentaltothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfareofthecitizensoftheCityofAnaheimCALIFORNIAENVRNMENTALtIALITYArF1NDINThattheZoningAdministratorhasreviewedtheproposaltopermitonpremisesconsumptionofbeerandwineinconjunctionwithanexLngrestaurantonanirregularlyshapedparceloflandconsistingofapproximately119acreslocatedatthesouthwestcomerofWeirCanyonRoadandSermnoAvenuehavingapproximatefrontagesof700feetonthesouthwestsideofWeirCanyonRoadand324feetonthewestsideofSermnoAvenueanddoesherebyapprovetheNegativeDeclarationuponfindingthatshehasconsideredtheNegativeDeclarationtogetherwithanyzac3798wp1of3ZA9528 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 commentsreceivedduringthepublicreviewprocessandfurtherfindingonthebasisoftheInitialstudyandanycommentsreceivedthatthereisnosubstantialevidencethattheprojectwillhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironmentundertheStateofCallfomlaEnvironmentalQualityActGuidelinesBasedontheevidenceandtestimonypresentedtomeIdoherebydeterminetoapproveConditionalUsePermitNo3798subjecttothefollowingconditions1ThatthebusinessshallbeoperatedasabonafidepubliceatingplaceasdefinedbySection23038oftheCalifomiaBusinessandProfessionsCode2ThatthereshallbenobarorloungemaintainedonthelicensedpremisesunlesslicensedbytheAlcoholBeverageControlandapprovedbytheCityofAnaheim3Thatfoodservicewithfullmealsshallbeavagablefromopeningtimeuntileither1000PMorclosingtimewhicheveroccursfirstoneachdayofoperation4Thatthereshallbenopodtablesorcoinoperatedgamesmaintaineduponthepremisesatanytime5ThatthesubjectalcoholicbeveragelicenseshallnotbeexchangedforapublicpremisesbartypelicensenorshalltheestablishmentbeoperatedasapublicpremisesasdefinedinSection23039oftheCaliforniaBusinessandProfessionCode6Thatthegrosssalesofalcoholicbeveragesshallnotexceedthegrosssalesofallrisalesduringanythree3monthperiodTheapplicantshallmainrecordsonaquarterlybasisshowingtheseparateamountsofsalesofalcoholicbeveragesandotheritemsTheserecordsshallbemadeavaableforinspectionbyanyCityofAnaheimofficialwhenrequested7ThereshaJlbenoliveentertainmentamplifiedmusicordancingpermittedonthepremisesatanytimewithoutissuanceofproperpermitsasrequiredbytheAnaheimMunicipalCode8Thatthesaleofbeerandorwineforconsumptionoffthepremisshallbeprohibited9Thatthereshallbenoexterioradvertisingofanykinortypeindudlgadvertisingdirectedtotheexteriorfrominsidepromotingorindicatingtheavaabilityofalcoholicbeverages10Thatthesalesserviceandconsumptionofbeerandwineshallbepermittedonlybetweenthehoursof1000amand1100pmdavy11ThattheparkinglotservingthepremisesshallbeequippedwithlightingofsufficientpowertoluminateandmakeeasydiscernibletheappearanceandconductofallpersonsonorabouttheparkingIoLSaidlightingshallbedirectedpositionedandshieldedinsuchamannersoasnottounreasonablyluminatethewindowsofnearbyresidences12Thattheportionofthepermitregardingthesalesofbeerandwineshallexpireone1yearfromthedateofthisdecisionunlessavalidlicensehasbeenissuedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholicBeverageControlSection1803070AnaheimMunicipalCode13ThatsubjectpropertyshallbedevelopedsubstantiallyinaccordancewiththeplanssubmittedtotheCityofAnaheimbythepetitionerandwhichplansareonfilewiththePlanningDepartmentmarkedExhibitNosIand2zac3798wp2of3ZA9528 14Thatpriortocommencementoftheactivityauthorizedbyhisdacislonorwithinaperiodofone1yearfromthedateofthisdecJonwhicheveroccursfirstConditionNos11and13abovementionedshaJlbecompiledwithExtenonsforfuhertimetocompletesaidcondlUonsmaybegrantedInaccordancewithSectJon1803090oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode15ThatapprovaJofthisappilcetJonconstitutesapprovaloftheproposedrequestonlytotheextentthatitcomplisswiththeAnaheimMunicipalZoningCodendanyotherappilcableCityStateandFederaJregulationsAporovaldoesnotInciudeanyactionorfindingsastocomplianceorapprovaloftherequestregardinganyotherappiicableordinanceregulationorrequlmmenLThisdecisionismedesgnedandenteredIntothefilethis19thdayofOctober1995AnhlkaMSantalantlZoningAdminorNOTICEThisdecisionshallbecomefinalunlanappeaJtotheCAyCouncilinwrffingaccompaniedbyanappealfeeisfgedwiththeCityCerkwPhln15daysofthedateofthesigningofthisdecisionorunlmembersoftheCityCouncshallrequesttoreviewthisdecisionwithinsaid15dayDECLARATIONOFSERV1CEBYMAILIdoherebydeclareunderpenaltyofperjurythatonthedatesetforthbelowIdiddepositintheUnitedStatesMaacopyofthedecisiontotheapplicantanddidforwardacopytotheCityClerkSrOfficeSpecialistzac3798wp3of3ZA9528 OECISIONNOZA9830ADECISIONOFTHEZONINGADMINISTRATORAMENDINGDECISIONNOZA9528ADOPTEDINCONNECTIONWITHCONDITIONALUSEPERMITNO3798OWNERWeirPartnersLTDIParkPlazaSte430IrvineCA92614AGENTJosephDCarrollIParkPlazaSteu30IrvineCA92614LOCATION721SouthWeirCanyonRoacosinesRestaurantCEQASTATUSCEQANegativeDeclarationpreviouslyapprovedHEARINGDATEOctober221998OPPOSITIONNooneindicatedtheirpresenceatthepublichearinginoppositiontotheproposalandnocorrespondenceinoppositionwasreceivedREQUESTPetitionerrequestsanamendmenttothisconditionalusepermitunderauthorityofCodeSections18030911812050010and1844050010topermita900sqffexpansiontoanexisting1209sqftfullservicerestaurantwithonpremisessaleandconsumptionofbeerandwineHavingbeenappointedZoningAdministratorbythePlanningDirectortodecidetheabovereferencedpetitionpursuanttoAnaheimMunicipalCodeSection1812020andapublicheadnghavingbeendulynoticedforandheldonthedatesetforthaboveIdoherebyfindpursuanttotheSections1802030030through1802030035oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode1ThatthisConditionalUsePermitNo3798wasoriginallyapprovedonOctober191995underDecisionNoZA9528topermitonpremisessaleandconsumptionofbeerandwineinconjunctionwithanexistingrestaurantat721SouthWeirCanyonRoadSuite125andthatConditionNo13ofsaidDecisionspecifiesthatthepropertybedevelopedinaccordancewithExhibitNosIand2whichshowsa1209sqftrestaurant2ThattheapplicanthassubmittedrevisedplanslabeledRevisionNo1ofExhibitNosIand2showingtheproposedexpandedrestaurantwilltota2109sqft3ThattheproposalisaconditionallypermitteduseintheCLSCCommercialLimitedScenicCorridorOvedayZoneandthatthesurroundingshoppingcenterislargeenoughtosupporttherestaurantinclucingtheonpremisessaleandconsumptionofalcoholicbeverageswithoutadverselyimpactingadjacentpropertiesorthesurroundingneighborhood4ThatthePoliceDepartmentdoesnotobjecttothisproposalbecauseitisanexpansionofanexistinguseandanadditionalAlcoholicBeverageControlABClicenseisnotbeingproposedinthisreportingdistrictandthereforeanoverconcentrationofABClicenseeinthereportingdistdctisnotcreated5ThattheretailsaleofbeerandwineforonpremisesconsumptioninconjunctionwithanexpandedrestaurantasconditionedwillnotbedetrimentaltothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfareofthecitizensoftheCityofAnaheimcup3798doc1of2ZA9J30 6Thattheproposedexpansionwillnotacverselyaffecttheadjoininglandusesandthegrowthanddevelopmentoftheareainwhichitislocated7Thatthesizeandshapeofthesitefortheproposedexpansionisadequatetoallowfulldevelopmentoftheproposedinamannernotdetrimentaltotheparticularareanortothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfare8Thatthetrafficgeneratedbytheproposedexpnsionwillnotimposeanundueburdenuponthestreetsandhighwaysdesignedandimprovedtocarrythetrafficinthearea9ThatamendingthisconditionalusepermitundertheconditionsimposedwillnotbedetrimentaltothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfareofthecitizensoftheCityofAnaheim10ThattheproposedamendmentisreasonablynecessarytopermitoperationundertheCOnditionalusepermitasoriginallygranted11ThatthepreviouslyapprovedCEQANegativeDeclarationservesastherequiredenvironmentaldocumentationfortheproposeduseandthereforenofurtheractionregardingCEQAisneededBasedontheevidenceandtestimonypresentedtomeIdoherebydeterminetoapprovetherequestandamendDecisionNoZA9528adoptedinconnectionwithConditionalUsePermitNo3798asfollowsaToexpandanexisting1209sqfffullservicemaurantwithonpremisessaleandconsumptionofbeerandwineto2109sqftandbToamendConditionNo13toread13ThatsubjectpropertyshallbedevelopedsubstantiallyaccordancewiththeplanssubmittedtotheCityofAnaheimbythepetitionerandwhichplansareonfilewiththePlanningDepartmentmarkedRevisionNo1ofExhibitsNos1and2Thisdecisionismadesignedandenteredintothefilethis27thdayofOctober1998AnnikaMSantalahfiZoningAdninistratorNOTICEThisdecisionshallbecomefinalunlessanappealtotheCityCouncilinwritingaccomlaniedbyanappealfeeisfiledwiththeCityClerkwithin15dayofthedateofthesigningofthisdecisionorunlessmembersoftheCityCouncilshallrequesttoreviewthisdecisionwithinsaid15daysDECLARATIONOFSERVICEBYMAILIdoherebydeclareunderpenaltyofperjurythatonthedatesetforthbelowIdiddepositintheUnitedStatesMailacopyofthedecisiontotheapplicantanddidforwardacopytotheCityClerkDATEOctober271998PatriciaKoralWordProssingOperatorcup3798doc2of2ZA9830 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. S P 9 4 -1 IN D U S T R IA L SP 94-1DA1RESTAURANT S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 R E T A IL SP 94-1DA1SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 R E S E R V O IR S P 9 4 -1 D A 6 R E S E R V O IR S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 IN D U S T R IA L S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 Z U M A B U S IN E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 IN D U S T R IA L S P 9 4 -1 D A 2 P A N A T T O N IA N A H E IM C O N C O U R S EE M IR A LO M A A V E N MI L L ER STN DYNAMI CS STE . M IR A L O M A A V E E . L A P A L M A A V E E . O R ANGETHORPE AVE N. TUS TIN AVEN. MI LLER STN. KRAEMER BLVDE. CROWTHER AVE 134 5 N o r t h D yn a m i c s S tr ee t D E V N o. 2 0 1 2 -0 00 0 8 Subject Property APN: 345-061-14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P ho to:May 2 011 E M IR A LO M A A V E N MI L L ER STN DYNAMI CS STE . M IR A L O M A A V E E . L A P A L M A A V E E . O R ANGETHORPE AVE N. TUS TIN AVEN. MI LLER STN. KRAEMER BLVDE. CROWTHER AVE 134 5 N o r t h D yn a m i c s S tr ee t D E V N o. 2 0 1 2 -0 00 0 8 Subject Property APN: 345-061-14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P ho to:May 2 011 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05593 (DEV2012-00008) (1345 NORTH DYNAMICS STREET, UNIT B) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2012- 05593, to permit a religious and community assembly facility pursuant to Section 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for that certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more partiularly shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with an industrial complex, located in the SP94-1 (DA 1) (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area 1) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Industrial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 23, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed church is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.120.050.050.0512. 2. The proposed church will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because church services will be limited to the days and hours when most businesses in the center are closed; 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the church is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the church will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area and because use of this facility will be off-peak from the parking demand of other uses in the center; - 2 - PC2012-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a variance, does find and determine the following facts: WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05593 to permit a church. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05593 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2012-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** - 5 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05593 (DEV2012-00008) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS 1 No outdoor uses and/or assembly or outdoor storage shall occur on the property. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 2 Church services shall be permitted after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and any time on weekends. Incidental church office uses are not subject to this restriction. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 3 No portable signage shall be utilized to advertise the church. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 4 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 5 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance and removal of trash or debris. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24-hours of being applied. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division GENERAL 6 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plans), and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. RM-2CONDOS12 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4LINCOLN COURTAPARTMENTS32 DU RM-4FAIRWAY VILLAGEAPARTMENTS145 DU C-GLINCOLNRV PARK C-GVALENCIA INN C-GRETAIL RM-4VILLA PACIFICAAPARTMENTS40 DURM-4LINCOLN PARKAPARTMENTS63 DU RM-4LINCOLN PINESAPARTMENTS34 DU O.C.F.C.D. RM-2CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE95 DU RM-4PALM WESTAPARTMENTS18 DU RM-4CONDOMINIUMS64 DU RM-4VILLA SERRANOAPARTMENTS117 DU RM-4CASA SERENAAPARTMENTS140 DU C-GMEDICALOFFICE TCRESTMOTEL RM-4AGATE MANORAPARTMENTS18 DU RM-4SAN MARCUS56 DU O.C.F.C.D. RM-4CHATEAU LOIREAPARTMENTS72 DU RM-4CANTAMARAPARTMENTS24 DU C-GAUTO REPAIR/SERVICEC-GRETAIL TSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4MAGNOLIAAPARTMENTS26 DU RM-4WINDSONGAPARTMENTS24 DU C-GRETAIL C-GRETAIL C-GRETAIL W LI NCO L N AV E S MAGNOLIA AVEN MAGNOLIA AVEW LINCOLN AVEN NEW LIFE WAYW. LINCOLN AVE W. BRO ADWAY W. CRESCENT AVE W. ORANGE AVES. DALE AVEN. DALE AVEN. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STN. BROOKHURST ST. CRESCENT AVE S. BEACH BLVDW. LINCOLN AVE 2 6 0 0 Wes t Linc oln Avenue D E V N o. 2011-00109 Subject Property APN: 126-032-09 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 W LI NC O L N AV E S MAGNOLIA AVEN MAGNOLIA AVEW LINCOLN AVEN NEW LIFE WAYN N EW LIFE WAY W. LINCOLN AVE W. BROADWAY W. CRESCENT AVE W. ORANGE AVES. DALE AVEN. DALE AVEN. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STN. BROOKHURST ST. CRESCENT AVE S. BEACH BLVDW. LINCOLN AVE 2 6 0 0 W e s t L i n co l n A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 0 9 Subject Property APN: 126-032-09 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843, AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC96-55, AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2012-04893 (DEV2011-00109) (2600 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, on June 10, 1996 the Anaheim City Planning Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. PC96-55, granted Conditional Use Permit 3843 to permit a used automobile sales and automotive repair facility with retail sales and installation of accessory automobile parts in a former service station located in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Condition No. 2 of said resolution specified that the use was approved for a period of one (1) year to expire on June 10, 1997; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 1997, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC97-158, did amend Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 96-55 to permit the use for an additional year to expire on June 10, 1998; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1998, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC98-106, did reinstate said Conditional Use Permit, and amended the conditions of approval, including Condition No. 2, to specify that the use would expire on June 10, 1999; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 1999, the Planning Commission, did by its Resolution No. PC99-27, deny a proposed amendment to said Conditional Use Permit to allow two separate businesses within one existing automobile sales and repair facility; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999 the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. PC99-89, did reinstate said Conditional Use Permit, and amended the conditions of approval, including Condition No. 2, to specify that the use would expire on June 19, 2003; WHEREAS, on June 30, 2003 the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2003-95, did reinstate said Conditional Use Permit, and amended the conditions of approval, including Condition No. 2, to specify that the use would expire on June, 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2008 the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2008-96, did reinstate said Conditional Use Permit, and amended the conditions of approval to delete Condition No. 2 pertaining to a time limitation to retain the automobile sales and automotive repair facility with retail sales and installation of accessory automobile parts and - 2 - PC2012-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 (designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 3843D") to expand an existing automotive repair facility to add a new service bay, storage area, accessory sales of parts, and permit the sale of automobiles; and approve Variance No. 2012-04893 to allow a landscape setback less than required by code: SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010 Minimum Landscape Setback: (10 feet required; 0 feet proposed) WHEREAS, this property is developed with commercial building located in the Commercial General (CG) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 23, 2012 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment to conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed expansion an existing automotive repair facility in order to add a new service bay, storage area with accessory sales of parts and permit the sales of automobiles with a landscape setback less than required by code is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Section 18.08.030.040.0402 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The proposed expansion an existing automotive repair facility in order to add a new service bay, storage area with a landscape setback less than required by code will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because this facility has been in this location since 1996, with minimal impacts to the surrounding community; 3. The size and shape of the site proposed expansion for an existing automotive repair facility is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the expansion an existing automotive repair facility will not increase or impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area; 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will improve the aesthetics of the areas and continue to provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. - 3 - PC2012-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the requested variance to allow a landscape setback less than required by code should be approved for the following reasons: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. The configuration of this property restricts the ability to expand and enclose the use and eliminate the outdoor visibility of the automotive use which is desirable because of the proximity of the residential use to the south. Further, because the facility abuts an existing driveway adjacent to the residential use, expansion opportunity is restricted; 2. That, because of the proximity of the driveway adjacent to the residential use configuration, site size and surroundings, strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 (CUP3843D) to permit the expansion of an existing automotive repair facility to add a new service bay, storage area, accessory sales of parts and permit the sale of automobiles with a landscape setback less than required by code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Planning Commission Resolution No. PC96-55, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3843, as previously amended, to read as stated in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as expressly amended herein, the provisions of Resolution No. PC2008-96, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3843, as previously approved, shall remain if full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. - 4 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 6 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843D) AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04893 (DEV2011-00109) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 A maximum of four automobile available for sale may be displayed at any one time. Code Enforcement 2 That ongoing during project operation, no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 3 No outdoor storage display or work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be permitted. All work on vehicles shall be conducted wholly inside the building. Code Enforcement 4 The property owner shall pay the cost of two Code Enforcement inspections, to be conducted on an unannounced basis, to ensure on-going compliance with local regulations and provisions of this permit. Code Enforcement 5 Trees planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. Code Enforcement 6 Any on-site graffiti shall be removed within 24-hours. Code Enforcement 7 Landscape planters shall be maintained with minimum 15 gallon sized trees, equaling a minimum of one tree for every 20 linear feet of street frontage along the Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue property lines. In addition, the planter along the south property line adjacent to the driveway shall be maintained with shrubs, ground cover and vines trailed to climb the south facing wall and building elevation. 8 Clinging vines shall be planted in the landscape planter adjacent to the east elevation of the building and trailed to climb the south elevation wall. Code Enforcement 9 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan). Exhibit No. 2 (Elevations) Exhibit No.3 (Floor Plan), Exhibit No. 4 (Landscape Plan) as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Metro A&E 2215 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90006 213/505-2943 metroae@yahoo.com NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION E L E V A T O N S I 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G (SC)RETAIL C-G (SC)VACANT C-G (SC)NURSERYC-G (SC)BEST WESTERNANAHEIM HIL LS SP 9 4-1 (SC)DA5RETAIL C-G (SC)CAR WASH SP 9 4-1 (SC)DA5SERVICE STATION SP 9 4-1 (SC)DA5BANK C-G (SC)RESTAURANT T (MHP)FRIENDLY VILLAGE MOBILE HOMEPARK347 DU RM-4 (SC)CANYON VILLAGEAPARTMENTS198 DU SP 9 4-1 (SC)DA5RETAIL E LA PALMA AVEN IMPERIAL HWYN CHRISDEN STELSA DRGAYLE LNBETTY DR NADINE DR FLORENCE DR ANEAS DR E. LA PALMA AVE N. IMPERIAL H WYE . S A N T A A N A CANYON RDE. ORANGETHORPE AVE E. S A N TA A N A C A N Y O N R D 5 7 6 1 E a s t L a P a lm a Av e n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 2 7 Subject Property APN: 349-381-19349-381-12349-381-20349-381-14349-381-15349-381-17349-381-10349-381-11 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 E LA PALMA AVEN IMPERIAL HWYN CHRISDEN STELSA DRGAYLE LNBETTY DR NADINE DR FLORENCE DR ANEAS DR E. LA PALMA AVE N. IMPERIAL H WYE . S A N T A A N A CANYON RDE. ORANGETHORPE AVE E. S A N TA A N A C A N Y O N R D 5 7 6 1 E a s t L a P a lm a Av e n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 2 7 Subject Property APN: 349-381-19349-381-12349-381-20349-381-14349-381-15349-381-17349-381-10349-381-11 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2011-04878 (DEV2011-00127) (5701-5799 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Variance for that certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the petitioner requests a variance to construct a new freestanding sign with a size that is greater than permitted by code in the CG (SC) (General Commercial - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 23, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the applicant requests a variance to construct a new freestanding sign with a size that is greater than permitted by code: SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020.0201 Maximum Height of Freestanding Sign (8 feet permitted; 23 feet proposed) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020.0201 Maximum Size of Freestanding Sign (60 square feet permitted; 81 feet proposed) 2. The requested variance is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to the property because of the lack of visibility of the property due to the increased grade of Imperial Highway. - 2 - PC2012-*** 3. Strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity because another variance was approved for a commercial retail center across Imperial Highway from the subject property for a freestanding sign due to the lack of visibility from Imperial Highway. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2011-04878 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Variance is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2012-*** - 4 - PC2012-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2011-04878 (DEV2011-00127) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Site Plan and Sign Plan) as conditioned herein. Planning Division 2 The applicant shall install the sign outside the existing Storm Drain easement area and avoid causing any damage to the 72-inchstorm drain line located in the vicinity of the proposed sign. Public Works, Development Services Division ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. SP (PTMU)MAINTENANCE DIVISIONO.C.F.C.D. IKatellaAYRES HOTEL I (PTMU)KatellaARENA PLAZA SP (PTMU)VACANT IKatellaSPORTS GALLERYCOMMERCENTER57 FREEWAY57 FREEWAYE KATELLA AVE S DOUGLASS RDE . KATELLA A VE E. CERRITOS AVE S. STATE COLLEGE BLVDE. ORANGEWOOD AVE S. SUNKIST ST2 6 2 6 Ea st Katella Ave D E V N o. 2010-00043A Subject Property APN: 232-072-03 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 E KATELLA AVE S DOUGLASS RDE . KATELLA A VE E. CERRITOS AVE S. STATE COLLEGE BLVDE. ORANGEWOOD AVE S. SUNKIST ST2 6 2 6 Ea st Katella Ave D E V N o. 2010-00043A Subject Property APN: 232-072-03 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.14.130 OF CHAPTER 18.14 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 18.14.130 of Chapter 18.14 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows: “18.14.130 SIGNS. .010 Within the "T" Zone, all freestanding and monument signs for uses that are conditionally permitted may also be reviewed by conditional use permit to ensure that such signs shall not exceed the sign standards applicable to adjacent and nearby zones. Wall signs for non- residential uses shall be permitted as set forth in Section 18.44.110 (Wall Signs and Other Types of Signs). All other signs in the "T" Zone shall be in compliance with sign requirements set forth in Chapter 18.44 (Signs). .020 Within the “OS,” “PR” and “SP” Zones signs shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.44 (Signs), except as provided below: .030 Signs in conjunction with a transit facility are permitted subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and may include off-site advertising as defined by Chapter 18.44 (Signs). Approval of signs shall be based upon the following findings: .0301 Signs shall be a part of a coordinated sign program; .0302 Signs shall complement the architecture of the transit facility and provide a unifying element along the streetscape; and .0303 The size, scale and style of signs shall be internally consistent and consistent with the scale of the transit facility and the surrounding land uses.” SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance of the Code, hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2 SECTION 3. SAVINGS CLAUSE Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments. SECTION 4. PENALTY Except as may otherwise be expressly provided, any person who violates any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished in the manner provided in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2012, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2012, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY O F ANAHEIM By: ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: ______________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2010-00343 AND ADDENDUM ARE THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05492 (DEV2010-00043A) (2626 EAST KATELLA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05492, as described below; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to permit a transit facility (the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center); and WHEREAS, the subject property is developed with industrial uses and is located in the Semi Public (SP) Zone and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Mixed-Use land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 23, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment to conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed request to permit a transit facility is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.14.030.040.0402 (Transit Facilities). 2. The proposed conditional use permit, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the transit facility would be a relocation of an existing transit facility located approximately one quarter mile away, in a larger facility with more parking and services than the existing station, and said transit facility would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety. - 2 - PC2012-*** 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the proposed project includes street improvements to adequately serve the traffic generated by the transit facility. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit and the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area through conditions of approval for the use and is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a transit facility and does recommend that the City Council, based on its independent review of Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 343 and Addendum prepared in connection with the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center, and the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), unless additional or contrary information is received during the public meeting, find and determine that Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 343 and Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for said proposed Conditional Use Permit and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed Conditional Use Permit. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove specified does hereby recommend City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05492 to permit a transit facility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the - 3 - PC2012-*** issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** - 5 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05492 (DEV2010-00043A) Includes Mitigation Measures from Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2010-00343 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS 1. City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort with Caltrans to develop a study to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and state funding sources necessary to implement feasible traffic improvements to state facilities as identified in the EIR. The study shall include fair share contributions related to private and/or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) and 14 CCR section 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize the state wide and regional contributions to impact state facilities that are not attributable to local development such that local private and public development are not paying in excess of such developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study shall be compliant with Government Code section 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for the implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent Caltrans and other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program. Public Works Traffic and Transportation Division 2. The EIR concluded that a number of identified state facilities will operate at deficient levels of service with the Project at the 2013 and 2030 timelines. The Project’s contributions to traffic in these facilities will contribute to cumulative congestion on these identified state facilities. Improvements to these facilities would mitigate the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit the City shall transfer the agreed to amount into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and hold the amount in trust and apply such amount following the implementation of any traffic fee program. Public Works Traffic and Transportation Division 3. The sequencing of grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. Excavation of the soil for the Public Works Development Services Division - 6 - PC2012-*** Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. 4. An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. Exporting of soil during excavation shall be limited to 25 on-road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. Public Works Development Services Division 5. The City will verify that the project WQMP which meets the requirements of the DAMP is complete. Public Works Development Services Division 6. A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works Department, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The archaeologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the City for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any archaeological work at ARTIC shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the observer can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. Public Works Development Services Division 7. A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works Department, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions Public Works Development Services Division - 7 - PC2012-*** in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS/FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF EXCAVATING INTERMODAL TERMINAL AND DOUGLASS ROAD UNDER THE BRIDGE 8. Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements. Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. Public Works Development Services Division PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST/ NO MORE THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND VEGETATION CLEARING 9. A letter shall be submitted to the Public Works Department attesting that no more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding and nesting bird survey within ARTIC construction footprint and within a 500-foot buffer around the site. The purpose of the survey is to ensure that no active nests are located within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting season for raptors begins February 15 and the traditional breeding season for native and migratory birds begins March 15. If clearing starts after October and before the nesting season, there is no need for nesting bird surveys. If an active nest is detected, a suitable buffer around the nest shall be established dependent on the type of species detected and location of the nest as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the requirements of the CDFG Code. The nest avoidance area shall be flagged and shall be avoided until after the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Documentation showing that this mitigation measure has been completed shall be sent to the City by the contractor. This documentation shall include a description of the survey results and whether any subsequent actions were required prior to commencement of demolition and Public Works Development Services Division Planning Department Building Division - 8 - PC2012-*** vegetation clearing. The CDFG may authorize the relocation of the nest but consultation is required to ensure that no direct or indirect impacts result from this action and compliance with the MBTA and CDFG Codes. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF EACH BUILDING AND GRADING PERMIT, AS APPLICABLE/ONGOING DURING CONSTRUCTION 10. Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. Public Works Development Services Division Planning Department Building Division 11. Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans. Planning Department Building Division 12. In areas that have been identified as potential soil contaminated, appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an off-site facility. Public Works Development Services Division PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 13. That if new on-site water facilities are required, those facilities shall be private and separate water services/systems for fire protection and domestic water shall be installed. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 14. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully-screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before submittal for Building Permits. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 15. That all requests for new water services or file lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 16. If the project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 18.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 9 - PC2012-*** and Ordinance No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Division 17. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 18. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water engineering Division) and Easement twenty (20) feet in width for large meters and other public water facilities. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 19. That prior to applying for water meters, fire lines or submitting the water improvement plans for approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 20. That all recycled water piping, fittings and meters and appurtenances shall be purple and marked per the requirements of the City of Anaheim Recycled Water Users’ Guide. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 21. That the Owner/Developer shall submit an Engineering Report to Water Engineering and obtain a Recycled Water Use Permit from the City of Anaheim per the requirements of the City of Anaheim Recycled Water Users’ Guide for the use of recycled water in Dual Plumbed Facility. The Engineering Report must be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim, the State of California and the County of Orange prior to rendering recycled water use. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 22. The City shall transmit the project’s applicable traffic impact fee into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and pay for the Project’s fair share of City improvements related to ARTIC. The City shall ensure that such improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at that point in time necessary to avoid identified significant impacts on traffic. Public Works Traffic and Transportation Division ONGOING DURING CONSTRUCTION 23. Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA Planning - 10 - PC2012-*** along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction. Department Building Division 24. When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration. Planning Department Building Division 25. In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and (c) of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and (i) of the Public Resources Code shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that, upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner shall be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. Public Works Construction Services and Development Services Divisions PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION 26. The City will verify that the project BMPs were installed as indicated in the WQMP. Public Works Department Development Services Division ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS 27. That the transit facility shall only include as accessory uses, those uses permitted by right within the Semi-Public Zone and the following uses as described in Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code: Planning Department Planning Services - 11 - PC2012-*** 1. Alcoholic Beverages Sales-On-Sale (up to four Type 47 ABC Licenses and one Type 48 ABC License) 2. Automated Teller Machines (ATM’s) 3. Automotive - Public Parking 4. Automotive - Rental Agencies 5. Bars and Nightclubs (one Type 48 ABC License) 6. Business & Financial Services 7. Convenience Stores 8. Kiosks 9. Outdoor Air Festivals 10. Outdoor Displays 11. Personal Services – General 12. Petroleum Storage – Incidental 13. Portable Food Carts 14. Recreation-Low-Impact 15. Recycling Services – Consumer 16. Restaurants-General 17. Restaurants-Semi-Enclosed 18. Retail Sales – General 19. Retail Sales – Kiosks 20. Special Events Division 28. At all times when any restaurant within the Transit Facility is open for business, said restaurant shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police Department 29. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premise shall be prohibited. Police Department 30. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police Department 31. That any alcoholic beverage license for a restaurant within the Transit Facility shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premises as defined by Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police Department 32. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required for any restaurant or bar within the Transit Facility. Police Department 33. Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, Police Department - 12 - PC2012-*** passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with enough lighting to illuminate and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles onsite. 34. There shall be no entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premise at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police Department 35. The approval of this applicant constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 36. This property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans, technical studies and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and as conditioned herein, which include the plans, exhibits and technical studies submitted as Attachments 6, 7, 8 and 9 to the Planning Commission Staff Report. Said plans and studies are on file in the Planning Department. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 37. The City will inspect the BMPs and verify that the BMPs properly maintained and functioning as per the WQMP. Public Works Department Development Services Division [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 -1- PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2012-00535) (DEV2010-00043A) WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the confluence of Interstate 5 and SR-57 Freeways in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of Interstate 5 Freeway, west of the Santa Ana River channel and SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit area. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, and surrounding residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development; and WHEREAS, since 1996, the Anaheim City Council (the "City Council") has approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Stadium property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120, which entitled a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition center, 250,000 square feet of office development and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove of Anaheim, the renovated Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were developed/ renovated under this plan; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The boundaries for this MLUP were generally the same as those for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that this MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to I-5 that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the approval process for the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the boundaries of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan was implemented through the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone, which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity. Implementation of this Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood School of Technology; and -2- PC2012-*** WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the project area from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed- use, residential, office, and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, and institutional development at a maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated into the Platinum Triangle Mixed- Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 330, which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and associated actions, analyzed the above development intensities on a citywide impact level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and WHEREAS, in order to provide the implementation tools necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, on August 17, 2004, the City Council replaced the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, approved the form of the Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement and approved associated zoning reclassifications. Under these updated zoning regulations, property owners desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions are required to enter into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2005, City Council approved three Development Agreements to govern the development of an approximate 14.64-acre project on three parcels located within the Platinum Triangle at 1515 East Katella Avenue (Development Agreement No. 2005-00001), 1781 South Campton Avenue (Development Agreement No. 2005-00002), and 1551 East Wright Circle (Development Agreement No. 2005-00003); and determined that previously-certified FEIR No. 330; the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Development Agreement Nos. 2005-00001, 2005-00002 and 2005-00003; and, Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 128 were adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the General Plan, the PTMLUP, and the PTMU Overlay Zone to increase the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet of office uses; and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses, and certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332 including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106A for the PTMLUP as the required environmental documentation for said amendments; and WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two addendums to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity by 67 residential units; 55,550 square feet of office development; and 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable development intensity within -3- PC2012-*** the Platinum Triangle to up to 10,266 residential units; 5,055,550 square feet of office uses; and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units; 5,657,847 square feet of commercial uses; 16,819,015 square feet of office uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the "Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and WHEREAS, as required by law, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (FSEIR No. 334), including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106B for the PTMLUP, in December 2007 and again in April as the required environmental documentation for said amendments and related zoning reclassifications; and WHEREAS, following the approval of FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the project; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010, the City Council approved amendments to the General Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone to up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; and 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; and 1,500.000 square feet of institutional uses, and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (FSIER No. 339), including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106C for the PTMLUP as the required environmental documentation for said amendments and related zoning reclassifications; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2012, the applicant requested amendments to subsections 4.2.1 (Katella Avenue) and 4.2.5 (Douglass Road) of Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 of the PTMLUP as further described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on April 23, 2012, pertaining to said amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, notice of said hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does hereby find and determine as follows: -4- PC2012-*** 1. The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve said amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to revise the Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections for Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. 2. The proposed amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan is consistent with the goals and policies established for the development of the Platinum Triangle as set forth in the City of Anaheim General Plan. 3. The proposed amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan is consistent with the goals and policies established for the PTMLUP. 4. That the proposed amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will result in development of desirable character that will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. 5. That the proposed amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with economic realities. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Commission has reviewed said amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and does hereby find and determine, based upon its independent review and analyses of Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 343 and Addendum prepared in connection with the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center, and the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), unless additional or contrary information is received during the public meeting, find and determine that Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 343 and Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for said amendment and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for said amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to subsections 4.2.1 (Katella Avenue) and 4.2.5 (Douglass Road) of Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 of the PTMLUP as further described in Exhibit A. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. ______________________________________________ CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -5- PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary for the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -6- PC2012-*** Exhibit “A” Additions are shown in red bold and deletions are shown in red strikethrough. 4.2.1 Katella Avenue The central feature of Katella Avenue, between the Santa Ana Freeway and the entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The City National Grove of Anaheim and the Amtrak/Metrolink station, is the grove-style planting of Date Palms. This planting continues the treatment of Katella Avenue in The Anaheim Resort west of the Santa Ana Freeway. Mass plantings of Agapanthus, a purple flowering shrub, provide a low shrub under-story for the Date Palms located in the parkway. A second row of matching Date Palms will be planted in the setback area in six-foot square cut-outs. The maintenance of the setback area is the responsibility of the property owner. The median will also consist of Date Palms, with flowering vines such as Bougainvillea ‘San Diego Red’ attached to the trunk of the tree in combination with alternate mass plantings of Agapanthus shrubs and Star Jasmine ground cover. Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, the setback area will be paved to provide pedestrian access. The landscaping for Katella Avenue changes near the railroad grade separation and further east to the City limits. Along this section of Katella Avenue, the Date Palms are eliminated within the Pedestrian/Landscape Realm and large-scaled Mexican Fan single row of Date Palms are planted within the parkways. 4.2.5 Douglass Road North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road will contain four travel lanes and bike lanes. The street landscape will consist of a double row of Mexican Fan Palms in the parkway and setback areas. Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) will be attached to the base of the palm trunks and yellow and orange Daylilies or a similar low red flowering shrub will be planted at the base of the palm trees. Adjacent to the Honda Center, the median will be a painted median to allow for better traffic flow in and out of the Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Figure 33). North of the Honda Center, the median will be a raised median planted with a single row of green canopy trees and a single species of massed flowering groundcover. South of Katella Avenue, the streetscape design will be determined as part of the development process for ARTIC Douglass Road will include up to eight travel lanes at the Katella Avenue intersection. The median will not be landscaped to allow for better traffic flow in and out of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The street landscape will consist of a row of Mexican Fan Palms in the parkway and Canopy Tree (Chinese Flame Tree or similar canopy tree) within the setback area (Figure 33a). On the west side of Douglass Road, south of the ARTIC entrance intersection, no sidewalk is planned due to the narrow railroad bridge span. -7- PC2012-*** -8- PC2012-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 5 April 2012 EIR Addendum Prepared for: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center State Clearinghouse #: 2009071071 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Addendum to the Final EIR ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Anaheim, California State Clearinghouse Number: 2009071071 Environmental Impact Report Number: EIR2010-00343 Master Case Number: DEV2010-00043 Prepared for: City of Anaheim, Public Works 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: Kleinfelder 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 April 2012 EIR Addendum Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page i of ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ..................... 1-1 1.1.1 Background ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Prior Environmental Review ................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ADDENDUM ............................................................ 