Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-09 - Agenda Packet Supplemental 2 - PC-HPCADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (SCH NO. 2001031028) L S!` APRIL 16, 2018 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (SCH NO. 2001031028) Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga Candyce Burnett, City Planner Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2700 Prepared by: LSA 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 (951) 781-9310 Project No. FCR1701 LSA April 16, 2018 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN C RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Introduction..........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Background.......................................................................................................................1-5 Noise...................................................................................................................................3-3 1.3 Purpose Of This Addendum..............................................................................................1-5 3.2 Other 1.4 CEQA Framework For Addendum.....................................................................................1-6 3.2.1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Summary Of Original Project As Analyzed In The 2008 SEIR............................................2-1 Agricultural Resources........................................................................................................3-8 2.1.1 Project Location and Setting...............................................................................................2-1 3.2.3 2.1.2 Original Project Details.......................................................................................................2-1 2.1.3 Previous Project Approval..................................................................................................2-1 Biological Resources.........................................................................................................3-11 2.2 The Proposed Project........................................................................................................2-2 3.2.5 2.2.1 Proposed Project Objectives...............................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Project Location and Setting...............................................................................................2-2 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................3-12 2.2.3 Proposed Project Details....................................................................................................2-2 3.2.7 2.2.4 Required Actions for the Proposed Project......................................................................2-12 3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......... 3-1 3.1 Key Topics Analyzed With Proposed Project.....................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Traffic and Transportation..................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Noise...................................................................................................................................3-3 3.2 Other Topics Evaluated In The Certified 2008 SEIR...........................................................3-6 3.2.1 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................3-6 3.2.2 Agricultural Resources........................................................................................................3-8 3.2.3 Air Quality...........................................................................................................................3-8 3.2.4 Biological Resources.........................................................................................................3-11 3.2.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................3-11 3.2.6 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................3-12 3.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................3-14 3.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................3-15 3.2.9 Land Use and Planning.....................................................................................................3-16 3.2.10 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................3-17 3.2.11 Population and Housing...................................................................................................3-17 3.2.12 Public Services..................................................................................................................3-18 3.2.13 Recreation........................................................................................................................3-20 3.2.14 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................3-20 3.3 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................3-21 4.0 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................4-1 5.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................5-1 APPENDICES A: Traffic Impact Analysis B: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CLdocx(04/20/18) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(SCH NO. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 FIGURES FIGURES VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A Figure1: Vicinity Map......................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................1-3 Figure 3: Victoria Gardens Master Plan..........................................................................................1-4 Figure 4A: Conceptual Surface Parking Lot Viewed from Arbor Lane and Church Street ................2-3 Figure 4B: Conceptual Parking Structure and Public Safety Facility Viewed from Arbor Lane and ChurchStreet...................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 4C: Conceptual Surface Parking Lot Viewed from Church Street..........................................2-5 Figure 4D: Conceptual Parking Structure Viewed from Church Street.............................................2-6 Figure 4E: Conceptual Surface Parking Viewed from Church Street and Eden Avenue...................2-7 Figure 4F: Conceptual Parking Structure Viewed from Church Street and Eden Avenue................2-8 Figure 4G: Conceptual Parking Structure and Public Safety Facility Viewed from Arbor Lane .......2-9 Figure 5: Transfer of the Public Safety Facility and Public Parking...............................................2-11 R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx(04/20/18) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A. CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION This Addendum has been prepared to analyze the environmental effects, if any, of constructing and implementing the North East Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility (hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project) within the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. The proposed project is part of the 174 acre mixed use development known as "Victoria Gardens" located in the eastern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), San Bernardino County, California. The 174 acre Victoria Gardens Master Plan (Master Plan) area is bordered by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Church Street on the north, Day Creek Boulevard on the west, and Interstate 15 (1-15) on the east (refer to Figure 1). The City and Rancho Mall, LLC (owner of the Victoria Gardens shopping center, and hereinafter referred to as "Developer") are joint applicants for the proposed project, which would include a General Plan amendment, a Master Plan amendment, a development agreement amendment, a Tentative Parcel Map, a ground lease and related approvals to provide for development of a public parking structure and police substation on a vacant 5.33 -acre parcel ("NE Parcel") owned by the City in the northeasterly portion of the Master Plan area (refer to Figure 2). The public parking facility and police substation would serve the City's adjacent Cultural Center, the Victoria Gardens shopping center, and surrounding areas. The public parking facility would initially consist of a surface parking lot consisting of 506 parking spaces and, eventually, a two-level parking structure (ground floor plus a single deck level above) providing a maximum of up to 869 total parking spaces, of which approximately 30 spaces would be dedicated for use by the police substation (refer to Figure 3). The public parking facility would serve development already anticipated and planned under the Master Plan. The proposed Master Plan amendment would change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. The police substation building would be a single -story building containing up to 10,000 square feet of building area. The NE Parcel had previously been approved by the City under the Master Plan for development with 95 three-story residential units (hereinafter referred to as the Original Project). Under the proposed Master Plan amendment, residential uses would no longer be allowed on the NE Parcel. The 95 residential units analyzed in the 2002 FEIR would be added to the Main Street Area in order to preserve the overall existing dwelling unit cap under the Master Plan (refer to Figure 3). The Tentative Parcel Map would subdivide the NE Parcel into two parcels to create an approximately 1 -acre parcel for a police substation and the remainder 4.3 -acre parcel for the surface parking lot and future two-level parking structure. The NE Parcel's airspace was previously subdivided by way of a 95 -unit condominium map, TR17840. The airspace previously subdivided by the condominium map will be merged by way of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 1-1 1,77 -pig CHURCH STREET .� 1 rl�r+A .4, T•��'?� wk �: X14. . •'�l -! w... 15 *! 1 f FOOTHILL BOUL ,YARD Los Angeles Bernardino County Project cation :•■��� l�f�li iiia - ..� .. —. .......... S LEI RR F7 E rM X 2 2W MUM az U I I I I I I I I I I I a BLDG. 1k OU00 WE` A:(7RTVWF Ql1TU E) ............. LSAPARKING PROVIDED: FIGURE 2 PARKING STRUCTURE (2 LEVELS) = ±758 SPACES SURFACE PARKING = + 87 SPACES SURFACE PARKING (FOR POLICE) = ± 24 SPACES TOTAL =+ 869 SPACES 0 00 00 NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility FEET SOURCE: FORESTCITY/DLR Group Conceptual Site Plan 1:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\figl-2_SitePlan.cdr (01/15/2018) LSA J Church Street R E S I D E I u tura e Dr if•: r f North Main Stree IFF Will Change to Civic/Parking l Area R AE'A � ---------- MAIN MAIN STREET AREA m S o u L h Main SIrcetl LEGEND FIGURE 3 Project Site N NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility SOURCE: FORESTCITY/DLR Group Victoria Gardens Master Plan I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\figl-3_Victoria Gardens Master Plan.ai (1/25/2018) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA 1.2 BACKGROUND On February 20, 2002, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2001031028, hereinafter referred to as the "2002 EIR") and approved the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (Resolution No. 02-056) for the 174 -acre mixed use development known as "Victoria Gardens". The Master Plan provides planning guidelines for land uses within the 174 -acre area. In the 2009 the Master Plan at ultimate build out, the Master Plan allows approximately 2.45 million square feet of commercial/office uses, 90,850 square feet of civic uses, and 600 dwelling units'. The 2002 Victoria Gardens Master Plan EIR ("2002 EIR") examined significant environmental effects associated with development of the Master Plan land uses. The 2002 EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts from traffic and air quality with construction and operation of the Master Plan. As the Lead Agency, the City considered the information in the 2002 EIR before certifying the document and approving the Master Plan. The City Council adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations on February 20, 2002. This Statement found the economic, social or other benefits of the Master Plan outweighed the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2002 EIR. Subsequent to the approval of the Master Plan and construction of the initial phases of development, the Developer in 2008 proposed amendments to the Master Plan, Victoria Community Plan, Victoria Arbors Master Plan, General Plan, and Development Agreement DA01-02 to allow flexibility with respect to construction of the remaining number of dwelling units and underdeveloped commercial office/retail space. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2001031028, hereinafter the "2008 SEIR") was prepared and certified by the City on May 6, 2009 analyzing the amendments. Analysis in the 2008 SEIR determined that aesthetics (views of scenic vistas) and operational and cumulative air quality impacts were significant and unavoidable after implementation of mitigation. The City Council adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for the Victoria Gardens Master Plan on May 6, 2009. The 2002 EIR and the subsequent 2008 SEIR continue to serve as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document addressing the environmental impacts of the Project. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether implementation of the North East Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility would result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts, or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the Original Project. This Addendum, together with the 2008 SEIR and 2002 EIR will be used by the City when considering approval of the North East Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility project. ' Currently, approximately 1,171,740 square feet of commercial/office uses, 90,850 square feet of civic uses, and 215 dwelling units have been constructed within the 174 -acre Master Plan area. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 1-5 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 1.4 CEQA FRAMEWORK FOR ADDENDUM VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A In accordance with Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to a certified EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified 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 proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. This Addendum reviews changes to existing conditions that have occurred since the certification of the 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR, and compares environmental effects of development of the Proposed Project with those previously disclosed in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. It also reviews new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2008 SEIR was certified and evaluates whether these are new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with changes in circumstances under which project development is being undertaken. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Project. Based upon review of the facts as presented in the analysis contained in this document, an Addendum to the certified 2008 SEIR is the appropriate document in compliance with CEQA. The rationale and the facts for this finding are provided in the body of this Addendum. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 1_6 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT AS ANALYZED IN THE 2008 SEIR 2.1.1 Project Location and Setting The project is located on a 5.33- acre parcel within the northeastern area of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan area bounded by Church Street on the north, Cultural Center Drive on the south, Eden Avenue on the east, and Arbor Lane on the west (refer to Figure 1). The site is approximately 0.3 - mile west of 1-15, approximately 1.5 miles south of State Route 210 (SR -210), and approximately 3.2 miles north of Interstate 10 (1-10). The project site is currently undeveloped with the exception of graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities to accommodate the previously planned 95 three-story residential units associated with the Original Project. The site is generally flat with the northwest corner at 1,256 feet above mean sea level (AMSC) and the southeast corner at 1,242 AMSL, having a gradual downward slope to the southeast. An approximately 6 -foot permanent wall and ornamental palm trees are located to the north of the site, south of Church Street. Additional ornamental trees are located to the west of the site, east along Arbor Lane. Surrounding land uses include two-story single-family residential units to the north across 6 -lane Church Street, a surface parking lot located to the east and southeast, three-story townhomes to the west along Arbor Lane and a two-story parking structure and commercial building to the southwest. 2.1.2 Original Project Details The General Plan designates the site as Mixed Use (0.25 — 1.0 FAR) and the zoning designation on the site is Victoria Planned Community (PC -V). The Victoria Community Plan provides that the area encompassing Victoria Gardens, including the site, shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. The Master Plan currently designates the project site for residential development (refer to Figure 3). The project site was approved for development with 95 three-story residential units as described in the Master Plan and certified 2002 EIR and 2008 SEIR. 2.1.3 Previous Project Approval In February 2002, the City certified the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001031028), approved the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (Resolution No. 02-056), and adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations. In May 2009, the City certified the SEIR and approved the project including the following actions: • Final SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001031028) • Amendment to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (DRC2009-00145) • Amendment to the Victoria Community Plan (DRC2008-00383) • Amendment to the Victoria Arbors Master Plan (DRC2009-00146) • Amendment to the General Plan (DRC2008-00384) • Amendment to the Development Agreement (third amendment) (DRC2008-00385) R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 2-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA • Adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations 2.2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.2.1 Proposed Project Objectives The primary objectives of the Proposed Project are to provide additional public parking within the Master Plan area convenient to adjacent Cultural Center and shopping center destinations, and to allow for future replacement of the existing police substation at Victoria Gardens with a larger public safety building of up to 10,000 square feet. 2.2.2 Project Location and Setting The location and setting of the Proposed Project remain consistent with the Original Project as analyzed in the certified 2002 EIR and 2008 SEIR. No changes to the boundaries of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan or 5.33 -acre NE parcel have been made as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project setting remains consistent with the description provided in the 2008 SEIR with the exception of the fact that the previously undeveloped 5.33 -acre NE parcel now includes graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities to accommodate the previously planned 95 three-story residential units associated with the Original Project that were never built. 