1-1 1.3 FORMAT OF THIS ADDENDUM ................................................................... 1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 2-1 2.2 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDRESSED IN ADDENDUM ........ 2-1 2.2.1 Intermodal Terminal .............................................................................. 2-5 2.2.2 Baggage Tunnel ..................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.3 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area .................................................................. 2-5 2.2.4 Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel .................................................................... 2-6 2.2.5 Tracks/Platforms ................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.6 Douglass Road Improvements............................................................... 2-6 2.2.7 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge ........................................................ 2-9 2.2.8 ARTIC Pedestrian Trail ...................................................................... 2-10 2.2.9 Surface Parking/Access ....................................................................... 2-10 2.2.10 Sponsorship and Signage Program ...................................................... 2-11 2.2.11 Bicycle Access .................................................................................... 2-11 2.2.12 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities ............................................ 2-11 2.2.13 Construction ........................................................................................ 2-12 2.3 COMPARISON OF APPROVED AND REVISED PROJECT ...................... 2-13 3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-1 3.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................. 3-1 3.3.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-2 3.4 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.4.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-2 3.5 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.5.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-3 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................... 3-3 3.6.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-3 3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................... 3-4 3.7.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-4 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................. 3-4 3.8.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-4 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................... 3-4 3.9.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-5 3.10 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................... 3-5 3.10.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-6 3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................... 3-6 3.11.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-6 3.12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURES .............................................................................. 3-6 EIR Addendum Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Chapter Page ii of ii 3.12.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-7 3.13 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................. 3-7 3.13.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3-7 4.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 4-1 TABLES Table 2.3-1 Comparison of Differences between the Final EIR and the Addendum to the Final EIR FIGURES Figure 2.2-1b ARTIC Illustrated Site Plan Figure 2.2-2b ARTIC Project Limits Figure 2.2-3b ARTIC Exterior Elevations Figure 2.2-4b ARTIC Trackwork and Platform Typical Sections Figure 2.2-5b ARTIC Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A – Traffic Impact Assessment (on attached CD) EIR Addendum 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR – SCH No. 2009071071) for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project and the associated General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480) that were approved by the City of Anaheim (City) council on September 28, 2010. This Addendum has been prepared because the City has proposed revisions to the original project description. This Addendum provides an evaluation of proposed revisions to the original ARTIC project description. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1.1.1 Background The City, in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to the City National Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not included in the acreage count as only minor improvements related to parking management are anticipated. The existing parking lot will continue its current use for the ARTIC project. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, Pedestrian Concourse Bridge, Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel, the Tracks/Platforms, Baggage Tunnel, and Surface Parking/Access. 1.1.2 Prior Environmental Review With the City as the lead agency, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the ARTIC project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was published on February 10, 2010 and circulated to the public, local, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties. In addition to the public and agency comment period, a public scoping meeting was conducted on February 24, 2010 in the City of Anaheim. The Draft EIR was published on July 21, 2010 and circulated for public and agency review until September 3, 2010. On September 13, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending City Council certification of the Final EIR and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480. On September 28, 2010, the Anaheim City Council held a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Subsequently, the City Council certified the Final EIR, adopted CEQA findings, statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring plan and approved the General Plan Amendment. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ADDENDUM According to Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are EIR Addendum 1.0 Introduction 1-2 necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 exist. Section 15162 of the Guidelines lists the conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR rather than an addendum. These include the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If none of the above conditions are met, the lead agency may not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Rather, the lead agency can decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary or can require an Addendum be prepared. As revisions to the ARTIC project description do not meet the conditions listed in Section 15162, an Addendum is considered the appropriate document to discuss the environmental implications of the revised project. Consequently, a Subsequent EIR is not required. Nonetheless, CEQA requires that the lead agency support this determination with substantial evidence in the record. This Addendum serves as that vehicle, and a review of its contents substantiates the finding that the information provided herein merely updates, clarifies, and amplifies the information provided in the certified September 2010 Final EIR (Final EIR) for the ARTIC project. The rationale and the facts that support this finding are provided in the body of this Addendum. EIR Addendum 1.0 Introduction 1-3 1.3 FORMAT OF THIS ADDENDUM This Addendum has been organized into four chapters, as described below: Chapter 1.0 – Introduction: This chapter includes a description of the background of the project, prior environmental review, and purpose of this Addendum. Chapter 2.0 – Project Description: This chapter provides a description of the original project description that was approved in the Final EIR, the revised project description addressed in this Addendum, and a comparison of the two. Chapter 3.0 – Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: This chapter addresses project changes with the potential to have an effect on the environment and includes analyses of impacts of the revised project compared with impacts analyzed in the Final EIR. Chapter 4.0 – Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the information and findings developed in the previous chapters. EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ARTIC will relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station to accommodate growing passenger demand and increased ridership expected with Metrolink, Amtrak, and other transportation services. The new location will be located approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad ROW. The Intermodal Terminal will be no more than a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. The tracks and platforms are envisioned to consist of two through-tracks and one single-ended siding track (stub-end track) with a platform as large as 86,000 square feet. ARTIC will also include a Bus Transit Center, Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, Public Hall/Waiting Area, Program Space, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, Stadium Pavilion, Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, and a pedestrian trail easement. Additionally, Douglass Road will be lowered approximately 8 feet from the existing road surface at its lowest point, and approximately 1,100 total linear feet will be re-graded. ARTIC is also envisioned to include approximately 960 (includes the existing 405 spaces) surface parking spaces. The existing surface parking spaces will be accessed by vehicles from Katella Avenue via Stadium Crossing (formerly identified as Sportstown). The main vehicle access to the Bus Transit Center and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area would be via Douglass Road from Katella Avenue, which also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. A secondary right-in/right-out access would be provided to ARTIC from Katella Avenue. Additionally, Douglass Road between the Angel Stadium Parking Lot and the Railroad Bridge will consist of four lanes and Douglass Road from the Railroad Bridge to Katella Avenue would be widened to an eight-lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue and four lanes under the Railroad Bridge. A left-turn pocket from Douglass Road into the Bus Transit Center, and a southbound left turn pocket for the main entrance into ARTIC will be provided. Northbound lane configuration will have two left-turn lanes, one through-lane, one right-turn/through-lane and one right-turn lane for northbound traffic. Three lanes are proposed for southbound traffic. 2.2 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDRESSED IN ADDENDUM ARTIC will be approximately 0.25 miles east of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. This location is south of Katella Avenue, on an approximately 19-acre site which is owned by OCTA and the City (Figure 2.2-1b and Figure 2.2-2b). In addition to the two main parcels, improvements will be made to approximately 2 acres of OCTA and City ROW and less than an acre of Caltrans ROW. ARTIC will include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, Pedestrian Concourse Bridge, Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel, Tracks/Platforms, Baggage Tunnel, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue Improvements, and Surface Parking/Access (Figure 2.2-3b). The project will also include improvements to Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. FILE NAME:109528_Illustrated.dwgDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO.The information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information contained onthis graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUMARTICANAHEIM, CALIFORNIAFIGURE2.2-1bJPCC7/12/10123540ARTIC ILLUSTRATED SITE PLANG:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpgSOURCE:PB/HOK 2011INTERMODALTERMINAL FILE NAME:123540_Site.dwgDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO.The information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information contained onthis graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUMARTICANAHEIM, CALIFORNIAFIGURE2.2-2bJPCC4/3/12123540ARTIC PROJECT LIMITSPARKING AREASLEGENDSTADIUM PEDESTRIAN TUNNELPROJECT LIMITSCITY LIMITS C:\Users\AMakovic\Desktop\ARTIC\KLFLRG.png EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-5 2.2.1 Intermodal Terminal The Intermodal Terminal will have two levels and one mezzanine level encompassing approximately 68,000 gross square feet. The design of the Intermodal Terminal is planned to accommodate near term and future transportation related services, with approximately 19,370 square feet of space available for transportation-related services. Approximately 12,075 square feet will be available for commercial tenants and 960 square feet allocated to retail kiosks located inside and outside the building. The Intermodal Terminal will be encased in a translucent glazing material and rise to a maximum of 150 feet above the existing ground level. The Intermodal Terminal will be adjacent to the Tracks/Platforms and located north of the LOSSAN corridor. The at-grade and above-grade levels will include the Bus Transit Center, Public Hall, commercial tenant space, and access to the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge. Bus Transit Center The Bus Transit Center will include waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, on three sides of the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will contain 13 bus bay spaces and one straight curb space, four curbside bus spaces for OCTA bus staging and layover, 6 parking spaces for OCTA and service provider supervisors, and at-grade service dock space. Pedestrian Concourse Bridge The Pedestrian Concourse Bridge will connect the upper level of the Terminal Building with the passenger platforms. The bridge will span the at-grade bus facility, the two tracks, and the two platforms. Public Hall The Public Hall will be located on the first level of the Intermodal Terminal and utilize approximately 14,410 square feet. This space is designed to enhance the traveling public’s experience. The uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. This area has access to exterior Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area and public parking to the north. 2.2.2 Baggage Tunnel Near the east end of the rail platforms, there will be a tunnel under the tracks and platforms with ramps to the passenger platforms. Access to this tunnel will be via ramps leading to and from the platforms. This tunnel will be used for moving baggage and providing access for maintenance activities. 2.2.3 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area ARTIC will include an exterior Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area with two traffic islands. The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue. The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area is intended to be used for taxi and private automobile Drop-Off, with a designated walkway from the Intermodal Terminal to the surface parking south of Katella Avenue. There will be one-way vehicle circulation around the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area with access from Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-6 2.2.4 Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel will be located northwest of SR-57, along the LOSSAN corridor, and will provide a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks and platforms. The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel will provide access to Angel Stadium, surface parking, and the Tracks/Platforms. The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel will include ramps and stairways. This tunnel is in addition to the existing tunnel associated with the current Amtrak/Metrolink station, which will remain in place. 2.2.5 Tracks/Platforms The Tracks/Platforms construction work will be within OCTA ROW, Caltrans ROW, and Anaheim property that are bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east and Katella Avenue to the north. There will be no improvements to the existing Santa Ana River railroad bridge or the existing Katella Avenue railroad bridge. The current rail operations, the station operations, and related facilities operations will be maintained during construction. The two side platforms will be a minimum of 16 feet wide and a maximum of 38 feet wide with additional width at the east end for vertical circulation. The platforms will be approximately 1,000 feet in length. A replacement railroad bridge will be constructed over Douglass Road to accommodate the two- track/two-platform alignment (Figure 2.2-4b). Passengers are intended to access the platforms from the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge that connects the Intermodal Terminal to the station platforms. The platforms can also be accessed from the south surface parking (Lot B) and the existing surface parking (Lot C) (See Section 2.2.10 for a detailed description of parking). Canopies will be provided on the rail platforms per the requirements of Amtrak and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) /Metrolink. 2.2.6 Douglass Road Improvements Douglass Road Between Angel Stadium Parking Lot and the Railroad Bridge This section of roadway currently has four reversible lanes without a sidewalk. To maximize the person carrying capacity of the road within the physical constraints of the SR-57 overpass, it is proposed that Douglass Road be improved to allow a pedestrian sidewalk on one side of Douglass Road under the SR-57 overpass. Douglass Road from the Railroad Bridge to Katella Avenue Douglass Road will be four lanes wide under the Railroad Bridge. The typical section will have two lanes in each direction for typical daily use plus a two-way left turn lane. The design will not incorporate a raised median so that reversible lanes can be employed to manage heavy event traffic conditions. Douglass Road will initially be widened to a seven-lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue and eventually widened to eight lanes as traffic warrants (Figure 2.2- 5b). A southbound left-turn pocket from Douglass Road into the Bus Transit Center is provided along Douglass Road just north of the Railroad Bridge. A southbound left-turn pocket will be provided for the main entrance into ARTIC. FILE NAME:109528_Trackwork.dwgDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO.The information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information contained onthis graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUMARTICANAHEIM, CALIFORNIAFIGURE2.2-4bJPCC7/12/10123540ARTIC TRACKWORK AND PLATFORM TYPICAL SECTIONSG:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpgSOURCE:PB/HOK 2011 FILE NAME:123540_Site.dwgDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO.The information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information contained onthis graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTADDENDUMARTICANAHEIM, CALIFORNIAFIGURE2.2-5bJPCC4/2/12123540ARTIC SITE PLANC:\Users\AMakovic\Desktop\ARTIC\KLFLRG.pngNOT TO SCALESOURCE: PB/HOK MARCH 26, 2012 EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-9 This configuration requires a total ROW width of approximately 120 feet, an increase from the existing 64 feet. This width will allow for a portion of Douglass Road ultimately having eight lanes south of the Katella Avenue intersection. The ultimate northbound lane configuration is proposed to have two left-turn lanes, one through lane, one right-turn/through lane and one right- turn lane for northbound traffic. There will be three lanes for southbound traffic. In order to reach the proposed Douglass Road width of approximately 120 feet, a total of approximately 24,145 square feet of ROW located along the east side of Douglass Road (22,477 square feet) and the south side of Katella Avenue (1,668 square feet) will be acquired from the retail center. The widening of Douglass Road will require reconfiguration of driveway access and parking areas on both sides of Douglass Road. One retail business and two vacant commercial spaces are located on the parcel that will be acquired. Douglass Road – Vertical Profile In the vicinity of the Railroad Bridge, Douglass Road will be lowered approximately five feet at its lowest point, from the existing road surface. Lowering Douglass Road is necessary to meet vertical clearance requirements for the new bridge. The proposed profile will meet the Metrolink vertical clearance standard of 15.5 feet for overcrossings. Approximately 1,100 total linear feet of Douglass Road will be re-graded. This re-grading will center north and south of the Railroad Bridge along Douglass Road to meet the grade requirements. A maximum vertical profile of six percent will be used in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Standards for Urban Highways. Katella Avenue Improvements Katella Avenue will require up to six feet of widening to accommodate a new eastbound through lane at the Douglass Road and Katella Avenue intersection. This through lane will feed a right- turn lane into ARTIC. The minimum width of curb lanes will be 13 feet and all other lanes will be 11 feet wide. The existing bus stop on Katella Avenue will be retained. 2.2.7 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge The pedestrian bridge will not be included for opening day and will be constructed at a later date. It will be constructed over Katella Avenue, connecting the project site and the Honda Center. The bridge would be a clear span bridge approximately 175 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 17 feet clear above Katella Avenue. Supports within Katella Avenue would not be required. It is proposed that the bridge will include both elevators and stairwells on the north and south ends, with stairwells extending approximately 50 feet from the bridge. The bridge and stairways would be covered, but the bridge would be open on both sides. The touchdown point on the south side of the bridge is proposed within the OCTA owned parcel of the ARTIC site. The touchdown point on the north side of the bridge is proposed within the Honda Center site, which is leased to the Honda Center by the City of Anaheim. The construction of the bridge will accommodate future widening of Katella Avenue on the north side of the street as per the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The bridge would also be designed to accommodate widening on the south side of Katella Avenue to incorporate anticipated improvements associated with the ARTIC project. EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-10 2.2.8 ARTIC Pedestrian Trail A trail easement, parallel to the existing Santa Ana River Trail and within the ARTIC site boundaries, is envisioned to be located along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. Grant proposals have been submitted for projects that include building a new retaining wall; making a wider elevated area with 1,600-foot long separate, designated bikeway (existing) and permeable pedestrian/equestrian pathway (new); adding lighting, fencing and seating; adding landscaping, carbon sequestering trees; adding drainage improvements and connections to the ARTIC stormwater system; providing interpretive, educational signage; and, providing easy and safe access from the Trail to ARTIC. The ARTIC pedestrian trail will be constructed based upon available funding. 2.2.9 Surface Parking/Access ARTIC will have approximately 1,082 surface parking spaces. ARTIC parking will be located in four locations. These surface locations are the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak parking (existing surface parking, Lot C), the parking south of the Intermodal Terminal and the railroad tracks (south surface parking, Lot B), the parking north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue (north surface parking, Lot A), and supervisor parking at the Bus Transit Center. The existing surface parking, Lot C, will provide 405 spaces that are currently used for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. From Lot C, patrons will access the Platforms through the Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel or the existing tunnel at the current Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and the Intermodal Terminal via the Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel followed by the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge. The existing surface parking will be accessed by vehicles from Katella Avenue via Stadium Crossing or from Douglass Road. The south surface parking, Lot B, will provide 221 spaces. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms using a ramp or stairs to the south platform and walk across the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge to the north platform and the Intermodal Terminal. Vehicles will access the south surface parking via Douglass Road. The north surface parking, Lot A, will provide 456 spaces, including six spaces provided at the Bus Transit Center for supervisors. Lot A will be accessed by vehicles from Douglass Road or Katella Avenue. In addition, ingress only will be provided through the service yard and parking lot of the adjacent JT Schmid restaurant and retail center. The main vehicle access to the Bus Transit Center and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be via Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue. Patrons will access the Intermodal Terminal and the Platforms through the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area. Douglass Road also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. Traffic lights will be installed along Douglass Road to control circulation in this area at the main entry and at the bus entry from Douglass Road. A secondary right-in/right-out access will be provided to ARTIC from Katella Avenue. The access point will be immediately west of the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River Trail is used by bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians and is located along the east side of ARTIC. Pedestrian access will be provided by sidewalks along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, as well as through a gate located off of the Santa Ana River Trail and just north of the tracks. EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-11 2.2.10 Sponsorship and Signage Program The ARTIC project will have a project signage and sponsorship program. This signage program will include entry signs, directional signage and way finding, including Dynamic (DMS) and Changeable Message Signs (CMS). The DMS will be located along Douglass Road. The CMS are anticipated for Katella Avenue, and will display messages to motorists advising them of upcoming closures, detours, and traffic conditions. The project will also include a sponsorship signage program that could include up to thirteen, approximately 85 feet high by 20 feet wide pylon signs with up to 760 square feet of advertising space per sign. These signs will be processed per the requirements of the SP Zone via a proposed amendment to Section 18.14.130 (Signs) of Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special Purpose Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code that is being requested as part of the ARTIC project. This amendment would allow the Planning Director to approve the signs as part of a coordinated sign program subject if they are in conjunction with a transit facility, complement the architecture of the transit facility, and provide a unifying element along the streetscape. 2.2.11 Bicycle Access Bicycle access will be along Douglass Road and via a direct at-grade connection to the Santa Ana River Trail just north of the rail corridor. Bicyclists will also be able to access ARTIC via the existing intersection of Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River Trail. Bicycle parking (bicycle racks and lockers) will be located at the southeast corner of the Intermodal building. The existing bicycle lockers and bicycle racks at the existing surface parking (Lot C) will also remain. 2.2.12 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities ARTIC will require relocating existing utilities and the construction of new utilities. These utilities include electrical, water, sewer, gas, drainage, and ground water recharge system. Electrical Existing overhead electrical transmission lines located along Douglass Road will be undergrounded as part of the road improvements. Electrical service by the City of Anaheim will be provided via new underground ducts leading from the current service north of Katella Avenue on Douglass Road south under Douglass Road and into the facility. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels will be included on the project site to reduce the use of off-site generated electricity. PV panels will be provided on the Concourse Bridge and in the south surface parking (Lot B). A PV array of up to 130 kilowatt (kW) (dc) will be considered for the site and could generate between 7 to 10 percent of site annual energy demands, dependent on location, orientation and cell type. Water The existing fire hydrants located on both sides of Douglass Road will be relocated according to the appropriate fire code for the proposed and existing uses. An existing 8-inch water line will be abandoned in lieu of a new 16-inch water line. The existing 8-inch water line will be retained where possible for future use as a reclaimed water line. EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-12 Sewer The existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the west side of Douglass Road that serves the existing uses west of Douglass Road will remain. A new 15-inch sanitary sewer line will be installed from ARTIC to connect into the main 30-inch sanitary sewer line in Katella Avenue. This line will connect to the existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer main. Gas The 2-inch gas line will remain but may be relocated to accommodate construction. A gas line to the facility will be supplied from the existing 2-inch line located along Douglass Road. Drainage The storm drain will be reconfigured to reflect the change in Douglass Road elevation. The existing stormwater system will be replaced based on ARTIC components. Currently, there is a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe that conveys run-off from SR-57 to an outfall at the Santa Ana River. Additionally, stormwater from Douglass Road drains into a pump station under the roadway, and is pumped into the existing 48-inch pipe. With the lowering of Douglass Road, this existing pump station will require replacement and the new installation will conform to the new lower street level. The above identified 48-inch pipe crosses the project site prior to reaching the river. This pipe will be relocated south of the railroad corridor to accommodate the drive access into the south surface parking (Lot B). No new discharge points will be created into the Santa Ana River. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed into the drainage system for ARTIC to comply with current regulations. ARTIC is being designed so no increases in runoff based on current site conditions will occur due to this new construction. Ground Water Recharge System The ARTIC project will have a 4-inch tap to the existing Ground Water Recharge System located adjacent to the site on the east boundary near the Santa Ana River. This system will provide reclaimed water use for the cooling towers, toilet flushing, and the on-site irrigation system. 2.2.13 Construction Construction of the proposed project and associated infrastructure improvements is anticipated to take approximately 26 months. The Air Quality Impact Analysis uses a 26-month construction time frame as the “worst case” scenario. Generally, construction will occur during normal daylight hours but railroad connection activities and some street utility construction will require night construction activities. In particular, construction of the rail tracks and the new railroad bridge over Douglass Road and the platforms and tunnels construction will require nighttime construction. This construction requires that the railroad service be shut down on a short-term temporary basis. This shutdown of rail service can only be done at night and weekends to avoid shutdowns during peak operational hours. This construction was assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix D of the Final EIR). EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-13 The approximate volume of cut and fill is anticipated to balance on the site. A small import quantity may be required. Excavated material from the building foundation and Douglass Road lowering will be used to raise the new rail platforms to match the existing main line track elevation, and to fill selected areas of the site to the desired grade. All construction workers will be required to park vehicles on-site without impacting either local businesses or local parking lots for the duration of construction. The staging areas for construction are assumed to be on site. All construction workers will be encouraged to carpool during construction as feasible. Material distribution to and from the site will occur through truck deliveries with the potential for rail deliveries of limited materials. Truck deliveries will access ARTIC by use of City of Anaheim streets during off-peak hours. 2.3 COMPARISON OF APPROVED AND REVISED PROJECT Table 2.3-1 Comparison of Differences between the Final EIR and the Addendum to the Final EIR Project analyzed in the Final EIR Project Analyzed in the Addendum to the Final EIR Change Intermodal Terminal Building: approximately 310,000 square feet, comprised of 140,000 square feet at-grade or above, 170,000 square feet below grade Intermodal Terminal Building: approximately 67,000 square feet with at-grade and above grade levels and four kiosks Reduced building square footage and added four kiosks Bus Transit Center: under the Intermodal Terminal Building with a 16-bay bus facility (two, eight bay islands) Bus Transit Facility: waiting areas on three sides of Terminal Building, 13 bus bay spaces and one straight curb space, four curbside bus spaces for OCTA bus staging and layover, and 6 parking spaces for supervisors Moved Bus Transit Facility from below- grade to above-grade and changed bus facilities from 16-bay to 13 bus bay spaces, one curbside space, and six parking spaces for supervisors Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse Tunnel Pedestrian Concourse Bridge The Tunnel was removed from project and replaced with the Bridge Public Hall Waiting Area Public Hall Different name, but no change in physical improvement Program Space Merged to Intermodal Terminal Baggage Tunnel New project element Public Plaza/Drop-off Area Public Plaza/Drop-off Area No change EIRAddendum 2.0 Project Description 2-14 Stadium Pavilion: a pedestrian bridge over the tracks and platforms Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel Changed from a bridge over the tracks to a tunnel underneath Stub-end track Removed from project Platforms: side platform between 21 and 40 feet wide, 1,200 feet long; center platform 38 feet wide, 1,200 long Platforms: two side platforms between 16 and 38 feet wide, 1,000 feet long Reduced width and length of side platforms, no center platform Douglass Road Bridge: to accommodate three track two platform design Douglass Road Bridge: to accommodate two track, two platform design Reduced width of Douglass Road Bridge Douglass Road between Angel Stadium Parking Lot and Railroad Bridge Douglass Road between Angel Stadium Parking Lot and Railroad Bridge No change ROW acquisition: 45,000 square feet ROW acquisition: 24,145 square feet Reduction of square footage Douglass Road between Railroad Bridge and Katella Avenue road improvements: four lanes wide under Railroad Bridge; widened to six and eventually eight lanes approaching Katella Avenue; north and southbound left turn pockets from Douglass Road; ROW width increase to 120 feet Douglass Road between Railroad Bridge and Katella Avenue road improvements: four lanes wide under Railroad Bridge; widened to seven and eventually eight lanes approaching Katella Avenue; north and southbound left turn pockets from Douglass Road; ROW width increase to 120 feet Changed initial Douglass Road lane widening from six lanes to seven Douglass Road – Vertical Profile changes: lowered approximately eight feet and regraded approximately 1,100 feet Douglass Road – Vertical Profile: lowered approximately five feet and regraded approximately 1,100 feet Reduced lowering of Douglass Road Katella Avenue Improvements: using an additional five feet of ROW Katella Avenue Improvements: using an additional six feet of ROW Changed Katella Avenue widening from five feet to six feet Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge – Not included at opening of ARTIC To be constructed at a future date when funding is secured ARTIC Pedestrian Trail ARTIC Pedestrian Trail Added retaining wall and other related trail elements Surface Parking/Access: total parking 960, Existing Surface Surface Parking/Access: total parking 1,082 spaces, Lot C 405 South surface parking reduced by 11 spaces, EIRAddendum 2.0 Project Description 2-15 Parking lot 405 spaces; South Surface Parking lot 232 spaces, and North Surface Parking lot 323 spaces Spaces (existing surface parking), Lot B 221 spaces (south surface parking), Lot A (north surface parking) 456 spaces, and six spaces in the Bus Transit Facility north surface parking increased by 132 spaces, and six spaces added to the Bus Transit Facility Sponsorship and Signage Program New project element Bicycle Access: via Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Bicycle Access: via Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, and directly to Santa Ana River Trail just north of the rail ROW Added a direct at-grade connection to the Santa Ana River Trail Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities: electrical, water, sewer, gas, and drainage Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities: electrical, water, sewer, gas, drainage and Ground Water Recharge System Use of Groundwater Recharge System Construction activity: export 80,000 cubic yards of material Construction activity: balanced site, no export of material No removal of 80,000 cubic feet of material from the project site EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1 3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Final EIR evaluated the following environmental issues: land use and planning, transportation and traffic, air quality, noise, geology and soils, utilities and service systems, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative effects. These issues are re- evaluated in this Addendum in light of the changes that have occurred to the original ARTIC project description. This evaluation determines whether, with these changes, implementation of the revised project would result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Final EIR. The Final EIR (Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis) describes the criteria that were used to determine the significance of environmental impacts. All mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR were subsequently adopted by the City of Anaheim as conditions of project approval. All applicable measures also will apply to the revised project changes described in this Addendum. In the Final EIR, cumulative impacts were discussed individually in each environmental issue area section. Likewise, for this Addendum, cumulative impacts are discussed in each environmental issue area section. 3.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING Please refer to Section 3.1 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential land use and planning impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. No impacts were anticipated. The revised project would not change the nature of the development as previously proposed and evaluated in the Final EIR. Though the numbers of bus bays, platforms, parking spaces, and road improvements, as well as pedestrian access options, have changed, the revised project still serves as an intermodal transit center in compliance with existing land use policies. Additionally, the sponsorship and signage program would be in compliance with the SP Zone via an amendment to Section 18.14.130 (Signs) of Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special Purpose Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Therefore, the assessment of compatibility with existing land uses would not change and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.2.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR concluded that the project, as analyzed, would have no cumulative impact on land use. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to land use compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project would not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in new significant environmental impacts. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Please refer to Section 3.2 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. An updated Traffic Impact Assessment was prepared on March 22, 2012 to evaluate potential new impacts as a result of the revised project. See Appendix A for the EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-2 complete report. This analysis found that access to ARTIC would be adequate under the revised project. Motorists entering and exiting ARTIC would still be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. No additional impacts were found and no additional mitigation measures were required. Therefore, the revised project would not change the determination presented in the Final EIR. 3.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Since the revised project did not result in additional impacts that required mitigation, the cumulative impacts analyzed in the Final EIR will suffice. 3.4 AIR QUALITY Please refer to Section 3.3 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were anticipated. The air quality analysis for the original ARTIC project evaluated the “worst-case” scenario for emissions. Additionally, the original ARTIC project in the Final EIR included a building that was larger than the revised project and mitigated for impacts that were greater. The revised project proposes a smaller building with less grading, without proposing a reduction in mitigation. For construction estimates, the fact that no soil will be exported from the site (the Final EIR included the export of 80,000 cubic yards) removes all on-road truck emissions from the modeled grading activities. The removal of on-road haul trucks is estimated to reduce emissions as follows: NOx reduced by 20% (approximately 14 lbs/day), diesel PM reduced 19% (approximately 0.5 lbs/day), and CO2 (greenhouse gas [GHG]) reduced by 23% (approximately 2,100 lbs/day). For operations estimates, traffic levels for the revised project are expected to increase by 405 trips per day over the previously modeled 4,714 trips per day, thus resulting in an 8.5% increase overall. This increase can be used to prorate the existing emissions estimate as an approximation of the emissions increase. Compared to the emission estimates in Table 3.3-5 of the Final EIR (Operational Daily Emissions), the resulting approximate total emissions that include increases in NOx, diesel PM, and GHG are still below the significance thresholds of each pollutant: NOx is 46.5 lbs/day (55 threshold), diesel PM is 4.3 lbs/day (150 threshold), and GHG is 6,086 MT/yr (10,000 threshold). Therefore, the revised project would not create significant additional construction or operational emissions beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, additional impacts are not anticipated beyond those impacts described in the Final EIR. 3.4.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project, as analyzed, would have less than significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to air quality compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project would not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-3 3.5 NOISE Please refer to Section 3.4 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were anticipated. The revised project would not create the need for additional construction activities to occur. The revised project would not create the need for additional construction activities to occur. Regarding operations, the original ARTIC project estimated an increase of 4,714 daily vehicle trips, which was estimated to cause a negligible increase (less than 1 dBA) in noise levels (see Table 3.4-7 in the Final EIR). Traffic levels during operation for the revised project are expected to increase by 405 trips per day (for a total of 5,119 trips), which is considered negligible as well. The noise conditions would remain substantially consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and mitigation measures presented in the Final EIR would continue to reduce potential impacts associated with construction to less than significant levels. Therefore, additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.5.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that construction for the project, as analyzed, would cause less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. The Final EIR found cumulative impacts for the operation of ARTIC to be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to noise compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project would not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Please refer to Section 3.5 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential geology and soil impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The structures proposed in the revised project would be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the California Building Code, Orange County Building and Safety Department Code, National Engineering Handbook, current American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association guidance documents, and existing SCRRA standards. With these engineering and construction practices in place, the revised project would remain consistent with the original ARTIC project analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.6.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on geology and soils because they are site specific. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to geology and soils compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-4 3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Please refer to Section 3.6 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The revised project would not change the type of use from the Final EIR since the nature of the development is consistent with the Final EIR. The revised project would also not result in additional visitors or features that would increase the demand of utilities and service systems, beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR, and no adverse changes to waste water, water supply, and solid waste would occur. Therefore, use of utilities and service systems would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.7.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on utilities and service systems. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Please refer to Section 3.7 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were anticipated. The revised project changes would not create or cause the need for hazardous materials that were not analyzed in the original Final EIR, nor would it expose people to new hazards. Therefore, the revised project would not affect hazards and hazardous materials and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.8.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Please refer to Section 3.8 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were anticipated. Structures added as a result of the revised project would be constructed within the developed and paved area that was analyzed in the Final EIR. The BMPs, SWPPP, and Water Quality Management Plan identified in the Final EIR would continue to minimize potential impacts as a result of the revised project. The revised project would also adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and remain consistent with applicable regulations. The project is anticipated to access the Orange County Water District's EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-5 Ground Water Replenishment System pipeline to supplement the water supply for landscaping and toilet flushing within the Intermodal Terminal. The use of this water supply will be in compliance with all applicable regulations and is not expected to impact ground water resources. Therefore, the revised project would not change the effects previously analyzed and mitigated for and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.9.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality. The majority of the Santa Ana River watershed is already developed and surface flows are not expected to increase significantly. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.10 AESTHETICS Please refer to Section 3.9 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The revised project changes in bus bays, parking spaces, road improvements, platforms, and utilities would not add new features to the site that would affect the visual landscape of the area or add light, glare, or shadows. The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel and the Baggage Tunnel would be constructed underneath the railroad tracks and the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge and would not add features to the visual landscape that would stand out from the existing structures. The Pedestrian Concourse Bridge would be consistent with the design and appearance of the project elements approved in the Final EIR, as well as with the planned architecture envisioned for the Platinum Triangle. The ARTIC sponsorship and sign program would not impact sensitive receptors on the Santa Ana River Trail, as the Santiago Hills and San Bernardino Mountain range are to the east. For the Avalon Anaheim Stadium condominium residents, the view corridor of these scenic resources already includes SR-57, Angel Stadium, the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, billboards, telephone poles, high-voltage transmission lines, parking lots, street lights, and road signage. The sponsorship and signage program is intended to complement an already developed visual landscape and contribute to the enhancement of aesthetic quality and overall visual character of the site vicinity. The proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code would only allow the Planning Director to approve a coordinated sign program for the transit facility if findings can be made that the proposed program complements the architecture of the transit facility and provides a unifying element along the streetscape. These additional changes as a result of the revised project would not add light, glare, and shadows separate from what was evaluated in the Final EIR. Therefore, the aesthetic conditions would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and additional impacts are not anticipated. EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-6 3.10.1 Cumulative Impacts Less than significant cumulative impacts were anticipated in the Final EIR. Since the revised project would add features consistent with the features evaluated in the Final EIR, development in conjunction with related projects in the area would not cumulatively obstruct views of scenic resources. Furthermore, implementation of the revised project would continue to intensify urban uses in agreement with the vision described in the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Please refer to Section 3.10 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were anticipated. Changes as a result of the revised project would be located within the project area that was evaluated for cultural resources in the Final EIR. Construction activities would be consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and would adhere to the mitigation measures presented in the Final EIR. Therefore, additional impacts to cultural resources, beyond what was studied in the Final EIR, would not occur as a result of the revised project. 3.11.1 Cumulative Impacts Less than significant cumulative impacts were anticipated in the Final EIR. Potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of the original project would be localized and remain within the project area boundaries. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURES Please refer to Section 3.11 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were anticipated. Changes as a result of the revised project would be located within the project area that was evaluated for biological resources in the Final EIR. Construction activities for the revised project would be consistent with the Final EIR and would not remove additional habitat beyond what was previously analyzed. Since the biological conditions would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR, additional impacts are not anticipated as a result of the revised project. EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-7 3.12.1 Cumulative Impacts Less than significant cumulative impacts were anticipated in the Final EIR. The original ARTIC project will not adversely impact federal or state listed species, protected natural plant communities, or waterbodies and the potential impacts to nesting migratory birds will be less than significant with mitigation. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.13 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Please refer to Section 3.12 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The greenhouse gas analysis for the original ARTIC project evaluated the “worst-case” scenario for emissions. Additionally, the original ARTIC project in the Final EIR included a building that was larger than the revised project and mitigated for impacts that were greater. The revised project proposes a smaller building with less grading, without proposing a reduction in mitigation. For construction estimates, the fact that no soil will be exported from the site (the Final EIR included the export of 80,000 cubic yards) removes all on-road truck emissions from the modeled grading activities. The removal of on-road haul trucks is estimated to reduce CO2 (GHG) by 23% (approximately 2,100 lbs/day). For operations estimates, traffic levels for the revised project are expected to increase by 405 trips per day over the previously modeled 4,714 trips per day, thus resulting in an 8.5% increase overall. This increase can be used to prorate the existing emissions estimate as an approximation of the emissions increase. Compared to the emission estimates in Table 3.3-5 of the Final EIR (Operational Daily Emissions), the resulting approximate total emissions that include increases in GHG is 6,086 MT/yr (10,000 threshold). Therefore, the revised project would not create substantial additional construction emissions and operational emissions beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, no additional significant impacts are anticipated. 