2.2.3 Proposed Project Details The Developer and the City, as joint applicants, are proposing further amendments to the Master Plan, a ground lease and related approvals to allow for the following: • An interim surface parking lot consisting of 506 parking spaces. • A new two-story parking structure of up to a maximum of 869 spaces, located on the parcel bounded by Church Street, Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. • A 10,000 -square foot Public Safety Building to replace the existing 3,500 -square foot facility currently located at 12505 North Main Street in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan. • Relocation of approximately 95 residential units previously planned for the site to the Main Street Area. Sufficiency of parking for these units will be analyzed and addressed with any application to develop such units. • Access to the parking structure on Arbor Drive, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. The proposed public surface parking facility would provide approximately 506 parking spaces on a surface parking lot and, eventually, a two-level parking structure (ground floor plus a single deck level above) providing a maximum of up to 869 total parking spaces. Approximately 24 to 30 of the 869 parking spaces would be reserved for use by the public safety facility, and would not be open to the general public. Conceptual elevations of the surface parking lot, the parking structure, and the public safety facility are shown on Figures 4A -G). R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 2-2 LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Surface Pkg from Arbor.cdr (4/20/2018) FIGURE 4A NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Surface Parking Lot Viewed from Arbor Lane and Church Street LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Pkg Structure from Arbor-Church.cdr(4/20/2018) FIGURE 4B NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Parking Structure and Public Safety Facility Viewed from Arbor Lane and Church Street LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Surface Pkg from Church.cdr (4/20/2018) FIGURE 4C NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Surface Parking Viewed from Church Street LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Pkg Structure from Church.cdr (4/20/2018) FIGURE 4D NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Parking Structure Viewed from Church Street f LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Pkg Structure from Church.cdr (4/20/2018) FIGURE 4D NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Parking Structure Viewed from Church Street LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Surface Pkg from Church-Eden.cdr(4/20/2018) FIGURE 4E NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Surface Parking Viewed from Church Street and Eden Avenue -1i_ �•. I � i '` .:tom • � •;s:;� . i .�: � - `' --Ail- LSA FIGURE 4F NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Parking Structure Viewed from Church Street and Eden Avenue I:\FCR1701\G\Pkg Structure from Church-Eden.cdr(4/20/2018) LSA I:\FCR1701\G\Pkg Structure from Arbor.cdr (4/20/2018) FIGURE 4G NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Conceptual Parking Structure and Public Safety Facility Viewed from Arbor Lane ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN `J" APRIL 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA The height of the parking structure would not exceed 17 feet above ground level for the parking deck with a 6 foot parapet on the structure's top level. However, light poles for night lighting and security would be consistent with the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (15 feet in height) and the total height of the structures with the lighting would not exceed 26 feet above the ground level (as illustrated below). The proposed 869 parking spaces would increase the parking capacity currently available within the northeast area of the Master Plan, but will not increase the overall number of spaces planned for the Master Plan area. To clarify the overall requirements and parking demand for the TOPCWPARAPETO-W entire Master Plan will remain the same, since the total amount of retail, commercial, and residential development allowed under the "W/DECK 0 -W Master Plan is not being changed. For purposes of analysis, traffic trips associated with the 869 > parking spaces that otherwise would have been s provided in one of the previously approved (but not yet built) parking structures in an area just GROUND+r north of Victoria Gardens Lane currently • occupied by a surface parking lot are reallocated to the NE Parcel. Figure 5 shows from where on the Victoria Gardens Master Plan the parking stalls and the 3,500 square foot public safety facility are being moved from to the NE Parcel. The public safety facility would consist of a one-story 10,000 square foot building with approximately 30 parking spaces, which are included within the adjacent proposed parking facility. The public safety facility operations would be administrative in nature. It would contain office space, conference rooms of varying sizes, men's and woman's locker rooms, break room, and storage space. The 10,000 square foot public safety facility would replace the existing 3,500 square foot facility located to the south of the proposed parking structure, south of Cultural Center Drive and west of Eden Avenue (refer to Figure 4G). Following completion of the new public safety facility, the current 3,500 square foot police substation would revert back to commercial retail space. Phase 2 of the Proposed Project, including the public parking structure and the public safety facility, is anticipated to be completed and operational by the year 2023. Construction may proceed in two phases: Phase 1 consisting of installation of a surface parking lot with approximately 506 spaces; and Phase 2 involving construction of the two-level parking structure along with the 10,000 -square foot public safety facility. Phase 1 construction would involve the demolition of the existing internal roadways and curbs, relocation of underground utilities, grading and construction of the surface parking lot. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 2-10 — _- -.:i II LJIJ l _ _... . C .......... `... � — I .ill I,��I�C 7t-:� [ ! ! ly-�� f �-T` f = _I =-- ^�•t.�' I: I '� IF ` J- J l [rxrJ3;.:p.[r.�.. �_ .. .... _ t. ...........� -ir 1 �1! �.. 1L:-.li..a4 .�.^�" ` u� •.n -M. .. JLL-RAL CEN�R.PR j 1'il. ✓ ; ' '� .,'. = M._. ..-....�..._....._..._..._..,�. � _ r Q•. �y y' Ct i' 1-"i aha. • :;:1 1 3 ._.:J r - _ : ,L •'y� W FCT Com' Uj m 4. Ag S ! �' .. ..... �...:i:l'if_�: � �I. f. r.cir wf,�-rr r �- � 3 ,r��i ✓ f Q 7.v TT/ A. s wf,. - ri< ::p r-� l' ` . 2' . . `' i i �JS 11 � u " i -- FOOTHILL BOULEVARD /ROUTE 66 <___;:- _ = r= _ - - i1� I. LSA T 0 300 600 FEET SOURCE: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2008 I:\FCR1701\Reports\ExistingLU.mxd (4/18/2018) KM R = P.":TfJL L= URRA.RY C = CINEMA ISS = BEPAkTMENT SORE CC=CI:LTORAI C:=NTCR FF! = FOOD HALL PS = PARKING STRUCTURE SFR - SINGLE FAMILY AESIDENT01 MFR = MULTI -FAMILY RESI ENTiAL P20P()BVn fl llii_37{ryl? PARKIN+} PECK -.. I (APPROXIMATE) = PCSSIBLE TA.LLER BUILC''Nr. = RPTAII -d MGG F FT[7RY QNE Parcel Transfer 3,500 sq ft Public Safety to NE Parcel Transfer 369 Parking 0 Stalls to NE Parcel Transfer 500 Parking Stalls to NE Parcel FIGURE 5 NE Parcel Public Parking and Public Safety Facility Transfer of Parking and Public Safety Facility ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 2.2.4 Required Actions for the Proposed Project VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A The discretionary actions to be considered by the City as part of the Proposed Project include the following: • Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment DRC2017-00971; • General Plan Amendment DRC2017-00969 to amend Table LU -2 of the General Plan to add the previously approved 95 units from the Residential Land Use area to the Residential/Mixed Use Main Street Area of the Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors Land Use Mix Land Use types in the General Plan. • Development Agreement Amendment DRC2017-00970 to incorporate the foregoing plan amendments into the vested land use approvals and other provisions to facilitate development of the Proposed Project for the Victoria Gardens mall; • A ground lease to Developer (or affiliate) for construction and operation of the public parking facility; • Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 19963 to subdivide the 5.33 acre lot into 2 parcels; parcel 1 approximately a 1 acre parcel for a public safety facility and parcel 2 a 4.33 acre parcel for a parking lot and future parking structure. The TPM would merge the existing 95 -unit condominium map covering the NE Parcel; and • Sign Permit DRC 2017-00993 for the Notice of Filing Sign for the project. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 2-12 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA 3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following discussion begins with the key topics and related environmental effects for the Proposed Project: Traffic and Transportation and Noise. The Addendum then summarizes the remaining topic areas in the sequence that they are addressed in the certified 2008 SEIR and compares the Original Project (certified 2002 EIR) and the Proposed Project. 3.1 KEY TOPICS ANALYZED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1.1 Traffic and Transportation Conclusion: As described above in Section 2.2.3, the Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. With approval of the Master Plan amendment the Proposed Project will include the development of a surface parking lot and eventually a public parking structure and police substation on the NE Parcel, and relocate the previously approved residential units to the Main Street area within the Master Plan area. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (provided in Appendix A) was prepared for the Proposed Project to assess the potential circulation impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project on the NE Parcel and determined there are no significant impacts. Analysis: As described in the TIA, the approved Master Plan identifies approximately 1,500 future parking spaces distributed across parking structures in three different locations, two of which were to be located in the Main Street Area of the Master Plan (refer to Figure 5). These parking structures were proposed as part of two mid -rise residential structures that were planned in the Master Plan's east quadrant of the Main Street Area. For the purposes of the TIA analysis, it was assumed that each parking structure would contain approximately 500 parking spaces. Trips associated with the proposed parking structure on the NE Parcel are analyzed as a reallocation of an equivalent portion of the trips to and from one of the two parking structures planned to be located within the east quadrant of the overall Victoria Gardens Master Plan area. To clarify the overall requirements and parking demand for the entire Master Plan will remain the same, since the total amount of retail, commercial, and residential development allowed under the Master Plan is not being changed. The precise location of parking for the previously proposed mid -rise residential units and the 95 residential units being reallocated to the Main Street Area with the Proposed Project will be analyzed and addressed with any future application to develop such units to determine whether the residential units will have adequate parking. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes relocation of the police substation from its current location at 12505 North Main Street in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan to the NE Parcel (refer to Figure 5). The proposed police substation will comprise an increase from the current 3,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The existing 3,500 square feet vacated by the public safety operation will be converted to retail use. The 2002 EIR analyzed the traffic impact associated with the 3,500 square feet facility as a commercial retail use. Because the total retail square footage in the approved Master Plan is greater than what has currently been built (2.45 million square feet approved and 171,740 square feet of commercial/office uses currently built) the addition of 3,500 square feet of retail use would not increase the overall total retail square footage in the approved R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A. CALIFORNIA Master Plan area and trips associated with this use are included in the certified 2002 EIR and 2008 SEIR analysis. The Master Plan used a parking demand rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet to calculate parking demand for the entire site. Therefore, this rate has been used to calculate the equivalent square footage of retail from the proposed parking spaces for the purposes of extracting the trip generation. For the public safety facility, since trips from the existing 3,500 square foot facility are included in the existing traffic counts, only the additional 6,500 square feet has been included in the project trip generation calculations. Trip generation for the proposed project has been developed using the same trip generation, pass -by and internal capture rates as was used in the 2002 EIR. As described in the TIA, the Proposed Project would generate an estimated 4,344 daily trips, with 87 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 381 trips in the p.m. peak hour. The trips that will be relocated with implementation of the Proposed Project represent only 4.29 percent of the overall Victoria Gardens trips in the a.m. peak hour and 7.17 percent of overall Victoria Gardens trips in the p.m. peak hour. As the total number of parking spaces in the east quadrant of the Master Plan area will remain largely the same, the proposed parking structure location should not involve any fundamental redistribution of trips, as trips would already have been destined to the east quadrant of the Master Plan. As described in the TIA, all study area intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS under the existing without and with project conditions. And all study intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under the opening year without and with project conditions. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with intersection operations. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, the final design of all roadways and intersections within limits of the Proposed Project site is required to incorporate design standards tailored specifically to access requirements of the proposal in accordance with established development standards. Consistent with the Original Project, adherence to applicable requirements of the City, County, and/or other agencies will reduce potential project -related impacts associated with emergency access to a less than significant level. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project will not conflict with any applicable congestion management programs, result in a change in air traffic patterns, or substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with traffic and transportation. No new significant environmental impacts would occur related to traffic and transportation with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3_2 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.1.1A, 4.1.2A, 4.1.3A, 4.1.4A, and 4.1.5A adopted in the 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR are not applicable to the Proposed Project because the project includes development of public parking and public safety facility uses. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.1.2 Noise Conclusion: As described above in Section 3.1.1, the Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. With approval of the Master Plan amendment the Proposed Project will include the development of a public parking structure and police substation on the NE Parcel, and relocate the previously approved residential units to the Main Street area within the Master Plan area. A Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Noise Analysis) (provided in Appendix B) was prepared for the Proposed Project to evaluate the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project on the NE Parcel and determined there are no significant impacts. Analysis: Short -Term Construction Noise Impacts. As described in the Noise Analysis, two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during project construction: 1) noise generated by construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site; and 2) noise generated during demolition, excavation, grading, and building erection on the project site. As concluded in the Noise Analysis, construction -related vehicle trips would not approach the hourly/daily traffic volumes on streets adjacent to the NE Parcel. Therefore, traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA and thus would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, short-term construction -related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project and the 2002 EIR, construction of the Proposed Project would require the use of earthmoving equipment including excavators, graders, bulldozers, and backhoes. As described in the Noise Analysis, the closest residences to the project site are located approximately 80 feet (ft) and 110 ft west and north, respectively, from the project construction boundary. These residences would be exposed to construction noise reaching 84 dBA Lmax (80 dBA Leq) and 81 dBA Lmax (77 dBA Leq), respectively. In addition, the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the closest commercial use to the project site are located approximately 170 ft and 200 ft southwest and south, respectively, from the project construction boundary. The Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the closest commercial use would be exposed to construction noise reaching 77 dBA Lmax (73 dBA Leq) and 76 dBA Lmax (72 dBA Leq), respectively. Construction noise levels would exceed the City's noise standard of 65 dBA for residences and Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the City's noise standard of 70 dBA for commercial uses. However, with implementation of a Construction Noise Control Plan including standard measures for minimizing construction -related noise impacts and conformance with the City's noise ordinance standards, consistent with the Original Project, short-term construction- R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-3 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA related impacts associated with noise generated during construction activities would be less than significant. Additionally, consistent with the Original Project, vibration levels associated with construction of the Proposed Project on adjacent structures/buildings would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, as described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, short- term noise impacts associated with construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Long -Term Noise Impacts Aircraft Noise. As described in the Noise Analysis, the Proposed Project would not be exposed to aircraft noise from the Ontario International Airport (approximately 5 miles southwest of the project site) that exceeds the City's exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for the proposed commercial and office uses. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, noise generated from aircraft noise would remain less than significant and no mitigation is required. Long -Term Off -Site Traffic Noise Impacts. The Noise Analysis evaluated potential traffic noise impacts on sensitive land uses on and off the project site. The Noise Analysis concluded that no project -related traffic noise impacts would occur at off-site noise -sensitive land uses; therefore, project -related impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. As described in the Noise Analysis, traffic noise from Church Street, Arbor Lane and Cultural Center Drive would potentially expose the proposed police substation to a combined noise level of 63 dBA CNEL; however, this level would not exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for offices. Therefore, no traffic noise impacts would occur at the proposed police substation and project - related traffic noise impacts at on-site noise -sensitive land uses would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Long -Term Parking Lot Noise Generated Activities. As described in the Noise Analysis, operation of the proposed parking structure would generate noise of approximately 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 ft associated with parking activities. The proposed parking structure is approximately 80 ft from the closest residence to the west, 10 ft from the residences to the north, 170 ft from the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, and 200 ft from the closest commercial use. At a distance of 80 ft, 110 ft, 170 ft, and 200 ft, noise levels would be attenuated by 4 dBA, 7 dBA, 11 dBA, and 12 dBA, respectively due to the distance from the parking lot to the stated land uses. Noise generated from parking lot activities would be reduced to 66 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 4 dBA = 66 dBA), 63 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 7 dBA = 63 dBA), 59 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 11 dBA = 59 dBA), and 58 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 12 dBA = 58 dBA), respectively. Intermittent noise levels generated from parking lot activities would remain below the City's exterior maximum daytime and nighttime noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax and 75 dBA Lmax, respectively, for residences and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Intermittent noise levels generated from parking lot activities would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 85 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively, for commercial uses. Based on the United States R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-4 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA 1978), interior noise levels at the residences with windows and doors closed would not exceed the City's interior daytime and nighttime noise standards. However, interior noise levels at the residences with windows and doors open would exceed the City's interior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively. There is no interior noise impact when the Municipal Code's noise standard is applied with windows and doors shut (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 17.66.060.F.1(A)). Because these residences already have air conditioning as a standard feature allowing the residence's windows and doors to be closed for prolonged periods of time, impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, noise generated from proposed parking activities would be less than significant. As described in the Noise Analysis, the closest off-site commercial area to the proposed parking structure is 215 ft south of the proposed project property line, which would experience noise levels of up to 57 dBA Lmax. Intermittent noise levels from parking activities would not exceed the City's exterior maximum daytime and nighttime noise standard of 85 dBA Lmax and 80 dBA Lmax, respectively, for commercial uses. Therefore, noise generated from proposed parking activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. HVAC equipment. The proposed police substation, located in the southwest portion of the NE Parcel, would include on-site roof top HVAC equipment. It is assumed that roof top HVAC equipment would be at the center of the rooftop building and would operate 24 hours a day as a worst-case scenario. Rooftop HVAC equipment would generate noise levels that range from 75 to 82 dBA Leq at 3 ft, based on reference noise measurements. The on-site HVAC equipment associated with the police substation is approximately 80 ft from the residences to the west, 110 ft from the residences to the north, 170 ft from the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, and 330 ft from the closest commercial use. At a distance of 80 ft, 110 ft, 170 ft, and 330 ft, noise levels would be attenuated by 29 dBA, 31 dBA, 35 dBA, and 41 dBA, respectively. Noise generated from HVAC equipment associated with the police substation would be reduced to 53 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 29 dBA = 53 dBA), 51 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 31 dBA = 51 dBA), 47 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 35 dBA = 47 dBA), and 41 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 41 dBA = 41 dBA), respectively. This noise level would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively, for residences and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Also, this noise level would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively, for commercial uses. Additionally, traffic noise levels on Church Street and Arbor Lane would mask noise generated from the HVAC equipment. Therefore, noise generated from the on-site HVAC equipment associated with the proposed police substation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Vibration. As described in the Noise Analysis the proposed parking structure and police substation would not generate an increase in vibration levels and vibration levels generated from project - related traffic on the adjacent roadways. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, long-term noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Implementation of the R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-5 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts associated with noise and vibration beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and 2002 EIR and no new mitigation is required. Long-term Noise from Police Activity. Traffic generated from the police substation is included in the trip generation of the Proposed Project and is also included in the project traffic volume scenario. Therefore, the traffic noise analysis includes traffic noise from police vehicles which is not significant. Police car sirens are exempted from the City's noise standard based on Section 17.66.OSO(d)(3) of the Municipal Code. Therefore, noise impacts from police activity would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures that were adopted in the 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR will be implemented to reduce construction noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measures 4.2.2A, 4.2.26, 4.2.3A, and 4.2.36 are not applicable to the Proposed Project because it does not include a residential component. Modifications to the adopted mitigation measures to provide consistency with the City's current noise ordinance are shown below in StFikethFaugh for deleted text, and underlined for new inserted text. 4.2.1A The construction contractor shall limit construction activities shall be I;.,.,;+^ to the hours of 7:006:38 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday, excluding national holidays. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays. 4.2.16 The construction contractor shall ensure TL.^.-^ -;hall "^ proper muffling of and maintenance consistent with manufacturers' standards for of all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, used during project site excavation and grading internal ce-M-hu -stien engines fer censtructien equipment and- . ehirl^ ed ^M the omit^ 4.2.1C The construction contractor shall ensure all equipment staging is located in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and as faF away possible 40m ^xisti=R noise -sensitive receptors to the north and west of the project site during all project construction. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2 OTHER TOPICS EVALUATED IN THE CERTIFIED 2008 SEIR 3.2.1 Aesthetics Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts related to aesthetics beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-6 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Analysis: As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site is currently zoned for Residential and was previously approved for development of 95 three-story residential units. The Proposed Project site currently includes graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities to accommodate the Original Project. Surrounding land uses include two-story single-family residential units to the north across 6 -lane Church Street, surface parking lot located to the east and southeast, three-story townhomes to the west along Arbor Lane and a two-story parking structure and commercial building to the southwest. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the General Plan recognizes the San Gabriel Mountains as the most prominent scenic feature in the City and designates Day Creek Boulevard (located to the west of the Master Plan area) as a scenic corridor. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City and the Proposed Project site does not contain any scenic resources (including trees and rock outcroppings) or any historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. The Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. With approval of the Master Plan amendment the Proposed Project will include the development of a public parking structure and police substation on the NE Parcel, and relocate the previously approved residential units to another parcel within the Master Plan area. The proposed public parking facility would provide approximately 506 parking spaces on a surface parking lot and, eventually, a two-level parking structure (ground floor plus a single deck level above) providing a maximum of up to 869 total parking spaces. The height of the parking structure would not exceed 17 feet above ground level for the parking deck with a 6 foot parapet on the structure's top level. Light poles for night lighting and security would be consistent with the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (15 feet in height) and the total height of the structure with the lighting would not exceed 26 feet above the ground level (refer to the illustration in the Project Description). The total height of the proposed parking structure would not exceed the maximum height of the previously approved three-story residential units. Although the visual appearance of the proposed parking structure and police substation will differ from the three-story residential units, the visual character of the proposed uses is consistent with the urban/developed visual character of the surrounding Master Plan area. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project and the 2002 EIR, the Proposed Project site is not located adjacent to Day Creek Boulevard, which is identified in the City's General Plan as Special Boulevard and View Corridor, and would not significantly impact views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north of the City. In addition the of height of the proposed parking structure would be a maximum of two -stories which is lower than the approved three story - residential units on-site. Consistent with the Original Project, development of the Proposed Project would result in new sources of light and glare. However, adherence to the City's Development Code and design guidelines in the Master Plan would ensure that any building or parking lighting would not significantly impact adjacent uses. As required in Mitigation Measure 4.1.1A in the certified 2008 SEIR for the Original Project, prior to the issuance of building permits the project proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval, plans, designs, or other information detailing the type, amount, location, and type of installation of the materials that will face the exteriors of the proposed structures. Implementation of these measures would ensure that impacts associated with R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-7 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA the Original and Proposed Project relating to glare would remain at less than significant levels. The Master Plan will be amended to include aesthetically pleasing exterior design templates for the parking structure. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics. No new significant environmental impacts would occur related to aesthetics with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.1.1A that was adopted in the 2008 SEIR will be implemented to reduce impacts relating to glare associated with the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.2 Agricultural Resources Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts to agricultural resources beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR, the Master Plan area, including the Proposed Project site, is not classified as farmland by the Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Furthermore, the Proposed Project site is 1) not zoned for any agricultural use, 2) not located adjacent to any such agricultural uses, and 3) not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Because of the urban nature of the Master Plan area and adjacent areas, the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland or land subject to a Williamson Act contract, or otherwise conflict with agricultural operations. Furthermore, the Proposed Project will not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest uses as there is currently no forest land within the Proposed Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with agricultural resources. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for agricultural resources and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.3 Air Quality Conclusion: As described above in Section 2.2.3, the Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. With approval of the Master Plan amendment, the Proposed Project will include the development of a public parking structure and police substation on the NE Parcel, and relocate the previously R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3.8 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA approved residential units to the Main Street area of the Master Plan. The public parking and a police substation were previously approved for residential development within the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan, and therefore, development resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the total development previously analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: AQMP Consistency. The Proposed Project would not exceed the maximum development approved for the Master Plan and therefore would not exceed the growth projections assumed in the currently adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, as described in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project is consistent with the most recently adopted AQMP. Construction Emissions. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR, peak grading and construction emissions associated with the Original Project would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NO, PM10 and PM2.5. Impacts associated with NO, PM10 and PM2.5would be significant even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 SEIR. Total emissions of CO, NOX, ROC, and PM10 resulting from the long-term operation (stationary sources and mobile sources) of the development would also exceed the SCAQMD threshold for long-term operations and impacts would remain significant even with implementation of mitigation measures. Similarly construction emissions and long-term emissions of PM10 and PM2.5would result in exceedances of the SCAQMD LST thresholds and impacts would remain significant even with implementation of mitigation measures. Because the Proposed Project would not expand development beyond that which was analyzed and approved within the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan, the Proposed Project would have no greater emissions impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR and 2002 EIR. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, during construction of the Proposed Project, diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. Additionally, the application of architectural coatings and installation of asphalt may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project boundaries. The Proposed Project will not emit objectionable long-term odors. Consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project's adherence to the standard regulatory conditions identified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 1108 and 1113 would reduce temporary odor impacts to a less than significant level. Long-term Air Quality Impacts. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, on-site grading and construction activities will likely generate temporary increased levels of particulates and emissions from construction equipment. Subsequent to construction, air pollutant emissions will occur as a result of vehicles associated with operation of the proposed parking structure. The Proposed Project uses were previously approved for development within the Master Plan (i.e. the 10,000 square feet of civic uses, surface parking, and parking structure), therefore; the Proposed Project would have no greater emission impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR. The 95 residential units that will be transferred to the Main R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-9 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Street Area as part of the Proposed Project will still be subject to mitigation measures related to air quality emissions at the time the residential is constructed and in operation. The Proposed Project will comply with the mitigation measures described in the certified 2008 SEIR. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. No CO hot spots were identified with the Original Project. No nearby sensitive receptors would be affected by project related local air quality impacts. As the Proposed Project uses were included in the Master Plan long-term microscale CO hotspot analysis, and traffic volumes would not be greater than those previously analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project would have no greater CO hotspot emission impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR. Impacts would remain less than significant and no mitigation is required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, impacts derived from project - related GHG emission are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Consequently, it is unclear how project -related GHG emissions would contribute to global climate change and how global climate change may impact California. Therefore, while project -related GHG emissions do not generate significant project -specific impacts, they contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. The public safety facility will be required to meet the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11. This part of the California Code is known as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) and was enacted to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts with positive environmental impacts and through encouragement of sustainable construction practices. Implementation of the CALGreen Code will reduce any effects the Proposed Project may have on GHG emissions. Because the Proposed Project would not expand development beyond that which was analyzed and approved for the uses within the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan, the Proposed Project would have no greater GHG emissions impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts associated with air quality beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.1G, 4.3.2A, 4.3.21), and 4.3.2E that were adopted in the 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR will be implemented to reduce construction and long term air quality emissions by the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measures 4.3.2B and 4.3.2C are not applicable to the Proposed Project because it is not a commercial land use and does not include a housing component. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-10 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA 3.2.4 Biological Resources Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts to biological resources beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area where commercial structures and parking areas associated with the Master Plan have already been developed. Specifically, the Proposed Project site includes graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities to accommodate the previously planned 95 three-story residential units associated with the Original Project. The site is maintained through weed abatement and disking. There are no trees or landscaping on-site to support wildlife. Due to the absence of any on-site native habitat, the Proposed Project site does not support any special -status plant or animal species designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No natural or man-made jurisdictional waters or riparian habitat are present within the Proposed Project limits. Due to the adjacency of the Proposed Project site to developed commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational uses, no wildlife movement or migration corridors traverse the Proposed Project site. Furthermore, the Proposed Project site is not located within any adopted habitat conservation plan areas. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with biological resources. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for biological resources and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.5 Cultural Resources Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts to cultural resources beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: Archaeological and Historic Resources. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Master Plan area including the Proposed Project site, is located in a developed area where significant ground disturbance has already occurred along with the placement of infrastructure, roadways, and nearby structures. The NE Parcel has been previously graded and a portion of the site paved over, therefore, it does not contain historical resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project site currently consists of graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, there are no known archaeological sites or cultural resources recorded in the Master Plan area. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-11 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Tribal Consultation. On January 23, 2018 ten tribes were sent notice of the proposed Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment Project as required per Government Code 65352.3 based on the list provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga from the Native American Heritage Commission. On January 24, 2018 the city was contacted by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) who expressed that "although the project is located within the Serrano ancestral territory," the Tribe had no conflicts with the project and therefore did not request formal consultation. On January 25, 2018 the City received an email and letter from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission India ns-Kizhnation requesting formal consultation as they felt the project may have adverse impacts to cultural resources. The City of Rancho Cucamonga staff held a formal consultation with the Tribe over the phone on March 14, 2018. During the consultation it was determined that because of the previous grading activities done on site by the previous developer Shea Homes, any cultural resources that would have been present prior to grading would have been removed or destroyed. It was agreed that if the development of the site for the surface parking lot/parking structure required additional grading beyond removal of the existing infrastructure deeper than was previously excavated, the city would reopen consultation with the Tribe. The Consultation period closed April 28, 2018. No additional correspondence was received or requested for consultation with any other Tribe. Paleontological Resources. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, no paleontological resources have been recorded within the Master Plan area. Additionally, the Master Plan area including the Proposed Project site, is located in an area containing extensive existing development. The development of the existing roadways, curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure, and nearby structures would have required a large amount of ground disturbance that would have likely resulted in the discovery of or destruction of existing paleontological resources had such resources been located on site. No such resource has been previously detected during the extensive surface modifications necessitated by the current development of infrastructure on the Proposed Project site and within the Master Plan area. Human Burials. There is no evidence to suggest the Proposed Project site or greater Master Plan area has been used for human burials. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for human burials and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts to cultural resources. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for cultural resources and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.6 Geology and Soils Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3_12 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORIA/\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) RANCHO C GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA J" APRIL 201$ UCAMON6 A, CALIFORNIA Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with geology and soils beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site does not include wells or other uses that would draw groundwater. Furthermore, the Proposed Project site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or located on or within any other unstable geologic unit or soil. No known faults pass through the Proposed Project site or Master Plan area, nor is the site located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The Red Hill Fault is located within 1.5 miles and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 2.6 miles to the north of the project site. However, the Master Plan area is not located within the City -designated Special Study Zone established for the Red Hill Fault or Cucamonga Fault. While each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking, consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project's adherence to the Uniform Building Code and other City standards would ensure that ground shaking hazard impacts would be reduced to an acceptable level of risk, resulting in a less than significant impact. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site and Master Plan area is not located in an area identified by the City as susceptible to liquefaction hazards or in an area characterized by steep slopes. Because of the location of the Proposed Project site, the absence of adjacent hillsides, and the presence of adjacent development, no landslide impact would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Development anticipated under the Proposed Project would require the removal of existing infrastructure and disturbance of on-site soils, which may lead to off-site sedimentation. On-site soils have a slight potential for erosion. Consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to applicable provisions of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, including the submittal of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address erosion and discharge impacts associated with the proposed on-site grading, resulting in a less than significant impact. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, adherence to Uniform Building Code and City standards and applicable provisions of the City's NPDES permit are required for all development in the City. Consistent with the Original Project, compliance with these measures would ensure the geotechnical and erosion impacts that may result from implementation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Implementation of standard measures described above would ensure that potential impacts related to geology and soils associated with the Original and Proposed Project would remain at less than significant levels. No new significant environmental impacts would occur related to geology and soils with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-13 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORIA/\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) RANCHO C GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA J" APRIL 201$ UCAMON6 A, CALIFORNIA 3.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: The Proposed Project will result in the development of an interim surface parking lot and a future public parking structure and police substation. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the volume of hazardous materials or other substances that can be harmful to people or the environment (e.g., cleaners, pesticides, fertilizers, paint products, and petroleum products) associated with these proposed uses is anticipated to be small. Consistent with the Original Project, the transport, storage, and disposal of any hazardous waste would conform to applicable local, state, and/or federal requirements. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) participates in a County -wide interagency coalition that is considered a full-service Hazardous Materials Division and has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi -Hazard Functional Plan to respond to hazardous materials emergencies. Consistent with the Original Project, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste would reduce upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials associated with the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, the proposed public parking structure and police substation would not emit any hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. The transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials will adhere to applicable local, state, and federal safety standards, guidelines, and/or regulations. Additionally, the Master Plan area, including the Proposed Project site, is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Master Plan area is located approximately 4 miles northwesterly of the Ontario International Airport and is north of the flight path. The Proposed Project site is not located within the airport air safety zones established for Ontario International Airport, nor is it within 2 miles of any private airstrip. Therefore, consistent with the Original Project, no airport hazard would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. The City's Multi -Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the RCFPD in the event of a disaster. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Master Plan area includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City requirements and standards, including local fire ordinances. Consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project does not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, resulting in a less than significant impact. Due to the developed nature of the Proposed Project site and the general absence of adjacent wildland areas, as described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site has a low probability of wildland fires. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-14 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORIA/\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) RANCHO C GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA J" APRIL 201$ UCAMON6 A, CALIFORNIA Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for hazards and hazardous materials and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with hydrology and water quality beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: On-site grading and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would require the removal of existing pavement and infrastructure and the disturbance of underlying soils, which may increase erosion and off-site sedimentation. Because the Original Project site was planned and approved for development consistent with the Master Plan and has been improved with the infrastructure (e.g., graded residential pads, curb, gutter, roadways, and underground utilities) to support the previously planned 95 three-story residential units, development of the proposed surface parking, the public parking structure, and police substation would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff associated with new impervious surfaces. Consistent with the Original Project, as part of the NPDES requirements, the developer is required to submit a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP identifies measures to treat and/or limit post -construction entry of contaminants into storm flows. BMPs that may be recommended in the WQMP include site design, pollutant source control, and pollutant treatment. Consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project's adherence to the requirements and standards established in the NPDES permit, SWPPP, and WQMP will reduce water impacts associated with stormwater runoff to a less than significant level. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site is not designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground. Consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project would not intercept the groundwater table and does not include wells or other features that would result in direct drops of local groundwater levels. Because the Original Project site was paved prior to development of the existing on-site infrastructure (e.g., graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities) to support the previously planned 95 three-story residential units, development of the proposed public surface parking lot, parking structure, and police substation would not reduce the amount of land available for groundwater recharge. Because the Original Project site was improved with paved roads (as analyzed in the certified 2008 SEIR), development of the Proposed Project would not significantly alter the existing on-site drainage pattern or amount of stormwater runoff from the project site. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, on-site drainage currently flows into the storm drain system to the concrete -lined Day Creek Channel. This channel ultimately drains to the Prado Basin spreading grounds. Consistent with R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-15 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORIA/\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) RANCHO C GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA J" APRIL 201$ UCAMON6 A, CALIFORNIA the Original Project, the Proposed Project's grading and drainage plans must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The design and construction of on-site drainage facilities would conform to standards established by the City. Adherence to all applicable drainage requirements would ensure impacts associated with flooding and generation of polluted runoff remain less than significant. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Proposed Project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area; therefore, consistent with the Original Project, no impacts related to placement of structures within a 100 -year flood hazard zone would occur. Furthermore, the Proposed Project site is not located near any oceans, lakes, or reservoirs; therefore, consistent with the Original Project, impacts from seiches and/or tsunamis would not occur. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, the Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons have been cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made flood control features have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to a level of insignificance within the City. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for hydrology and water quality and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.9 Land Use and Planning Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with land use and planning beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: The Proposed Project site is located within the previously approved Master Plan. The Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment, General Plan amendment, development agreement amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, ground lease, and related approvals. The proposed Master Plan amendment would change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. Because residential uses would no longer be allowed in the NE Parcel under the Master Plan amendment, the 95 residential units would be added to the Main Street Area for future development in order to preserve the existing dwelling unit cap of 600 units under the Master Plan. This change would also be reflected in the General Plan amendment. Additionally, development of the proposed 869 space public parking structure will provide parking in close proximity to the City's Cultural Center. By amending the Master Plan, General Plan and development agreement, the Proposed Project will not alter the total number of parking spaces or residential units approved for development in the Master Plan. Furthermore, with approval of the proposed amendments to the Master Plan, General Plan, and development agreement, there would be no conflict with City land use plans or policies. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-16 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A. CALIFORNIA The development limits of the Proposed Project are consistent with the Original Project, and therefore, the environmental effects of development of the site were fully analyzed and disclosed in the certified 2002 EIR and 2008 SEIR. The Proposed Project would move the 95 residential units to the Main Street Area to be built at some future time. Consistent with the Original Project, development of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community as the project is part of the approved Master Plan. Consistent with the Original Project, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community plans. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with land use and planning. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for land use and planning and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.10 Mineral Resources Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with mineral resources beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area, nor is it a valuable mineral resource recovery site. The Proposed Project site currently consists of graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities to accommodate the previously planned 95 three-story residential units associated with the Original Project. Consistent with the Original Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not affect the amount or availability of any mineral resources within the project site. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would not result in impacts to mineral resources. No mitigation measures were identified in the certified 2008 SEIR for mineral resources and no new mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. Finding: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.11 Population and Housing Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with population and housing beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3_17 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Analysis: The Proposed Project site currently consists of graded residential pads, curb, gutter and roadways, and underground utilities to accommodate the previously planned 95 three-story residential units associated with the Original Project. Consistent with the Original Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the displacement of existing housing or people as no housing currently exists on the site. As described above under Section 3.2.9, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. Because residential uses would no longer be allowed in the NE Parcel under the Master Plan amendment, the 95 residential units would be added to the Main Street Area for future development in order to preserve the existing dwelling cap of 600 units under the Master Plan. This change would also be reflected in the General Plan amendment. With approval of the Master Plan and General Plan amendments, the Proposed Project would not alter the number of residential units proposed for development within the Master Plan area. Therefore, no increase in population beyond that previously identified in the certified 2008 SEIR would occur. Consistent with the Original Project, no impact related to changes to local or regional population or housing projects would occur with implementation of the Proposed Project. The proposed public parking structure and police substation are permitted uses under the approved Master Plan and have been included in employment, housing, and population forecasts in the City's General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with population and housing. No new significant environmental impacts would occur related to population and housing with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.12 Public Services Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with public services beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: As described above under Section 3.2.9, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. Because residential uses would no longer be allowed in the NE Parcel under the Master Plan amendment, the 95 residential units would be added to the Main Street Area for future development in order to preserve the existing dwelling cap of 600 units under the Master Plan. This change would also be reflected in the General Plan amendment. Additionally, development of the proposed surface parking lot (Phase 1) and 869 space public parking structure (Phase 2) will increase the parking capacity currently available in the northeastern portion of the Master Plan but will not increase the overall parking envisioned in the Master Plan. With approval of the Master Plan and General Plan amendments, the Proposed Project will not alter the total number of residential units or parking spaces proposed for development within the Master Plan area. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-18 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORIA/\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) RANCHO C GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA J" APRIL 201$ UCAMON6 A, CALIFORNIA Public services such as police and fire protection necessary to support these uses were fully analyzed and disclosed in the certified 2002 EIR and 2008 SEIR. Similarly, public services including police, fire, schools, and park facilities associated with the development of the previously approved 95 residential units were fully analyzed and disclosed in the certified 2002 EIR. Because the Proposed Project will not increase the total number of residential units or parking square footage beyond what was approved for development within the Master Plan area, no increase in the demand for public services beyond that previously identified in the certified 2008 SEIR would occur with implementation of the Proposed Project. In addition the increased size of the Public Safety Facility in this location is anticipated to improve the function of police service to the Victoria Gardens Mall and surrounding community. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR for the Original Project, the project developer will be required to mitigated for potential impacts to schools by providing a per dwelling unit fee rate for residential development on the project site to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Because the Proposed Project includes relocation of the previously approved 95 residential units and no longer includes a residential component, mitigation in the form of a per dwelling unit fee rate is not applicable to the Proposed Project. Rather, this mitigation will be transferred along with the 95 residential units for future development in the Main Street Area under the Master Plan and be the responsibility of the future residential developer. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not change or alter the analysis or mitigation requirements as described in the certified 2008 SEIR for the Master Plan. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR and consistent with the Original Project, maintenance of public facilities and infrastructure in the City would not be significantly altered by development of the Proposed Project. Phase 1 construction of the Proposed Project will involve the demolition of the existing internal roadways, curbs, gutters, and relocation of underground utilities. All infrastructure required to facilitate the proposed uses will be installed prior to occupancy of the site. The services and utilities required for the surface parking lot, the parking structure, and public safety facility would be typical of other uses in the City, and will not result in excessive wear and tear on the existing circulation, sewer, storm drain, or other public facilities. Consistent with the Original Project, the level of development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed that previously approved by the City for the Master Plan area. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with public services. No new significant environmental impacts would occur related to public services with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.6.2A, and 4.6.3A and 4.6.36 adopted in the 2008 SEIR are not applicable to the surface parking lot or the parking structure because they do not include a commercial/retail, office, or residential component. However, the public safety facility and the future residential in the Main Street Area will implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.2A, and 4.6.3A through 4.6.3C. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-19 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.13 Recreation Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with recreation beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. Analysis: As described above under Section 3.2.9, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project would require a Master Plan amendment to change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic. With approval of the Master Plan amendment the Proposed Project will include the development of a public surface parking lot or eventually a public parking structure and police substation, and relocate the previously approved 95 residential units to another parcel within the Master Plan area. Development of the Proposed Project will not include recreational facilities or require the expansion of recreational facilities. The change of use on the Proposed Project site will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Furthermore, public and private open space requirements within the Master Plan as described in the certified 2008 SEIR, would remain unchanged with implementation of the Proposed Project. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, in accordance with the Quimby Act, the Original Project is required by the City to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes. The payment of fees for the future 95 residential units being moved to the Main Street Area would reduce recreational impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not change or alter the analysis or mitigation requirements as described in the certified 2008 SEIR for the Master Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with recreation. No new significant environmental impacts would occur related to recreation with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2.14 Utilities and Service Systems Conclusion: As described under previous resource topics, although the Proposed Project's project description and use of the site will change from Residential to Parking/Civic, the location of the Proposed Project and limits of project disturbance will not change from that of the Original Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in additional impacts associated with utilities and service systems beyond those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR and the 2002 EIR. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3_20 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A. CALIFORNIA Analysis: As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project would be served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) sewer system. Wastewater flows from the proposed police substation would be conveyed and treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) at Regional Plant 4 (RP -4) treatment plant located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RP -1 located within the City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. As described in the certified 2008 SEIR, wastewater will be conveyed in CVWD pipelines to facilities operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Wastewater facilities are required to comply with all applicable standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Because development of the proposed project uses (Parking/Civic) were planned/approved within the Master Plan area, wastewater treatment requirements, solid waste disposal needs, and water supplies for the proposed uses have been incorporated into local and regional plans. Development resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the total development previously addressed in the certified 2008 SEIR for the Master Plan area. Furthermore, consistent with the Original Project, the Proposed Project is required to adhere to the applicable local, state, and federal solid waste requirements. Development of the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project and the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with utilities and service systems. No new significant environmental impacts would occur to utilities and service systems with implementation of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Findings: No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The certified 2008 SEIR identified mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Original Project (refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program provided in Appendix D of the 2008 SEIR for a complete list of mitigation measures). With the exception of mitigation measures referenced in the Addendum associated with the Original Project as described in Sections 3.1.1, Traffic and Transportation, 3.1.2, Noise, and 3.2.12, Public Services, the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 SEIR remain applicable to the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are required. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 3-21 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL /\ IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2001031028) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LA `J" APRIL 201$ RANCHO CUCAMONG A, CALIFORNIA 4.0 CONCLUSION On the basis of the evaluation presented in Section 3.0, the Proposed Project would not trigger any of the conditions listed in Section 1.4 of this Addendum, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Thus this Addendum satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. The Proposed Project does not introduce any new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts, or show that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. The Proposed Project will result in similar impacts to those of the Original Project for all resource topics. The Proposed Project will not result in new significant impacts or impacts that would be substantially more severe than those identified in the certified 2008 SEIR. With the exception of Mitigation Measures specific to the development of residential units associated with the Original Project (and no longer a part of the Proposed Project) as described in Sections 3.1.1, Traffic and Transportation, 3.1.2, Noise, and 3.2.12, Public Services, the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 SEIR (and MMRP) remain applicable to the Proposed Project and no new mitigation is required. The analyses and conclusions of the certified 2008 SEIR remain current and valid. Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 4_1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 5.0 REFERENCES Field Paoli. January 2002. Victoria Gardens Master Plan. VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A LSA Associates, Inc. March 2009. Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendments Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. ---February 2018. Traffic Impact Analysis for the NE Parcel Public Parking Facility. ---March 2018. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Memorandum for the NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Project in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Rancho Cucamonga. November 2010. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update. R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx (04/20/18) 5-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(SCH NO. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 Appendix A: Traffic Impact Analysis R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx(04/20/18) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN C RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LSA February 2018 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Forest City Realty Trust 949 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90015 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 (951) 781-9310 Project No. FCR1701 LSA February 2018 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................1 1.2 STUDY AREA................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 EIR Intersections.............................................................................................. 3 1.2.2 Other Off-site and On-site Intersections for TIA Only ..................................... 3 1.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 1.0 FIGURES AND TABLES................................................................ 3 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................9 2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS................................................................................... 9 2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROCEDURES AND THRESHOLDS ................................................... 9 2.3 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD.......................................................................................... 9 2.4 LIST OF CHAPTER 2.0 TABLES....................................................................................... 9 3.0 CIRCULATION NETWORK SETTING.......................................................................................... 11 3.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 3.0 FIGURES................................................................................... 11 4.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIOS............................................................... 13 4.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES...................................................................................... 13 4.2 OPENING YEAR (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................ 