3.13.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project, as analyzed, would have less than significant cumulative impacts on greenhouse gases. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to air quality compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. EIR Addendum 4.0 Conclusion 4-1 4.0 CONCLUSION Based on information and analyses in this Addendum and pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined the following: 1. There are no substantial changes to the original project that would require major revisions to the Final EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR. 2. Substantial changes have not occurred in circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that would require major revisions of the Final EIR to disclose new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance not known at the time the Final EIR was certified that shows any of the following: • The project would have new significant effect not discussed in the Final EIR. • There are impacts determined significant in the Final EIR that would be substantially increased. • There are no additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the project that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the Final EIR. • There are no additional mitigation measures or alternatives that were rejected by the project proponent that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR that would substantially reduce any significant impacts identified in that EIR. Thus, since none of the above conditions are met by the revised project, this Addendum is sufficient. Appendix A Traffic Impact Assessment (on attached CD) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... xii 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios .................................................................................... 4 1.3 Study Area - City of Orange .............................................................................................. 4 2.0 Project Description and Location ............................................................................................. 6 2.1 Site Access ........................................................................................................................ 6 3.0 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Existing Street Network .................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Capacity Analysis Methodologies ................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)................................................................................... 10 3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) .............................................................................. 11 3.3.3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)................................................................................... 11 3.3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) ... 12 3.3.5 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points ......................................... 13 3.3.6 Freeway Weaving Analysis ............................................................................... 13 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ....................................................................................... 13 3.4.1 Intersections ....................................................................................................... 14 3.4.2 Arterial Segments............................................................................................... 15 3.4.3 Caltrans Facilities ............................................................................................... 15 4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ........................................................................................... 23 5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics ............................................................................................... 24 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ................................................................................ 24 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment .................................................................. 26 5.2.1 Existing Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 26 6.0 Future Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 27 6.1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 27 6.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 27 6.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 27 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 6.4 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 28 6.5 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 29 7.0 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 32 7.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis ....................................................... 32 7.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 32 7.1.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions .......................................................... 32 7.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ............................................ 35 7.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 35 7.2.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions .......................................................... 35 8.0 Year 2014 Traffic Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 38 8.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 38 8.1.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 38 8.1.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 38 8.2 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................................... 41 8.2.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 41 8.2.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 41 9.0 Year 2030 Traffic Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 46 9.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 46 9.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 46 9.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 46 9.2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................................... 50 9.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 50 9.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 50 10.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis ............................................................ 55 10.1 Existing With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ......................... 55 10.2 Existing With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis ...................... 56 10.3 Year 2014 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ..................... 60 10.4 Year 2014 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis .................. 60 10.5 Year 2030 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ..................... 64 10.6 Year 2030 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis .................. 64 11.0 Year 2014 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology).............................................. 69 11.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 70 11.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 70 11.1.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 70 11.1.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 71 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 11.2 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ..................................... 73 11.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 73 11.2.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 73 11.2.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 73 11.3 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) ............................................... 75 11.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 75 11.3.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 75 11.3.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 75 11.4 Year 2014 Freeway Segment Analysis ........................................................................... 78 11.4.1 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 78 11.4.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 78 11.4.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 78 12.0 Year 2030 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology).............................................. 81 12.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... 81 12.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 81 12.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 81 12.2 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ..................................... 83 12.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 83 12.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 83 12.3 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) ............................................... 85 12.3.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 85 12.3.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 85 12.4 Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis ........................................................................... 88 12.4.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions .................................................. 88 12.4.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 88 13.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Analysis ...................................................................... 90 13.1 Site Access Evaluation .................................................................................................... 90 13.1.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 90 13.2 Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis ........................................................ 91 13.2.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 91 13.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation ....................................................................................... 91 13.4 Intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Operations Analysis (HCM Methodology) .................................................................................................................. 91 14.0 Proposed Mitigation And Improvement Strategies .............................................................. 94 14.1 Traffic Fee Program ........................................................................................................ 94 14.2 Steps for Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 94 14.3 Existing With Project Improvements .............................................................................. 95 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 14.3.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................... 95 14.3.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................... 95 14.4 Year 2014 With Project Improvements ........................................................................... 95 14.4.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................... 96 14.4.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................... 96 14.4.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements ...................................................... 96 14.4.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ................ 96 14.4.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) .......................... 96 14.4.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements ....................................................... 96 14.5 Year 2030 With Project Improvements ........................................................................... 99 14.5.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................... 99 14.5.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................... 99 14.5.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements ...................................................... 99 14.5.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) ................ 99 14.5.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) ........................ 100 14.5.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements ..................................................... 100 14.6 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements ................................................................ 102 14.6.1 Caltrans Freeway Segments ............................................................................. 103 14.6.2 Caltrans Freeway Ramps and Weaving Segments ........................................... 105 14.7 Other Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 106 14.7.1 Project Level Impact Analysis ......................................................................... 106 14.7.2 Transportation Fee Program ............................................................................ 106 14.8 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................. 107 14.9 City of Orange Improvements ....................................................................................... 107 14.9.1 Intersections Improvements ............................................................................. 107 14.9.2 Roadway Segments Improvements .................................................................. 107 15.0 Project Comparison to Prior Traffic Impact Analysis Report .......................................... 108 16.0 Summary of Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 117 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc v APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Existing Traffic Count Data A-I Intersection Count Data A-II Roadway Segment Count Data B. Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes C. Existing With Project Traffic Volumes C-I Intersection Traffic Volumes C-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes C-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes D. Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Volumes D-I Intersection Traffic Volumes D-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes D-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes E. Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes E-I Intersection Traffic Volumes E-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes E-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes F. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets F-I Existing Traffic Conditions G. Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets G-I Existing With Project Traffic Conditions G-II Existing With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions H. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets H-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions H-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions H-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions I. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets I-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions I-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions I-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc vi APPENDICES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX J. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) J-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) K. Existing Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) K-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) L. Existing Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) L-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) M. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) N. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) O. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc vii APPENDICES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX P. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) R. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) S. Site Access and Project Driveway Level of Service Calculation Worksheets S-I Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions T. Project Related Fair-Share Calculation T-I Intersection Fair-Share Calculation T-II Roadway Segment Fair-Share Calculation T-III Caltrans Ramp Fair-Share Calculation (Merge/Diverge Analysis) T-IV Caltrans Ramp Fair-Share Calculation (Weaving Analysis) T-V Caltrans Freeway Segment Fair-Share Calculation LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc viii LIST OF FIGURES SECTION – FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1–1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 5 1–2 Regional Map ................................................................................................................................. 5 2–1 Existing Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 7 2–2 Proposed Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 7 3–1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls .....................................................15 3–2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 15 3–3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 15 3–4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 15 5–1 Existing Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot C [Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot]) ..........26 5–2A Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot A [ARTIC North Parking Lot]) ................26 5–2B Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot B [ARTIC South Parking Lot]) ................26 5–2C Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot C [Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot]) .........26 5–2D Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (ARTIC Bus Service) .......................................26 5–3 AM Peak Hour Existing Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 26 5–4 PM Peak Hour Existing Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 26 5–5 Daily Existing Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 26 5–6 AM Peak Hour Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 26 5–7 PM Peak Hour Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 26 5–8 Daily Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 26 6–1 Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................... 31 6–2 Existing With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................... 31 6–3 Existing With Project Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 31 6–4 Year 2014 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–5 Year 2014 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–6 Year 2014 Without Project Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 31 6–7 Year 2014 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 31 6–8 Year 2014 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 31 6–9 Year 2014 With Project Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 31 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc ix LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) SECTION – FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 6–10 Year 2030 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–11 Year 2030 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 31 6–12 Year 2030 Without Project Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 31 6–13 Year 2030 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 31 6–14 Year 2030 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 31 6–15 Year 2030 With Project Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 31 7–1 Existing Vs. Existing With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison ......... 34 8-1 Year 2014 Without Project Vs. Year 2014 With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison ......................................................................................... 40 9–1 Year 2030 Without Project Vs. Year 2030 With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison ......................................................................................... 49 13-1 Project Driveway Lane Configurations ....................................................................................... 93 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc x LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE# PAGE 3-1 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) ................... 16 3-2 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) ................................... 17 3-3 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (HCM) ....................................... 18 3-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities ................................................................................ 19 3-5 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM) ....................... 20 3-6 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM) ......................................... 21 3-7 Significant Impact Criteria ............................................................................................... 22 5-1 Project Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast ............................................................. 25 6-1 Related Projects Summary ...................................................................................................... 30-31 7-1 Existing With Related Projects With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................... 33-34 7-2 Existing With Related Projects With Project Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ..................................................................................................................... 36-37 8-1 Year 2014 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ....................................... 39-40 8-2 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ..................................... 42-43 8-3 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................ 44-45 9-1 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ....................................... 48-49 9-2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ..................................... 51-52 9-3 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................ 53-54 10-1 Existing With Related Projects With Project Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 57 10-2 Existing With Related Projects With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ................................................................................... 58-59 10-3 Year 2014 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ........................... 61 10-4 Year 2014 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ......................... 62-63 10-5 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ........................... 65 10-6 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary ......................... 66-67 10-7 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ................. 68 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xi LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) SECTION-TABLE# PAGE 11-1 Year 2014 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) ........................................................................................... 72 11-2 Year 2014 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................. 74 11-3 Year 2014 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 77 11-4 Year 2014 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 80 12-1 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) ........................................................................................... 82 12-2 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................. 84 12-3 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 87 12-4 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) .................................................................................................. 89 13-1 Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................................................... 93 14-1 Year 2014 with Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Fair-Share Percentage Summary ............................................. 98 14-2 Year 2030 with Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Fair-Share Percentage Summary ............................................. 101 15-1 Project Comparison To Prior Traffic Impact Analysis Report (July 16, 2010) .............. 111-116 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This traffic impact analysis addendum evaluates the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, located in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. This addendum traffic impact analysis report assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in Project development totals, specifically the increase in parking spaces from 960 spaces to 1,087 spaces for a net increase of 127 parking spaces. Additionally, the Project now consists of the construction of a 67,000 square-feet (SF) regional transportation facility as compared to a 310,000 SF regional transportation facility (hereinafter referred to as Previous Project) as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010. It should be noted that a detailed list of the differences between the proposed Project and previous Project analyzed in this traffic impact analysis addendum is provided at the end of the Executive Summary. This addendum traffic impact analysis report is intended to support the preparation of an addendum to EIR No. 343, to be prepared by Kleinfelder, in conjunction with the discretionary review of the conditional use permit for the Project. It should be noted that the analysis determined that there are no new traffic impacts and therefore no new mitigation measures are required. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station with a larger intermodal facility. The new facility will include a nominal amount of passenger- oriented retail uses and restaurants marketed towards both transit users and the general public. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xiii Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 1,087 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) and Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), with a parking supply of approximately 461 parking spaces, 221 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and at the existing Sportstown access on Katella, west of the 57 Freeway.  The proposed Project is forecast generate 6,134 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 1,001 trips (772 inbound, 229 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 838 trips (207 inbound, 631 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.  The existing Project (Metrolink Station) generates 1,015 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.  After taking credit for the existing Metrolink land use, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 5,119 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 818 net trips (653 inbound, 165 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 615 net trips (121 inbound, 494 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.  The Project study area covers twelve (12) existing key study intersections and five (5) future Project driveways. The key study intersections and Project driveways are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xiv 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future) 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future) 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future) 17. Driveway 5 at Katella Avenue (Future)  The Project study area covers eight (8) key study roadway segments. The key roadway segments are: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City of Anaheim) 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim) 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City of Anaheim) 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City of Anaheim) 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim) 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim/Orange)1 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange) Existing Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections under the Existing peak hour service level calculations based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better.  All eight (8) key study roadway segments under Existing service level calculations based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry are currently operating at acceptable LOS B or better. Existing With Project Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report.  All eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 1 The segment from the SR-57 Freeway to Santa Ana River is in the City of Anaheim and the segment from the Santa Ana River to Main Street is in the City of Orange. Since the roadway segment count was collected in the City of Anaheim, this segment has been analyzed as a City of Anaheim segment. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xv Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the key study intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One (1) key study intersection (Douglass Road at Katella Avenue) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. The installation of changeable message signs on both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, which is a Project Design Feature, will improve operational capacity of this intersection. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis Existing With Project  All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations.  All eight (8) CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. Year 2014 Conditions  All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS C or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  All eight (8) of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 Conditions  All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xvi  Three (3) CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Daily Year 2030 Without Project and Daily Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. These three (3) CMP segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies on these segments. All three (3) CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, these three (3) study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic. Caltrans Facilities Analysis Existing Conditions  All Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 37.04 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- 43.70 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 37.79 E 38.75 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xvii  Two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd -- -- -- 8,465 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave -- -- -- 7,647 38.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One (1) Caltrans study intersection will continue to operate at adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.9 E -- -- It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersection to acceptable Level of Service.  None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xviii AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 38.20 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 40.79 E 38.63 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  One (1) Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Site Access & On-Site Circulation  All the Project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable service level of LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely and without undue congestion.  The maximum number of inbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the inbound southbound left-turn movement from Douglass Road into Driveway 2 during the AM peak hour. The queue on Douglass Road is forecast to have a maximum queue of eight (8) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 176 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). The maximum number of outbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the outbound westbound right-turn movement from Driveway 2 onto Douglass Road during the AM and PM peak hours. The queue on Driveway 2 is forecast to have a maximum queue of three (3) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 66 feet in LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xix queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). All of the other Project driveways are forecast to operate with a maximum queue of two (2) vehicles during the AM and/or PM peak hours.  Based on the Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis, adequate vehicle storage is provided at all of the driveways and review of the proposed site plan indicates that all Project driveways have sufficient stacking to accommodate the forecast vehicle queues. Based on the above, no changes to the proposed configuration of the Project driveways are necessary.  The on-site circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the overall layout does not create any unsafe vehicle- pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throating is sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, buses, shuttles, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on-site circulation is very good based on our review of the proposed site plan, whereas the alignment, spacing and throating of the Project driveways is adequate. The circulation around the buildings is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles.  To supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to determine the appropriate northbound approach lane geometry for the Year 2014 Project opening condition without requiring the need for any roadway improvements to Douglass Road on the north side of the intersection. As a result of the HCM analysis, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue is recommended to consist of a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR lane for the Year 2014 Project opening condition. The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at acceptable LOS D or better based on the HCM 2000 Methodology and the lane configuration mentioned above. Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies Existing With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. Existing With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xx Year 2014 With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. Year 2014 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2014. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xxi  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Intersection Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xxii  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. City of Orange Improvements  As shown in the analysis, no intersections or roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. Proposed Project Comparison to Previous Project Traffic Impact Analysis Report  A brief comparison of the proposed Project’s development tabulation, trip generation characteristics, Project access and potential traffic impacts in comparison to those identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (Previous Project) is shown below. The July 16, 2010 traffic study evaluated the potential impacts associated with construction of ARTIC with 960 parking spaces:  Development Size: The proposed Project acreage is the same as the Previous Project.  Building Size: The proposed Project is 243,000 SF smaller than the Previous Project.  Land Use: The proposed Project’s land use is the same as the Previous Project. In addition, there is no change in Transit Service.  Building Accessory Uses: The proposed Project’s building accessory uses are for both the transit patrons and outside patrons whereas for the Previous Project they were only for the transit patrons.  Parking Spaces: The proposed Project has 127 more parking spaces than the Previous Project.  Project Opening Year: The proposed Project is anticipated to be open in Year 2014 whereas the Previous Project was anticipated to be open in Year 2013.  Buildout Year: The proposed Project Buildout Year analysis was updated to reflect the updated Circulation Element. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR (SEIR 339) was certified in late 2010. The mitigation measures identified in SEIR 339 were incorporated into the LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xxiii General Plan Circulation Element. It should be noted that the adopted land uses were incorporated into the July 16, 2010 traffic study as a related project and did not need to be updated.  Trip Generation: The proposed Project is expected to generate 1,420 more daily trips, 196 more AM peak hour trips and 176 more PM peak hour trips than the Previous Project. The impact of this change in trip generation is analyzed in this addendum traffic report.  Project Access: The access to the proposed Project is the same as the Previous Project except Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), which will have access along Douglass Road for the proposed Project in addition to access along Sportstown.  No. of Project Driveways: The proposed Project analyzed 2 less Project Driveways than the Previous Project.  No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study intersections as the Previous Project.  No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less intersection impact and one less roadway segment impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study intersections as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc xxiv  CMP Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study ramp intersections as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study merge/diverge locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study weaving locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study freeway segments as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Caltrans study ramp intersections or Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. In addition, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less Caltrans study ramp intersection impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project. Additionally, there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Further, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Site Access Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Project Driveways for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC Anaheim, California April 11, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis addendum evaluates the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, located in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. This addendum traffic impact analysis report assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in Project development totals, specifically the increase in parking spaces from 960 spaces to 1,087 spaces for a net increase of 127 parking spaces. Additionally, the Project now consists of the construction of a 67,000 square-feet (SF) regional transportation facility as compared to a 310,000 SF regional transportation facility (hereinafter referred to as Previous Project) as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (July 2010 traffic impact analysis report). This addendum traffic impact analysis report is intended to support the preparation of an addendum to EIR No. 343, to be prepared by Kleinfelder, in conjunction with the discretionary review of the conditional use permit for the Project. It should be noted that a detailed list of the differences between the proposed Project and previous Project analyzed in this traffic impact analysis addendum is provided in Section 15.0. The scope of the Project is to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station with a larger intermodal facility. The new facility will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses and restaurants marketed towards both transit users and the general public. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 2 transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 1,087 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) and Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), with a parking supply of approximately 461 parking spaces, 221 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and at the existing Sportstown access on Katella, west of the 57 Freeway. This report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts the Project may have on the local and/or regional network in the vicinity of the Project site. The traffic impact analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at twelve (12) key study intersections within the Project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed Project and forecasts future (near-term and long-term) operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. It should be noted that five (5) Project driveways were also analyzed for the near-term “with” Project scenarios. This traffic impact analysis report satisfies the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies and is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing (i.e. baseline) peak hours and daily traffic information has been collected at twelve (12) key study intersections and eight (8) key study roadway segments, respectively, on a “typical” weekday for use in the preparation of intersection and roadway segment level of service calculations. This traffic report analyzes existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near-term and long-term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions for Existing (i.e. baseline), Year 2014 and Year 2030 traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project. Peak hour and daily traffic volumes for the Existing, Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions were provided by the City of Anaheim. 1.1 Study Area The study intersections listed below are locations that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. Twelve (12) existing key study intersections and five (5) future Project driveways listed below were selected based on location of Project and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies as well as discussions with the City of Anaheim staff. The key study intersections are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 3 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future) 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future) 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future) 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future) 17. Driveway 5 at Katella Avenue (Future) In addition, the study roadway segments listed below are locations that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. The eight (8) roadway segments listed below were selected based on the arterial network within the study area: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City of Anaheim) 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim) 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City of Anaheim) 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City of Anaheim) 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim) 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim/Orange)2 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. Figure 1-2 presents a Regional Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project, surrounding cities and the regional freeway system. The ICU/HCM Delay and Level of Service (LOS) calculations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, related projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service and/or addresses the impact of the Project. 2 The segment from the SR-57 Freeway to Santa Ana River is in the City of Anaheim and the segment from the Santa Ana River to Main Street is in the City of Orange. Since the roadway segment count was collected in the City of Anaheim, this segment has been analyzed as a City of Anaheim segment. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 4 Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are:  Existing traffic counts,  Estimated Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment for the Existing and proposed Project,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Existing (i.e. baseline) conditions,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Existing (i.e. baseline) conditions with Project traffic,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Near-Term (Year 2014) conditions without and with Project traffic,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Long-Term (Year 2030) conditions without and with Project traffic,  Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis,  Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology),  Site Access and On-Site Circulation Analysis, and  Project-Specific Traffic Improvements. 1.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which ICU/HCM Delay LOS and V/C calculations have been performed at the key intersections and key roadway segments and for Existing, Near-Term and Long-Term traffic conditions: A. Existing (i.e. baseline) Traffic Conditions, B. Existing (i.e. baseline) With Projects Traffic Conditions, C. Scenario B with Recommended Improvements, if any, D. Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions, E. Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions, F. Scenario E With Recommended Improvements, G. Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions, H. Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions, and I. Scenario H With Recommended Improvements. 1.3 Study Area - City of Orange The study area that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project was selected based on location of Project and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange uses the same methodology to determine intersections to be analyzed in Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange sent a letter requesting the analysis of 12 intersections within the City of Orange during their review of EIR 343. In response, all 12 requested intersections were reviewed to see if they met the LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 5 minimum peak hour trip threshold. Those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive 51 or more peak hour trips from the Project were further scrutinized to determine whether or not the Project-generated traffic created significant impacts in connection with the identified City of Orange intersections. For those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive less than 51 peak hour Project-generated trips, the Project will not create any significant impacts. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION This traffic impact study addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station with a larger intermodal facility. The new facility will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses and restaurants marketed towards both transit users and the general public. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre OCTA parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 1,087 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) and Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), with a parking supply of approximately 461 parking spaces, 221 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and Sportstown. Figure 2-1 presents the existing site plan for the Project. Figure 2-2 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by PB/HOK. 2.1 Site Access As shown in Figure 2-2, vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via the existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue as well as via four (4) driveways located on Douglass Road and one (1) driveway located on Katella Avenue. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 7 The existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue is a full-access, signalized intersection that provides access to Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot). Driveway 1 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-in and left-out/right-out only driveway providing access to the Schmid Property. Driveway 2 along Douglass Road is a five-legged, full-access (only the northbound left is restricted), signalized intersection providing ingress/egress from Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) and egress for the buses. Driveway 3 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the buses only. Driveway 4 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, full-access driveway providing access to Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot). Driveway 5 along Katella Avenue is a one-way stop-controlled driveway that provides right- in/right-out only access to Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) as well as to the buses area. It should be noted that the ARTIC patrons parking in Lot C, which also has access from Douglass Road, would access the train platforms through the Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel which will be constructed on the west end of the platforms. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 8 3.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3.1 Existing Street Network The Orange Freeway (SR-57) provides primary regional access to the proposed Project. The SR-57 Freeway bisects the Project site. The principal local network of streets serving the Project site consists of Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Struck Avenue, Collins Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street, Manchester Avenue, Anaheim Way, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, Douglass Road, Eckhoff Street, Main Street and Batavia Street. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of the key area streets. Cerritos Avenue is an east-west roadway located north of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Cerritos Avenue is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Katella Avenue is an east-west roadway that borders the Project site on the north. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Katella Avenue is a six- lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). The intersections of Katella Avenue at Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Ramps, Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Sportstown, Howell Avenue, SR-57 SB Ramps, SR-57 NB Ramps, Douglass Road, Struck Avenue, Main Street and Batavia Street are controlled by traffic signals. Struck Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on the south side of the roadway, but is permitted on the north side of the roadway, within the Project vicinity. Struck Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a double-yellow line. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Collins Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of the Project site. West of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway with on-street parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. East of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. On-street parking is not permitted east of Main Street. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Orangewood Avenue is an east-west roadway located south of the Project site. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Orangewood Avenue is primarily a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median, with on-street parking restricted on both sides of the roadway. West of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). East of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On- street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. South of Katella Avenue, Haster Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 9 Katella Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Manchester Avenue is a one-way roadway located west of the Project site trending in a southeast direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Manchester Avenue is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Anaheim Way is a one-way roadway located west of the Project site trending in a northwest direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Anaheim Way is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Lewis Street is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the study area except between Katella Avenue and Anaheim Way where on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. North of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. South of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a two- lane undivided roadway. North of Anaheim Way, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. State College Boulevard is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. State College Boulevard is primarily a six-lane divided roadway. South of Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard is an eight-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Howell Avenue is an east-west roadway located north-west of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Howell Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Douglass Road is a north-south roadway that borders the Project site on the west. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane, and south of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane undivided roadway. Eckhoff Street is a north-south roadway located south-east of the Project site. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. South of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). North of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Main Street is a north-south roadway located east of the Project site. South of Collins Street, on- street parking is not permitted on the west side of the roadway, but is permitted on the east side of the roadway, within the Project vicinity. North of Collins Avenue, on-street parking is generally permitted. Main Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 10 Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Batavia Street is a north-south roadway located east of the Project site. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Batavia Street is a four- lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions within the study area evaluated in this report. The number of travel lanes and intersection controls for the key area study intersections are identified. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve (12) key study intersections evaluated in this report, along with existing daily two-way traffic volumes for the eight (8) key roadway segments, were provided by the City of Anaheim. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 present the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively, for the twelve (12) key study intersections. Figure 3-4 presents the existing daily traffic volumes for the eight (8) key study roadway segments. Appendix A contains the raw existing intersection turning movement and roadway segment traffic count data which was collected by Transportation Studies Inc. in Year 2008 and 2009 and was provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix B contains the freeway segment and ramp existing traffic volumes. 3.3 Capacity Analysis Methodologies Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the twelve (12) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for unsignalized intersections. It should be noted that the methodology outlined in Chapter 16 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for signalized intersections was utilized for Caltrans controlled intersections. Freeway mainline, ramp merge and diverge and weaving segments are also analyzed using Chapters 22-25 of the HCM 2000. 3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) In conformance with the City of Anaheim requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 11 Per City of Anaheim requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. The analysis methodologies used by the City of Anaheim for signalized intersections are also consistent with the methodology used by the City of Orange, as are the LOS thresholds. Therefore, the same assumptions were applied for both jurisdictions. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1. 3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The 2000 HCM unsignalized methodology was utilized in the analysis of stop-controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, this methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. The HCM control delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 3-2. 3.3.3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HCM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 12 Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3-3. 3.3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for arterials. Although the arterial segment V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance, the performance is measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. To identify deficient arterial segments, the segments that are identified as deficient under daily conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour throughput. Arterial segments that operate deficiently under peak hour conditions are candidates for mitigation improvements. Note that the City of Orange does not provide provisions for peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine level of service under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. The peak hour link analysis determines directional AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for each link that exceeds the daily LOS threshold. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15-7 of the HCM, multiplying the mid-block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. The percentage of green time is estimated by dividing the directional V/C ratios by the total V/C ratio at signalized intersections along the arterial segment. The highest resulting percentage is the estimated percentage of green time for that arterial segment. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied for the arterial segments throughout the study area. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities for each jurisdiction as applied in the current General Plans for each City and Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991) as noted in Table 3-4. The capacities reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction. Note that the City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement for Smart Streets as designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority. For Katella Avenue, Orange increases daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that enhance throughput along these key corridors. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 13 3.3.5 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour HCM 2000 density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM 2000 and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing traffic count data was provided by Caltrans. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software (HCS), the electronic version of the HCM 2000 for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM 2000 methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influential area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps:  Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge;  Determination of the capacity for the segment; and  Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service. The level of service (LOS) for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM 2000. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 3-5 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. 3.3.6 Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Typically, weaving segments are formed when merge areas are followed by diverge areas within 2,500 feet of the merge area. Auxiliary lanes do not need to be present to be defined a weaving area. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM 2000 and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Freeway weaving analysis was carried out by applying HCS software to weaving areas. According to HCM 2000, the weaving analysis supersedes ramp merge/diverge analysis and therefore were not analyzed for identified weaving segments. Table 3-6 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds For intersections and arterial segments, significant impacts are determined using the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Under the General Plan Build-out scenarios, these locations are governed by the City’s Growth Management Element. All State owned facilities are analyzed consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for all scenarios. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 14 3.4.1 Intersections According to the City’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all City intersections. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for intersections. The relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project during the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay or volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in Table 3-7. As mentioned previously, LOS D [> 0.81 and ≤ 0.90 (signalized) & > 25.0 s/v and  35.0 s/v (unsignalized)] is an established level of service standard for intersections in the City of Anaheim. As indicated in Table 3-7, the Project-related increase in ICU value that defines a significant impact at signalized intersections varies with LOS. Per the City’s guidelines, a change in ICU value, within LOS C, equal to or greater than 0.05 is an impact and within LOS D, a change in ICU equal to or greater than 0.03 is also an impact. With LOS E or F, a change in ICU equal to or greater than 0.01 is considered an impact. For the unsignalized intersections, this report defines a significant impact as a decrease in LOS by one level or more for those locations operating at LOS D, E, or F (LOS delay values shown in Table 3-2). Two distinct mitigation strategies have been considered for this analysis. One strategy consists of physical capacity improvements (e.g. additional lanes, modified lane configurations). The second strategy includes operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades). Each strategy is consistent with industry practices as well as strategies previously accepted and employed in the area. Capacity improvements are considered at locations where Project impacts result in an unacceptable LOS. Operational improvements are considered for Project impacts in which the LOS operates at an acceptable level, but the Project results in an increase in LOS that exceeds the City's significant impact threshold. For General Plan Build-out analysis, consistent with the City’s Growth Management Element, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the LOS to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under without project conditions. Mitigation measures, discussed later in the report are required to bring deficient intersections and roadway segments to an acceptable LOS. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 15 3.4.2 Arterial Segments In addition, the relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project on a daily basis was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key roadway segments. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each roadway segment. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS D, E, or F) coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) or causes an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. 3.4.3 Caltrans Facilities Caltrans District 12 has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined that all state owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Analysis of Caltrans facilities is conducted in Sections 11.0 and 12.0 of this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 16 TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU METHODOLOGY)3 Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A  0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. 3 Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 - Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 17 TABLE 3-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM) 4 Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description A  10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion 4 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 17 (Unsignalized Intersections). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 18 TABLE 3-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM)5 Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B > 10.0 and < 20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C > 20.0 and < 35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D > 35.0 and < 55.0 Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 55.0 and < 80.0 Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. -F  80.0 Severe congestion This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. 5 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 19 TABLE 3-4 DAILY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES6 Type of Arterial Lane Configuration LOS E Capacity (VPD) Major 6-Lanes Divided 56,300 Major 8-Lanes Divided 75,000 Notes:  VPD = Vehicles per day 6 Source: Orange County Highway Design Manual, September 1991. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 20 TABLE 3-5 CALTRANS FREEWAY MAINLINE AND RAMP LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (HCM)7 LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 7 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibits 23-2 and 25-4. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 21 TABLE 3-6 CALTRANS FREEWAY WEAVING LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (HCM)8 LOS Freeway Weaving Area Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 E ≤ 43.0 F >43.0 8 Source: HCM 2000 Exhibit 25-7. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 22 TABLE 3-7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA9 Level of Service (LOS) Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C > 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05 D > 0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01 9 Source: City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 23 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations and/or rates to the Project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway segments and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the Project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast Project traffic. If necessary, the need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 24 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast The daily trip generation rate for the Project was developed based on the estimation of the numbers of originating passengers at ARTIC and the necessary infrastructure required to meet that demand. The needs for ARTIC were first analyzed in the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Transit and Parking Facility Description Report (Carter and Burgess, October 2007). The Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum (Cordoba Corporation, August 2009) updated the analysis with updated information from the various providers of service at ARTIC. Originating passenger information was provided by the various service providers that will utilize ARTIC (Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA, etc). The analysis conducted for these reports considered all originating passengers for each service provider at ARTIC. The mode of access for each originating passenger was then determined from the planned service levels for each provider – some arrive by car (driver or passenger), others transferring from another transit mode, others walking or bicycling to ARTIC. The daily vehicle trips were then compiled by adding the parking vehicles, drop off vehicles, taxis, buses and shuttles. The daily trip generation rate was then calculated by taking these total vehicle trips and dividing by the number of parking spaces, as calculated in the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum. Trip Generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis and shuttles. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour Project traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday. Review of row (A) of Table 5-1 shows that the development of the proposed Project is forecast to generate 6,134 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 1,001 trips (772 inbound, 229 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 838 trips (207 inbound, 631 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Review of row (B) of Table 5-1 shows that the existing Project generates 1,015 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As shown in row (C) of Table 5-1, the Project upon completion is forecast to generate 5,119 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 818 net trips (653 inbound, 165 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 615 net trips (121 inbound, 494 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. It should be noted that the anticipated increase in ridership at this station, based on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Metrolink Service Expansion Project (MSEP) report, was accounted for in the Needs Assessment report, and that document was the basis for the trip generation. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 25 TABLE 5-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST Project Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors10:  ARTIC (TE/PS) 4.91 0.67 0.17 0.84 0.15 0.54 0.69 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast: Autos  Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) - (461 Spaces) 2,264 309 78 387 69 249 318  Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) - (221 Spaces) 1,085 148 38 186 33 119 152  Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) - (405 Spaces) 1,989 271 69 340 61 219 280 Autos Trip Generation Forecast:5,338 728 185 913 163 587 750 Buses  ARTIC Bus Service 796 44 44 88 44 44 88 Buses Trip Generation Forecast: 796 44 44 88 44 44 88 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast (A): 6,134 772 229 1,001 207 631 838 Existing Project Trip Generation10:  Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Existing Project Trip Generation (B): 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Net Project Traffic Generation Forecast (C) = (A) - (B) 5,119 653 165 818 121 494 615 Notes:  TE/PS = Trip ends per Parking Space 10 Source: City of Anaheim. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 26 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional traffic distribution patterns at the key study intersections are presented in Figure 5-1 and Figures 5-2A through 5-2D. Figure 5-1 displays the traffic distribution pattern for the existing Project. Figures 5-2A through 5-2D display the traffic distribution patterns for the Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot), Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) and the ARTIC Bus Service, respectively. Traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:  Anaheim Metrolink Station Trip Access Distribution Survey,  the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. SR-57 Freeway, Katella Avenue, etc.),  expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals,  the traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the Project site,  existing intersection traffic volumes,  ingress/egress availability at the Project site and  input from City of Anaheim staff. The Project trip distribution pattern was submitted to the City staff for their review and approval prior to proceeding with further analyses. 5.2.1 Existing Project Traffic Volumes The directional traffic distribution pattern for the existing Project is presented in Figure 5-1. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour existing Project trips at the key study intersections are presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-5 presents the Daily existing Project trips at the key study roadway segments. The existing Project trips assignment presented in the above mentioned figures reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the existing Project trips forecast presented in the row (B) portion of Table 5-1. It should be noted that the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and Daily existing Project trips presented in Figures 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5, respectively, are shown as negative values since these volumes were “removed” from the street system in conjunction with the Project development. 5.2.2 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes The directional traffic distribution patterns for the proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-2A through 5-2D. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour proposed Project trips at the key study intersections and future Project driveways are presented in Figures 5-6 and 5-7, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-8 presents the Daily proposed Project trips at the key study roadway segments. The proposed Project trips assignment presented in the above mentioned figures reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figures 5-2A through 5-2D and the proposed Project trips forecast presented in the row (A) portion of Table 5-1. Consequently, the net ARTIC Project trips, as shown in row (C) are reflected in the future traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 27 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes The estimates of Project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Existing traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Existing With Project traffic conditions. The anticipated Existing With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and five (5) Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-3 presents the Daily Existing With Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by City of Anaheim. Appendix C contains the detailed Existing With Project traffic volume data. 6.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Volumes In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, anticipated Year 2014 traffic volumes are calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 With Project volumes. The status of other known development projects (related projects) in the area has been researched at the City of Anaheim, and have been included as part of the cumulative background settings for the near-term (Year 2014) traffic conditions. Based on information provided by the City of Anaheim, there are twenty-five (25) related projects located in the City of Anaheim that have either been built, but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These twenty-five (25) related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background settings. Table 6-1 provides a brief description for each of the twenty-five (25) related projects. These related projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections and roadway links. The anticipated Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections are presented in Figures 6-4 and 6-5, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-6 presents the Daily Year 2014 Without Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix D contains the detailed Year 2014 Without Project traffic volume data. 6.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Volumes The estimates of Project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The anticipated Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and five (5) Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-7 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 28 and 6-8, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-9 presents the Daily Year 2014 With Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. 6.4 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Volumes The Year 2030 traffic volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM is the traffic forecasting tool for the City of Anaheim and has been certified by the Orange County Transportation Authority to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). ATAM relies upon OCTAM for the regional traffic component. OCTAM is based on and is consistent with the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) regional transportation model, incorporating adopted regional growth projections. In addition, the General Plan Buildout highway network is assumed in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange for Year 2030 analysis and all other facilities are consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) buildout. As a subarea model, ATAM incorporates the City of Anaheim General Plan within the City limits. As General Plan Amendments are processed, ATAM is updated to reflect any changes to the General Plan. Therefore ATAM contains every adopted project within the City’s limits. There are also a number of projects which are currently under various stages of analysis, and have been incorporated into ATAM for the purposes of this project. The following projects listed below are some of the projects relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need and regulatory requirements. A complete list of all projects included in ATAM is included in the ARTIC EIR Section 6.2. Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing their own separate project clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and NEPA and are included in the long-term cumulative analysis of this study. These projects are:  Anaheim Rapid Connection  California High-Speed Rail  California-Nevada Super Speed Train (CNSST)  Desert Express  Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion  Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan  City of Orange General Plan Update  Orange Center Specific Plan It should be noted that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion includes ARTIC. As a result, the Year 2030 forecast volumes from ATAM are considered the Year 2030 With Project volumes. Therefore, to obtain the without Project volumes, the Project trips were subtracted from the “with” Project volumes. The anticipated Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections are presented in Figures 6-10 and 6-11, respectively. In LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 29 addition, Figure 6-12 presents the Daily Year 2030 Without Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. 6.5 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes The anticipated Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections were generated from the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) for the City of Anaheim General Plan Buildout and includes related projects that are listed in Section 6.4 of this report. The anticipated Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and five (5) Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-13 and 6-14, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-15 presents the Daily Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix E contains the detailed Year 2030 With Project traffic volume data. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 30 TABLE 6-1 RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY11,12 Related Project Description Units/Square Footage City of Anaheim 1. Trendwest Resorts Timeshare Timeshare 275 Rooms 2. Anaheim GardenWalk Retail, Restaurants, Entertainment Hotel 569,750 SF 1,628 Rooms 3. Grand Californian Hotel Expansion Hotel 280 Rooms 4. Springhill Suites Hotel 120 Rooms 5. Manchester/Orangewood Affordable Apartments 68 DU 6. Walnut Manor Retirement Community Skilled Nursing Facility 156 DU 99 Beds 7. Avalon Bay “2100 at Platinum Triangle” Apartments Commercial 251 DU 11,807 SF 8. The Hanover Company “Element” Apartments 265 DU 9. Integral Partners “Anavia” Apartments 250 DU 10. “Archstone Gateway” Apartments 884 DU 11. Platinum Triangle Condominiums Condominiums Commercial 336 DU 1,248 SF 12. BRE Properties “Stadium Park” & “Stadium Club” Apartments Condominiums 320 DU 534 DU 13. Lennar “A-Town Metro” Residential Commercial 2,681 SF 229,800 SF 14. Platinum Tower Office Commercial 590,000 SF 10,000 SF 15. Orangewood Condominiums Condominiums 341 DU 16. Lennar “A-Town Stadium” Condominiums 878 DU 17. Platinum Vista/Mr. Stox Condominiums Quality Restaurant 315 DU 9,500 SF Notes  DU = Dwelling Units  SF = Square-Feet 11 Source: City of Anaheim, Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department. 12 This list of related projects was compiled at the time the counts were conducted. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 31 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED) RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY13,14 Related Project Description Units/Square Footage 18. “Gene Autry Experience” Condominiums Office Commercial 1,208 DU 100,000 SF 50,000 SF 19. “Alexan Orangewood” Apartments 690 DU 20. “Platinum Gateway” Apartments Office Hotel 328 DU 207,275 SF 138 Rooms 21. Convention Center Hotel Convention Space Retail 795 Rooms 200,000 SF 20,000 SF 22. Stadium Lofts Mixed Use Development -- 23. D.R. Horton Mixed Use Apartments Retail Restaurant 261 DU 2,740 SF 10,000 SF 24. Integral Partners Apartments 1818 S. State College Boulevard Apartments 266 DU 25. Integral Partners Apartments 2045 S. State College Boulevard Apartments 265 DU Notes  DU = Dwelling Units  SF = Square-Feet 13 Source: City of Anaheim, Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department. 14 This list of related projects was compiled at the time the counts were conducted. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 32 7.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The existing conditions analysis establishes the basis for the future forecasts for the Project. This analysis was based on existing intersection and roadway segment counts collected in Year 2008 and provided by the City of Anaheim. The existing conditions analysis reflects these counts as well as existing lane configurations for all analyzed intersections and roadway segments. 7.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 7-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for existing traffic conditions with and without the Project. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 7-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) in Table 7-1 presents forecast Existing With Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) of Table 7-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) of Table 7-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of traffic mitigation improvements, if necessary. 7.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of Column (1) of Table 7-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing traffic conditions. Appendix F presents the ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for the key study intersections for the Existing Traffic Conditions. 7.1.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 7-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 7-1, Figure 7-1 graphically represents the comparison between Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix G contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Existing With Project Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 33TABLE 7-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY15 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact16 (4) Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.507 A 0.014 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.500 A 0.004 No -- -- 3. Lewis St at AM 0.484 A 0.488 A 0.004 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.646 B 0.657 B 0.011 No -- -- 4. State College Blvd at AM 0.426 A 0.456 A 0.030 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.531 A 0.547 A 0.016 No -- -- 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.341 A 0.008 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.461 A 0.466 A 0.005 No -- -- 6. Howell Ave at AM 0.377 A 0.384 A 0.007 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.551 A 0.559 A 0.008 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.451 A 0.049 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.436 A 0.029 No -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 15 Appendices F and G contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 16 See Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 34TABLE 7-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY17 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact18 (4) Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.449 A 0.086 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.439 A 0.038 No -- -- 9. Douglass Rd at AM 0.408 A 0.422 A 0.014 No -- -- Katella Ave19 PM 0.492 A 0.557 A 0.065 No -- -- 10. Struck Ave at AM 0.280 A 0.287 A 0.007 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.344 A 0.354 A 0.010 No -- -- 11. Main St at AM 0.501 A 0.517 A 0.016 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.495 A 0.507 A 0.012 No -- -- 12. Batavia St at AM 0.534 A 0.547 A 0.013 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.500 A 0.509 A 0.009 No -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 17 Appendices F and G contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 18 See Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 19 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 35 7.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 7-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight (8) study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the existing traffic conditions with and without the Project. The first column (1) of LOS E Capacity values in Table 7-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column (2) lists the number of travel lanes and the third column (3) indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column (4) in Table 7-2 forecasts the Existing With Project traffic conditions. 7.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 7-2 shows that all eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 7.2.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 7-2 shows that all eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 36 TABLE 7-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,629 0.633 B 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,714 0.634 B 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,934 0.549 A 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 34,026 0.604 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 35,137 0.624 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 37TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,887 0.691 B 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,713 0.546 A 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11520 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,900 0.523 A Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 20 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 38 8.0 YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, anticipated Year 2014 traffic volumes are calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 With Project volumes. 8.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 7-1). The second column (2) lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) in Table 8-1 presents forecast Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) of Table 8-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 8-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 8.1.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 8-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. 8.1.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 8-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 8-1, Figure 8-1 graphically represents the comparison between Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix H contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Year 2014 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 39TABLE 8-1 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY21 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact22 (5) Year 2014 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.686 B 0.688 B 0.002 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.662 B 0.667 B 0.005 No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.592 A 0.607 B 0.015 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.699 B 0.703 C 0.004 No -- -- 3. Lewis St at AM 0.484 A 0.658 B 0.663 B 0.005 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.646 B 0.831 D 0.835 D 0.004 No -- -- 4. State College Blvd at AM 0.426 A 0.640 B 0.656 B 0.016 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.531 A 0.806 D 0.817 D 0.011 No -- -- 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.434 A 0.442 A 0.008 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.461 A 0.613 B 0.618 B 0.005 No -- -- 6. Howell Ave at AM 0.377 A 0.467 A 0.482 A 0.015 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.551 A 0.702 C 0.710 C 0.008 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.498 A 0.556 A 0.058 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.591 A 0.636 B 0.045 No -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 21 Appendices F and H contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 22 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 40TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 23 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact24 (5) Year 2014 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.415 A 0.501 A 0.086 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.477 A 0.515 A 0.038 No -- -- 9. Douglass Rd at AM 0.408 A 0.444 A 0.448 A 0.004 No -- -- Katella Ave25 PM 0.492 A 0.526 A 0.601 B 0.075 No -- -- 10. Struck Ave at AM 0.280 A 0.306 A 0.313 A 0.007 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.344 A 0.382 A 0.391 A 0.009 No -- -- 11. Main St at AM 0.501 A 0.526 A 0.541 A 0.015 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.495 A 0.522 A 0.533 A 0.011 No -- -- 12. Batavia St at AM 0.534 A 0.563 A 0.576 A 0.013 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.500 A 0.526 A 0.534 A 0.008 No -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 23 Appendices F and H contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 24 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 25 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 41 8.2 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 8-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight (8) study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of LOS E Capacity values in Table 8-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column (2) lists the number of travel lanes and the third column (3) indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column (4) forecasts Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The fifth column (5) in Table 8-2 forecasts the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. 8.2.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 8-2 shows that five (5) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 8.2.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 8-2 shows that six (6) key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. To determine if the Project creates a significant impact, these segments are analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any peak hour deficiencies. As presented in Table 8-3, these study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, the study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2014 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 42TABLE 8-2 YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 54,165 0.962 E 54,754 0.973 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 54,142 0.962 E 54,816 0.974 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 45,770 0.813 D 46,444 0.825 D 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 44,058 0.783 C 45,284 0.804 D 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 48,007 0.853 D 48,904 0.869 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 43TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 53,148 0.944 E 54,045 0.960 E 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 40,009 0.711 C 41,112 0.730 C 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11526 6D 30,280 0.512 A 36,869 0.624 B 37,489 0.634 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 26 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 44TABLE 8-3 YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 1,751 0.549 A WB 3 2,736 1,736 0.635 B PM EB 3 3,249 1,841 0.567 A WB 3 3,363 2,526 0.751 C 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,098 0.657 B WB 3 2,964 1,337 0.451 A PM EB 3 3,249 1,830 0.563 A WB 3 3,192 2,293 0.718 C 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major AM EB 3 3,705 1,592 0.430 A WB 3 2,679 1,147 0.428 A PM EB 3 2,679 1,586 0.592 A WB 3 2,964 1,931 0.651 B Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 45TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major AM EB 3 3,825 1,820 0.476 A WB 3 2,550 1,214 0.476 A PM EB 3 2,467 1,570 0.636 B WB 3 3,290 2,229 0.678 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,318 0.340 A WB 3 4,218 1,218 0.289 A PM EB 3 3,762 1,493 0.397 A WB 3 3,648 1,759 0.482 A 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,475 0.381 A WB 3 4,218 1,698 0.403 A PM EB 3 3,933 1,838 0.467 A WB 3 3,933 2,050 0.521 A Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 46 9.0 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This analysis was performed with the application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to obtain Year 2030 traffic volumes. Future trip activity is estimated and assigned throughout the study area. It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses reflect the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 9.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 9-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 7-1). The second column (2) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) in Table 9-1 presents forecast Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) of Table 9-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 9-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 9.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 9-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. 9.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 9-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. The intersection of Sportstown/Katella Avenue has improved level of service with the Project due to the redistribution of Project traffic. One (1) key study intersection (Douglass Road at Katella Avenue) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. The installation of changeable message signs on both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, which is a Project Design Feature, will improve operational capacity of this intersection. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 47 To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 9-1, Figure 9-1 graphically represents the comparison between Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix I contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Year 2030 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 48TABLE 9-1 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY27 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact28 (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.761 C 0.768 C 0.007 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.708 C 0.710 C 0.002 No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.804 D 0.815 D 0.011 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.771 C 0.776 C 0.005 No -- -- 3. Lewis St at AM 0.484 A 0.692 B 0.699 B 0.007 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.646 B 0.828 D 0.831 D 0.003 No -- -- 4. State College Blvd at AM 0.426 A 0.896 D 0.900 D 0.004 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.531 A 0.840 D 0.852 D 0.012 No -- -- 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.637 B 0.654 B 0.017 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.461 A 0.740 C 0.737 C -0.003 No -- -- 6. Howell Ave at AM 0.377 A 0.607 B 0.622 B 0.015 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.551 A 0.837 D 0.845 D 0.008 No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.694 B 0.712 C 0.018 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.685 B 0.691 B 0.006 No -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 27 Appendices F and I contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 28 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 49TABLE 9-1 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY29 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact30 (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.593 A 0.679 B 0.086 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.688 B 0.726 C 0.038 No -- -- 9. Douglass Rd at AM 0.408 A 0.776 C 0.840 D 0.064 Yes 0.840 D Katella Ave31,32 PM 0.492 A 0.779 C 0.868 D 0.089 Yes 0.868 D 10. Struck Ave at AM 0.280 A 0.665 B 0.673 B 0.008 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.344 A 0.803 D 0.809 D 0.006 No -- -- 11. Main St at AM 0.501 A 0.787 C 0.803 D 0.016 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.495 A 0.801 D 0.815 D 0.014 No -- -- 12. Batavia St at AM 0.534 A 0.754 C 0.766 C 0.012 No -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.500 A 0.762 C 0.771 C 0.009 No -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 29 Appendices F and I contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 30 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 31 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL, two NBT and one NBR for the Year 2030 Conditions. 32 Impacted intersections at acceptable levels of service require operational improvements only. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 50 9.2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 9-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight (8) study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of LOS E Capacity values in Table 9-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column (2) lists the number of travel lanes and the third column (3) indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column (4) forecasts Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The fifth column (5) in Table 9-2 forecasts the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 9.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 9-2 shows that six (6) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 9.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 9-2 shows that the same six (6) key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. However, as presented in Table 9-3, these study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, the study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required. . LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 51TABLE 9-2 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio33 LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.467 A 70,501 0.940 E 71,090 0.948 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.622 B 70,416 0.939 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 75,000 8D 30,260 0.537 A 57,186 0.762 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 32,800 0.583 A 50,694 0.676 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 61,413 1.091 F 62,310 1.107 F Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 33 V/C ratio based on existing number of lanes and LOS E capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 52TABLE 9-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio34 LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 70,293 1.249 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 61,797 1.098 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11535 6D 30,280 0.512 A 50,950 0.862 D 51,570 0.872 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 34 V/C ratio based on existing number of lanes and LOS E capacity. 35 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 53 TABLE 9-3 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 4 4256 2,720 0.639 B -- -- -- WB 4 3648 2,620 0.718 C -- -- -- PM EB 4 4332 3,580 0.826 D -- -- -- WB 4 4484 3,690 0.823 D -- -- -- 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major AM EB 4 4,256 3,310 0.778 C -- -- -- WB 4 3,952 2,350 0.595 A -- -- -- PM EB 4 4,332 3,730 0.861 D -- -- -- WB 4 4,256 3,780 0.888 D -- -- -- 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A -- -- -- WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A -- -- -- PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B -- -- -- WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C -- -- -- 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B -- -- -- WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A -- -- -- PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C -- -- -- WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D -- -- -- Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 54TABLE 9-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C -- -- -- WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B -- -- -- PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A -- -- -- WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D -- -- -- 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major AM EB 3 2,793 1,750 0.627 B -- -- -- WB 3 2,451 2,160 0.881 D -- -- -- PM EB 3 2,907 2,520 0.867 D -- -- -- WB 3 2,394 2,020 0.844 D -- -- -- Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 55 10.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ANALYSIS The goals of 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion; provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy; and determine gas tax fund eligibility. To meet these goals, the CMP contains a number of policies designed to monitor and address system performance issues. OCTA developed the policies that makeup Orange County’s CMP with local jurisdictions, the California Department of Transportation, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As Orange County’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) is responsible for the administration of the CMP, as well as providing data and models that are consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, and developing the deficiency plan processes. The 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) stipulates the requirements for maintaining LOS E at CMP intersections and roadway segments. The following four (4) Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections are located within the study area: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue The following eight (8) study area arterial segments are included in the CMP network 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 10.1 Existing With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-1 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-1, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 56 10.2 Existing With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-2 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-2, all eight (8) CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 57TABLE 10-1 EXISTING WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY36 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.528 A -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.507 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.500 A -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.451 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.436 A -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.449 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.439 A -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 36 Appendix G contains ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 58TABLE 10-2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,629 0.633 B 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,714 0.634 B 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,934 0.549 A 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 34,026 0.604 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 35,137 0.624 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 59TABLE 10-2 (CONTINUED) EXISTING WITH PROJECT CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,887 0.691 B 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,713 0.546 A 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11537 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,900 0.523 A Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 37 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 60 10.3 Year 2014 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-3 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-3, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS C or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. 10.4 Year 2014 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-4 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-4, all eight (8) of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 61TABLE 10-3 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY38 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2014 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.686 B 0.688 B -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.662 B 0.667 B -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.592 A 0.607 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.699 B 0.703 C -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.498 A 0.556 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.591 A 0.636 B -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.415 A 0.501 A -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.477 A 0.515 A -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 38 Appendix H contains ICU/LOS calculation sheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 62TABLE 10-4 YEAR 2014 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 54,165 0.962 E 54,754 0.973 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 54,142 0.962 E 54,816 0.974 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 45,770 0.813 D 46,444 0.825 D 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 44,058 0.783 C 45,284 0.804 D 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 48,007 0.853 D 48,904 0.869 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 63TABLE 10-4 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 53,148 0.944 E 54,045 0.960 E 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 40,009 0.711 C 41,112 0.730 C 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11539 6D 36,869 0.624 B 37,489 0.634 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 39 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 64 10.5 Year 2030 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-5 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-5, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four (4) CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 10.6 Year 2030 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-6 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-6, three (3) CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. These three (3) CMP segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies on these segments. As presented in Table 10-7, all three (3) CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, these three (3) study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required at these locations. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 65TABLE 10-5 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY40 Key Intersection Time Period (1) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.761 C 0.768 C -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.708 C 0.710 C -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.804 D 0.815 D -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.771 C 0.776 C -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.694 B 0.712 C -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.685 B 0.691 B -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.593 A 0.679 B -- -- Katella Ave PM 0.688 B 0.726 C -- -- Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 40 Appendix I contains ICU/LOS calculation sheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 66TABLE 10-6 YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 75,000 8D 70,501 0.940 E 71,090 0.948 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 75,000 8D 70,416 0.939 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 75,000 8D 57,186 0.762 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 50,694 0.676 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 61,413 1.091 F 62,310 1.107 F Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 67TABLE 10-6 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial (1) LOS E Capacity (VPD) (2) Lanes (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 70,293 1.249 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 61,797 1.098 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11541 6D 50,950 0.862 D 51,570 0.872 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 41 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 68TABLE 10-7 YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period (1) Approach (2) Lanes (3) Total Link Capacity (VPH) (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 69 11.0 YEAR 2014 CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS (HCM METHODOLOGY) While the City of Anaheim requires the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for analyzing Project impacts, Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four (4) intersections listed below are Caltrans’ ramp intersections and have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) Methodology: 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Ave 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Ave 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Ave 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Ave It is expected that the results obtained from using the ICU methodology and the HCM methodology will be compatible and lead to similar conclusions. However, the two methods measure and analyze different travel flow characteristics, which leads to results that are not identical. The minimum required level of service to be maintained at Caltrans ramp intersections is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. In addition, Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following eight (8) Caltrans ramps: Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Ave 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Ave/Orangewood Ave 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Ave 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Ave Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp Similarly, Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following four (4) Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 70 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave Caltrans currently does not have any additional improvements identified or planned for the identified impacted and deficient segments. Outside of the additional northbound lane which will be constructed on the Northbound SR-57 freeway in the next few years, there are no planned or programmed improvements to the surrounding freeways. In addition, the City does not have jurisdiction over the State Highway System and, therefore, cannot directly implement mitigation measures associated with project related impacts on mainline segments. Section 14.0 will discuss State Highway System impacts and mitigation strategies in further detail. Since freeway merge, diverge and weaving segment operations are dependent upon mainline and ramp capacities, reducing congestion on these facilities contributes to higher speeds and could lead to an improved LOS. Improving merge, diverge and weaving facilities through the addition of auxiliary lanes within the area could provide additional capacity and reduce the segment density. Operational improvements through improved signage or other ITS measures may also be developed in consultation with Caltrans in order to improve the LOS. 11.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 11-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans study intersections for Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM Delay/LOS values in Table 11-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) of Table 11-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 11-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (1) indicates that all Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 11.1.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that all Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 71 11.1.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 11-1 shows that all Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. Appendices J and M contain the HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for Existing and Year 2014 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 72TABLE 11-1 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY42 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 22.5 C 21.8 C No -- -- Katella Ave PM 15.2 B 19.6 B 19.2 B No -- -- 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 14.6 B 13.0 B No -- -- Katella Ave PM 17.8 B 24.5 C 24.6 C No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 10.6 B 13.5 B No -- -- Katella Ave PM 8.1 A 16.0 B 16.6 B No -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.1 B 15.4 B No -- -- Katella Ave PM 10.4 B 11.1 B 13.2 B No -- -- Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-3 for the LOS definitions.  Bold HCM Delay values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 42 Appendices J and M contain HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 73 11.2 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Table 11-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 11- 2 identifies the type of analysis, i.e., merge or diverge. The second column (2) lists time period. The third column (3) lists Existing traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and the fifth column (5) presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-2 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. 11.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Existing traffic conditions. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. 11.2.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) indicates that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. 11.2.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 11-2 shows that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. Appendices K and N contain the Merge and Diverge Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Existing and Year 2014 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 74TABLE 11-2 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – MERGE/DIVERGE ANALYSIS43 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Analysis Type (2) Time Period (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (6) Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 4,852 215 19.4 B 4,852 220 19.4 B No Katella Ave PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 7,519 311 27.6 C 7,519 329 27.6 C No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 5,765 643 2.8 A 5,765 667 3.0 A No Katella Ave/Orangewood Ave PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,159 256 2.1 A 7,159 259 2.1 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,103 330 17.6 B 4,103 319 17.6 B No Eastbound Katella Ave PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 7,552 466 27.9 C 7,552 456 27.9 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 6,008 236 23.4 C 6,008 269 23.4 C No Westbound Katella Ave PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 6,930 445 26.1 C 6,930 549 26.0 C No Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 43 Appendices K and N contain the merge/diverge and calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 75 11.3 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) Table 11-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 11-3 lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 11-3 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-3 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that two (2) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Existing traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 11.3.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,972 23 762 351 36.15 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,410 15 739 256 42.14 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,397 30 843 611 35.70 E 6,414 30 683 514 38.51 E 11.3.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 11-2 shows that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 76 Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 6,972 23 762 449 37.04 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,410 15 739 419 43.70 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,397 30 1,063 611 37.79 E 6,414 30 710 514 38.75 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. Appendices K and N contain the Weaving Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Existing and Year 2014 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 77TABLE 11-3 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – WEAVING ANALYSIS44 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 3,906 13 754 196 19.32 B 3,906 13 887 196 20.23 C No -- -- -- -- -- -- On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,175 15 597 376 32.65 D 7,175 15 614 376 32.78 D No -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 5,885 10 744 148 28.80 D 5,885 10 744 175 29.02 D No 4,904 8 620 146 23.24 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp45 PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 6,972 23 762 351 36.15 E 6,972 23 762 449 37.04 E Yes 5,810 19 635 374 29.43 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 3,709 10 856 153 23.58 C 3,709 10 856 195 23.92 C No 3,709 10 856 195 18.62 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 7,410 15 739 256 42.14 E 7,410 15 739 419 43.70 F Yes 7,410 15 739 419 33.92 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 5,397 30 843 611 35.70 E 5,397 30 1,063 611 37.79 E Yes 5,397 30 1,063 611 29.18 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 6,414 30 683 514 38.51 E 6,414 30 710 514 38.75 E Yes 6,414 30 710 514 30.11 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 44 Appendices K and N contain the weaving analysis calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. 45 HCM software allows a maximum input of 5 lanes. The volumes have been manually adjusted to account for 6 lanes with the recommended improvements. The Year 2014 With Project traffic volumes have been multiplied by a factor of 5/6 to obtain the Year 2014 With Project With Improvements traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 78 11.4 Year 2014 Freeway Segment Analysis Table 11-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column (1) lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 11-4 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-4 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.4.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at an adverse service level under the Existing traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd -- -- -- 7,950 42.7 E 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave -- -- -- 7,380 36.1 E 11.4.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd -- -- -- 8,302 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave -- -- -- 7,620 38.6 E 11.4.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 11-4 shows that two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 79 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd -- -- -- 8,465 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave -- -- -- 7,647 38.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Appendices L and O contain the Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Calculation worksheets for all freeway segments for the Existing and Year 2014 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 80TABLE 11-4 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY46 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Segment (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 4,772 16.1 B 4,905 16.6 B No -- -- -- Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave PM 7,790 27.4 D 8,152 29.2 D 8,169 29.3 D No -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 6,769 23.1 C 6,795 23.2 C No -- -- -- Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave PM 7,750 27.2 D 8,037 28.6 D 8,135 29.1 D No -- -- -- 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 4,697 19.9 C 4,740 20.1 C No 4,740 16.0 B Katella Ave to Ball Rd PM 7,950 42.7 E 8,302 OVRFL F 8,465 OVRFL F Yes 8,465 30.9 D 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 6,722 30.6 D 6,941 32.2 D No 6,941 23.8 C Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 7,380 36.1 E 7,620 38.6 E 7,647 38.9 E Yes 7,647 26.7 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria.  OVRFL = Exceeds analysis model capabilities (Overflow conditions). 46 Appendices L and O contain the HCM Density/LOS calculation worksheets for all study freeway segments. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 81 12.0 YEAR 2030 CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS (HCM METHODOLOGY) 12.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 12-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans study intersections for Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM Delay/LOS values in Table 12-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) of Table 12-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) of Table 12-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses reflect the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 12.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) indicates that one (1) Caltrans study intersection is forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining three (3) Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.5 E -- -- 12.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) of Table 12-1 shows that the same one (1) Caltrans study intersection will continue to operate at adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.9 E -- -- It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersection to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix P contains the HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for Year 2030 Traffic Conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 82TABLE 12-1 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY47 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) Yes/No Delay (s/v) Yes/No Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 55.5 E 55.9 E Yes 40.9 D Katella Ave PM 15.2 B 39.4 D 39.9 D No 37.9 D 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 22.6 C 16.4 B No -- -- Katella Ave PM 17.8 B 53.1 D 53.8 D No -- -- 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 13.8 B 15.1 B No -- -- Katella Ave PM 8.1 A 13.0 B 12.9 B No -- -- 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.5 B 14.3 B No -- -- Katella Ave PM 10.4 B 15.5 B 13.6 B No -- -- Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-3 for the LOS definitions.  Bold HCM Delay values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 47 Appendices J and P contain HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 83 12.2 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Table 12-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 12- 2 identifies the type of analysis, i.e., merge or diverge. The second column (2) lists time period. The third column (3) lists Existing traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fifth column (5) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The sixth column (6) of Table 11-2 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. 12.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) indicates that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. 12.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 12-2 shows that none of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Appendix Q contains the Merge and Diverge Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 84TABLE 12-2 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – MERGE/DIVERGE ANALYSIS48 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Analysis Type (2) Time Period (3) Existing Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (6) Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 5,230 255 19.7 B 5,230 260 19.8 B No Katella Ave PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 8,290 392 28.5 D 8,290 410 28.5 D No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 6,230 916 4.8 A 6,230 940 5.0 A No Katella Ave/Orangewood Ave PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,770 407 3.5 A 7,770 410 3.5 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,350 411 14.8 B 4,350 400 14.8 B No Eastbound Katella Ave PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 8,410 510 22.3 C 8,410 500 22.3 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 7,390 227 25.8 C 7,390 260 25.8 C No Westbound Katella Ave PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 7,570 406 26.2 C 7,570 510 26.1 C No Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 48 Appendices K and Q contain the merge/diverge and calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 85 12.3 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) Table 12-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of Table 12-3 lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 12-3 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 12-3 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.3.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,750 30 900 382 37.37 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,370 30 950 327 35.08 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 850 640 38.86 E 7,010 30 743 550 38.41 E 12.3.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 12-3 shows that three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 86 It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix Q contains the Weaving Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 87TABLE 12-3 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – WEAVING ANALYSIS49 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 4,030 20 817 320 19.10 B 4,030 20 950 320 19.95 B No -- -- -- -- -- -- On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,750 30 723 660 34.67 D 7,750 30 740 660 34.79 D No -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 6,940 10 860 143 31.30 D 6,940 10 860 170 31.50 D No 5,783 8 717 142 25.19 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp50 PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 7,750 30 900 382 37.37 E 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E Yes 6,458 25 750 400 30.33 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 4,000 10 900 188 18.10 B 4,000 10 900 230 18.34 B No 3,333 8 750 192 15.00 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp50 PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 8,370 30 950 327 35.08 E 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E Yes 6,975 25 792 408 29.44 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 6,750 30 850 640 38.86 E 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E Yes 6,750 30 1,070 640 31.54 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 7,010 30 743 550 38.41 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Yes 7,010 30 770 550 30.02 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 49 Appendices K and Q contain the weaving analysis calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. 50 HCM software allows a maximum input of 5 lanes. The volumes have been manually adjusted to account for 6 lanes with the recommended improvements. The Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes have been multiplied by a factor of 5/6 to obtain the Year 2030 With Project With Improvements traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 88 12.4 Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis Table 12-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four (4) Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column (1) lists time period. The second column (2) lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column (3) lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column (4) presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column (5) of Table 12-4 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column (6) of Table 12-4 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.4.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (3) indicates that one (1) Caltrans freeway segment is forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The location operating at adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,271 38.1 E 8,333 38.7 E 12.4.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (4) of Table 12-4 shows that one (1) Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix R contains the Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Calculation worksheets for all freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 89TABLE 12-4 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY51 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Segment (1) Time Period (2) Existing Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions (4) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions (5) Significant Impact (6) Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 5,187 16.1 B 5,320 16.5 B No -- -- -- Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave PM 7,790 27.4 D 9,163 30.5 D 9,180 30.6 D No -- -- -- 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 7,954 25.1 C 7,980 25.2 C No -- -- -- Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave PM 7,750 27.2 D 9,062 30.0 D 9,160 30.5 D No -- -- -- 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 5,097 15.8 B 5,140 15.9 B No -- -- -- Katella Ave to Ball Rd PM 7,950 42.7 E 9,677 33.4 D 9,840 35.4 D No -- -- -- 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 8,271 38.1 E 8,490 40.4 E Yes 8,490 27.3 D Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 7,380 36.1 E 8,333 38.7 E 8,360 39.0 E Yes 8,360 26.8 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 51 Appendices L and R contain the HCM Density/LOS calculation worksheets for all study freeway segments. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 90 13.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 13.1 Site Access Evaluation As shown in Figure 13-1, vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via the existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue as well as via four (4) driveways located on Douglass Road and one (1) driveway located on Katella Avenue. The existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue is a full-access, signalized intersection that provides access to Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot). Driveway 1 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-in and left-out/right-out only driveway providing access to the Schmid Property. Driveway 2 along Douglass Road is a five-legged, full-access (only the northbound left is restricted), signalized intersection providing ingress/egress from Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) and egress for the buses. Driveway 3 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the buses only. Driveway 4 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, full-access driveway providing access to Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot). Driveway 5 along Katella Avenue is a one-way stop-controlled driveway that provides right- in/right-out only access to Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) as well as to the buses area. It should be noted that the ARTIC patrons parking in Lot C, which also has access from Douglass Road, would access the train platforms through the Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel which will be constructed on the west end of the platforms. 13.1.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Table 13-1 summarizes the intersection operations at the five (5) Project driveways for Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions for the proposed Project. The operations analysis for the Project driveways is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Review of Table 13-1 shows that all the Project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable service level of LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely and without undue congestion. Appendix S presents the Year 2014 With Project Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the five (5) Project driveways. A driveway analysis was not performed for Year 2030. Between Year 2014 and Year 2030, several new services will be provided at ARTIC, as stated in Section 6.4. The access and parking requirements for these services have not been defined. It is uncertain how many of these services will use the proposed ARTIC access points, and if the parking lot will be expanded or modified to serve the future uses at ARTIC. As stated in Section 6.4, the projects that will utilize ARTIC will be undergoing their own environmental analyses and these projects will do their own site access evaluation based on their project proposals. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 91 13.2 Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis A stacking/storage analysis was performed at all five (5) Project driveways. The queuing evaluation was conducted based on projected Year 2014 With Project peak hour driveway traffic volumes and the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) signalized and unsignalized methodology. 13.2.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Based on the HCM service level calculations, which calculates a critical (95th percentile) queue value in number of vehicles per lane, the maximum number of inbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the inbound southbound left-turn movement from Douglass Road into Driveway 2 during the AM peak hour. The queue on Douglass Road is forecast to have a maximum queue of eight (8) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 176 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). The maximum number of outbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the outbound westbound right-turn movement from Driveway 2 onto Douglass Road during the AM and PM peak hours. The queue on Driveway 2 is forecast to have a maximum queue of three (3) vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 66 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). All of the other Project driveways are forecast to operate with a maximum queue of two (2) vehicles during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Based on the analysis, adequate vehicle storage is provided at all of the driveways and review of the proposed site plan indicates that all Project driveways have sufficient stacking to accommodate the forecast vehicle queues. Based on the above, no changes to the proposed configuration of the Project driveways are necessary. 13.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation The on-site circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the overall layout does not create any unsafe vehicle-pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throating is sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, buses, shuttles, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on-site circulation is very good based on our review of the proposed site plan, whereas the alignment, spacing and throating of the Project driveways is adequate. The circulation around the buildings is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles. 13.4 Intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Operations Analysis (HCM Methodology) To supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to determine the appropriate northbound approach lane geometry for the Year 2014 Project opening condition without LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 92 requiring the need for any roadway improvements to Douglass Road on the north side of the intersection. As a result of the HCM analysis, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue is recommended to consist of a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR lane for the Year 2014 Project opening condition. As presented in Table 13-1, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at acceptable LOS D or better based on the HCM 2000 Methodology and the lane configuration mentioned above. Appendix S presents the Year 2014 With Project Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 93 TABLE 13-1 DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY52 Key Driveway Control Type Time Period Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Delay (s/v) LOS A. Douglass Rd at One-Way AM 8.7 A Driveway 1 Stop PM 9.3 A B. Douglass Rd at 5 Traffic AM 11.8 B Driveway 2 Signal PM 15.0 B C. Douglass Rd at 3 Traffic AM 6.1 A Driveway 3 Signal PM 7.6 A D. Douglass Rd at One-Way AM 8.7 A Driveway 4 Stop PM 9.7 A E. Douglass Rd at One-Way AM 10.8 B Driveway 5 Stop PM 11.4 B 9. Douglass Rd at 6  Traffic AM 34.9 C Katella Ave53 Signal PM 36.5 D Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-2 and 3-3 for the LOS definitions.  Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Anaheim LOS standards. 52 Appendix S contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all Project Driveways and the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue. 53 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation. The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR turn lane for the operations analysis for the Year 2014 Project opening condition. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 94 14.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 14.1 Traffic Fee Program The City of Anaheim has historically utilized a variety of strategies to provide improvements to the citywide circulation system. The City currently has a traffic fee program in place to fund General Plan improvements required under 2030 No Project and With Project conditions. The City has a long-standing policy that as development occurs throughout the City, traffic studies are prepared to demonstrate the need for implementation of the improvements identified in the General Plan and developer fees and other local dedicated taxes will contribute to those improvements as needed. The fee, initially developed in 1993 and updated periodically provides a proper nexus between increased development in the City and associated traffic impacts to the citywide circulation system. Developers contribute fees to the City, which uses the fund to implement circulation improvements in the City or as the City of Anaheim’s local match for leveraging funding from OCTA and Caltrans for circulation system improvements. Hence, the improvements assumed in the build-out of the General Plan, prior to the approval of the Proposed Project are expected to be paid for and implemented through the City’s existing traffic impact fee program. Additionally, the City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle including transportation. The City has proposed improvement strategies that return all intersections to an acceptable LOS under the 2030 With Project scenario. The fair-share calculations, presented later on in the report, identify the proposed Project’s fair-share percentage based on Project trips to study area intersections. The proposed Project would be expected to contribute that percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. Intersection and arterial segment improvements in the City of Orange, in addition to State Highway System facility improvements throughout the study area will have fees contributed to them by the proposed Project, commensurate with the fair-share analysis. Although Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the facilities, the project will be responsible for contributions for the appropriate fair-share toward the recommended improvements. Those specific improvements and fair-shares for facilities in the City of Orange and Caltrans facilities are discussed later in this chapter. 14.2 Steps for Mitigation Measures As a general rule, mitigation measures for intersections or arterials begin with identification of any measures that might have been recommended as part of other traffic studies in the area. These mitigation measures are then applied to determine whether they result in intersection or roadway segment operation within acceptable thresholds. If mitigation measures were not previously identified either as part of a traffic study or planned future improvements, mitigation is achieved by identifying new improvements that will provide adequate capacity for the critical movement for an intersection or for arterial segments. Critical movements are conflicting intersection turning movements that are identified to have the highest LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 95 ICU for opposing movements; i.e. each of the approaches at a four-legged intersection will contain a critical movement that conflicts with an opposing movement. Since the combination of the ICU values for each critical movement defines the ICU, providing additional through lanes or turning lanes is dependent upon whether the critical movement is a through or turn (left or right) movement. The decision of whether additional lanes should be auxiliary lanes that just add capacity to the intersection without widening the street segment or extended to adjacent intersections is dependent upon the performance, proximity and improvement needs of adjacent intersections. Mitigation measures are further analyzed for feasibility. A preliminary feasibility assessment is reliant upon potential cost-effectiveness and right-of-way acquisition. Right-of-way acquisitions are least preferred as they incur relocation and compensation cost for displaced residences and businesses which are additional burdens to the community, hence wherever feasible additional capacity for through movements or turn movements are facilitated through re-striping or widening, provided the intersection has sufficient receiving lanes as vehicles pass through the intersection. For those intersections, roadway segments, freeway ramps and freeway segments where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions, this report recommends traffic mitigation improvements that change the intersection and/or roadway geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re-striping to reconfigure (add lanes) roadways to specific approaches of a key intersection. The identified improvements are expected to:  Address the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non-project (ambient traffic growth and related projects) traffic and  Improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions. 14.3 Existing With Project Improvements 14.3.1 Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. 14.3.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4 Year 2014 With Project Improvements Table 14-1 presents a summary of the Year 2014 With Project improvements with the resulting levels of service. In addition, it also lists the Project related fair-share percentages for the impacted locations for the worse impacted time period. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 96 Appendix T contains the Project Related Fair-Share Calculation Tables for all the intersections, roadway segments, Caltrans ramp locations and Caltrans freeway segments analyzed in this report. 14.4.1 Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. 14.4.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact three (3) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 14.4.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 97  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 98TABLE 14-1 YEAR 2014 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS, IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT RELATED FAIR-SHARE PERCENTAGE SUMMARY (1) (2) (3) (4) Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage Density LOS Density LOS W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 29.02 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 23.24 p/m/l C 7.55% and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 37.04 p/m/l E 29.43 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 23.92 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 18.62 p/m/l B 9.85% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 43.70 p/m/l F 33.92 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 37.79 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 29.18 p/m/l D 10.90% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.75 p/m/l E 30.11 p/m/l D F-3. SR-57 Northbound from Freeway Segment AM 20.1 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 16.0 p/m/l B 9.85% Katella Ave to Ball Rd PM OVRFL F 30.9 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 32.2 p/m/l D Add a 5th lane. 23.8 p/m/l C 4.35% Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 38.9 p/m/l E 26.7 p/m/l D Notes:  p/m/l = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Delay/Density values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS Criteria outlined in this report.  OVRFL = Exceeds analysis model capabilities (Overflow conditions). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 99 14.5 Year 2030 With Project Improvements Table 14-2 presents a summary of the Year 2030 With Project improvements with the resulting levels of service. In addition, it also lists the Project related fair-share percentages for the impacted locations for the worse impacted time period. Appendix T contains the Project Related Fair-Share Calculation Tables for all the intersections, roadway segments, Caltrans ramp locations and Caltrans freeway segments analyzed in this report 14.5.1 Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the of the twelve (12) key study intersections. While mitigation measures are required for Project related significant impacts, the Project will also contribute fair share costs for cumulative impacts under buildout conditions. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. The installation of changeable message signs on both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, which is a Project Design Feature, will improve operational capacity of this intersection. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 14.5.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.5.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. 14.5.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 100 14.5.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact three (3) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 14.5.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the of the four (4) key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 101TABLE 14-2 YEAR 2030 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS, IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT RELATED FAIR-SHARE PERCENTAGE SUMMARY (1) (2) (3) (4) Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage ICU/Delay/ Density LOS ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS I-9. Douglass Rd at Intersection AM 0.840 D Operational Improvements. 0.840 D 16.43% Katella Ave PM 0.868 D 0.868 D I-1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Ramp Intersection AM 55.9 s/v E Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Modify signal and install EB right-turn overlap phase. 40.9 s/v D 3.41% Katella Ave PM 39.9 s/v D 37.9 s/v D W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 31.50 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 25.19 p/m/l C 7.55% and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.20 p/m/l E 30.33 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 18.34 p/m/l B Add a 6th lane. 15.00 p/m/l B 9.85% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 36.17 p/m/l E 29.44 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 40.79 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 31.54 p/m/l D 10.90% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.63 p/m/l E 30.02 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 40.4 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 27.3 p/m/l D 10.85% Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 39.0 p/m/l E 26.8 p/m/l D Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).  p/m/l = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Delay/Density values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS Criteria outlined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 102 14.6 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements As identified in the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, there are three (3) freeway ramp locations (weaving segments) and two (2) freeway mainline segment deficiencies. For the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, there are three (3) freeway ramp locations (weaving segments) and one (1) freeway mainline segment deficiencies. For the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, the traffic volume on all freeway segments within the study area increases when compared with Existing traffic conditions. The proposed Project forecast volumes are generally consistent with the No Project scenario forecast volumes, with some segments and ramps experiencing a slight increase in the peak hour. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements will be required to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the addition of one lane to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not feasible improvement options. The rationale is that Caltrans has not identified any further improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the build-out analysis for SR-57 and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments would involve significant right-of- way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses. It is not a legal prerogative or policy of the City to support further freeway widening when such widening would have negative impacts on adjacent businesses and residences. State facilities located within the City have been significantly expanded over the past several years and City businesses and areas which were subject to an acquisition or which were located near acquisitions have not fully recovered from the acquisition activities. As an example, remnant residential and commercial parcels exist along I-5 at the Euclid Street exit. Other examples also exist. In addition, bringing State facilities closer to residences and businesses is also not a social or legal prerogative of the City. The City does not desire to further exacerbate these land use and air quality incompatibility issues by encouraging the expansion of freeway facilities adjacent to suburban-style tract houses. As a result of these policy prerogatives and identified constraints, the Project is not expected to mitigate the freeway mainline segments to an acceptable LOS. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high forecast volumes on the ramps themselves coupled with high forecast volumes on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramp facilities. The utilization of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and signage improvements could potentially improve the flow and operational capacity of Caltrans facilities, but would not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Since the major freeway facilities within the study area, I-5 and SR-57 have reached their design capacity or will have reached it by Year 2030 and the required physical improvements are largely the result of background regional traffic, consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures. The improvement measures could consist of ITS improvements, enhanced signage, or other operational improvements. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 103 The City of Anaheim has no jurisdiction to implement the physical improvements on the Caltrans facilities and a statement of overriding considerations will be discussed in the EIR identifying the potential operational improvements to Caltrans facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002), consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of traffic increases related to implementation of the proposed Project. 14.6.1 Caltrans Freeway Segments State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Rather, those improvements are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and OCTA. In California, most State Highway System improvements are programmed through two documents, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). State and federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. The STIP is developed from Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) proposed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs/MPOs) throughout California and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) proposed by Caltrans. Of the funds made available by the CTC for the STIP, 25 percent is made available for Caltrans to propose expansion and capacity-enhancing improvements on the statutorily designated Interregional Road System while 75 percent of the funds are made available to the RTPAs/MPOs to propose all types of improvements on all other State Highway System Roads, other non-State highway roads eligible to use federal funds, and on the Interregional Road System. Transportation funds generally come from a variety of sources including National Highway System funds; State fuel taxes; federal fuel taxes; sales taxes on fuel; truck weight fees; roadway and bridge tolls; user fares; local sales tax measures; development fees, where applicable; bond revenues; and State and local general and matching funds. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern. On the federal level, the City, through its Congressional delegation, has aggressively sought federal monies for regional roadway improvements. Within the study area, relatively recent projects have provided improvements to the freeway facilities. Interstate 5 within the study area was widened in the late 1990’s under the OCTA Measure M. Additionally, the I-5 and SR-57 interchange to the south of the study area was recently upgraded to improve flow on all facilities. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 104 The State Highway System I-5 freeway and ramps that are cumulatively deficient under 2030 conditions are at their recommended build-out, according to the Route Concept Report (RCR) for the Interstate 5 facility approved by Caltrans in Year 2000. On I-5, the RCR identifies a concept facility of eight general-purpose lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the segment between the SR-22/57 interchange, south of the Study Area, to SR-91, north of the Study Area. On SR-57, the RCR identifies an eight-lane existing facility with two HOV lanes for the segment between the I-5/SR-22 interchange, south of the study area to SR- 91, north of the study area. For the 2030 analysis, the concept build-out facility of five general- purpose lanes and two HOV lanes was assumed, although there is still ongoing study for the funding and timeline for implementation of these improvements. State and local funding sources, including Renewed Measure M funding through OCTA, is currently assessing improvements on SR-57. In an attempt to further increase capacity and reduce congestion on SR-57, a feasibility study was conducted by OCTA to examine alternatives for adding an additional lane in each direction between the Los Angeles County line and the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange. This study concluded that due of extensive right-of-way impacts and expanded traffic at the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange, any consideration of capacity improvements should be deferred until the SR-57 is extended southward to the I-405 freeway. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program.  SR-57 Northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road: Addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall Year 2010).  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue Off-Ramp to Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp: Addition of auxiliary lane capacity (entered the environmental phase in Year 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late Year 2010 if project is approved) (Source: OCTA). For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether (1) changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or (2) whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project. The City of Anaheim has already taken steps to alleviate most of the impacts of increased development of the Platinum Triangle. The Gene Autry Extension Project and recent capacity improvements to State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue are just some of the examples of the City of Anaheim’s commitment to an effective circulation system within the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim has an existing CFD program that outlines its strategy toward implementing many LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 105 of the improvements necessitated by increased development in the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. 14.6.2 Caltrans Freeway Ramps and Weaving Segments Neither the State or any other agency, such as OCTA, currently has a program in place for construction of the mainline, ramp, and weaving segment improvements at the Year 2030 time horizon to satisfy baseline congested conditions; nor is there currently any mechanism in place that would ensure that funds contributed to Caltrans or to the State to ameliorate impacts on freeway mainlines will be used for their intended purpose. In addition, because the I-5 and SR-57 are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to I-5 or SR-57. Proposed Project fair-share percentages have been computed for all the Caltrans Facilities under Year 2030 With Project conditions. The fair-share percentages have been computed per the methodology outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix “B” of the guidelines directs users to use a formula to calculate equitable share responsibility for the traffic impacts of proposed Project. The guidelines are not intended to establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility, but rather to provide a starting point for discussions with Caltrans to address the traffic mitigation and fair-share responsibilities. The traffic on the State Highway System is regional in nature and the deficiencies are the result of expected regional growth. Caltrans has not entered into an agreement with the City and Caltrans has not adopted a program by which Caltrans can ensure that developer fair-share will assist in the funding of potential capacity or operational improvements on the study area State Highway System. Because I-5 is at its Conceptual Buildout, and OCTA and State funding is committed to the planned widening of SR-57, there is no guarantee that impact fees from the proposed Project will be dedicated to the improvements of the study area State Highway System. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 106 the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. The weaving analysis revealed that several weaving areas operate at deficient levels of service under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative growth. Potential improvements include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and adjacent mainline segment. 14.7 Other Mitigation Measures This section will generally describe the mitigation measures that have been developed for the proposed Project in regards to transportation and traffic. These mitigation measures will apply to any owner or developer of real property within the boundaries of ARTIC. 14.7.1 Project Level Impact Analysis The payment of transportation impact fees is required per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the implementation of improvements addressed by the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. As set forth below, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements:  Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair- share responsibility identified in the traffic analysis for this project as determined by the City.  Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. 14.7.2 Transportation Fee Program The payment of transportation impact fees is required per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the implementation of improvements addressed by the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. As set forth below, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements:  Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 107 14.8 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. 14.9 City of Orange Improvements 14.9.1 Intersections Improvements As shown in the analysis, no intersections in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. 14.9.2 Roadway Segments Improvements As shown in the analysis, no roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 108 15.0 PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT This section of the report provides a brief comparison of the proposed Project’s development tabulation, trip generation characteristics, Project access and potential traffic impacts in comparison to those identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (Previous Project). The July 16, 2010 traffic study evaluated the potential impacts associated with construction of ARTIC with 960 parking spaces. Table 15-1 provides a comparison of the findings of this addendum traffic impact analysis report and the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report. This table compares the development sizes, building size, land use, number of parking spaces, Project opening year, Buildout year, the net trip generation, Project access, the number of study intersections analyzed, the number of study roadway segments analyzed Existing Plus Project impacts, Near-Term (Year 2013/214) Project impacts and Long-Term (Year 2030) Project impacts (see rows one (1) through forty-three (43), respectively) of the Previous Project and the proposed Project. Column one (1) presents the findings for the Previous Project as included in the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report, column two (2) presents the findings for the proposed Project and column (3) summarizes the differences between the two projects. Below is a brief summary of the differences:  Development Size: Review of row 1 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project acreage is the same as the Previous Project.  Building Size: Review of row 2 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project is 243,000 SF smaller than the Previous Project.  Land Use: Review of row 3 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project’s land use is the same as the Previous Project. In addition, there is no change in Transit Service.  