13 4.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 4.0 FIGURES AND TABLES.............................................................. 14 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC.....................................................................................................................22 5.1 PROJECT TRIP ESTIMATE............................................................................................ 22 5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT...................................................... 22 5.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 5.0 FIGURES AND TABLES.............................................................. 22 6.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SCENARIOS...................................................................... 28 6.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 6.0 FIGURES................................................................................... 28 7.0 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE......................................................................................... 31 7.1 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE..................................................................................... 31 7.2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE............................................................ 31 7.3 OPENING YEAR (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE ................................ 31 7.4 OPENING YEAR (2023) WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE ....................................... 31 7.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 7.0 FIGURES AND TABLES.............................................................. 31 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 34 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2018 NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY............................................................................. 34 8.2 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS SUMMARY................................................................... 34 I_1» a►111141 '' A: SCOPING AGREEMENT 6: TRAFFIC COUNT SHEETS C: VOLUME DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS D: LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1-1: Regional and Project Location..............................................................................................4 Figure 1-2: Conceptual Site Plan............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1-3: Victoria Gardens Master Plan.............................................................................................. 6 Figure 1-4: Study Area Intersections...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3-1: Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control...........................................................12 Figure 4-1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................................... 15 Figure 4-2: Cumulative Project Locations.............................................................................................16 Figure 4-3: Cumulative Project Trips....................................................................................................17 Figure 4-4: Opening Year (2023) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.....................................18 Figure 5-1: Project Trip Distribution — AM Peak Hour.......................................................................... 23 Figure 5-2: Project Trip Assignment — AM Peak Hour.......................................................................... 24 Figure 5-3: Project Trip Distribution — PM Peak Hour.......................................................................... 25 Figure 5-4: Project Trip Assignment — PM Peak Hour.......................................................................... 26 Figure 6-1: Existing with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................... 29 Figure 6-2: Opening Year (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..........................................30 TABLES Table 1-A: Victoria Gardens— Parking in NE Quadrant..........................................................................8 Table 2-A: Level of Service Definitions for Intersections...................................................................... 10 Table 2-13: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized and Signalized Intersections..............................10 Table 4-A: Cumulative Projects Trip Generation..................................................................................19 Table 5-A: Victoria Gardens Parking Project Trip Generation Comparison ......................................... 27 Table 7-A: Existing Intersection Levels of Service................................................................................ 32 Table 7-13: Opening Year (2023) Intersection Levels of Service............................................................33 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) iii TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared to assess the potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Project located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). Figure 1-1 illustrates the regional and project location. (Figures and tables are located at the end of each chapter.) Figure 1-2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the project. This report is intended to satisfy the requirements established by the City and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority's (SBCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) TIA Guidelines, dated 2016, as well as the requirements for the disclosure of potential impacts and mitigation measures pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of work for this TIA, including trip generation, trip distribution, study area, and analysis methodologies have been approved by City staff via the Scoping Agreement process. A copy of the Scoping Agreement is included as Appendix A. This study examines traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed project under the following four scenarios: • Existing conditions; • Existing with project conditions; • Opening Year (2023) without project conditions; and • Opening Year (2023) with project conditions. Traffic conditions were examined for the weekday daily, a.m., and p.m. peak hour conditions. The a.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The p.m. peak hour is the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the southeast corner of Church Street and Arbor Lane and comprises a relocation of uses within the northeast quadrant of the overall Victoria Gardens Master Plan (Master Plan). The underlying zoning is Mixed Use (0.25-1.0 FAR) and the zoning designation is Victoria Planned Community (PC -V). Figure 1-3 depicts a conceptual overview of the Master Plan. The project comprises of the following: • A new parking structure of 869 spaces, located on the parcel bounded by Church Street, Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. • A 10,000 -square foot Public Safety Building to replace the existing 3,500 -square foot facility, currently located in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan. R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` • Relocation of approximately 95 residential units previously planned for the site to the Main Street Area. Sufficiency of parking for these units will be analyzed and addressed with any application to develop such units. • Access to the parking structure on Arbor Drive, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. The Master Plan identifies approximately 1,500 future parking spaces distributed across parking structures in three different locations, two of which were to be located in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan. These parking structures were proposed as part of two mid -rise residential structures that were planned in the northeast quadrant. For the purpose of analysis, it has been assumed that each parking structure would contain approximately 500 parking spaces. The proposed parking structure will represent a relocation of the planned additional parking supply by two of the parking structures located within the northeast quadrant of the overall Victoria Gardens site. Thus, it will replace the approximately 1,000 spaces in the two parking structures shown in the 2008 SEIR in the northeast quadrant of the Victoria Gardens site north and south of North Main Street and between Victoria Gardens Lane and Eden Avenue, northeast of Macys. The parking for the proposed mid -rise residential units will be analyzed and addressed with any future application to develop such units. As shown in Table 1-A, there will be 869 parking spaces in the proposed structure; thus, the overall number of parking spaces in the northeast quadrant will essentially remain the same. The small reduction will be added to the future south parking structure to maintain the overall site total parking spaces and will be evaluated at the time the south parking structure will be developed. Similarly, a Public Safety Facility will be relocated from its current location in the northeast quadrant. It will also comprise of an increase from the current 3,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet. It should be noted that the existing 3,500 square feet will be converted to retail use. However, since the approved EIR included total retail square footage that was much greater than what has been currently built, the addition of 3,500 square feet of retail would not increase the overall retail square footage beyond what was included in the original Master Plan EIR, so the trips are already included in the EIR analysis. Construction for the proposed project will be completed in two phases: 1) the construction of a surface parking lot and 2) the construction of the parking structure and the 10,000 -square foot Public Safety Facility. For purposes of this analysis, only the build -out of the project has been analyzed since it represents the worst-case scenario for determining project impacts. 1.2 STUDY AREA As described in Appendix A, a preliminary evaluation indicates that the traffic analysis can be confined to the northeast quadrant of the site and focus on intersection and driveway operations adjacent to the project site. Based on this understanding that the project site will have minor circulation impacts in the northeast quadrant, the following intersections are proposed for analysis. The first set of intersections consists of those evaluated in the Victoria Gardens Final EIR and will also be included in the current CEQA analysis. The second set of intersections will be evaluated for R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2018 NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` traffic operations and any project impact at these intersections will be identified and corresponding mitigation requirements will be included in the TIA. 1.2.1 EIR Intersections • Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street; • Arbor Lane/Church Street; and • Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street. 1.2.2 Other Off-site and On-site Intersections for TIA Only • Victoria Gardens Lane/North Main Street; • Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive -Project Driveway 1; • Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive; • Kew Avenue -Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive; • Pavilion Gardens/Church Street; • Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue; and • Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3. Figure 1-4 illustrates the locations of all analysis intersections. 1.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 1.0 FIGURES AND TABLES • Figure 1-1: Regional and Project Location • Figure 1-2: Conceptual Site Plan • Figure 1-3: Victoria Gardens Master Plan • Figure 1-4: Study Area Intersections • Table 1-A: Victoria Gardens — Parking in NE Quadrant R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 3 �.r� 1 1 I` '•. a3 :� •' � n. H.n.1 "w ric, . .,, � •+'' "I •' •�'� 'II ICd `LY�►17k'.�2L1 � �` {lITM SY yi!? . Lu ca A - Lu --F :.�•-i _ - '. it QT' -_ :.xrH E "t ��•� v ..�� ., '`tMrr - ., , �. _ • �• �� � ..� � „ :..�-'s-� -moi_ �S, - �....� ..� �. �,,�_�:- - CHURCH STREETrm ml ^ .■qy. r _.. L FOOTHILL BOULEVARD L " t d%ws .. I I�s Angeles County ':.!lie=_ ii►, I�IIIIY _ ' X210 �W.n._ ■� now x 91 r'��� i� ' © ii� � 1' e I � � ti I ii►� -a a ;� LSA N 0 00 00 FEET PARKING PROVIDED: PARKING STRUCTURE (2 LEVELS) SURFACE PARKING SURFACE PARKING (FOR POLICE) TOTAL = + 869 SPACES = ±758 SPACES = ± 87 SPACES = ± 24 SPACES FIGURE 1-2 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis SOURCE: FORESTCITY/DLR Group Conceptual Site Plan I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\figl-2_SitePlan.cdr (01/15/2018) LSA RESIDENTIAL LEGEND Will Change to Civic/Parking Use AR EA Town Green lypl 1 1 trial rl 5!91C Towrr Sp ir,vrr �. MAIN STREET AREA – , o uih h9 a i n:.-Siiee t •- - .,� _ x VE r$ai Vletv-rta Gard"S, Lane-- RESIDENTIAL ane ROUTE L;() AREA :r Fucrthlll Boulevar-d j R❑uT GF) 4 �— OW– 61 EASTERN AREA r,~ li u %1 is �y t¢ �a lti FIGURE 1-3 Project Site N NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis SOURCE: FORESTCITY/DLR Group Victoria Gardens Master Plan I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\fig1-3_Victoria Gardens Master Plan.ai (1/25/2018) LSA LEGEND FIGURE 1-4 • Study Area Intersections Project Boundary Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 0 150 300 ---• Project Driveway Traffic Impact Analysis FEET Study Area Intersections SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013. I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\figl-4_Intersections.mxd (1/26/2018) CHURCH STREET Q Z to GATSBY DRIVE J O 00 W Q 2 W CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE J Q ' PAVILION Z GARDENS ; PLACE OC OQ 1 Q 1 (� 1 Q LU cc W Q Q 2 LU W NORTH MAINSTREET LSA LEGEND FIGURE 1-4 • Study Area Intersections Project Boundary Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 0 150 300 ---• Project Driveway Traffic Impact Analysis FEET Study Area Intersections SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013. I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\figl-4_Intersections.mxd (1/26/2018) Table 1-A - Victoria Gardens - Parking in NE Quadrant Parking Type Existing 2008 SEIR 2017 Now Proposed Surface 11169 1,169 1,169 Garage 1 0 1 1,000 1 869 Tota I 1,169 1 2,169 1 2,038 1/25/2018 (R:\CRG131\Traffic\Trip Gen Comparison\Table A) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Roadway operations and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of levels of service (which are defined using the letter grades A through F). These levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists as to the amount of traffic traveling through a given intersection (the absolute capacity), the conditions that motorists experience rapidly deteriorate as traffic approaches the absolute capacity. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced. There is general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near -capacity situation is labeled Level of Service (LOS) E. Beyond LOS E, capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. An upstream queue will then form and continue to expand in length until the demand volume again declines. A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM establishes levels of service A through F for intersections as shown in Table 2-A. Table 2-13 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections. For all study area intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) analysis methodologies were used to determine intersection levels of service. Intersection LOS was calculated using Synchro 10 software, which uses the HCM 6 methodologies. 2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROCEDURES AND THRESHOLDS Study intersections analyzed in this report are under the jurisdictions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which uses LOS D as its minimum level of service criterion for intersections. 2.3 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD At study intersections under the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the determination of a significant circulation impact is based on the impact criteria contained in the SBCTA CMP TIA guidelines, which state that a significant project impact occurs at a study intersection when the peak hour LOS falls below the City's LOS standard, LOS D (to E or F), or the project contributes to an existing or forecast deficiency. 2.4 LIST OF CHAPTER 2.0 TABLES • Table 2-A: Level of Service Definitions for Intersections • Table 2-13: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized and Signalized Intersections R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A Table 2-A: Level of Service Definitions for Intersections LOS Description A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the < 10 approach appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial >10and <20 number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. >15and <25 This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one C red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but >35and <55 not objectionably so. >35and <50 This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to D approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with > 80 lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular E intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand. This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually F result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero. Table 2-13: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized and Signalized Intersections Level of Service Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay per Vehicle (sec.) Signalized Intersection Average Delay per Vehicle (sec.) A < 10 < 10 B >10and <15 >10and <20 C >15and <25 >20and <35 D >25and <35 >35and <55 E >35and <50 >55and <80 F > 50 > 80 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 3.0 CIRCULATION NETWORK SETTING Figure 3-1 illustrates existing study intersection geometrics and traffic control. The following major roadways are adjacent to the project site: Day Creek Boulevard: Day Creek Boulevard is a six -lane Major Divided Arterial with a raised median that runs north -south along the west side of the Master Plan. • Church Street: Church Street is a four -lane Secondary Road with a striped median between Day Creek Boulevard and Victoria Gardens Lane that runs in the east -west direction directly north of the project site. • Victoria Gardens Lane: Victoria Gardens Lane is a four -lane Secondary Road with a raised median that runs in the north -south direction to the east and south of the Master Plan. 3.