Building Accessory Uses: Review of row 4 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project’s building accessory uses are for both the transit patrons and outside patrons whereas for the Previous Project they were only for the transit patrons.  Parking Spaces: Review of row 5 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project has 127 more parking spaces than the Previous Project.  Project Opening Year: Review of row 6 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project is anticipated to be open in Year 2014 whereas the Previous Project was anticipated to be open in Year 2013.  Buildout Year: Review of row 7 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project Buildout Year analysis was updated to reflect the updated Circulation Element. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR (SEIR 339) was certified in late 2010. The mitigation measures identified in SEIR 339 were incorporated into the General Plan Circulation Element. It LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 109 should be noted that the adopted land uses were incorporated into the July 16, 2010 traffic study as a related project and did not need to be updated.  Trip Generation: Review of row 8 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project is expected to generate 1,420 more daily trips, 196 more AM peak hour trips and 176 more PM peak hour trips than the Previous Project. The impact of this change in trip generation is analyzed in this addendum traffic report.  Project Access: Review of rows 9 through row 13 and column 3 shows that the access to the proposed Project is the same as the Previous Project except Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), which will have access along Douglass Road for the proposed Project in addition to access along Sportstown.  No. of Project Driveways: Review of row 14 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed 2 less Project Driveways than the Previous Project.  No. of Study Intersections: Review of row 15 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of study intersections as the Previous Project.  No. of Study Roadway Segments: Review of row 16 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  Existing Plus Project Impacts: Review of rows 17 and 18 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of rows 19 and 20 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: Review of rows 21 and 22 and column 3 shows that there is one less intersection impact and one less roadway segment impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections: Review of row 23 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study intersections as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments: Review of row 24 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Existing Plus Project Impacts: Review of rows 25 and 26 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 110  CMP Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of rows 27 and 28 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: Review of rows 29 and 30 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Intersections: Review of row 31 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study ramp intersections as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations: Review of row 32 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study merge/diverge locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations: Review of row 33 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study weaving locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments: Review of row 34 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study freeway segments as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of rows 35 and 36 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans study ramp intersections or Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Review of rows 37 and 38 and column 3 shows that there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: Review of row 39 and column 3 shows that there is one less Caltrans study ramp intersection impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project. Review of row 40 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Review of rows 41 and 42 and column 3 shows that there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Site Access Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of row 43 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the Project Driveways for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 111TABLE 15-1 PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description (1) Previous Project (2) Proposed Project (3) Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 1) Development Size 15.78 Acre  13.58 Acre owned by OCTA  2.20 Acre owned by City of Anaheim 15.78 Acre  13.58 Acre owned by OCTA  2.2 Acre owned by City of Anaheim No Change 2) Building Size  310,000 SF  67,000 SF  243,000 SF Less 3) Land Use  Regional Transportation Facility  Regional Transportation Facility No Change (No Change in Transit Service) 4) Building Accessory Uses Intended For  Transit Patrons  Transit Patrons  Outside Patrons Intended for Outside Patrons As Well 5) Parking Spaces 960 Parking Spaces  Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) – 323 Spaces  Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) – 232 Spaces  Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) – 405 Spaces 1,087 Parking Spaces  Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) – 461 Spaces  Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) – 221 Spaces  Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) – 405 Spaces +127 Parking Spaces  Lot A – +138 Spaces  Lot B – -11 Spaces  Lot C – 0 Spaces 6) Project Opening Year  2013  2014  1 Additional Year 7) Buildout Year  Circulation Element reflecting Platinum Triangle SEIR 332  Circulation Element reflecting the Revised Platinum Triangle SEIR 339  Updated Circulation Element reflecting SEIR 339 8) Net Trip Generation  Daily = 3,699  AM Peak Hour = 622  PM Peak Hour = 439  Daily = 5,11954  AM Peak Hour = 818  PM Peak Hour = 615  Daily = +1,42055  AM Peak Hour = +196 PM Peak Hour = +176 9) Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) Proposed Access  Douglass Rd  Katella Ave  Douglass Rd  Katella Ave No Change 54 It should be noted that while the bus trip generation has always been included in the Project trip generation, the current traffic impact analysis report shows the bus trip generation separately because they have a different trip distribution and the trip generation was based on actual service data, not a trip generation rate. 55 The increase in trips is due to the increase of parking spaces. The trip generation rates are based on the number of parking spaces, which is the most reliable means of determining trip generation for transit stations. While trip generation for the retail components are fixed based on a square-foot ratio, transit stations have more variables, including vehicle occupancy rates. The current parking studies assume a 1.2 vehicle occupancy rate, which is higher than existing conditions. As a result, more people are ridesharing because fewer spaces are being provided per passenger, when future Metrolink expanded service is considered. The result is that the trip rate would be the same, but there would be a different number of people per car. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 112TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description (1) Previous Project (2) Proposed Project (3) Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 10) Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) Proposed Access  Douglass Rd  Douglass Rd No Change 11) Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) Proposed Access  Sportstown  Sportstown  Douglass Rd Proposed Access Along Douglass Rd 12) Bus Service Proposed Access  Douglass Rd  Douglass Rd No Change 13) Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) Existing Access  Sportstown  Sportstown No Change 14) No. of Project Driveways 7 5 2 Less 15) No. of Study Intersections 12 12 No Change 16 No. of Study Roadway Segments 8 8 No Change 17) Existing Plus Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 18) Existing Plus Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change 19) Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 20) Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 113TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description (1) Previous Project (2) Proposed Project (3) Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 21) Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Intersections)56 2 of 12 Intersections  2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Ave  9. Douglass Road at Katella Ave 1 of 12 Intersections  9. Douglass Rd at Katella Ave 1 Less 22) Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) 1 of 8 Roadway Segments  1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way NoneError! Bookmark not defined. 1 Less 23) CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections 4 4 No Change 24) CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments 8 8 No Change 25) CMP Analysis Existing Plus Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 26) CMP Analysis Existing Plus Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change 27) CMP Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 56 It should be noted that the LOS results for the Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions are the same for both the current traffic impact analysis report and the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report and only the Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions is different between these two reports. This is because the Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). Since the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion includes buildout of ARTIC, which does not change, the Year 2030 forecast volumes from ATAM are considered the Year 2030 With Project volumes. Therefore, to obtain the without Project volumes, the Project trips were subtracted from the “with” Project volumes. Therefore, since the Project trips changed between this current traffic impact analysis report and the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report, the Year 2030 Without Project traffic volumes changed, while the Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes remained constant. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 114TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description (1) Previous Project (2) Proposed Project (3) Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 28) CMP Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change 29) CMP Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Intersections) None57 None No Change 30) CMP Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None57 None No Change 31) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Ramp Intersections 4 4 No Change 32) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations 4 4 No Change 33) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations 4 4 No Change 34) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments 4 4 No Change 35) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Ramp Intersections) None None No Change 57 After the implementation of recommended improvements. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 115TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description (1) Previous Project (2) Proposed Project (3) Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 36) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Merge/Diverge Locations) None None No Change 37) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Weaving Locations) 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp No Change 38) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Freeway Segments) 2 of 4 Freeway Segments  3. SR-57 NB from Katella Ave to Ball Rd  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 2 of 4 Freeway Segments  3. SR-57 NB from Katella Ave to Ball Rd  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave No Change 39) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Ramp Intersections) 2 of 4 Intersections  1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave  2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Ave 1 of 4 Intersections  1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 1 Less 40) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Merge/Diverge Locations) None None No Change LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 116TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description (1) Previous Project (2) Proposed Project (3) Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 41) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Weaving Locations) 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp No Change 42) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Freeway Segments) 1 of 4 Freeway Segments  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 1 of 4 Freeway Segments  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave No Change 43) Site Access Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Project Driveways) None None No Change LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 117 16.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS  This traffic impact analysis addendum evaluates the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, located in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. This addendum traffic impact analysis report assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in Project development totals, specifically the increase in parking spaces from 960 spaces to 1,087 spaces for a net increase of 127 parking spaces. Additionally, the Project now consists of the construction of a 67,000 square-feet (SF) regional transportation facility as compared to a 310,000 SF regional transportation facility (hereinafter referred to as Previous Project) as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (July 2010 traffic study). It should be noted that a detailed list of the differences between the proposed Project and previous Project analyzed in this traffic impact analysis addendum is provided at the end of the Summary of Conclusions. This addendum traffic impact analysis report is intended to support the preparation of an addendum to EIR No. 343, to be prepared by Kleinfelder, in conjunction with the discretionary review of the conditional use permit for the Project. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site.  The Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of commercial/mixed use development to serve visitors of the transit facility. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development.  After taking credit for the existing Metrolink land use, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 5,119 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 818 net trips (653 inbound, 165 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 615 net trips (121 inbound, 494 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 118 Existing Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections under the Existing peak hour service level calculations based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better.  All eight (8) key study roadway segments under Existing service level calculations based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry are currently operating at acceptable LOS B or better. Existing With Project Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report.  All eight (8) of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the key study intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One (1) key study intersection (Douglass Road at Katella Avenue) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. The installation of changeable message signs on both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, which is a Project Design Feature, will improve operational capacity of this intersection. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 119 Caltrans Facilities Analysis Existing Conditions  All Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 37.04 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp -- -- 43.70 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 37.79 E 38.75 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  Two (2) Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two (2) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 120 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd -- -- -- 8,465 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave -- -- -- 7,647 38.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One (1) Caltrans study intersection will continue to operate at adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.9 E -- -- It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersection to acceptable Level of Service.  None of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four (4) Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  Three (3) of the four (4) Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one (1) Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp -- -- 38.20 E LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 121 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 40.79 E 38.63 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  One (1) Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three (3) Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies Existing With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. Existing With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 122 Year 2014 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Intersection Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 123 the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. The installation of changeable message signs on both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, which is a Project Design Feature, will improve operational capacity of this intersection. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 124 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements:  With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. Unavoidable Impacts  Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations.  With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. City of Orange Improvements  As shown in the analysis, no intersections or roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. Proposed Project Comparison to Previous Project Traffic Impact Analysis Report  A brief comparison of the proposed Project’s development tabulation, trip generation characteristics, Project access and potential traffic impacts in comparison to those identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (Previous Project) is shown below. The July 16, 2010 traffic study evaluated the potential impacts associated with construction of ARTIC with 960 parking spaces: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 125  Development Size: The proposed Project acreage is the same as the Previous Project.  Building Size: The proposed Project is 243,000 SF smaller than the Previous Project.  Land Use: The proposed Project’s land use is the same as the Previous Project. In addition, there is no change in Transit Service.  Building Accessory Uses: The proposed Project’s building accessory uses are for both the transit patrons and outside patrons whereas for the Previous Project they were only for the transit patrons.  Parking Spaces: The proposed Project has 127 more parking spaces than the Previous Project.  Project Opening Year: The proposed Project is anticipated to be open in Year 2014 whereas the Previous Project was anticipated to be open in Year 2013.  Buildout Year: The proposed Project Buildout Year analysis was updated to reflect the updated Circulation Element. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR (SEIR 339) was certified in late 2010. The mitigation measures identified in SEIR 339 were incorporated into the General Plan Circulation Element. It should be noted that the adopted land uses were incorporated into the July 16, 2010 traffic study as a related project and did not need to be updated.  Trip Generation: The proposed Project is expected to generate 1,420 more daily trips, 196 more AM peak hour trips and 176 more PM peak hour trips than the Previous Project. The impact of this change in trip generation is analyzed in this addendum traffic report.  Project Access: The access to the proposed Project is the same as the Previous Project except Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), which will have access along Douglass Road for the proposed Project.  No. of Project Driveways: The proposed Project analyzed 2 less Project Driveways than the Previous Project.  No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study intersections as the Previous Project.  No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study roadway segments as the Previous Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 126  Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less intersection impact and one less roadway segment impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study intersections as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study ramp intersections as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study merge/diverge locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study weaving locations as the Previous Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 04-11-12.doc 127  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study freeway segments as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Caltrans study ramp intersections or Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. In addition, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less Caltrans study ramp intersection impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project. Additionally, there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Further, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Site Access Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Project Driveways for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. ATTACHMENT NO. 7        ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION  INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC)  PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS                Contents:  Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Parking Demand Analysis, Parsons  Brinckerhoff, February 3, 2012    Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons  Brinckerhoff, Richard Willson, Ph.D. FAICP, April 11, 2012                      Prepared for:  City of Anaheim  Public Works Department  April 11, 2012      Document Overview    This parking demand analysis is intended to support the City of Anaheim’s deliberations concerning the Conditional Use Permit for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The analysis considers parking demand associated with the transit facility, with an expected opening day in 2014. The general approach taken here is to provide sufficient commuter parking to support increased ridership, acknowledging that in the long-term, growth of the Platinum Triangle and improved station access will increase the use of non-vehicle station access modes such as shuttles and transit. The first document included in this report is a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB Analysis), building on work completed by Cordoba Corporation in the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum, August 2009. The PB Analysis assessed previous parking demand predictions in terms of technical and policy dimensions, arriving at an opening day commuter parking demand estimate of 849 spaces. This work was largely complete by June 2011, with minor updates reflected in the current February 3, 2012 document. City staff convened a review committee to consider the PB Analysis and additional parking issues. Dr. Richard Willson organized a review process to gather staff input and prepared a peer review of the PB Analysis. The second document in this report is the Willson Peer Review and Technical Analysis memorandum, which reached a conclusion in support of the PB Analysis parking demand estimate. The memorandum includes other analyses, including ARTIC retail patron parking demand. The City of Anaheim is obligated to study parking demand for uses that do not have code-provided parking ratios. This report provides the justification for the conclusions that:  The PB Analysis demand estimate of 849 spaces for ARTIC commuters and employees is an appropriate basis for design and initial operations. This more than doubles the currently available supply, allowing growth in rail ridership to occur.  Additional parking demand associated with ARTIC retail uses should be considered, bringing the total ARTIC demand estimate to 872 spaces.  The planned parking supply of 1,082 spaces significantly exceeds the predicted commuter demand. 1 Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS PREPARED BY PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared for: City of Anaheim Public Works Department Revised Febuary 3, 2012 2 PARKING DEMAND A guiding objective of the ARTIC transit vision is to reduce commuting patron reliance on single occupant private automobiles. ARTIC will improve access to transit options by connecting rail services to local bus routes, taxi service, private bus and shuttle services, bicycles and pedestrian amenities. This connecting of modes has a direct effect on lowering the parking demand, and consequently the needed parking supply, at ARTIC. To determine parking demand for the ARTIC, a critical assessment of previous parking demand analyses was conducted. The base condition for assumed transit services and ridership forecasts were derived from the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum prepared by Cordoba Corporation in August 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum). This is the same source document relied upon for the project environmental analysis and clearances. The parking demand calculated was based on two principal parking user types: originating passengers and on-site staff (employees). The retail land use provided for in the ARTIC facility is assumed to be incidental and accessory to the principal transit use. As such, the retail land use is assumed to share the transit customer base and therefore would not generate additional parking demand of its own. The parking demand estimates from the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum were re-evaluated to ensure they reflect realistic market characteristics of transit services planned at ARTIC. As a first step, the originating passenger service levels provided by the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum were reviewed by Parsonsons Brinckerhoff for each transit provider. The projected daily ridership estimates (total boardings) for each transit provider were maintained. The next steps included revisiting, and revising if warranted, the mode split percentage of each service provider. This was a key refinement from the uniform mode splits assumed in the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum analysis. The occupancy rate for automobiles was reviewed and held at 1.2 persons per vehicle, consistent with the prior guiding baseline assumption. In order to achieve a 1.2 persons per vehicle rate it will be important to not over supply parking, to accentuate bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the ARTIC site, and to ensure effective and attractive connecting feeder distributor transit services that accommodate “the last mile traveled” interests of the patrons. Table 1 presents a summary of the parking demand. It includes the projected originating passenger volumes for each transit provider and the corresponding parking demand, and an estimated employee parking demand. An additional demand for eight (8) parking spaces for police personnel use was included based on City direction. Specific factors evaluated include: • Regional Rail: By Year 2015, Amtrak will serve ARTIC with 26 trains per day. The projected number of daily boardings for Amtrak is anticipated to be 575 passengers in 2013. Amtrak primarily serves as a long-distance intercity passenger rail with a majority of patrons composed of tourists and visitors. The characteristics of these riders typically represent groups of people or families carrying luggage. The likelihood of such riders traveling by a private automobile to ARTIC would be higher than compared to commuter rail riders. Amtrak qualifies as a High generator of originating passenger trips with drive as the primary mode-of-access to reach ARTIC. 3 An assumption was made that at least 75% of daily originating Amtrak passengers will travel by auto with a split of 70% driving alone and 30% being dropped off or picked up by auto. The remaining 25% was assumed to travel to ARTIC by other transit. No Amtrak riders were assumed to walk or bike. The revised service level and mode shares result in a daily parking demand of 251 parking spaces for Amtrak patrons. • Commuter Rail: With implementation of the Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP), being implemented separately by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Metrolink is forecasted to generate 1,600 daily boardings at ARTIC. Metrolink patron characteristics show they are consistent patterned commuters; traveling on a regular basis within or between metropolitan areas and suburbs in Orange and Los Angeles counties. These commuters are further characterized as passengers whose trip purpose is mainly work-related and who arrive shortly before their departure at a station. It is noted that while roll out of the MSEP is expected to be deployed over a longer period of time then previously assumed, the 1,600 daily boardings forecast for opening year was held. Using the forecasted boarding is considered a conservative approach in estimating parking demand for the opening year ARTIC condition. Year 2001 and 2006 Metrolink On-Board Survey data (Source: Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority) was analyzed as part of the research in developing this parking plan. Of particular note, the 2001 survey indicated the following mode-of-access splits for the current Metrolink station in Anaheim: o Drive alone – 46% o Drop-off/Pick-up – 10% o Walk – 18% o Bike – 1% o Bus – 25% The 2006 Metrolink On-board Survey revealed a different mode split than 2001, and is summarized below for the Anaheim Station: o Drive alone – 89% o Carpool – 4% o Drop-off/Pick-up – 3% o Walk – 0% o Bike – 1% o Bus – 4% Based on the notable difference in the two Metrolink surveys, data in the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum, and the desire and expectation for ARTIC to operate significantly different than the existing Anaheim station with less dependency on single occupant vehicles, a middle ground assumption was derived from the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum. This middle ground takes into consideration the future more frequent and dispersed bus access services planned for ARTIC. The assumption is 50% of patrons will arrive at the station by a non- transit mode of transport. 90% of these passengers will arrive at the station by private automobile, with 20% being dropped-off and picked-up and 70% drive and park. The remaining 10% of originating passengers are assumed to access the 4 station via non-auto modes of transportation (5% bike and 5% walk). Based on these assumptions, the Metrolink commuter rail daily parking demand is estimated to be 467 parking spaces. • Local/Regional Bus: OCTA is expected to adjust the routing of five existing bus routes (50, 53, 57, 430, 757) so they will have direct connections to the ARTIC. These five routes currently service areas near the existing Anaheim station and ARTIC site. These routes are a mixture of “local”, “station link” and “express bus” services each serving a distinct purpose. The availability of these connected local, station link and express bus services to the ARTIC will offer improved choices and added benefits such as convenient proximity of a stop, faster connectivity, ease of transfer, and cost affordability. This will play a part in inducing shifts in travel behavior from driving alone to using transit connections to ARTIC. These public buses essentially provide feeder and distributor service to the ARTIC; they do not generate parking demand of their own at the ARTIC. All local/express bus boardings are assumed to either be non-auto originating passengers or transfer passengers from the rail services. • Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) Services: The combined daily ridership estimate for these transit services, which are part of the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), is projected to be 4,560 daily boardings. ART buses typically transport riders between Anaheim hotels and The Anaheim Resort entertainment venues A separate concurrent study is underway by ATN that is expected to restructure and possibly expand the current ART services in part to work with the new ARTIC intermodal paradigm. Anaheim Resort Transit services to and from ARTIC would operate as feeder and distributor service similar to the local/regional bus services offered by OCTA (i.e. feeder/distributor); therefore, no additional parking demand is foreseen. • Private Carriers: Greyhound, Coach America, tourism buses, and other intercity services constitute private carriers that may serve the ARTIC. These services are typically characterized by long-haul operations in excess of 100 miles. In prior ARTIC technical analyses, these carriers were projected to attract a daily ridership of 600 passengers at ARTIC by opening day. The parking calculations assume Greyhound and Coach America patrons are less likely to travel by automobile and park at ARTIC. Rather, patrons are expected to transfer from a public transit bus or be dropped off at a station. Tourism and international bus services can have similar patronage to Amtrak rail service, so some parking demand will exist. For purposes of the ARTIC parking calculations, it is assumed that the ridership activity will reflect a 75%-25% split between transfer passengers and drive-access passengers respectively. The further splits for drive-access mode were assumed to be 25% in their own private automobiles and 75% dropped-off/picked-up by private vehicles. Holding the vehicle occupancy rate for those that do drive and park at 1.2 persons per vehicle, the potential parking demand for the private carriers is estimated to be 31 spaces. 5 Table 1 Opening Year ARTIC Parking Demand Service Provider Daily Ridership Transfer Passengers Daily Originating Passengers Using Non-Transit Mode-of-Access Passenger Mode Split Auto Occupancy. Rate Parking Demand Percent Share Number of Passengers Bike Space Demand Auto Space Demand Service Level % Boarding Estimated Assumed Walk Bike Non-Auto Sub-Total Drop Off Pick Up Drive* Auto Sub-Total Total Walk Bike Non-Auto Sub-Total Drop Off Pick Up Drive* Auto Sub-Total Total REGIONAL RAIL Amtrak 575 144 High 75% 431 430 0% 0% 0% 30% 70% 100% 100% 0 0 0 129 301 430 430 1.2 0 251 California High-Speed Rail Not Assumed in Year 2013 California / Nevada Super Train Not Assumed in Year 2013 COMMUTER RAIL Metrolink 1,600 800 Medium 50% 800 800 5% 5% 10% 20% 70% 90% 100% 40 40 80 160 560 720 800 1.2 40 467 LOCAL / REGIONAL BUS OCTA Local Bus Service 545 545 Zero 0% 0 0 OCTA Bus Rapid Transit Service OCTA Express Bus Service ANAHEIM TRANSIT PROJECTS Anaheim Resort Transit 685 685 Zero 0% 0 0 OCTA Go Local - Rubber Tire 2,670 2,670 Zero 0% 0 0 OCTA Go Local - Circulator/Fixed Guideway 850 850 Zero 0% 0 0 Employer Shuttles 355 355 Zero 0% 0 0 PRIVATE CARRIERS Intercity/International/Tourism Bus 600 450 Low 25% 150 150 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0 0 0 113 38 150 150 1.2 0 31 FLYAWAY SHUTTLES LAWA Shuttle 550 275 Medium 50% 275 280 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0 0 0 210 70 280 280 1.2 0 58 TAXIS 29 29 Zero 0% 0 0 SUB TOTAL 8,459 6,803 1,656 1,660 40 40 80 612 969 1,580 1,660 40 807 EMPLOYEES: Amtrak Metrolink OCTA Anaheim Resort Transit Private Carriers FlyAway Taxis Security Terminal Operator Retail Police 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 19 8 EMPLOYEES SUB TOTAL 42 GRAND TOTAL 849 • Basis Source:  Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum, Cordoba Corporation, August 11, 2009 6 • Airport FlyAway Shuttles: According to the research conducted in preparing the Facility Programming Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 2009, it was projected that airport FlyAway shuttles might serve up to 200,000 passengers annually to/from ARTIC. This translates to approximately 550 daily passengers. The assumptions for FlyAway shuttle service included a 50%-50% split between non-transit and transit patrons. In addition, mode split assumptions for non-transit users were consistent with that assumed for Private Carriers. Based on incorporating these splits and holding an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.2 persons per vehicle, it was estimated the potential parking demand for FlyAway passengers to be 58 spaces. • Employees: Parking demand was estimated for on-site staff personnel. While it is assumed that some level of staffing will be on-site 24/7 (principally for security and facility maintenance), the highest demand for employee parking will occur weekdays between the hours of 6:00am and 7:00pm. This is assumed to be the time of day when all services of ARTIC would be in full operation concurrently. During these hours the following staff are assumed to be on-site and create a corresponding parking demand at a worst case 1:1 ratio: 3 Amtrak, 2 Metrolink, 2 OCTA, 1 Anaheim Resort Transit, 1 private transit service provider, 1 Airport FlyAway, 3 Taxi Drivers (staging), 1 Security Officer, 2 Terminal Operations, and 19 retail employees for a total parking space demand of 34. Based on direction from the City eight police staff parking spaces have been added to the demand calculation. These spaces will be located near the existing train station building, which is expected to be converted to a police substation. These spaces bring the total staffing demand to 42 spaces, which is presented in Table 1. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-1 T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m To: Jamie Lai, Transit Manager City of Anaheim From: Richard Willson, Transportation Consultant Subject: Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Date: April 17, 2012 Summary This memo provides a peer review of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB Analysis), dated February 3, 2012. The peer review examines a spreadsheet analysis of ARTIC parking demand that concludes that opening day parking demand will be 849 spaces.1 This memo also considers parking demand associated with ARTIC retail uses. The PB Analysis and this peer review provide a basis for a determining that ARTIC parking is adequate under the City of Anaheim code provision, "If a parking demand study is required by Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) due to the unique nature of the use, the parking requirements shall be determined by the Planning Services Manager of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee and/or the Planning Commission based on information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer.” This memo considers each element of the PB Analysis in the context of best practice in transit station parking analysis, evidence on access modes to transit stations, and the characteristics of the different user groups. It considers factors that might lead to an overestimate or underestimate of parking demand. On the whole, this peer review concludes that these factors roughly balance out and concludes that the PB Analysis ARTIC transit-related parking demand model prediction of 849 spaces is an appropriate basis for design and initial operations.2 This memo also includes a prediction of parking demand from restaurant and retail uses to be included in ARTIC. Including that demand would increase the estimate to 872 spaces, below the expected supply of 1,082 spaces. Therefore, this analysis supports a CUP determination that parking supply will exceed demand. 1 This estimate is for transit patrons and ARTIC employees only, and does not include ARTIC commercial patrons or other uses that might use ARTIC parking, such as Honda Center, Angel Stadium, or private restaurants not part of ARTIC. 2 The details that follow assess factors that are judged realistic and those that could lead to a “possible” or “likely” overestimate or underestimate. The conclusion reached about the PB Analysis parking demand level considers the likelihood of overestimate or underestimate, as well as the magnitude of that parking demand component. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-2 The appendices provide information on parking supply at comparable rail stations, information from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) station access surveys and OCTAM model parameters, , and references. Background and Context The existing Anaheim Stadium Station has an observed peak parking occupancy of between 350 and 400 spaces, which is a true representation of the demand under the existing transit services and parking policies. The premise of ARTIC, of course, is that demand will increase by opening day as the result of transit improvements, the ARTIC facility itself, and Platinum Triangle development. To verify existing parking occupancy, the City of Anaheim Police Department conducted parking occupancy counts during the week of August 15th (Monday) through August 20th (Saturday) 2011. These counts were conducted in the mid-day (between 1:00 and 3:00 PM) and in the evening (between 1:00 and 4:00 AM). Figure PR-1 summarizes the results. Figure PR-1. Anaheim Stadium Station Parking Counts The results confirm a demand of between 350 and 400 spaces during the daytime peak. The highest demand day observed was Saturday, which may reflect weekend trips on Amtrak. Weekday overnight demand is around 100 spaces, with higher levels on Friday and Saturday. These high levels likely stem from overnight weekend trips on Amtrak. Note that the Angels were playing on each of these days, so the daytime parking counts may reflect some impact by early game arrivers seeking to use the Anaheim Stadium station parking. Based on counts, about 30% of peak demand is present overnight. These overnight parkers include those on multiday trips and those leaving cars at the station overnight while they commute to their home destination. The data collection activity included recording the license plate numbers of parked vehicles, so that the different overnight users could be identified. Figure 2 shows an analysis of the overnight parkers using the group of vehicles parked on Monday August 15th and tracking them Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-3 throughout the week. If the car was parked overnight but not in the lot during the day, that parker is considered a “station car”, meaning that it is likely that a car is being stored at the station in the evening and is being used to travel to a worksite during the day. Those cars that were present in the evening and during the day are considered to be those parked by transit riders on overnight and multi- day trips. Those cars were tracked through Saturday August 20th to determine the number of days parked. Figure PR-2 shows the distribution of overnight parkers. Figure PR-2. Type of Overnight Parkers at the Anaheim Stadium Station The results show that about half of the overnight parking was station cars, with the remainder being multi-day trips. The most common multi-day trip those was one night overnight, with small numbers of two-night, three-night, and five-night parkers. The presence of 20 cars parked for six nights may indicate that some non-ARTIC users are storing vehicles at the parking facility. ARTIC opening day parking demand will be higher than current conditions, of course, because of enhanced Metrolink and Amtrak services, the attraction of the ARTIC facility, and Platinum Triangle development. One simple way of thinking about ARTIC opening day parking demand is to consider that the parking supply plans allows for a more than doubling of the existing demand. This is a substantial increase in parking capacity, and it is occurring in a context in which neighboring stations in Fullerton and Orange plan to increase their parking capacity. Another way of assessing the amount of parking is to examine stations elsewhere that have similarities with ARTIC. Appendix A provides a brief profile of three stations identified in this analysis. The closest comparison found is the Downtown San Jose Diridon Station, which service similar uses (Amtrak, commuter rail, and bus), is located next to a sports facility in an urbanizing area, and is Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-4 planned for High Speed Rail. That station has 581 parking spaces and reaches 90% parking occupancy. To predict opening day parking demand, the PB Analysis drew on the Cordoba Corporation Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum (2009), and made some adjustments in assumptions and factors. The PB Analysis predicts parking demand based on daily ridership (boardings). These boardings are converted into parking demand by considering the percentage of passengers originating at the station (rather than transferring from another transit mode), estimates of the share of transit users arriving by walk, bicycle, drop-off, or driving, and an estimated automobile occupancy rate (reflecting shared rides, carpooling, and vanpooling). Parking estimates for ARTIC employee parking are provided as well, and are included in the 849 space total. The next part of this technical memo reviews the PB Analysis, step-by-step, and provides comments and information concerning each component. The charts and narratives that follow assess each step in the model and reach conclusions about which model components are realistic and which might lead to an overestimate or underestimate of parking demand. Comments are also provided on how parking demand from restaurants and ancillary commercial uses (not included in the draft PB Analysis) that can be added to the model. Part 1: Review of PB Model Components Regional rail demand The PB Analysis concludes that parking demand associated with Amtrak riders will be 251 spaces. Amtrak use is more likely to be for business and vacation travel than daily commuting. A search for other studies revealed that the access needs of Amtrak riders are less studied than commuter rail station systems. Empirical data on the mode of Amtrak station access was not identified as part of this review. The comments in Table PR-1, therefore, are based on general transportation planning knowledge about passenger rail services such as Amtrak and how they differ from commuter rail. Of course, the approximately 400 space current demand includes all Amtrak riders, so the baseline combined demand is known. The categories in the table generally correspond to columns in Table 1 in the PB Analysis. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-5 Table PR-1. Factors in Amtrak Parking Estimate3 Factor Discussion Impact on PB Analysis parking demand estimate Daily boardings - 575 Weak economic conditions in the last two years mean that service improvements and ridership demand increases embedded in the original forecast may be slower in coming. Possible overestimate % originating passengers – 75% The PB Analysis revised upward to 75% the percentage of originating passengers (from 50% in the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum). This is an appropriate adjustment since a 50% share of Amtrak riders arriving by transit on opening day is an aggressive assumption. Amtrak riders are less likely to take transit to the station than Metrolink commuters because of luggage, trips with family members, and irregular use. Even so, achieving a 25% transit share to ARTIC for these trips will require very strong linking transit services. Possible underestimate Walk/bike share – 0% The PB Analysis assumes no walk or bicycle access. This is appropriate because Amtrak riders are more likely to have luggage and be coming from a larger draw area (Metrolink stops are more closely spaced than Amtrak stops). Some daily commuters will use Amtrak because the of Rail to Rail shared pass, and therefore bicycle to ARTIC, but the number is small; bicycle commuters are accounted for in the PB Metrolink analysis. Realistic Drop off share – 22.5% The PB Analysis 22.5% drop-off rate is consistent with the type of trips taken on Amtrak. Longer duration trips associated with Amtrak are more likely to be dropped off than daily commuter trips. Note that some drop-off riders might involve short term parking, but since this use has a high turnover, the impact on total demand is minor. Realistic Auto occupancy rate of 1.2 implies a shared ride rate of 10% – 18% The 1.2 persons per vehicle rate implies shared ride level of about 34% among non-drop off auto arrivals (if shared rides have two persons per car), or 22% (if shared rides have 2.5 persons per car). Expressed as a percentage of total riders, this implies a shared ride rate of between 10% and 18% of all rail Amtrak boarders. Amtrak riders are more likely to have higher vehicle occupancies because of families taking trips and sharing a ride to the station (as opposed to daily Metrolink commuters). Realistic Multi-day trips (not included in PB model) The PB Analysis does not account for the impact of multi-day trips on effective parking capacity. Because the model is based on daily ridership, the effect of a three-day trip is to occupy a parking space in days one through three of the trip, thereby using a space that would otherwise be used by daily commuters on day two and three. If one in three Amtrak vehicles is parked for three days, it would increase effective parking demand by 66%. (or 33% if the average trip duration is two days). The results of parking occupancy studies conducted August 15 – 20, 2011 show that most overnight trips are 24 hour trips. The number of six- day trips may reflect car storage by those not using transit. Possible underestimate Conclusion: forecast is supported. There is a possibility of overestimate (ridership) and a possibility of underestimate (% of originating passengers and multi-day trips) in the PB Analysis, but it is likely that the factors balance out. Parking management (pricing for multi-day trips) can manage multi-day demand and encourage drop off. 3 The PB Analysis converts total boardings to originating trips by applying a reduction to account for passengers transferring from other modes of transit (i.e., their trip does not originate at the station). As a result, the mode share percentages provided in Table 1 of the PB analysis are percentage of the originating trips, not total boardings. For this memo, these rates are converted to a percentage of total boardings so they can more easily be compared to existing studies. For example, the drop-off rate for Regional Rail in Table 1 of the PB Analysis is shown as 30%, but this is 30% of the originating trips. To determine what percentage this is of total boardings, that rate is multiplied by the % boarding (reflecting originating trips) rate shown on the table (e.g., 0.3 * 0.75 = 22.5%). This is done for all calculations in this memo. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-6 Commuter Rail The PB Analysis concludes that Metrolink demand will be 467 spaces. The PB Analysis recognizes that service enhancements for Metrolink will increase demand over existing conditions. It should be also recognized that commuter parking capacity will increase at neighboring stations in Fullerton and Orange, which means that commuters will have more choices about the stations they use to park. Of course, the increased parking capacity and train service will attract more riders to all the stations. Table PR-2 (next page) reviews the model components. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-7 Table PR-2. Factors in Commuter Rail Parking Estimate Factor Discussion Impact on PB Analysis Parking Demand Estimate Daily boardings – 1,600 The 1,600 ridership level may be considered as the high end of possible demand, since weakness in the economy is affecting ridership and the pace of Metrolink service enhancements. This 1,600 ridership level is greater than the current Metrolink level of boardings. The Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) has been implemented more slowly than expected because of economic conditions. As the regional economy improves, both sales tax resources and transit demand are likely to lead to increased Metrolink service. The use of 1,600 daily boardings by opening day is likely to have led to an overestimate of parking demand. Overestimate % originating passengers – 50% The 50% originating level is carried forward from the 2009 Cordoba Technical Memorandum. It is an aggressive assumption that was made because of ARTIC’s goals for multi-modal access, with improved transit, shuttle, and non-automobile access. Appendix B shows that transit access share for Anaheim Station has been 11% (averaging 2001, 2006 and 2010 surveys). Appendix C shows a 23% transit access level from selected Caltrain and BART stations. Build-out of close-by high density housing and Anaheim transit connectors may bring about the 50% level about in the longer-term future, but this is an aggressive level for opening day conditions. Underestimate Walk – 2.5%/bike - 2.5% The PB Analysis combined 5% walk and bicycle access share is less than the combined walk/bike level (9%) found in OCTA Anaheim Station surveys (see Appendix B); ARTIC will be next to a bicycle trail. Because the walk and bicycle share may have been underestimated, this would lead to a possible overestimate of parking demand. Possible overestimate Drop off – 10% The PB Analysis uses a 10% drop off share. This is consistent with drop off shares displayed in Appendix B. Realistic Auto occupancy rate of 1.2 – implies a shared ride rate of 8% - 12% The 1.2 persons per vehicle rate implies shared ride level of about 34% of non-drop off auto arrivals (if shared rides have two persons per car), or 22% (if shared rides have 2.5 persons per car). Expressed as a percentage of total riders, this implies a shared ride rate of between 8% and 12% of all rail Metrolink boarders. This is higher than the existing level of 2% (see Appendix B) and between 5% and 9% at comparison stations (Appendix C). The PB Analysis statement that a 1.2 persons-per-vehicle rate can be affected by bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and effective shuttles is not supportable, since those are already accounted for in originating passenger and mode share calculations. However, the City can use incentives and disincentives to increase carpooling to the station: reserved carpool/vanpool spaces, not oversupplying overall parking, and mentions differential pricing. In addition to these factors, employer-sponsored vanpools can increase the persons per vehicle rate. These vanpools can both deliver train riders from their homes or reduce the need for overnight station cars by delivering train commuters to worksites. Achieving the 1.2 rate will require a concerted effort by a Transportation Management Organization or similar entity. Possible underestimate Overnight parking The PB Analysis does not explicitly account for the impact of vehicles left overnight and used during the day (often termed “station cars”). These vehicles do not conflict with daytime parking demand unless they interfere with parking capacity for early morning daily commuters and again in the afternoon when the station cars return (i.e., the station car is not retrieved from the space in the morning by the time an outbound commuter arrives and seeks the space). Differential parking pricing can be used to manage station cars. Results of parking occupancy studies conducted August 15 – 20, 2011 suggest that 52 station cars were parked, 14.6% of the peak daytime demand. Possible underestimate Turnover in spaces Generally, commuter spaces are used by one commuter per day. The PB Analysis assumes that there is no space turnover. It is possible that there will be some turnover in spaces as Metrolink introduces midday service that serves non-work trips. Possible overestimate Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-8 Conclusion: forecast is supported and consistent with previous forecasts. Overestimation factors (ridership, walk/bike share, and turnover) are likely to be balanced by underestimation factors (originating passengers share, vehicle occupancy, and overnight parking impact). Parking management and pricing can manage overnight demand and encourage drop off, carpool/vanpool, and transit access. Local/regional bus The PB Analysis concludes that zero percent of local and regional bus service will be trips originating at ARTIC, and therefore forecasts a parking demand of zero for this transit use. This is supportable because bus riders will seek a bus stop closest to their destination, possible since bus service has more frequent stops than rail. Bus riders are unlikely to drive to ARTIC and park to take the bus, especially because they can avoid the anticipated ARTIC parking charges by accessing the bus at a stop closer to their trip origin where parking is likely to be free. Best practice in rail station parking assigns parking to rail users who come from a larger catchment area. Conclusion: forecast is supported. Anaheim Transit Projects The PB Analysis concludes that Anaheim Resort Transit, OCTA Go Local, circulator/fixed guideway, and employer shuttles will generate zero originating passengers. That is because these services are intended to link an ARTIC arrival (on rail) to local destinations or to bring nearby residents or workers to ARTIC. Users of Anaheim transit project are unlikely to drive to ARTIC and park to take one of these services. Best practice in rail station parking only assigns parking to rail users who come from a larger catchment area. Conclusion: forecast is supported as long as ARTIC parking is not proposed as off-site parking by commuting employees at nearby major activities centers. Parking management and access controls measures can ensure that this does not occur. Private Carriers and Airport Shuttles The PB Analysis concludes that 31 spaces of parking demand will be associated with 600 daily private bus trips for intercity and international buses, and that 58 spaces of parking demand will be associated with 550 airport daily shuttles providing access to regional airports. They assume a 25% originating passenger level and a high level of drop-off for buses and 50% for airport shuttles. This is consistent with the profile of intercity bus riders, which is likely to have a more transit-dependent characteristic. There is no empirical data to support these factors, but the PB Analysis assumptions are supportable and prudent in accommodating a level of parking for this use. Table PR-3 (next page) reviews the elements of the demand. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-9 Table PR-3. Factors in Private Carriers and Airport Shuttles Parking Estimate Factor Discussion Impact on PB Analysis parking demand estimate Daily boardings – 600 (private carrier) and 550 (airport shuttle) These demand levels depend on the service plans of these entities. These levels represent a fully developed service program. Possible overestimate % originating passengers – 25% (private carrier) and 50% (airport shuttle) These lower originating passenger levels are appropriate given the more transit dependent nature of intercity bus riders. Realistic Walk/bike share – 0% The PB Analysis assumes no walk or bicycle access, because these riders are more likely to have luggage and be coming from a larger draw area. While this is reasonable, any walk or bicycle access would mean that parking demand is possibly overestimated. Possible overestimate Drop off - 18.75% (private carrier) and 37.5% (airport shuttle) PB uses a 22.5% drop off ratio for originating automobile access trips. Longer duration trips associated with private carriers and flyaway are more likely to be dropped off than daily commuter trips. Realistic Auto occupancy rate – 1.2 implies a shared ride rate of 3% - 8% The PB analysis uses a 1.2 persons per vehicle rate, which implies shared ride level of about 34% of non-drop off auto arrivals (if shared rides have two persons per car), or 22% (if shared rides have 2.5 persons per car). Expressed as a percentage of total riders, this implies a shared ride rate of between 3 and 8% of all rail private carrier and flyaway boarders. These riders are more likely to have higher vehicle occupancies because of families taking trips and sharing a ride to the station (as opposed to daily Metrolink commuters). Realistic Multi-day trips (not included in PB Analysis) The PB Analysis does not account for the impact of multi-day trips on effective parking capacity. Because the model is based on daily ridership, the effect of a three-day trip is to occupy and parking space in days one through three of the trip, thereby using a space that would otherwise be used by daily commuters on day two and three. If one in three private carrier/airport vehicles is parked for three days, it would increase effective parking demand is increased by 66%. (or 33% if the average trip duration is two days). Flyaway shuttles are likely to be multi-day parking. Underestimate Conclusion: forecast is supported. In the long-term, this use might be considered on an “as space available” basis. Employees The PB Analysis estimates the total number of employees by different users of ARTIC to arrive at a 42 space demand. It is unlikely, however, that all employees will all be on-site at the peak occupancy period (due to work shifts, absences, etc.), and it is unlikely that they will all drive alone to ARTIC (service workers usually have a higher level of drop-off and alternative mode use than the general population). These two factors suggest that the 42 spaces demand may be overstated. Conclusion: forecast may be overstated. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-10 Parking for ancillary uses and restaurants within ARTIC The PB Analysis assumed that the retail and restaurant uses are “incidental and accessory to the principle transit use”, meaning that patrons of those uses are already accounted for in the variety of access modes, including ARTIC parking. This is a reasonable position because the main purpose of those uses is to support patrons of the ARTIC facility. Having said that, however, it is possible that some non-transit riders will come to the site as a destination, especially some of the restaurant uses. This section provides an analysis of that parking demand. The scenario examined here is that there will be 12,075 square feet of retail uses on the site, comprised of 9,400 square feet of restaurant and 2,675 square feet of retail. Using Los Angeles Union Station as an example, restaurants in that facility include sit-down dining, a bar, and fast food facilities such as Subway, Starbucks, etc. Virtually all of the fast food customers are transit riders, but some of the sit- down restaurant and bar patrons come for that use as a destination. This scenario assumes a 50/50 breakdown between sit-down restaurant and fast food, and that the gross leasable area (GLA) is 90% of gross floor area. ARTIC plans also assume 960 square feet of future retail kiosks. No parking demand is calculated for retail kiosks since their demand will be exclusively walk-by captive trips whose parking demand is already accounted for in the transit parking demand calculations. The City of Anaheim’s code requirement for restaurants is 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet, with 8.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet in mixed use complexes. Convenience retail requires 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Because this is a parking demand analysis, rather than a code analysis, this section estimates a unique parking demand level for ARTIC restaurant and commercial uses based on the methodology in the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking model (Second Edition) and the author’s experience with mode shares in train station facilities. A key factor in this calculation is the time at which parking demand peaks in the overall ARTIC facility, which is expected to be mid-afternoon. That demand level that should form the basis of any added parking requirements for ARTIC, since nighttime demand can be accommodated in a shared parking arrangement in vacated commuter spots. Table PR-4 provides a step-by-step adjustment to the base parking demand rates provided in the ULI model. Those base rates are adjusted downward to account for use of alternative modes to access ARTIC (e.g., patrons who walk or take a local shuttle to ARTIC rather than drive), trips already accounted for because the patrons are transit riders (termed “non-captive” by ULI, meaning the share that are not “captive” as the result of arriving to use transit), and the demand that will be exhibited in the 2 PM peak occupancy of the facility (termed “peak hour adjustment” by ULI). The base rates are multiplied by these factors to produce a net rate of parking demand. These rates are significantly lower than the base rates and the City’s parking requirement. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-11 Table PR-4. ARTIC Commercial Tenant Parking Demand Facility Type of demand Base trip generation rate Spaces per 1,000 GLA (ULI) Mode Adjustment4 Non-captive ratio5 Peak hour adjustment (ULI) Net rate for demand calculations Sit down restaurant Patrons 15.25 0.75 0.5 0.65 3.7 Employees 2.75 0.75 1 0.9 1.9 Total 18 5.6 Fast food Patrons 12.75 0.75 0.25 0.9 2.2 Employees 2.25 0.75 1 0.95 1.6 Total 15 3.8 Other commercial tenants Patrons 2.9 0.75 0.25 1 0.5 Employees 0.7 0.75 1 1 0.5 Total 3.6 1.1 Based on the square footage proposed, converted from gross square feet to GLA, the peak period (12:00 – 2:00 PM) additional parking demand for commercial and restaurant uses is (5.6 * 4,230/1,000 + 3.8 * 4,230/1,000 + 1.1 * 2,408) = 42 spaces. This is significantly less than that would be required under the standard and mixed-use code requirement. Since the PB Analysis already includes 19 retail employee parking spaces, the net increase to the 849 space original estimate is 23 additional peak hour patron spaces for the retail, bringing the total peak ARTIC demand to 872 spaces. 4 The 0.75 mode adjustment means that 25% of those arriving would use a mode other than driving alone. This includes shared rides to the site and a small number of those walking or biking from nearby workplaces. This estimate is based results from on Travel Behavior Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development in California (2004), adjusted by the author for the Anaheim context. 5 The captive adjustment ratios vary according to the likelihood that the patron is already on the site for transit purposes. These estimates draw on studies of transit-oriented developments in California, including Travel Behavior Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development in California (2004). Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-12 Appendix A – Parking Supply at Comparable Rail Stations The following describes three stations that have similarities to the concept espoused in ARTIC – rail stations that have higher levels of rail service than normal commuter rail locations, are in urbanizing locations, and are near major sports facilities. San Jose Diridon Station in downtown San Jose has 581 parking spaces. The parking occupancy is 90%, with a daily parking fee of $3. The station has an access mode share of 24% transit, 5% bicycle, and 15% walk. These mode splits may become possible for ARTIC as the Platinum Triangle builds out; the transit share could be higher if Anaheim’s local ARTIC connectivity projects are fully implemented. This station is in the core of San Jose and is within walking distance of HP Pavilion sport facility. It serves Caltrain and ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) commuter rail, VTA light rail, Amtrak, and may serve a BART extension in the future. It is also planned as a future station for the California high speed rail project. Los Angeles Union Station, the hub of the Southern California rail system, has approximately 3,000 spaces, privately operated. The parking fee is $6 per day, with a $70 per month pass ($60 per month pass available to Metrolink riders). Union Station has the highest level of California Amtrak boardings, the highest level of Metrolink boardings in Southern California, and is a major bus hub. It represents a higher level of transit activity than will be achieved at ARTIC. Nonetheless, it is a useful example because it contains the wide variety of transit services, has the type of restaurant and commercial uses anticipated for ARTIC, and has a distinctive architecture that means that it is draw in itself. Coliseum/Airport (978 surface spaces) is on the Fremont line. The parking facility fills by about 8:30 AM. The station has a 2008 access mode share of 19% transit, <1% bicycle, and 12% walk. Daily parking is free, but monthly reserved parking is available for $42 per month. This station is next to the McAfee Coliseum (home of the Oakland A’s baseball team and the Oakland Raiders football team). It has dedicated shuttle service to Oakland Airport, but does not offer long- term airport parking (the time limit is 24 hours). BART has a greater service frequency than Metrolink/Amtrak but this station provides a view of the long-term situation that could emerge with great transit supply and land use intensity. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-13 Appendix B – Station Access Modes from OCTA Station Access Surveys, OCTAM Model Parameters, Comparable Stations Surveys of Metrolink riders were conducted in 2001, 2006, and 2010 (OCTA). The following shows the results for the Anaheim Station. The results vary significantly, likely due to the relatively small sample size (e.g., the 2010 survey produced 125 Anaheim Station responses). The three surveys are averaged in the table below to produce a larger sample. Parking conditions did not change significantly in that ten year period, so averaging these results is a reasonable approach. Year of Survey Drive alone Drop-off Carpool Transit Bicycle Walk 2001 46% 10% 0% 25% 1% 18% 2006 89% 3% 4% 4% 1% 0% 2010 75% 10% 2% 3% 1% 8% Average all years 70% 8% 2% 11% 1% 9% The results show that the existing Anaheim station’s primary station access mode is driving alone and parking. This is not surprising given the land use context, plentiful free parking, and limited transit and alternative access facilities. ARTIC is part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce automobile dependency in the Platinum Triangle, which means that current conditions do not necessarily predict future station access modes. These data, however, provide a starting point for understanding the changes that will be brought about by ARTIC, local access improvements, and more local population. OCTA has provided the Anaheim Station/ARTIC station access mode shares used in their model for 2005 and 2035. The following summarizes the data in the model. Note that all vehicle access (park- and-ride, carpool/vanpool-and-ride, and kiss-and-ride) are combined in the automobile access category. The automobile access share maps closely the survey data shown above, while the 2035 mode shares reflect the impact of Platinum Triangle build-out and local transit access improvements. Access mode 2005 2035 Automobile 78% 55% Walk 1% 8% Bus 21% 37% While each rail station has unique qualities, it is instructive to examine access mode splits at station that have similarities with the vision expressed for ARTIC. The table that follows provides information from mode access surveys at two stations on the Caltrain line (San Jose to San Francisco commuter rail service) and two stations on the BART line (Bay Area heavy rail transit service). Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-14 Drive Drop off Carpool Transit Bicycle Walk Other Downtown San Jose Diridon (near arena, core area)33%8%N/A35%2%15%8% Mountain View (employer and transit provider shuttles)26%8%N/A35%5%18%7% Average for all Caltrain "intermodal connectivity stations"34%9%N/A16%6%31%5% Coliseum/Oakland Airport (near McAfee Coliseum)49% 15% 4% 19% 1% 12% N/A MacArthur (urban, Emeryville shuttle)35% 15% 5% 27% 5% 35% N/A Average for all BART station home access trips 34% 10% 5% 15% 4% 31% N/A Average for all listed 36% 11% 6% 23% 4% 24% 7% Caltrain (San Jose to SF commuter rail) BART (Access from home) Station Access ModeSystem Station and Characteristics These data show that lower park-and-ride shares are possible at stations that pursue diversified station access strategies. Caltrain is included because it provides commuter rail service with multi-directional and off-peak service as is contemplated for the Metrolink service expansion in Orange County. Caltrain stations have a high level of land use and transportation integration. BART is included despite the fact that it is heavy rail service (rather than commuter rail) because Metrolink service expansion provides service levels that approach some BART stations, and because transit/land use integration is more mature in these stations. Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-15 Peer Review and Technical Analysis of ARTIC Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, R. Willson, 4/17/12, Page PR-16 Appendix C – References Cordoba Corporation (2009, June 29) Technical Memorandum: Needs Assessment Update and Validation. Available from Orange County Transportation Authority or the City of Anaheim. IBI Group (2011, June) Metrolink Station Parking Management Study. Available from the Orange County Transportation Authority. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2008) Parking Study for JT Schmid’s Restaurant in the City of Anaheim (draft). Available from the City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works. Lund, H. and R Willson (2005) The Pasadena Gold Line: Development Strategies, Local Decisions, and Travel Characteristics along a New Rail Line in the Los Angeles Region. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute. Can be accessed at http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/GoldLine-MTI%2004-03.pdf Lund, H., Cervero, R. and R. Willson. (2004) Travel Behavior Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development in California. Oakland, CA: Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. Can be accessed at http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/tod/Pictures/TOD2.pdf. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 UPUPDNDNSSSSS SSSFFFFFF FFFFBUILDING LAYOUTCIRCULATIONCOMMERCIAL TENANT SPACETICKETINGTRANSPORTATION OPERATIONSOPEN TO BELOWCOMMERCIALTENANT SPACECIRCULATIONOFFICES6,775 SF8,350 SFENTRY CANOPY BELOWVESTIBULE CANOPY BELOW 5BELOWBUILDING FOOTPRINT BELOWCURB BELOWLINE OF CONCOURSE BRIDGEABOVECONCOURSE BRIDGESUPPORT 5BELOW 5BELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOW 5BELOW 5BELOW 5BELOWBELOWA516.P1A516.P2BUILDING SIGNAGE BELOW3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4A031.P6A510.P2A510.P1A514.P2A514.P1 5BELOW35 SF5,435 SFCOMMERCIALTENANT SPACECOMMERCIALTENANT SPACECOMMERCIALTENANT SPACETICKETING (TVM)SHEET NOTES1.REFER TO L-SERIES SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE INFORMATION2. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR UTILITIES AND ROW INFORMATION1. INTERMODAL TERMINAL(MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING)2. CONCOURSE BRIDGE3. PLATFORMS4. SERVICE YARD5. BUS CANOPIESLEGEND KEYNOTESCITYOFANAHEIMCALIFO R N I A FOUNDED1857C.516101518ABC1D234567Sheet NumberOriginal drawing is 42 x 30 Do not scale contents of this drawingSheet TitleProject NoDrawn by Reviewed byProfessional SealsKey PlanIn Association withProjectAll reproduction & intellectual property rights reserved © 2011No. Issue DescriptionYYYY-MM-DDThornton Tomasetti6080 Center Drive, Suite 260Los Angeles, CA 90045Architectural Structural EngineeringContract No:9530 Jefferson BoulevardCulver City, CA 90232 USAt (310) 838 9555f (310) 838 9586N505 S. Main Street, Suite 900Orange, CA 92868 USAt (714) 973-4880f (714) 973-4918200 South Anaheim Blvd. #276Anaheim, CA 92805(714) 765-5176www.anaheim.netBuro Happold9601 Jefferson Blvd, Suite BCulver City, CA 90232Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and EnclosureSWA580 Broadway, Suite 200Laguna Beach, CA 92651Landscape ArchitectureSelbert Perkins DesignSignage and WayfindingRolf Jensen & Associates2099 South State College Blvd Suite 360Anaheim, CA 92806Fire / Life Safety and Code ComplianceSubmittal Package:Designed By: Date:Reviewed By: Date:Back Chk By:Date:Updated By:Date:Verified By:Date:Prepared for550 S.Main St.P.O. Box 14184Anaheim, CA 92863(714) 560-OCTAOCTA432 Culver BoulevardPlaya del Rey,CA 90293Faith Group, LLCCommunication and Security14 Arbor RoadSt. Louis, MO 63132Lighting8580 Washington BlvdCulver City, CA 90232Horton Lees BrogdenCITY OF ANAHEIMARTIC2626 E Katella Ave.Anaheim, CA 9280609.24020.00IDENTIFICATION STAMPDIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECTAC: FLS: SS:Date:APPN/AN/AINFORMATION ON SHEET IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR CUP SUBMITTAL2012.02.182012.02.182012.02.182012.03.292012.03.293/20/2012 12:06:20 PMCOMPOSITE PLANS -LEVEL 2A102.PCheckerDesigner09.24020.00DesignerCheckerApproverDesignerApprover 1/16" = 1'-0"1LEVEL 2 AREA PLAN - CUP DNDNBUILDING LAYOUTCIRCULATIONCOMMERCIAL TENANT SPACECONCOURSE BRIDGEPUBLIC HALLTICKETINGTRANSPORTATION OPERATIONSOPEN TO BELOWPUBLIC HALLWAITINGPUBLIC HALLWAITING 3,300 SF170 SFVESTIBULE CANOPY BELOWBELOWBUILDING FOOTPRINT BELOWCURB BELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWBELOWA516.P1A516.P214,265 SF2,585 SFBELOW155555525555554A510.P2A510.P1A514.P2A514.P130 SF1,040 SFBELOW5CIRCULATIONTICKETING (TVM)COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACEPARKING TICKETING (RC1)SHEET NOTES1.REFER TO L-SERIES SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE INFORMATION2. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR UTILITIES AND ROW INFORMATION1. INTERMODAL TERMINAL(MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING)2. CONCOURSE BRIDGE3. PLATFORMS4. SERVICE YARD5. BUS CANOPIESLEGEND KEYNOTESCITYOFANAHEIMCALIFO R N I A FOUNDED1857C.516101518ABC1D234567Sheet NumberOriginal drawing is 42 x 30 Do not scale contents of this drawingSheet TitleProject NoDrawn by Reviewed byProfessional SealsKey PlanIn Association withProjectAll reproduction & intellectual property rights reserved © 2011No. Issue DescriptionYYYY-MM-DDThornton Tomasetti6080 Center Drive, Suite 260Los Angeles, CA 90045Architectural Structural EngineeringContract No:9530 Jefferson BoulevardCulver City, CA 90232 USAt (310) 838 9555f (310) 838 9586N505 S. Main Street, Suite 900Orange, CA 92868 USAt (714) 973-4880f (714) 973-4918200 South Anaheim Blvd. #276Anaheim, CA 92805(714) 765-5176www.anaheim.netBuro Happold9601 Jefferson Blvd, Suite BCulver City, CA 90232Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and EnclosureSWA580 Broadway, Suite 200Laguna Beach, CA 92651Landscape ArchitectureSelbert Perkins DesignSignage and WayfindingRolf Jensen & Associates2099 South State College Blvd Suite 360Anaheim, CA 92806Fire / Life Safety and Code ComplianceSubmittal Package:Designed By: Date:Reviewed By: Date:Back Chk By:Date:Updated By:Date:Verified By:Date:Prepared for550 S.Main St.P.O. Box 14184Anaheim, CA 92863(714) 560-OCTAOCTA432 Culver BoulevardPlaya del Rey,CA 90293Faith Group, LLCCommunication and Security14 Arbor RoadSt. Louis, MO 63132Lighting8580 Washington BlvdCulver City, CA 90232Horton Lees BrogdenCITY OF ANAHEIMARTIC2626 E Katella Ave.Anaheim, CA 9280609.24020.00IDENTIFICATION STAMPDIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECTAC: FLS: SS:Date:APPN/AN/AINFORMATION ON SHEET IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR CUP SUBMITTAL2012.02.182012.02.182012.02.182012.03.292012.03.293/20/2012 12:07:04 PMCOMPOSITE PLANS -MEZZANINE LEVELA103.PCheckerDesigner09.24020.00DesignerCheckerApproverDesignerApprover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etal Panel Main Terminal Building (East/ West/South Wall, North, South and Side Canopy) Concourse Bridge Service Yard2. ETFE Main Terminal Building Shell3. Frit Glass Main Terminal Building (East/West/South/North Wall)4. Vision Glass Main Terminal Building (North Wall)5. Vision Glass Main Terminal Building (East/West/South Wall) Concourse Bridge ElevatorATTACHMENT NO. 9 SITE PHOTOS FOR ARTIC4/11/20121ATTACHMENT NO. 10 Looking south from Katella Avenue across OCTA propertyLooking west at SE corner of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue street frontage.Looking south across OCTA property at Katella Avenue4/11/20122 Looking north on Douglass Road towards Katella Avenue. Existing CMS overhead signs and Ayres Hotel  located west of gg yDouglass Road and south of Katella Avenue. Looking east  at SE  corner of Douglass Roadand Katella Avenue.4/11/20123 Looking east  from Douglass Road  behind JT Schmid’sLooking east  across Douglass Road  at OCTA property, just Restaurant and Brewerysouth of JT Schmid’s Restaurant and Brewery.Looking north on Douglass Road towards SportsgalleryCommercenter and Ayres Hotel. Looking south on Douglass Road towards SportsgalleryCommercenter and Douglass Road underpass. 4/11/20124 Looking southeast  from Douglass Road towards OCTA Looking southwest on Douglass Road towards Sportsgalleryproperty and driveway access. Commercenter and Douglass Road underpass. Looking southeat on Douglass Road towards OCTA property and Douglass Road underpass. Looking east across Douglass Road underpass towards City of Anaheim property. Billboard is in railroad right of way. Driveway is access to Anaheim property.4/11/20125 Looking north across OCTA property towards Honda Center.  Looking north along OCTA east property line, grade change between OCTA property and Santa Ana River Trail in Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). 4/11/20126 Looking just south of Katella Avenue SART access (OCFCD)  along OCTA’s  east property line. Looking south along OCTA east property line, grade change difference between SART  (OCFCD) and OCTA property.4/11/20127 Looking south Santa Ana River Trail (OCFCD) under crossing, Looking west  across above SART underpass along rail line.southeast of  OCTA property.Looking north above SART (OCFCD) and Santa Ana River.Looking north at OCTA property above SART (OCFCD) underpass. 4/11/20128 Looking west across Douglass Road railroad bridge. Looking north Douglass Road underpass.SCE transmission tower has been removed. Looking west across under SR‐57.Column locations and grade change.Looking east  towards Santa Ana River bridge (OCFCD) crossing. 4/11/20129 Douglass Road underpass and grade change. SCE transmission Looking east under SR‐57 freeway and Caltrans right of way. tower removed since photo was taken.Column spacing and Caltrans use of space.Looking south on City of Anaheim property, existing tenant and Caltrans right of way SR‐57 freeway. Looking west along railroad right of way towards existing Anaheim Station, Angels Stadium and Anaheim station parking located south. Stadium Towers located north of existing Anaheim Station.4/11/201210 Looking east towards Douglass Road kiosks for Looking east at Angel Stadium access from Douglass Road. Angel Stadium entry.Event staff, portable barriers, kiosks lanes.Looking east under SR‐57 freeway on Douglass Road. Pedestrians walking to Angels game.4/11/201211 Looking east on north Anaheim Station platform. Fan train.  North bound.Looking north at pedestrian entry from north side of Anaheim Station. Sidewalk to Katella Avenue.Looking east at Angels fans entering event. North of Anaheim Station.4/11/201212 Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Fireworks launch area, fireworks  barriers, defined parking area  for Anaheim StationFireworks launch area.Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Parking poachers and event staff directing where to park.Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Fireworks begin.4/11/201213 Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Fireworks  show.Passengers watching fireworks.Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Pedestrians watching fireworks.Looking  south from south platform of Anaheim Station. Range of Fireworks.  4/11/201214 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. SP 92-2 (MU)DEV 2009-00083THEATER SP 92-2DA1MEDICAL OFFICE SP 92-2DA1AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE RM-3CONDOMINIUMS64 DU SP 92-2DA1VACANT RESTAURANT RS-2SFR SP 92-2DA1ANAHEIM OVERNITETRAILER PARK RM-4CARIBBEAN COVE APARTMENTS240 DU RM-4HARBOR CLIFFAPARTMENTS130 UNITS SP 92-2DA1COMFORT INNMAINGATE SP 92-2DA1RENT FOR LESS RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DU RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU SP 92-2DA1HACIENDA INN& SUITES SP 92-2DA1RETAIL C-GFOURPLEX RS-2SFR SP 92-2DA1QUALITY INNMAINGATESP 92-2DA1JACK IN THE BOXRESTAURANT SP 92-2DA1OFFICES RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU RM-2SMOKETREETOWNHOMES123 DU SP 92-2DA1RETAIL SP 92-2DA1RETAIL RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU||382'||259'S HARBOR BLVDW WILKEN WAY W YU CCA AVE S WI L L OWB R OOK L NS MADRID STS MALLUL DRS S MI RA C T S CUTTY WAY W SUMMERFIELD CIRS. WEST STS. NINTH STS. HASTER STW. ORANGEWOOD AVE W. CHAPMAN AVE E. CHAPMAN AVES. LEWIS ST109792232 So uth Harbor Boulevard D E V 2 009-00083 Subject Property APN: 233-051-08 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Fee t Aeria l Pho to:April 200 9 S HARBOR BLVDW WILKEN WAY W YU CCA AVE S WI L L OWB R OOK L NS MADRID STS MALLUL DRS S MI RA C T S CUTTY WAY W SUMMERFIELD CIRN. TUSTIN AVEE. LINC O L N A V E 109792232 So uth Harbor Boulevard D E V 2 009-00083 Subject Property APN: 233-051-08 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Fee t Aeria l Pho to:April 200 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 7 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING, IN PART, AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010- 05486 AND AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC 2010-057 AND DETERMINING THAT A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THE APPRPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THIS REQUEST (DEV2009-00083) (2232 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, on July 19, 2010, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as ("Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. PC2010-057, did approve Conditional Use Permit 2010-05486 to permit the conversion of two adjoined vacant commercial buildings located on a legal non-conforming 4.8-acre site into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater including enhanced landscaping and wall murals pursuant to Section 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code located at 2232 South Harbor Boulevard, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a 43,500 square foot building, located in the SP92-2 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Commercial Recreation land uses; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2012, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486 (designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05503B") to allow additional entertainment and community assembly uses in conjunction with a previously approved dinner theatre, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption, including: concerts; public dances; private parties, meetings and banquets; religious assembly; and, sporting and convention events; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 23, 2012 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment to conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing pertaining to the request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to amend this conditional use permit to allow additional entertainment and community assembly uses in conjunction with a previously-approved dinner theatre, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption, including: - 2 - PC2012-*** concerts; public dances; private parties, meetings and banquets; religious assembly; and, sporting and convention events is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Municipal Code Section 18.116.070 of the Zoning Code. 2. With exception of the requested public dance and concert uses, the request to amend this conditional use permit to allow additional entertainment and community assembly uses, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption, would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area because the property is currently developed with an approximately 43,500 square-foot, 950-seat live performance theatre and the proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding area. 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full operation of the proposed uses, with exception of the public dances and concert uses, in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. 4. The traffic generated by allowing additional uses at the site would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site is consistent with traffic impacts associated with the originally-permitted dinner theatre. 5. The granting, in part, of the amended conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine, with respect to the requested public dance (dance venue), launch party and concert uses, that all of the conditions and criteria for approving an amendment to this conditional use permit are not present for the following reasons: 1. The business owner has allowed public dances to operate at this location in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code for approximately seven months. During that time, the City has received numerous complaints from adjacent residents regarding noise emanating from the building and disturbing the adjacent residential neighborhood. Complaints have also been received regarding excessive noise caused by patrons leaving the venue, such as noise from car stereos, alarms and horns. These conditions have been witnessed by City staff visiting the venue while public dances are being held. 2. There have been 26 calls for police service to this location within the past seven months and most of these calls have been attributed to noise and disturbance complaints resulting from the public dance operation and a concert which took place on September 11, 2011. In addition, Police and Planning Department staff members have personally witnessed disorderly conduct committed by patrons leaving the premises including a person urinating in public, an overly-intoxicated patron, and littering on adjacent properties. 3. On April 12, 2012, Police Department staff members visited an advertised public dance event and witnessed entertainment being provided by “go-go” dancers that is prohibited by Chapter 18.54 (Sex-Oriented Businesses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. - 3 - PC2012-*** 4. Based upon the observations noted above, the Planning Commission hereby determines that public dances (dance venue), launch parties and concerts cannot be hosted at this location without detriment to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and such uses are not compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project will not create any additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and addressed by the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486 (CUP2010-05486B), in part, to permit additional entertainment and community assembly uses in conjunction with a previously approved dinner theatre, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption, including: private parties, meetings and banquets; religious services; and, sporting and convention events; and does hereby deny the request to allow public dances (dance venue), launch parties and music concerts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2010-057, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486, as previously amended, to read as stated in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as expressly amended herein, Resolution No. PC2010-057, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486, shall remain if full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 4 - PC2012-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Zoning Provisions - General” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 23, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** - 6 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486 (CUP2010-05486B) (DEV2009-00083) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 This permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing in six months to ensure on-going compliance with the conditions of approval and to ensure that the venue is being operated without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Department 2 Within 30 days of approval of this application, the applicant shall submit building plans illustrating additional sound attenuation measures within the front lobby area. These measures shall be designed to prevent sound leakage from all south facing emergency exits. These improvements shall be installed within 60 days of approval of this application. Planning Department 3 Within 60 days of approval of this application, the existing trash enclosure shall be relocated to the northeast portion of the property in a location acceptable to the Public Works and Planning Departments. Planning Department 4 The additional uses authorized by this application shall be considered as accessory to the primary use of the venue which is a dinner theatre. These uses shall not be permitted to operate in the event that the dinner theatre ceases operation. Planning Department 5 Patrons shall be prohibited from parking on the adjacent commercial property to the south (currently occupied by Bank of America) unless written authorization to do so is received from the property owner and submitted to the Planning Department. Planning Department 6 All south and east facing doors shall remain closed during times that events are hosted at the venue. Code Enforcement - 7 - PC2012-*** 7 Any live or recorded musical entertainment provided in the main theatre area shall be incidental to a simultaneous theatrical performance or religious service and shall not be allowed as a primary use. Code Enforcement 8 Within 30 days of approval of this permit, a revised parking management plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Such plan shall demonstrate the ongoing ability for patrons to either self-park or to utilize valet parking and signs shall be clearly posted so that patrons arriving at the venue are made aware of this option. Said plan shall also include measures to ensure that the parking of vehicles and valet activities do not disturb the adjacent residential properties. Planning Department 9 Any live or recorded musical entertainment provided in the lobby area shall be incidental to a simultaneous public or private event such as weddings, proms, birthday celebrations, banquets etc, and shall not be allowed as a primary use. Code Enforcement 10 Within 30 days of approval of this application, the two southernmost parking lot light standards located at the rear of the building shall be equipped with shields designed to prevent excessive glare upon the adjacent residential properties to the south. Code Enforcement 11 All uses, including the existing dinner theatre and the additional uses authorized by this application, shall operate no later than 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and no later than 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. The disassembly and/or loading of equipment following each event shall cease no later than one hour beyond the time limits stated above. Code Enforcement 12 Any television or film activity shall be limited to filming, recording or broadcasting events that are authorized by this conditional use permit. Code Enforcement 13 As recommended by the updated parking analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (dated March 7, 2012), events shall commence no earlier than 9:00 a.m. Code Enforcement 14 Events taking place on the same day shall be scheduled a minimum of two hours apart in order to ensure an adequate number of on-site parking spaces Code Enforcement - 8 - PC2012-*** and adequate traffic flow. 15 As required by the facility’s Type 47 (On-Sale- General – Eating Place) Alcohol Beverage Control license, at all times when the premise is open for business and alcohol is being served the applicant shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in a restaurant. Police Department 16 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premise shall be prohibited. Police Department 17 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police Department 18 That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police Department 19 Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings, shall be provided with enough lighting to illuminate and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles onsite. Police Department 20 Within 30 days of approval of this application, a security plan shall be submitted to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval. The plan shall include measures to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police Department 21 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.18.110 (A) Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 22 The number of persons admitted shall not exceed 990 guests for events held within the theatre portion of the venue or 730 guests for events held within the lobby area. No event shall exceed 990 guests. Police Department - 9 - PC2012-*** 23 At all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries, the doors shall remain closed. (Section 4.18.110 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 24 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.18.050.0302 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 25 All entertainers and employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatomical areas" as described in Sections 7.16.060 and 18.54.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Police Department 26 Any violation of the application, or any attached conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. (Section 4.18.110(A) Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 27 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit- sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act) Police Department 28 Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police Department 29 Entertainment is allowed only within the building. No entertainment, including band warm-up and rehearsal, is allowed in the parking lot. Police Department 1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 Orange, California 92868 (714) 973-8383 www.traffic-engineer.com March 7, 2012        Mr. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner  CITY OF ANAHEIM  200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162  Anaheim, CA 92805    Dear Mr. Borrego:    INTRODUCTION    The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide this supplemental traffic analysis for the  Battle of the Dance project.  This traffic analysis supplements the Battle of the Dance Traffic Impact  Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (May 13, 2010).  The purpose of this supplemental traffic  analysis is to address the proposed additional uses proposed for the project site.    This report summarizes our methodology, analysis, and findings.  Although this is a technical report,  every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely.  To assist the reader with those  terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided within Appendix A.    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    The Battle of the Dance project is proposed to be located in The Anaheim Resort on the east side of  Harbor Boulevard between Wilken Way and Chapman Avenue in the City of Anaheim.  The  approximately 5 acre project site is proposed to consist of a 950 seat dinner theater.  The project site  provides a total of 352 on‐site parking spaces (with 84 of the parking spaces designed for tandem  parking).  Based upon a reciprocal parking agreement, the Battle of the Dance project can use the 31  parking spaces (including the 2 handicap parking spaces) at the adjacent Jack in the Box restaurant.    The additional uses proposed for the project site are described in a letter included within Appendix B.    PARKING CODE    The City of Anaheim Parking Code requirements are included in Appendix C.  The additional uses  proposed for the project site shall meet the City of Anaheim Parking Code requirements.  In addition,  the additional uses proposed for the project site shall adhere to the Parking Management Plan  previously submitted within the Battle of the Dance Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman  Associates, Inc. (May 13, 2010).    ATTACHMENT NO. 8 Mr. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner  CITY OF ANAHEIM  March 7, 2012  www.traffic-engineer.com 2  Any additional use proposed for the project site should include a Parking Management Plan provision  that recommends vehicles be directed towards parking spaces closest to Harbor Boulevard when  possible.  This recommendation shall be enforced during hours of operation after 10 PM.    TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS    The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by  the quantity of land use.  Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the  availability of roadway capacity, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to  what we know today.  A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates.    Trip generation rates can be determined for daily traffic and morning peak hour inbound and outbound  traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic from the Institute of Transportation  Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.    Typically, the morning and evening peak periods are from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM.   The additional uses proposed for the project site are not expected to occur during the morning peak  period, except for the television or film productions in either the bar area and dance floor (item 7 in  Appendix B).  This use is recommended to start at 9:00 AM.  The remainder of the additional uses  proposed for the project site would not coincide with the Battle of the Dance PM peak period analyzed  within the Battle of the Dance Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (May 13,  2010).    CONCLUSIONS    The additional uses proposed for the project site shall not overlap with the existing Battle of the Dance  operation.    Sufficient on‐site parking shall be provided by the additional uses proposed for the project site to meet  the City of Anaheim Parking Code requirements.  In addition, the additional uses proposed for the  project site shall adhere to the Parking Management Plan previously submitted within the Battle of the  Dance Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (May 13, 2010).    The additional uses proposed for the project site are not expected to occur during the morning peak  period, except for the television or film productions in either the bar area and dance floor (item 7 in  Appendix B).  This use is recommended to start at 9:00 AM.  The remainder of the additional uses  proposed for the project site would not coincide with the Battle of the Dance PM peak period analyzed  within the Battle of the Dance Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (May 13,  2010).    Any additional use proposed for the project site should include a Parking Management Plan provision  that recommends vehicles be directed towards parking spaces closest to Harbor Boulevard when  possible.  This recommendation shall be enforced during hours of operation after 10 PM.  Mr. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner  CITY OF ANAHEIM  March 7, 2012  www.traffic-engineer.com 3  It has been a pleasure to service your needs on this project.  Should you have any questions or if we can  be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 973‐8383.    Sincerely,    KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES , INC.     KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.          Carl Ballard, LEED GA      William Kunzman, P.E.  Principal Associate      Principal    #4639b1          APPENDIX A      GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS        GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS    COMMON ABBREVIATIONS    AC: Acres  ADT: Average Daily Traffic  Caltrans: California Department of Transportation  DU: Dwelling Unit  ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization  LOS: Level of Service  TSF: Thousand Square Feet  V/C: Volume/Capacity  VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled    TERMS    AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of  days in a year.  Usually only weekdays are included.    BANDWIDTH:  The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a  signal progression.    BOTTLENECK:  A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that  can proceed downstream from its location.    CAPACITY:  The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass  over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period.    CHANNELIZATION:  The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into  definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other  suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and  pedestrians.    CLEARANCE INTERVAL:  Nearly same as yellow time.  If there is an all red interval after  the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval.    CORDON:  An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other  items are counted (in and out).    CYCLE LENGTH:  The time period in seconds required for one complete signal cycle.    CUL‐DE‐SAC STREET:  A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions  for turning around.  DAILY CAPACITY:  The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the  peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway.    DELAY:  The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element  over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle.    DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL:  Same as traffic‐actuated signal.    DENSITY:  The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic  lanes of a roadway at any given instant.  Usually expressed in vehicles per mile.    DETECTOR:  A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting  impulse to the signal controller.    DESIGN SPEED:  A speed selected for purposes of design.  Features of a highway, such  as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon which the safe operation of  vehicles is dependent) are correlated to design speed.    DIRECTIONAL SPLIT:  The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time.    DIVERSION:  The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion.    FORCED FLOW:  Opposite of free flow.    FREE FLOW:  Volumes are well below capacity.  Vehicles can maneuver freely and  travel is unimpeded by other traffic.    GAP:  Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to  front bumper.    HEADWAY:  Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream,  front bumper to front bumper.    INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM:  A number of intersections that are connected to  achieve signal progression.    LEVEL OF SERVICE:  A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed  and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort  and convenience, and operating costs.    LOOP DETECTOR:  A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the  roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure  when passed over by a vehicle.  MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP:  Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in  a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge.    MULTI‐MODAL:  More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid  transit, and bicycle transportation modes.    OFFSET:  The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one  intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection.    PLATOON:  A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several  vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind.    ORIGIN‐DESTINATION SURVEY:  A survey to determine the point of origin and the  point of destination for a given vehicle trip.    PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE):  One car is one Passenger Car Equivalent.  