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 3.0 FIGURES • Figure 3-1: Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 11 CHURCH STREET O a -W GATSBY DRIVE O O --- --"7-' m \-' PAWLION z ON Q U- GARDENS W CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE U `L ? I LEGEND Study Area intersections Project Boundary ---• Driveway --- Project Driveway WW N 0 200 400 NORTH MAINSTREET ■ o _ htttr+ ° hh�► �' F . 4)7 .. F z F z Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive z r� hTTro hT� + F y Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project • Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue 6victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street klylainst—t I Driveway 3 - Driveway LSA FIGURE 3-1 Legend 0 Signal Stop Sign NE Parcel Public Parking Facility — Project Driveway o Overlap Phasing Traffic Impact Analysis Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30 _Geo_Fxist 1/26/2018 --- --"7-' 1 \-' PAWLION z ON Q GARDENS PLACE y `L w Z a C7 a Z WW Cr 4 U ■ o _ htttr+ ° hh�► �' F . 4)7 .. F z F z Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive z r� hTTro hT� + F y Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project • Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue 6victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street klylainst—t I Driveway 3 - Driveway LSA FIGURE 3-1 Legend 0 Signal Stop Sign NE Parcel Public Parking Facility — Project Driveway o Overlap Phasing Traffic Impact Analysis Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30 _Geo_Fxist 1/26/2018 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 4.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIOS 4.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing traffic volumes are based on counts collected at the study intersections. For some intersections, counts were collected in May 2017 by Counts Unlimited and were provided to LSA by the City. As for the remaining intersections, counts were collected by the National Data and Surveying Services (NDS) in September 2017. Detailed count sheets are contained in Appendix B. Vehicle classification counts were conducted at intersections on major roadways. At these locations, counts were converted to Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) volumes. The concept of PCEs accounts for the larger impact of trucks on traffic operations. It does so by assigning each type of truck a PCE factor that represents the number of passenger vehicles that could travel through an intersection in the same time that a particular type of truck could. Based on regionally accepted truck PCE factors, peak hour PCE volumes were developed using a PCE factor of 1.5 for 2 -axle trucks, 2.0 for 3 -axle trucks, and 3.0 for trucks with four or more axles. The percentage of trucks at the remaining study intersections without classification counts was determined based on truck percentages derived from adjacent intersections with classification counts. At these locations, truck PCE volumes were computed using a PCE factor of 2.0 for all trucks, consistent with the HCM 6 methodologies. Figure 4-1 illustrates existing peak hour PCE volumes at study intersections. Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix C. 4.2 OPENING YEAR (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES As approved during the City's scoping agreement process (Appendix A), traffic volumes at study intersections for opening year without project conditions were developed by applying a 2.0 percent per annum growth rate to the existing without project traffic volumes and adding trips from cumulative projects in the area. Information concerning cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project was obtained from City staff and from the City of Fontana. Table 4-A lists the cumulative projects included in this analysis. Figure 4-2 illustrates the cumulative project locations. The trip generation for cumulative projects was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. As shown in Table 4-A, cumulative projects are expected to generate 202,950 net daily PCE trips, with 14,265 net PCE trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 20,403 net PCE trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Project trips for these cumulative projects were assigned to the roadway network based on their locations in relation to surrounding land uses and regional arterials. Figure 4-3 illustrates peak hour cumulative project trips at study area intersections. Figure 4-4 illustrates peak hour PCE volumes at study intersections under opening year without project conditions. Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix C. R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 4.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 4.0 FIGURES AND TABLES • Figure 4-1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Figure 4-2: Cumulative Project Locations • Figure 4-3: Cumulative Project Trips • Figure 4-4: Opening Year (2023) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Table 4-A: Cumulative Projects Trip Generation R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 14 CHURCH STREET cr GATSBYDRIVELu ML CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE aW PawuoN GJIRDSNS r V > � PLACE y I x Q LEGEND j j 0 Study Area Intersections > > Q ® Project Boundary W Y W V ---• Driveway NORTH MAINSTREET --- ProjectDriveway I 0 200 nao rn � L 105/103 v F 412/332 EJ y ` 64/46 101/194 21 - T r- 187 / 637 129/182 Z M w f0 N N Creek Boulevard/Church Street F 580/423 32/87 2861696 6/15 Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street co t 30 / 20 o vF 530 / 336 �i i LIF 31/65 17/44 21 1-1 T r- 210/636 636 o cO 2 34 / 145 --17: N Street � N N t 7/17 F 8/43 7/66 2 3/42 - n Gardens Place/Cultural Drive -Eden Avenue L S A XXX / YYY AM / PM Peak Hour PCE Volumes 0 M � �J y 22 /16 J � 7 2/2 -1 ; c-� Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Driveway 1 1-2 N t 76/42 F 556/408 1 44/98 20/81 1 T 274 / 664 N o 0134 -1 1;-, r N ictoria Gardens Lane/Church treet r, 1'L 2/95 N rn F 14/94 y ,�- 1/3 6/51 2I-1 T r- 7/42 N 1/8 r N Center Drive 0 F 0/8 y l 1/34 5/121 2 1 T r' 0/23 - o 3/33 Z v � N V oria Gardens Lane/North nstreet �F 19/89 l,�- 18/33 3 / 59 r 18/58 Kew Avenue - Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive oD V v t 4/8 y AL3 ,F 12/8 T r W v 0 Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway FIGURE 4-1 — —Future Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Vol_Exist\Figure (1/26/2018) 4T� �qm r r � Ell a N t ii�u■ft75,..- _ fu. fe 1�3 AfimW lipY ! SAIV-BERNARDINO AVENUE - � � - � M- 12 rip S ►� � - �� � � � I , G. t� * � - i . ,' on All t1l a do Ir IT" now, M CHURCH STREET O LW -i o CQ YI W GATSBY DRIVE CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE � � Q CC U ' o t 67 / 94 } r 4 O LEGEND r • Study Area Intersections I y 68/88 - Project Boundary ---• Driveway NORTHMAINSTREET 14/55 J --- Project Driveway 29/59 - M N O M r M 138/190 - 0 200 400 r---- PavruoN z GARDENS PLACE y z W z 0 Q z c W F- W U o � ' o t 67 / 94 F 50/44 rNi I y 68/88 F 153/185 152/222 J T 14/55 J 29/59 - M N O M r M 138/190 - Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive m M v F 113/147 O F 153/185 �J l 1/0 y 1381190 25/49 2 114/141 0 0 Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/CulturalVictoria Gardens Lane/Church hStreet • Victoria Gardens Lane/North r Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Driveway 3 - Driveway LSA XXX / yyy AM / PM Peak Hour PCE Volumes — • — Future Driveway R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic 1VIemo\z30_Vo1_Cumu1\Figure (1/26/2018) FIGURE 4-3 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Cumulative Project Trips CHURCH STREET -a z ju, GATSBYDRIVE ¢ O — cr to Y O no , — Lu CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE Ix ¢ W PAVILIONGARDENQ U J PLACES a r Z ¢ � W LEGEND Lu Lu Study Area Intersections ¢ Q Project Boundary W W a O G ---• Driveway NORTH MAINSTREET Y W U S ---• Project Driveway 0 200 400 FEET N r• r• r r t 185/209 aO rn t 34/22 M N M rn 2/ 106 ' oN - 511/416 o v - 747/561 N r - 16/105 I- 21/100 EJ I L, ,` 140/140 EJ I L, ,` 35/73 EJ y EJ y L, ,` 1/3 20/37 265/439 J 1-1 T r 33/104 J '1 T r, 25/18 �T 7/57 J 1-1 T 3 / 66 - r 238/772 - 373 902 - V �0 22 8 47 20 65 7v o � ,n 144/204 Z N M 38/162 Z- rn u) 1/9 Z M m N M OD Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive a o r• oD N O V `� "' L 85/47 V V W L 1 / 12 r - 803/659 "m r t 8/19 rn M o°Do - 736/604 °2 oNo — - 0/9 OD v t 4/9 l 36/97 EJ 4 -9/48 EJ y 50/110 EJ y 4 1/38 y�L3 F 13/9 458 / 970 8/74 2 47/140 J -1 T 6/136 J 1 T r' T r' 7/17 3/47 - 421/885 - c; ',! �2 0/26 - $ ;: - oD rn 0138 -11;-, N r M 3/37 - <, = V v Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North r Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street Mainstreet Driveway 3 -Driveway LSA XXX / YYY AM / PM Peak Hour PCE Volumes FIGURE 4-4 — —Future Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2023) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_vol_OY\Figure (1/26/2018) LSA Table 4-A - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Zone Number Land Use Units Daily A 1. Office Buildings 132.89 TSF Trip Generation' 182 25 207 34 164 198 1,466 2. Commercial Center Home Improvement Superstore 67.22 TSF Trip Generation' 57 43 100 77 80 157 2,066 Fast -Food Restaurant w/ D.T. 4.60 TSF Trip Generation' 107 102 209 78 72 150 2,283 Medical -Dental Office Building 27.74 TSF Trip Generation' 52 14 66 28 71 99 1,002 General Office Building 31.37 TSF Trip Generation' 43 6 49 8 39 47 346 Total Project Trip Generation 259 165 424 191 262 453 5,697 3. Industrial/Warehouse 100.00 TSF Trip Generation' 32 25 57 11 25 36 975 4. Hotel Business Hotel 126 Rooms Trip Generation' 43 30 73 47 31 78 916 General Office Building 3 TSF Trip Generation' 4 1 5 1 4 5 33 Total Project Trip Generation 47 31 78 48 35 83 949 S. Empire Lakes Apartments 3450 DU Trip Generation' 352 1,408 1,760 1,390 749 2,139 22,943 Shopping Center 115 TSF Trip Generation' 68 42 110 205 222 427 4,911 General Office Building 80 TSF Trip Generation' 110 15 125 20 99 119 882 Total Project Trip Generation 530 1,465 1,995 1,615 1,070 2,685 28,736 6. Walmart 189.41 TSF Trip Generation' 113 69 182 337 365 702 8,088 7. Hotel 105.00 Rooms Trip Generation' 36 23 59 33 29 62 858 8. Mixed Use Building 102.54 TSF Trip Generation' 141 19 160 26 127 153 1,131 9. Logistics Building 116.48 TSF Trip Generation' 94 13 107 14 99 113 812 10. Logistics Building 161.00 TSF Trip Generation' 130 18 148 19 137 156 1,122 11. NWC Utica -4th (Industrial) 305.75 TSF Trip Generation' 95 25 120 31 96 127 1,425 12. Piermonte - Trip Generation' 990 691 1,681 846 1,065 1,911 3,592 Zone A Gross Trip Generation' 2,649 2,569 5,218 3,205 3,474 6,679 54,851 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (1/26/2018) LSA Table 4-A - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (1/26/2018) Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Zone Number Land Use Units Daily B 13. Westgate Specific Plan Single Family Residential 826 DU Trips/Unit' 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Trip Generation 155 465 620 520 306 826 7,864 Multi Family Residential 2,422 DU Trips/Unita 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.65 Trip Generation 247 988 1,235 976 526 1,502 16,106 High School 2711 STU Trips/Unit° 0.29 0.14 0.43 0.06 0.07 0.13 1.71 Trip Generation 793 373 1,166 166 187 353 4,636 Elementary School 715 STU Trips/Units 0.25 0.20 0.45 0.07 0.08 0.15 1.29 Trip Generation 177 145 322 53 55 108 922 Retail Space 3307.51 TSF Trips/Unit6 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 42.70 Trip Generation 1,969 1,207 3,176 5,890 6,381 12,271 141,231 Pass -by Trips' 0 0 0 (2,003) (2,170) (4,173) (48,019) Net New Trips 1,969 1,207 3,176 3,887 4,211 8,098 93,212 Light Industrial 1114.27 TSF Trips/Unit' 0.81 0.11 0.92 0.12 0.85 0.97 6.97 Trip Generation 1,201 160 1,361 177 1,260 1,437 10,320 City Parks 33.10 AC Trips/Unit' 2.52 1.98 4.50 2.00 1.51 3.50 N/A Trip Generation 83 66 149 66 50 116 265 Total Project Trip Generation 4,625 3,404 8,029 5,845 6,595 12,440 133,325 Zone B Gross Trip Generation 4,625 3,404 8,029 5,845 6,595 12,440 133,325 C 14. Etiwanda Courts 39 DU Trips/Unit' 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Trip Generation 7 22 29 25 14 39 371 Zone C Gross Trip Generation 7 22 29 25 14 39 371 D 15. Day Creek Square Restaurants 12.00 TSF Trips/Unit10 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 127.15 Trip Generation 71 58 129 71 47 118 1,526 Pass -by Tripsls 0 0 0 (31) (20) (51) (328) Net New Trips 71 58 129 40 27 67 1,198 Townhomes 329 DU Trips/Unit12 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.81 Trip Generation 25 120 145 115 56 171 1,911 Single -Family Residential 51 DU Trips/Unit' 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Trip Generation 10 29 39 32 19 51 486 Hotel 71 Rooms Trips/Unit13 0.31 0.22 0.53 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.17 Trip Generation 22 15 37 22 21 43 580 Total Project Trip Generation 128 222 350 209 123 332 4,175 16. Day Creek Market Place Super Market 44.99 TSF Trips/Unit14 2.11 1.29 3.40 4.83 4.65 9.48 102.24 Trip Generation 95 58 153 218 209 427 4,600 Pass-byTripsls (34) (21) (55) (78) (75) (153) (1,656) Net New Trips 61 37 98 140 134 274 2,944 Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 15.21 TSF Trips/Unitl6 1.79 1.66 3.45 4.96 4.96 9.91 96.91 Trip Generation 27 25 52 75 75 150 1,474 Pass-byTripsls (13) (12) (25) (37) (37) (74) (722) Net New Trips 14 13 27 38 38 76 752 Fast -Food with Drive-Thru 3.60 TSF Trips/Unit17 23.16 22.26 45.42 16.98 15.67 32.65 496.12 Trip Generation 83 80 163 61 56 117 1,786 Pass-byTripsls (42) (40) (82) (31) (28) (59) (893) Net New Trips 41 40 81 30 28 58 893 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (1/26/2018) LSA Table 4-A - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Zone Number Land Use Units Daily Restaurant 19.62 TSF Trips/Unit10 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 127.15 Trip Generation 117 95 212 116 77 193 2,495 Pass-byTrips's (50) (41) (91) (50) (33) (83) (1,073) Net New Trips 67 54 121 66 44 110 1,422 Retail 14.72 TSF Trips/Unit' 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 42.70 Trip Generation 9 5 14 26 28 54 629 Pass -by TriPS13 (3) (2) (5) (9) (10) (19) (214) Net New Trips 6 3 9 17 18 35 415 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru 2.00 TSF Trips/Unit18 51.30 49.28 100.58 21.40 21.40 42.80 818.58 Trip Generation 103 99 202 43 43 86 1,637 Pass-byTrips1s (52) (50) (102) (22) (22) (44) (819) Net New Trips 51 49 100 21 21 42 818 Total Project Trip Generation 348 291 639 439 391 830 10,145 Internal CaptureTrips19 0 0 0 44 39 83 83 Net Project Trip Generation 348 291 639 483 430 913 10,228 Zone D Gross Trip Generation 476 513 989 692 553 1,245 14,403 Total Net Trip Generation 7,757 6,508 14,265 9,767 10,636 20,403 202,950 Notes: TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units; AC = Acres; STU=Students 1 Trip generation forecasts were extracted from the 4th and Utica Traffic Impact Analysis. (Source: City cf Rancho Cucamonga) . ' Rates are based on Land Use 210 "Single -Family Detached Housing' from Institute of Transpiration Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 3 Rates based on Land Use 220 "Apartment' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 4 Rates based on Land Use 530 "High School' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. s Rates based on Land Use 520 "Elementary School' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 6 Rates based on Land Use 820 "Shopping Center" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 7 Pass -by rates based on Land use 820 "Shopping Center" from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. A pass -by rate of 34% was used for the p.m. peak hour. No a.m. peak and daily pass -by rates are provided, therefore, p.m. peak hour pass -by trips were applied to daily pass -by trips. 8 Rates based on Land Use 110 "General Light Industrial' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. a Rates based on Land Use 411 "City Park" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Since ITE daily rate is lower than the A.M. and P.M. peak hour rates, the sum of the peak hour traffic has been applied to the daily as a conservative approach. 10 Rates based on Land Use 932 "High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. " Pass -by rates based on Land use 932 "High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant' from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. A pass -by rate of 43% was used for the p.m. peak hour. No a.m. peak and daily pass -by rates are provided, therefore, p.m. peak hour pass -by trips were applied to daily pass -by trips. 12 Rates are based on Land Use 230 "Residential Condominium/Townhouse" from the ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 13 Rates are based on Land Use 310 "Hotel' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 14 Rates are based on Land Use 850 "Supermarket' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 's Pass -by rates based on information provided by City Staff. 16 Rates are based on Land Use 881 "Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 17 Rates are based on Land Use 934 "Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 's Rates are based on Land Use 937 "Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive -Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 'a Internal capture rate based on information provided by City Staff. R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (1/26/2018) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC 5.1 PROJECT TRIP ESTIMATE The Master Plan used a parking demand rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet to calculate parking demand for the entire site. Therefore, this rate has been used to calculate the equivalent square footage of retail from the proposed parking spaces for the purposes of extracting the trip generation. As for the Public Safety Facility, trips from the existing 3,500 -square foot facility are already included in the existing traffic counts and hence, only the additional 6,500 square feet have been considered in the project trip generation calculations. Trip generation for the proposed project has been developed using the same trip generation, pass -by, and internal capture rates as used in the final EIR. Based on the above-described methodologies, the proposed parking garage would generate an initial estimate of 4,344 daily trips, with 87 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 381 trips in the p.m. peak hour, as shown Table 5-A. The trips that will be relocated represent only 4.29 percent of overall Victoria Gardens trips in the a.m. peak hour and 7.17 percent of overall Victoria Gardens trips in the p.m. peak hour. As the number of parking spaces in the northeast quadrant will remain largely the same, the new parking structure location should not involve any fundamental redistribution of trips, as trips would already have been destined to the northeast quadrant. 