A  truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to  start, goes slower, and accelerates slower.  Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car  Equivalent than empty trucks.    PEAK HOUR:  The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles.    PRETIMED SIGNAL:  A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a  predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions.  Also, fixed time  signal.    PROGRESSION:  A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through  several signalized intersections.    SCREEN‐LINE:  An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted,  normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models.    SIGNAL CYCLE:  The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of  signal indications.    SIGNAL PHASE:  The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic  movements.    STARTING DELAY:  The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic  from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection.    TRAFFIC‐ACTUATED SIGNAL:  A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go  in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors.  TRIP:  The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another  (destination).  For example, from home to store to home is two trips, not one.    TRIP‐END:  One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two  trip‐ends.  A trip‐end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or  from a vehicle.    TRIP GENERATION RATE:  The quality of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific  land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square  feet of floor space.    TRUCK:  A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two  axles.    UNBALANCED FLOW:  Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other.  On a daily  basis, most facilities have balanced flow.  During the peak hours, flow is seldom  balanced in an urban area.    VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL:  A measure of the amount of usage of a section of  highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles.        APPENDIX B      BATTLE OF THE DANCE  ADDITIONAL USE DESCRIPTION      March 7, 2012 Jonathan E. Borrego, AICP Principal Planner City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: BATTLE OF THE DANCE DINNER THEATER ADDITIONAL USES Dear Mr. Borrego: There would be no change in the current theater operations of Battle of the Dance [BoD], hours and operations as per CUP with only limited additional uses in the theater portion per the requests below. The principal operations will continue to be a dinner theater. Management’s long term goal has been to generate an Anaheim dinner theater attraction that will be most similar to one of the many successful comparable attractions near Disneyworld in Orlando, Florida. With the right combination of exposure, of a show with broad appeal to a family oriented audience, and with an improving economy, we remain confident that we will succeed. To this end, most all additional uses will not conflict or add to facility trip visits during the current approved hours of operation. The intent of the request is to allow for additional uses not part of the original CUP that better utilize the facilities and are also consistent with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. In this regard, hosted events, special events, religious services, competitions and comparable uses would be in ‘off hours’ when Battle of the Dance would otherwise be not performing. The presentBoD winter Schedule is limited to 4 days per week, Thursday through Sunday, with show hours generally between 6 PM to 9:00 PM. The summer or peak schedule for BoD would be as per the present CUP, with operations 7 days per week with hours up to 11:PM. By adding additional uses, the goals will be to generate more revenue from operations not included in the current BoD show, during off hours, that will promote the BoDshowthrough higher visibility and whichshould be beneficial for the Anaheim Resort area.If BoD can achieve the attendance projections submitted for the original CUP, we foresee cessation of the majority of the additional uses sought for during this time of economic distress. Charity, religious and youth oriented activities would only continue in a manner that promotes civic and community objectives and probably on a limited basis as the facility uses would allow for without undue over usage. 1] SUNDAY CHURCH SERVICES – hours possible 9: AM TO 3: PMSaturday/ Sunday only. (Prior use by the Saddleback Church.We have ongoing efforts to have a comparable religious service a regular ongoing use); No religious services are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours or performances;Maximum customers in theater portion of structure: 990. PAGE TWO 2] Periodic Charity Events (Grandma’s House of Hope; Explorers, Etc.); No charity events are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours or performances; Regular approved hours and days per existing CUP operations; maximum customers in theater portion of structure: 990 3] Hosted events for conventions and expositions: No convention or exposition events are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours; Hours 9: AM to 11: PM 7 Days per the week;Lobby area Maximum customers 730. Theater area Maximum customers 990.(Events expected be only in one of the two areas but in any event would not exceed permitted occupancy of current facilities). 4] Events center for High School proms, 15th birthdays, weddings and other personal events: No comparable ‘events center’ event will coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours;Hours/Days: Within operating hours and days of current CUP; Maximum customers 730. 5] Hosted events with food service, on-site alcohol sales, may include live music and dancing in existing bar area and dance floor [limited to approximately 50% of building on Harbor frontage]; No hosted events of this nature are to coincide with Battle of the Dance event hours and some hosted events may intentionally be scheduled to follow the show hours to enhance attendance for performances;Days of the week: Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday: Hours 9:PM to 2:AM; Last call for beverages 1:30 AM; Music ends at 1:45 AM. Operations limited to front building not including the theater, and will not commence until theater operations have ended for any dinner show on the date of any hosted event.Maximumcustomers 730. 6] Concerts/Performances in theater: Book marquee quality shows/performers for either single shows or series of shows in main theater with limited menu; No theater concert or performance of this nature are to coincide with Battle of the Dance as they would occupay the same stage and therefore not be practical. Some Concerts/Performances may intentionally be scheduled to follow the show hours to enhance attendance for performances; Hours 6: PM to 12:01 AM. 7] Television or film productions in either the bar area and dance floor [50% of building on Harbor frontage], or when appropriate theater area of the facility. No separate television or film productions are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours or performances;Any amplified music required for the productions will be limited to the 50% of building on Harbor frontage for hours after 11: PM. Food service to be available on limited menu at all times when open. Hours from 8: AM to 2:PM. Lobby area Maximum customers 730. Theater area Maximum customers 990.(Event to be in onlyone of the two areas). 8] Press/News Appearances by Artists to promote and release new productions such as music, film, television for public publication; No Press/News Appearances of this nature are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours or performances;Hours/Days: Within operating Maximum customers 990. PAGE THREE hours and days of current CUP; Lobby area Maximum customers 730. Theater area Maximum customers 990.(Event to be in only one of the two areas). 9] Dance Classes by present or future performing artists of the theater performing artists: No dance classes are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours or performances; Classes may be in either main lobby dance floor, or on theater stage; Hours/Days: Within operating hours and days of current CUP; Maximum customers 500 including any viewers. 10] School dance and/or cheerleading competitions: schools will send groups to perform and competition on the premises for both school age groups and also adult dance groups; No charity events are to coincide with Battle of the Dance or hosted event hours or performances;Hours/Dates: These kinds of competitions will be within operating hours and days of current CUP; Maximum customers 700 including competitors, families and chaperones. Respectfully requested, William B. Bennett Corporate Officer Battle of the Dance         APPENDIX C      CITY OF ANAHEIM  PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS        18.42.010 Purpose. 18.42.020 Standard Plans and Engineering Details. 18.42.030 Residential parking requirements. 18.42.040 Non-residential parking requirements. 18.42.050 Location of parking. 18.42.060 Parking dimensions and access. 18.42.070 Parking lot design. 18.42.080 Drive-through requirements. 18.42.090 Parking lot improvements and landscaping. 18.42.100 Loading requirements. 18.42.110 Parking variances. Appendix A Garage parking Appendix B Drive-through requirements – Separate-ordering devices Appendix C Drive-through requirements – Without separate-ordering devices 18.42.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to prescribe minimum standards for parking and loading to ensure the attractiveness and adequacy of parking and loading of passengers and goods. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.020 STANDARD PLANS AND ENGINEERING DETAILS. All references in this chapter to "Standard Plans" or "Standard Details" shall refer to documents on file in the Department of Public Works of the City of Anaheim, including amendments to such documents as may be approved from time to time by the Director of Public Works. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.030 RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. .010 General. Residential off-street parking requirements for automobiles and similar vehicles shall be regulated by the type of use (use class) associated with the property. This section specifies the number of parking spaces for each residential use, regardless of the zoning district in which the use is located. .0101 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the minimum number of spaces for a combination of uses shall be not less than the sum total of the requirements for each type of use to be established. .0102 For purposes of interpretation of this section, a “Bedroom” is a private habitable room planned or used for sleeping, separated from other rooms by a door or similar partition. All rooms (other than a living room, family room, dining room, bathroom, hall, foyer, closet or pantry) having seventy (70) square feet or more of floor area, or less than fifty percent (50%) of the total length of any wall open to an adjacent room or hallway, shall be considered a “Bedroom.” A studio unit is a dwelling unit without a bedroom. .0103 In computing parking requirements, fractional numbers shall be rounded off to the nearest whole number, fractions of one-half (0.5) or more being counted as one (1) full space. .0104 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, all parking spaces shall conform to Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions), as it may be revised from time to time. .0105 Garages or covered spaces shall be arranged so that parking in front of the garage or covered space shall not block access to another garage or covered space. .0106 For uses not listed, parking requirements shall be those determined to be reasonably necessary by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. .020 Dwellings–Multiple Family. .0201 The minimum required number of off-street parking spaces for Multiple-Family Dwellings shall be based upon the total number of bedrooms as follows: Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces per Unit Studio unit 1.25 1 bedroom 2.0 2 bedrooms 2.25 3 or more bedrooms 3.0 (plus 0.5 space for each bedroom over 3 bedrooms) .0202 Of the number of required parking spaces, one-quarter (0.25) space per dwelling unit shall be reserved and clearly marked for guest parking only, and shall be readily accessible to motorists from contiguous streets and/or vehicle accessways. .0203 Any assigned spaces shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of, and be readily accessible to, the dwelling unit served. Unassigned spaces provided to satisfy parking requirement for a dwelling unit shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of the unit. .0204 Required parking spaces for residents and tenants in Multiple-Family Residential projects shall be readily accessible, and no fee shall be assessed for their use. One (1) parking space may be assigned to each specific dwelling unit. The balance of the parking spaces for residents and tenants shall not be assigned to specific dwelling units. .0205 Tandem parking spaces shall not be permitted for Multiple-Family Dwellings. .0206 Parking spaces in private garages, as defined in Section 18.92.100 ("G" Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92 (Definitions), shall not be permitted for Multiple-Family Dwellings. .0207 Parking areas shall be screened by means of landscaping or architectural devices from adjacent public and private streets and properties, and from living or recreational-leisure areas, to a height of twenty-four (24) inches, with the exception of line-of-sight requirements, as shown on Standard Detail No. 115-A (Arterial Highway and Commercial Driveway Approach), as may be revised from time to time. .0208 Any interior walls of covered parking areas shall be finished with exterior finish material. Adequate bumper guards shall be provided to protect any interior walls from damage. .030 Dwellings–Single-Family Attached. The required parking spaces for Attached Single-Family Dwellings shall comply with either paragraph .0301 or .0302 below. .0301 The minimum number, location and design of parking spaces shall be the same as specified for Dwellings– Multiple Family in subsection 18.42.030.020; provided that private garages may be permitted for Attached Single-Family Dwellings in a condominium or other common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code, subject to all the following criteria: .01 Each private garage shall be attached to and a portion of the Attached Single-Family dwelling. .02 Each private garage shall contain a maximum of two (2) parking spaces. The other required parking spaces, including the guest space, shall comply with subsection 18.42.030.020. .03 No tandem parking shall be permitted in front of a private garage, and the required setback between the garage door and the nearest edge of the contiguous sidewalk, street or vehicle access way, whichever is closest, shall be five (5) feet; except that tandem parking may be permitted when in excess of the minimum required number of parking spaces, and when located in front of a private garage. .0302 The minimum number, location and design of parking spaces shall be the same as those specified for Dwellings–Single-Family Detached in subsection 18.42.030.040. .040 Dwellings–Single-Family Detached. The minimum required number of off-street, on-site parking spaces for Single-Family Detached Dwellings shall be based on the total number of bedrooms as follows: Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces 6 or fewer bedrooms 4 (2 in a garage) 7 or more bedrooms 4 (2 in a garage), plus 1 additional space per bedroom over 6 bedrooms .0401 Tandem spaces shall not be counted toward the required number of spaces, except for one (1) open space in front of each required space enclosed within a garage. The minimum dimensions for spaces located in tandem to parking spaces enclosed within a garage is eight (8) feet wide and twenty-five (25) feet long, where located in tandem to parking spaces enclosed with a tilt-up garage door, and eight (8) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long, where located in tandem to parking spaces enclosed with a roll-up garage door, measured from the garage door to the nearest edge of the pedestrian walkway or property line, whichever is the lesser distance. .0402 Parking spaces located in tandem to a garage may be permitted to encroach into the required front or other street setback. All other spaces shall be located outside the required front or street setback, and shall be provided and maintained in an accessible location on the lot, as approved by the Planning Director and illustrated in Detail No. P-1 (Driveway Cuts for Single-Family Residences – Designs Permitted and Not Permitted). .050 Mobile Home Parks. .0501 The minimum required number of off-street parking spaces for each mobile home in Mobile Home Parks shall be two (2) spaces (which may be tandem) on-site adjacent to the mobile home, plus one (1) guest space for every four (4) mobile homes. .0502 Guest parking shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of each mobile home served, and may be provided along any private street that is designed and improved in compliance with Standard Detail No. 162 (Private Street Sections), as it may be revised from time to time, and that serves the interior circulation of a mobile home park. .060 Senior Citizen Housing. .0601 The minimum required number of off-street parking spaces for senior citizen housing shall be one (1) parking space for each studio unit and one-bedroom unit, and two (2) parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit. .0602 All parking spaces shall be located so as to minimize the walking distance from the living area to the parking facility. .0603 Parking spaces may be covered or open, and shall be unassigned and equally available to all residents, guests or employees. .0604 Tandem spaces shall not be permitted. .070 Second Residential Units. .0701 Second Units, as defined in paragraph .0205 of subsection 18.38.230.020, in conformance with the criteria and standards of Section 18.38.230 (Second Units) of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations): one (1) off-street parking space for each efficiency unit or one-bedroom unit; and two (2) off-street parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit. Required parking spaces for Second Units shall not be in tandem to other on-site parking spaces for the main dwelling unit. .0702 Senior Second Units (granny units), for which a conditional use permit is approved, as authorized by Section 65852.1 of the California Government Code: one (1) off-street parking space for each unit. Required parking spaces for senior Second Units shall not be in tandem to other on-site parking spaces for the main dwelling unit. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 5944 20; September 28, 2004.) 18.42.040 NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. .010 Parking Spaces. Non-residential off-street parking requirements for automobiles and other vehicles shall be determined by the type of use (use class) associated with the property. Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) specifies the number of parking spaces for each non-residential use, regardless of the zone district in which the use is located. .0101 For uses not listed, parking requirements may be those determined to be reasonably necessary by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. The City Traffic and Transportation Manager may require a parking study in order to make this determination. .0102 Except as expressly provided in this section, within a business unit containing more than one (1) use class, the minimum number of parking spaces shall be based on the use class with the highest parking requirement. If a combination of parking ratios applies, the number of required spaces shall be the sum total of the requirements for each type of use established. .0103 For purposes of interpretation of this section, "GFA" shall mean gross floor area of buildings, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall. .0104 In computing parking requirements, fractional numbers shall be rounded off to the nearest whole number, fractions of one-half (0.5) or more being counted as one (1) full space. .0105 If the GFA upon which the number of parking spaces is based is less than one thousand (1,000) square feet (or other unit of measurement, as designated herein), the minimum number of required spaces shall be prorated in direct proportion to the minimum number of spaces required for each one thousand (1,000) square feet (or other unit of measurement designated herein). Such proration shall also apply in instances where a division of such applicable unit of measurement into the GFA produces a quotient of other than a whole number. .0106 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, any employee parking space requirements shall be based on the maximum number of employees present at any given time. .0107 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, all parking spaces shall conform to Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions). .0108 If a parking demand study is required by Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) due to the unique nature of the use, the parking requirements shall be determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and/or Planning Commission, based on information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer. The study shall be provided by the applicant, at its sole expense, to the City at the time of application for such use. .020 Trucks and Other Vehicles. In addition to the requirements in Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements), spaces shall be provided for trucks and other vehicles used in the business, of a number and size adequate to accommodate the maximum number and types of trucks and/or vehicles to be parked on the site at any one time. Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Agricultural Crops 5 spaces per 10 acres Alcoholic Beverage Sales–Off-Sale 0 spaces (spaces are required for underlying uses only) Alcoholic Beverage Sales–On-Sale 0 spaces (spaces are required for underlying uses only) Ambulance Services 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, plus parking for ambulances/emergency vehicles Animal Boarding 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Animal Grooming 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Antennas–Broadcasting 2 spaces Antennas–Private Transmitting None Antennas–Telecommunications 1 space Automotive–Car Sales & Rental General: 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for interior showroom, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use, plus 5.5 square feet of GFA for parts, sales, storage and repair use Wholesale (excluding auctions): 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of space used for parking vehicles to be sold Auctions: Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Office–Only Auto Sales: See Offices Automotive–Public Parking None Automotive–Parts Sales 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Automotive–Repair & Modification 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, or 5 spaces, whichever is greater Automotive–Service Stations Stand-Alone: 2 spaces In Conjunction with Other Uses: 0 space Automotive–Washing In Conjunction with Service Station: 1 space, plus drying area for 5 vehicles Stand-Alone: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, plus drying area for 5 vehicles Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Bars & Nightclubs 17 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Bed & Breakfast Inns 1 space for each bedroom, plus 1 space for each nonresident employee, plus 1 space for visitors (for purposes of this provision, "Bedroom" means any room designed, intended or primarily used for sleeping purposes) Beekeeping None Billboards None Boat & RV Sales 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for interior showroom, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use, plus 5.5 square feet of GFA for parts, sales, storage and repair use Business & Financial Services 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Cemeteries Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Commercial Retail Centers Total parking spaces are equal to the sum of the parking requirements for the individual use types in the center Community & Religious Assembly 0.333 space per fixed seat, or 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, whichever results in the higher number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office use, plus, if a kitchen facility is provided, 0.02 space per person for the maximum capacity figure of the assembly area determined by the City Fire Department; if other types of ancillary uses other than a Sunday school are included, a parking demand study may be required Computer Internet & Amusement Facilities 0.18 space per computer, or 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, whichever results in the higher number of spaces Convalescent & Rest Homes 0.8 space per bed Convenience Stores 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA; if combined with other allowed uses, 3 spaces for the first additional use, and 1 space for each additional use thereafter, except that the extra spaces are not required when the uses are integrated within a commercial retail center Dance & Fitness Studios–Large Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Dance & Fitness Studios–Small 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Day Care Centers 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per 10 children, plus 1 space for loading and unloading children onsite Drive-Through Facilities None as an accessory use, but requires adequate space for queuing Educational Institutions–Business 0.82 space per student, or 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for instruction area, whichever results in the higher number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office area Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Educational Institutions–General Elementary and Junior High Schools: 1 space per classroom, plus 1 space per non-office employee, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 GFA for office use, plus parking required for assembly halls and auditoriums (see Community & Religious Assembly) High Schools: 1 space per non-office employee, plus 1 space per 6 students, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office use, plus parking required for assembly halls and auditoriums (see Community & Religious Assembly) Equipment Rental–Large 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet, plus 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of outdoor equipment storage area Equipment Rental–Large 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet, plus 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of outdoor equipment storage area Equipment Rental–Small 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet, plus 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor equipment storage area Golf Courses & Country Clubs Golf Courses: 10 spaces per hole, plus 1 space per 35 square feet of GFA used for public assembly, plus 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA used for other commercial purposes Golf Driving Ranges: 1 space per driving tee Group Care Facilities 0.8 space per bed Helipads Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Hospitals Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Hotels & Motels 0.8 space per guest room, plus 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for banquet/meeting room, plus 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for full-service, semi- enclosed, walk-up and fast-food restaurants, plus 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for take-out restaurants integrated into the hotel complex, plus 1 space per 1,000 square feet of retail space plus 0.25 space for each employee working in the guest room areas Industry–Limited Industrial–General Limited: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of 10% office space, plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess of 10% Industrial Training Facilities: 0.82 space per student, or 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for instructional use, whichever results in the higher number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office use Outdoor Uses: 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular accessways, or 1 space per 2 maximum contemplated number of employees to be engaged in the outdoor operation, whichever results in the greater number of spaces Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Industry–General Industrial–General: 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of 10% office space, plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess of 10% Industrial Training Facilities: 0.82 space per student, or 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for instructional use, whichever results in the higher number of spaces, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office use Outdoor Uses: 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular accessways, or 1 space per 2 maximum contemplated number of employees to be engaged in the outdoor operation, whichever results in the greater number of spaces Junkyards 5 spaces or 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, whichever is greater Markets–Large 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Markets–Small 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Medical & Dental Offices 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Mortuaries Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Offices Office-General: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of 3 stories or lower; 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of more than 3 stories Office–Only Auto Sales: applicant must show that display space can be provided, while maintaining required number of spaces for other uses, before the required affidavit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles is issued Oil Production 2 spaces per well Outdoor Storage Yards 4 spaces or 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA of any accessory building, whichever is greater, plus spaces required for service vehicles Personnel Services–General 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Personnel Services–Restricted 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Plant Nurseries 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, plus 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular accessways Public Services 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of 3 stories or lower; 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of more than 3 stories Recreation–Bowling & Billiards Bowling Alleys: 3 spaces per bowling lane, plus one space per 35 square feet of GFA used for public assembly, plus 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA used for other commercial purposes Billiard Halls: 2 spaces per billiard table, plus required spaces for other uses within the facility Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Recreation–Commercial Indoor Amusement Arcades: requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Racquetball Facilities: 5 spaces per court Skating Rinks: 2.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Broadcast or Recording Studios with Audience: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Theaters–Live Performances: 0.4 space per seat or patron, whichever results in a higher number, plus 0.8 space per employee, including performers Theaters–Single-Screen Motion Picture: 0.6 space per seat or patron, whichever results in a higher number, plus 5 spaces for employees Theaters–Multi-Screen Motion Picture: 0.3 spaces per seat or per patron, whichever results in a higher number, plus 2 employee spaces per screen Other Uses: Requires parking demand study per subsection 18.42.040.010.0107 Recreation–Commercial Outdoor Miniature Golf Course: 20 spaces per course, plus 1 per each employee Other Uses: requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Recreation–Low-Impact Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Recreation–Swimming & Tennis Swimming Facilities: requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Tennis Courts: 5 spaces per court Recycling Services–Consumer 0 space (spaces are required for host use(s) only) Recycling Services–General 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Recycling Services–Processing 1.55 spaces per employee Repair Services–General 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Repair Services–Limited 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Research & Development 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of 3 stories or lower; 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for buildings of more than 3 stories Restaurants–General Drive-In, Drive- Through, Fast-Food: 16 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Take-Out (not to exceed a cumulative maximum total of ten seats for patrons): 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Restaurants–Full Service 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA if integrated into a planned development complex; 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, if not integrated into a planned development complex Restaurants–Semi-Enclosed 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, if integrated into a planned development complex; 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, if not integrated into a planned development complex Restaurants–Take-Out 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Restaurants–Walk-Up 16 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Retail Sales–General General: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Art Galleries: 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Furniture, Carpet & Flooring: 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Retail Sales–Kiosks 1 space per 25 square feet of GFA or 5 spaces per facility, whichever results in the greater number of parking spaces Retail Sales–Outdoor 0.4 space per 1,000 square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding parking areas and vehicular accessways, or 0.5 space per each employee engaged in the outdoor operation, whichever results in the greater number of parking spaces Retail Sales–Regional Furniture, Carpet & Flooring: 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Other: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Retail Sales–Used Merchandise 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Room & Board 1 space for each bedroom, plus 1 space for each nonresident employee, plus 1 space for visitors (for purposes of this provision, "Bedroom" means any room designed, intended or primarily used for sleeping purposes) Self-Storage Facilities 0.27 space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 5 spaces, whichever results in a higher number, plus adequate loading and unloading areas as required by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager Sex-Oriented Businesses Primarily Live Performance: 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Primarily Book or Video Store: 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Studios–Broadcasting 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Studios–Recording 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA Towing Services 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, plus spaces for tow trucks Transit Facilities Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Truck Repair & Sales 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for interior showroom, plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use, plus 5.5 square feet per 1,000 square feet of GFA for parts, sales, storage and repair use Utilities–Major Requires parking demand study per paragraph 18.42.040.010.0107 Utilities–Minor None required Veterinary Services 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for first 100,000 square feet, plus 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square feet Table 42-A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Class Required Spaces Warehousing & Storage–Enclosed 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA, which may include a maximum of 10% office space, plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess of 10% Warehousing & Storage–Outdoors 0.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor storage area (excluding vehicle accessways), plus 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA (which may include a maximum of 10% office space), plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds 10% of the GFA, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess of 10% Wholesaling 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.050 LOCATION OF PARKING. .010 Residential Uses. Required off-street parking spaces for all single-family residential uses of property shall be located on the same lot as the dwelling unit or, for multiple-family uses, on the same project site for which such parking is required. The parking spaces and accessways shall at all times be maintained in a manner capable of typical vehicular ingress and egress. All required enclosed parking spaces shall be equipped with a functioning garage door. .020 Non-Residential Uses–General. For non-residential uses, required off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot as the main building for which such parking is required, or on property immediately contiguous to the lot, provided the parking is located within reasonable walking distance. .030 Non-Residential Uses–Exception. If the Planning Director finds that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site of the use to be served, which would render strict conformance with the provisions of subsection .020 above unreasonable, the required off-street parking may be provided adjacent to, or within close proximity to, the use for which the parking spaces are required, as provided herein: .0301 All property used for such off-site parking shall be under joint ownership, or under agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney. .0302 The property on which the parking is located has excess parking spaces in the amount needed or a variance or administrative adjustment for parking has been approved. .0303 The agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and a recorded copy filed with the Planning Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits. .0304 The agreement shall specify the number and location of the off-site parking spaces, and shall assure that the spaces shall be accessible and available at all times for parking in conjunction with the use for which the parking spaces are required. .0305 Termination of the agreement without providing the required off-street parking shall constitute a violation of this subsection. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.060 PARKING DIMENSIONS AND ACCESS. Except as otherwise provided herein, the following minimum standards shall apply: .010 Minimum Dimensions of Vehicle Accessways. The minimum turning radius of any vehicle accessway shall be in accordance with Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions); provided, further, that all covered or enclosed residential parking spaces shall have a minimum clear, vertical, access height of not less than nine (9) feet. .020 Driveway Cuts for Single-Family Residences. Driveway cuts for single-family residences shall comply with Detail No. P-1 (Driveway Cuts for Single-Family Residences – Designs Permitted and Not Permitted), as adopted by resolution of the Planning Commission. .030 Gated Vehicular Accessways. Gated vehicular accessways shall comply with Standard Detail No. 475 (Gate Standard). .040 Minimum Dimensions of Parking Spaces. All parking spaces shall be designed, improved and maintained in compliance with Standard Detail No. 436 (Disabled Person’s Parking), Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions), and Standard Detail No. 471 (Parking Dimensions for Structures). .050 Screening. Any required covered parking spaces shall be visually screened by solid components amounting to not less than fifty percent (50%) of each wall. Such screening may consist of solid walls, wood latticework, or other architectural devices.(Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.070 PARKING LOT DESIGN .010 Layout and Design. All off-street parking areas shall be designed and improved in compliance with the provisions of Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions); provided, however, that where it can be shown that unusual site conditions or topography require modification in the off-street parking area standards to permit reasonable development of such property, such modifications may be approved by the City Engineer. Such modifications shall be limited to matters of layout and design of the parking area, and in no case shall result in a reduction of the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by this chapter. .020 Parking Structures. All parking structures shall be designed, improved and maintained in compliance with the provisions of Standard Detail No. 115 (Arterial Highway and Commercial Driveway Approach), Standard Plan No. 402 (Parking Structure & Ramp Standard Detail), Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions), and Standard Detail No. 471 (Parking Dimensions for Structures). .030 Handicapped Parking. Provision shall be made for handicapped parking as otherwise required by law and in compliance with Standard Detail No. 436 (Disabled Person’s Parking). .040 Tandem Parking. Tandem parking for required off-street parking spaces shall be prohibited, except as otherwise expressly authorized in this chapter. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.080 DRIVE-THROUGH REQUIREMENTS. Any lane, route or path to which vehicles are directed expressly for the purpose of receiving goods or services, without the customer leaving the vehicle, shall comply with the provisions hereinafter specified: .010 Design. Each drive-through lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation routes and lanes necessary for ingress to, or egress from, the property or access to any off-street parking spaces. Each such lane shall be striped, marked or otherwise distinctively delineated. .020 No Lane in Landscape Setback. No drive-through or drive-up lane shall be located in any required landscape setback area. .030 Lanes with Separate Ordering Devices. Each drive-through lane that utilizes an ordering device that is detached from the main building shall have a minimum distance of sixty (60) feet between the start of said lane and such ordering device, and an additional minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet between such ordering device and the service window or area. Said distances shall be measured along the centerline of the prescribed vehicular path. .040 Lanes Without Separate Ordering Devices. Each drive-through lane which does not utilize a separately located ordering device shall have a minimum distance of one hundred sixty (160) feet for fast-food uses, or one hundred (100) feet for uses other than fast food, between the start of said lane and the service window or area. Said distance shall be measured along the centerline of the prescribed vehicular path. .050 Design of Multiple Lanes. The design of all drive-through lanes for any facility utilizing two (2) or more such lanes shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Design and approval shall be based upon information contained in a traffic engineering study prepared by an independent traffic engineer licensed by the State of California, or such other study as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, and provided to the City by the developer, at such developer's sole expense, at the time of application for such use. .0501 The study required by the provisions of this subsection shall contain and address the following factors: .01 Nature of the product or service being offered, including peaking characteristics for the twenty (20) highest periods of the year; .02 Method by which the order, request, sale or service is processed; .03 Time required to serve a typical customer; .04 Arrival rate of customers; .05 Time period over which customers will arrive at stated rate; .06 Anticipated length of queuing; .07 Discussion of ambient circulation and parking, either proposed or existing; .08 Location of storage areas with respect to parking spaces or circulation aisles; .09 Discussion of potential blockages due to queue; and .10 Mitigation measures. .0502 The study shall include a scale drawing delineating all parking spaces, circulation facilities, driveways and the nearest public street. .0503 Each such lane shall be designed to prevent circulation congestion, both on-site and on public and private streets and accessways. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.090 PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING. All vehicle parking and outdoor storage areas shall be fully paved and surfaced with a solid material, such as concrete or asphalt, so as to eliminate dust, and shall be further improved as follows: .010 Adjacent to Residential Zones or Residential Uses. A solid, decorative-type, masonry wall not less than six (6) feet in height, nor greater than eight (8) feet in height, shall be provided adjacent to any non-residential parking area that abuts any residentially zoned or residentially used lot. .0101 Where such parking area is adjacent to the front setback of the residentially zoned or residentially used lot, the wall shall be reduced to thirty-six (36) inches in height to a depth equal to the required front setback depth of the adjoining residential property. .0102 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a lower height is required by the line-of-sight triangle, as shown on Standard Detail No. 115 (Arterial Highway and Commercial Driveway Approach), the provisions of Standard Detail No. 115 shall prevail. .0103 The vertical extension, maintenance and/or repair of any section of any wall, which is visible from the public right-of-way (excluding alleys) or from non-industrially zoned property, shall be of the same material, color and design as the wall to which it is attached to ensure that the wall maintains a consistent appearance. Repainting, replastering or other maintenance shall be applied to the entire visible portion of the wall. .020 Adjacent to Street Frontages. In instances where fences or walls are not required, a suitable concrete curb not less than six (6) inches in height shall be securely installed and maintained adjacent to the boundary of any parking area abutting a street, in a manner such that vehicles may not encroach or intrude into the public right-of-way, required landscaped setback or pedestrian walkway, as shown on Standard Detail No. 470 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions). .030 Lighting of Parking Areas Adjoining Residential Premises. Any lights provided to illuminate such parking areas shall be so arranged and directed as to reflect the light away from adjoining residential premises, and shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. The City may require adjustments to the light fixture shielding at the time of final inspection to satisfy this requirement. .040 Landscaping of Parking Areas. Landscaping for parking areas shall comply with Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping). .050 Parking Area Restrictions. Parking lots are intended to provide for the temporary parking of vehicles in connection with the primary permitted uses. Such parking areas shall not be used for outdoor storage, storage of trailers or non-motorized vehicles, automobile washing or detailing, automobile repair or maintenance, storage of inoperable vehicles, display of vehicles for sale or rent, or advertising on vehicles or trailers. This subsection is not intended to limit permitted activities in connection with special event permits issued for the primary use. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.100 LOADING REQUIREMENTS. .010 Delivery and Loading Areas. In connection with any commercial, industrial, mixed-use, or other non-residential land use that requires regular deliveries, an adequate area shall be provided for delivery and loading operations. Such area shall not obstruct any required parking spaces or vehicle accessways, and shall be suitably screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent residential uses. This provision shall not apply to deliveries that consist primarily of mail and small packages, and that are provided by delivery services. .020 Required Number and Size of Loading Spaces. .0201 Commercial Sites. .01 Every commercial site of twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet or less shall include a loading area with minimum dimensions of twelve (12) feet by twenty (20) feet, or as otherwise approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. .02 Every commercial site over twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet, including those located contiguous to a public alley, shall be provided with at least one (1) off-street or off-alley loading space conforming to Standard Detail No. 472 (Truck Dock Standard) for every twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet of GFA. .0202 Every industrial site, including those located contiguous to a public alley, shall be provided with at least one (1) off-street or off-alley loading space conforming to Standard Detail No. 472 (Truck Dock Standard) for every twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet of GFA. .030 Bays and Doors. Truck loading bays or overhead doors shall be located in a manner that will preclude any possibility for trucks to back into bays from arterial highways, as designated on the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.42.110 PARKING VARIANCES. .010 General. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, variances from any of the requirements of this chapter relating to the minimum number of required parking spaces shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) and Chapter 18.74 (Variances); provided, however, that any petition for a variance shall be accompanied by a parking study prepared by an independent traffic engineer licensed by the State of California. For variances which do not exceed ten percent (10%) of the requirements of this chapter or for uses which require thirty (30) or fewer parking spaces, a study as approved by the City, but need not be completed by an independent licensed traffic engineer, shall be provided to the Traffic and Transportation Manager at petitioner's sole expense. Notwithstanding the requirements of Chapter 18.74 (Variances), a variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator, Hearing Officer, Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: .0101 That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; .0102 That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; .0103 That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with subsection 18.42.050.030 (Non- Residential Uses– Exception); .0104 That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off- street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and .0105 That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. .020 Compliance with Parking Demand Study. Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the granting of any variance pursuant to this section, the granting of the variance shall be deemed contingent upon operation of the proposed use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of the use, as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of the variance. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of the assumptions as contained in the parking demand study shall be deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed upon the variance, which shall subject the variance to revocation or modification pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits). .030 Sex-Oriented Businesses. Any application for a waiver or deviation from the provisions of this chapter relating to off-street parking requirements for any sex-oriented business, as defined in Chapter 18.54 (Sex-Oriented Businesses), shall comply with the following provisions: .0301 The application shall be determined by the City Hearing Officer appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.12.110 (Appointment of Hearing Officer) of Chapter 1.12 (Procedural), following a duly noticed public hearing thereon held in accordance with the same procedure as set forth in subsection .040 of Section 18.54.030 (Statements and Records) of this Code. Such public hearing shall, upon the request of the applicant, be combined with the public hearing required for issuance of the sex-oriented business permit, as required pursuant to said subsection .040 of Section 18.54.030. .0302 The parking variance shall be approved by the Hearing Officer, if it meets the requirements and criteria set forth in subsection .010 above; otherwise, it shall be denied. Notice of such decision shall be provided in the same time and manner as set forth in Chapter 18.54 (Sex-Oriented Businesses) for processing the application for the sex-oriented use. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Anaheim Municipal Code to the contrary, the decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final. .0303 The term of the parking variance shall be coterminous with the term, or any renewal term, of the sex- oriented business permit. The processing of any renewal application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 18.54 (Sex- Oriented Businesses) shall not require the processing of a new parking variance. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 2004 S-7 APPENDIX A GARAGE PARKING Paragraph 18.42.030.010.0105 [Click here to view image.] APPENDIX B DRIVE-THROUGH REQUIREMENTS – SEPARATE-ORDERING DEVICES Subsection 18.42.080.030 [Click here to view image.] APPENDIX C DRIVE-THROUGH REQUIREMENTS – WITHOUT SEPARATE- ORDERING DEVICES Subsection 18.42.080.040 [Click here to view image.] Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. © 2005 American Legal Publishing Corporation techsupport@amlegal.com 1.800.445.5588. ATTACHMENT NO. 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item.