5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of project trips was developed based on the overall location of the parking areas within the master plan, the regional trip distribution as included in the approved EIR and in context of the currently proposed parking structure location. Detailed step-by-step explanation of how the trip distribution was developed is included in Appendix A. Figures 5-1 and 5-3 illustrate the trip distribution for the proposed project at the study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Trip assignment for project trips is the product of the project trip generation and the trip distribution percentages. Figures 5-2 and 5-4 illustrate the total project trip assignment at the study area intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. 5.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 5.0 FIGURES AND TABLES • Figure 5-1: Project Trip Distribution —AM Peak Hour • Figure 5-2: Project Trip Assignment — AM Peak Hour • Figure 5-3: Project Trip Distribution — PM Peak Hour • Figure 5-4: Project Trip Assignment — PM Peak Hour • Table 5-A: Victoria Gardens Parking Project Trip Generation Comparison R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 22 1% F 62% N Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue LSA XX% (YY%) Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution — • • — Project Driveway e N Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project F 47% (15%) (47%) Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Street Mainstreet R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Dist_AM\Figure (1/26/2018) 21777 T Kew Avenue - Project Driveway e .. �J (62%) _" Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway FIGURE 5-1 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour CHURCH STREET O Lu t-, GATSBY DRIVE O m k CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE V Q LEGEND . Study Area Intersections QProject Boundary ---• Driveway ---• Project Driveway 0 200 FEET 400 33 N Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street 2 1 1 1 NORTH MAINS TREET T 10 Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural U Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street L S A. XX AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes — • • — Project Driveway R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Assn_AM\Figure (1/26/2018) W Q Y Victoria Gardens Lane/North Mainstreet P. -- z PAVILION GARDENS PLACE co Z tu W (Qy C O O W V I �i 12 T M Kew Avenue - Project Driveway M M �J 21 7 Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway FIGURE 5-2 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Assignment - AM Peak Hour i CHURCH STREET O UJ UJ GATSBY DRIVE O M W W CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE V 0 LEGEND • Study Area Intersections 0 Project Boundary --- Driveway -- Project Driveway I 0 2130 1400 LSA XX% (YY%) Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution — - - — Project Driveway R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Dist_PM\Figure (1/26/2018) FIGURE 5-3 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour t- (8%) e Ix - 1 Cr 1 — W Q 1 PAVILIONZzC — -- -- 1 GARDENS 11% M PLACE y 1 1 Z 1 Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street � Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive IX z W e M M �i F 35% e CO CO �J r (33%) J" Q _ _ (68%) J" Q (35%) � W C O Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue NORTH MAINSTREET Mainstreet 1 Driveway 3 - Driveway LSA XX% (YY%) Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution — - - — Project Driveway R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Dist_PM\Figure (1/26/2018) FIGURE 5-3 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour t- (8%) e F (3%) 20% C x(31%)� 1 3% 11% M 20% 20% T Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive ,F 68% e M M �i F 35% e CO CO �J r (33%) J" _ _ (68%) J" o� w (35%) Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street Mainstreet 1 Driveway 3 - Driveway LSA XX% (YY%) Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution — - - — Project Driveway R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Dist_PM\Figure (1/26/2018) FIGURE 5-3 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour F 122 M Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street L S A. Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes — • • — Project Driveway Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Street 9 Mainstreet R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Assn_PM\Figure (1/26/2018) i yi 36 _ T N Kew Avenue - Project Driveway N N 138 7 Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway FIGURE 5-4 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Assignment - PM Peak Hour LSA Table 5-A - Victoria Gardens Parking Project Trip Generation Comparison Notes: 1 Trip Generation obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001. ' Parking Spaces (869) converted to TSF using the Master Plan's Parking Demand Rate for Retail Uses - 4.5 Spaces Per 1000 Square Foot 3 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Shopping Center (Central Zone). 4 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Office (Central Zone). s Increase in Size of Public Safety Facility 1/15/2018 (R:\CRG131\Traffic\Trip Gen Comparison\Trip Gen (2) Table B) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Uses Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily Victoria Gardens Trip Generation' Northern Zone Multiple Family Residential 600.00 DU 45 213 258 169 56 225 2,506 Eastern Zone Shopping Center 150.00 TSF 81 52 133 258 279 537 6,671 Central Zone (Mall Area) Shopping Center 1,543.00 TSF 357 253 611 1,429 1,539 2,968 34,250 Office 570.00 TSF 771 86 857 99 665 764 5,055 Library/Performing Arts 40.00 TSF 30 8 38 136 148 284 2,160 Zone Total Net New Trips 1,158 347 1,506 1,664 2,352 4,016 41,465 Southern Zone Shopping Center 150.00 TSF 81 52 133 258 279 537 6,671 Project Total (Victoria Gardens) 1,365 664 2,029 2,348 2,966 5,314 57,312 Parking Garage Trip Generation Shopping Center 193.11 TSFZ Trips/Unita 0.23 0.16 0.39 0.92 1.00 1.92 22.20 Net New Trips 45 32 77 178 194 372 4,286 Public Safety Facility 6.50 TSF5 Trips/Unit' 1.35 0.15 1.50 0.17 1.17 1.34 8.87 Trip Generation 9 1 10 1 8 9 58 Project Total (Parking Garage) 54 33 87 179 202 381 4,344 Percentage of Total Trip Generation 4.29% 7.17% 7.58% Notes: 1 Trip Generation obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001. ' Parking Spaces (869) converted to TSF using the Master Plan's Parking Demand Rate for Retail Uses - 4.5 Spaces Per 1000 Square Foot 3 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Shopping Center (Central Zone). 4 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Office (Central Zone). s Increase in Size of Public Safety Facility 1/15/2018 (R:\CRG131\Traffic\Trip Gen Comparison\Trip Gen (2) Table B) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 6.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SCENARIOS Existing and opening year with project traffic volumes were developed by adding project traffic to the corresponding without project scenarios. Figure 6-1 illustrates existing with project peak hour PCE volumes at study intersections. Figure 6-2 illustrates opening year with project peak hour PCE volumes at study intersections. Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix C. 6.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 6.0 FIGURES • Figure 6-1: Existing with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Figure 6-2: Opening Year (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 28 CHURCH STREET Cr GATSBYDRIVELu ML CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE aW PawuoN GJIROSNS r V > � PLACE y I x Q LEGEND j j 0 Study Area Intersections > > Q ® Project Boundary W Y W V ---• Driveway NORTH MAINSTREET --- ProjectDriveway I 0 200 nao rn rn �n 'L 109/119 v ;Z F 412 / 338 EJ I L, ,` 70 / 86 101/194 21 - T r- 187 / 642 rn 129/182 M w V7 N N Creek Boulevard/Church Street F 580/423 65/209 286 / 696 6/15 �N N rn N Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street t 30 / 20 o vF 530 / 336 EJ i L, F 31/65 17/44 21 T 210/636 636 - OD 40 / 164 -- c N Street � N N 'L 7/17 EJ F 8/43 7/66 2 3/42 - Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue L S A XXX / YYY AM / PM Peak Hour PCE Volumes 0 EJ t 10/62 22/16 S �T 2/2 -1 ; Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Driveway 1 t 76/42 581/471 44 / 98 25 / 148 21 -1 T r- 2901735 T" o o°Do 0134 r N ictoria Gardens Lane/Church treet r oD'L 2/95 N rn F 14/94 EJ y L, ,- 1/3 6/51 2I-1 T r- 19/78 2 N 1/8 --d- Center - Center Drive O `r 21/11 n F 0/8 1/34 5/121 2 1 T r 0123 o 3133 Z v N r � oria Gardens Lane/North nstreet N� NIF 19/89 yl,�- 18/33 12/36 2 '1 T r 3/59 - 18/58 1 M r Kew Avenue - Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive r � v v 2 4/8 �J y AL3 .` 12/8 21/138 2 T r' W r` 0 v Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway FIGURE 6-1 — — Project Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Existing with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Vo1_Exist_P\Figure (2/1/2018) CHURCH STREET 4 GATSBY DRNE O m W w CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE U } 0 LEGEND • Study Area Intersections Project Boundary ---• Driveway ---• Project Driveway 1 0 200 400 x I NORTH MAINSTREET N � ' w zQ aO rn t 34 / 22 M N rn PAWLJON GARDENS J N oN �2 F 511/422 y PLACELU cv i N r F 16 /105 z y L, F 146/180 �i i L, F 35/73 �J t 10/62 1/3 yl,�- 20/37 265/439 J1-1 T r 33/104 J'1 T r 25/18 J ��T 7/57 J'1 T r 12/36 J T r 238/777 - 373 902 22 20/83 3 6 N 6 - ¢ R %2 r s w a Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project o r w Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive N � ' M t 189 / 225 aO rn t 34 / 22 M N rn M rn t 2/ 106 N oN �2 F 511/422 o v F 747/561 cv i N r F 16 /105 NJ F 21 / 100 y L, F 146/180 �i i L, F 35/73 �J t 10/62 1/3 yl,�- 20/37 265/439 J1-1 T r 33/104 J'1 T r 25/18 J ��T 7/57 J'1 T r 12/36 J T r 238/777 - 373 902 22 20/83 3 6 N 6 - 144/204 -1 r iz OD O O O M 44/181 N r M %2 r 1/9 20 65 -1 o 00 / Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive W � N O n oD " V O ;z !o N t 85/47 V V M L 1 / 12 N F 803/659 M r t 8/19 A o F 761/667 °2 o F 0/9 M M v 2 4/9 l 69/219 �J 4 F 9/48 �J 1 4 l 50/110 < 1 4 F 1/38 _ LA F 13/9 458 / 970 8/74 2 52/207 J '1 T 6/136 2 '1 T F' 211138 2 T r' 7/17 M 3/47 - 4371956 - c; �2 0/26 - o oD `V o N 0138 -1 m N 3131 - < , = r v Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North gMainstreet r Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street Driveway 3 - Driveway L S A XXX / YYY AM / PM Peak Hour PCE Volumes FIGURE 6-2 — — Project Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Vol_OY_P\Figure (2/1/2018) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` 7.0 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 7.1 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE Previously referenced Figure 3-1 illustrates existing geometrics and traffic control. An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for existing conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7-A summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that the all the study intersections currently operate at a satisfactory LOS. Detailed Level of Service Worksheets are included in Appendix D. 7.2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE Analysis of the existing with project scenario is provided for CEQA compliance to identify direct project impacts if the project were to be built and in operation today. This scenario eliminates the effects of ambient growth and other cumulative projects and deals specifically with project impacts. An intersection level of service analysis was conducted for existing with project conditions to determine intersection performance. Table 7-A summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all the study intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS. Detailed Level of Service Worksheets are included in Appendix D. 7.3 OPENING YEAR (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE An intersection level of service analysis was conducted for opening year without project conditions using the previously discussed methodologies. Table 7-13 summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all the study intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under opening year without project conditions. Detailed Level of Service Worksheets are included in Appendix D. 7.4 OPENING YEAR (2023) WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE An intersection level of service analysis was conducted for opening year with project conditions using the previously discussed methodologies. Table 7-13 summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all the study intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under opening year with project conditions. Detailed Level of Service Worksheets are included in Appendix D. 7.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 7.0 FIGURES AND TABLES • Table 7-A: Existing Intersection Levels of Service • Table 7-13: Opening Year (2023) Intersection Levels of Service R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 31 L S . Table 7-A - Existing Intersection Levels of Service Notes: OWSC = One -Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control Delay = Average control delay in seconds (For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case movement). LOS = Level of Service R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\LOS\2017 Exist Summary (2/1/2018) Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Significant Intersection Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Impact 1 . Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Signal 21.5 C 28.8 C 21.6 21.6 C 28.9 C No 2 . Arbor Lane/Church Street Signal 36.3 D 25.2 C 36.4 36.4 D 25.3 C No 3 . Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Driveway 1 TWSC 9.1 A 11.4 B 9.3 9.3 A 12.8 B No 4 . Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive AWSC 7.4 A 9.3 A 7.4 7.4 A 9.5 A No 5 . Kew Avenue - Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive AWSC 7.2 A 8.1 A 7.3 7.3 A 8.3 A No 6 . Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street OWSC 9.2 A 11.6 B 9.3 9.3 A 13.9 B No 7 . Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue OWSC 8.7 A 9.5 A 8.7 8.7 A 9.5 A No 8 . Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street Signal 31.7 C 25.6 C 32.0 32.0 C 26.2 C No 9 . Victoria Gardens Lane/North Mainstreet Signal 23.3 C 24.7 C 23.3 23.3 C 24.7 C No 10 . Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway TWSC 8.8 A 9.3 A 9.0 9.0 A 11.7 B No Notes: OWSC = One -Way Stop Control; TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control Delay = Average control delay in seconds (For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case movement). LOS = Level of Service R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\LOS\2017 Exist Summary (2/1/2018) LSA Table 7-13 - Opening Year (2023) Intersection Levels of Service Notes: OWSC = One -Way Stop Control; TWSC =Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control Delay = Average control delay in seconds (For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case movement). LOS = Level of Service R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\LOS\2023 OY Summary (2/1/2018) Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Delay Delay Significant Intersection Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Impact 1 . Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Signal 23.0 C 34.6 C 23.0 C 35.8 D No 2 . Arbor Lane/Church Street Signal 38.0 D 26.2 C 38.8 D 27.7 C No 3 . Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Driveway 1 TWSC 9.2 A 11.9 B 9.5 A 13.5 B No 4 . Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive AWSC 7.4 A 9.8 A 7.5 A 9.9 A No 5 . Kew Avenue - Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive AWSC 7.2 A 8.3 A 7.3 A 8.5 A No 6 . Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street OWSC 9.9 A 13.7 B 10.0 A 18.2 C No 7 . Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue OWSC 8.7 A 9.7 A 8.7 A 9.7 A No 8 . Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street Signal 31.2 C 26.1 C 31.2 C 27.7 C No 9 . Victoria Gardens Lane/North Mainstreet Signal 23.4 C 25.0 C 23.4 C 25.0 C No 10 . Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway TWSC 8.8 A 9.4 A 9.1 A 12.0 B No Notes: OWSC = One -Way Stop Control; TWSC =Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control Delay = Average control delay in seconds (For TWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst-case movement). LOS = Level of Service R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\LOS\2023 OY Summary (2/1/2018) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J A 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed NE Public Parking Facility Project comprises of the following: • A new parking structure of 869 spaces, located on the parcel bounded by Church Street, Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. • A 10,000 -square foot Public Safety Building to replace the existing 3,500 -square foot facility, currently also located in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan. • Relocation of approximately 95 residential units previously planned for the site to the Main Street Area. Sufficiency of parking for these units will be analyzed and addressed with any application to develop such units. • Access to the parking structure on Arbor Drive, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. The proposed facility would generate an estimated 4,344 daily trips, with 87 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 381 trips in the p.m. peak hour. 8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY All study area intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS under existing without and with project conditions. 8.2 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS SUMMARY All study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under opening year without and with project conditions. R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) 34 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` APPENDIX A: SCOPING AGREEMENT R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) BERKELEY LSA CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE MEMORANDUM SAN LUIS OBISPO DATE: January 11, 2018 To: Jason Welday, P.E., T.E. FROM: Ambarish Mukherjee, P.E., AICP SUBJECT: Victoria Gardens NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Scoping Agreement Memorandum (LSA Project No. FCR1701) LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to prepare a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Project. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual site plan of the project. The project site is located on the southeast corner of Church Street and Arbor Lane in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County. The underlying zoning is Mixed Use (0.25 — 1.0 FAR) and the zoning designation is Victoria Planned Community (PC -V). Construction will be completed in two (2) phases: 1) the construction of a surface parking lot; 2) construction of a parking structure and a 10,000 square foot public safety facility. At full build -out of the project, the site will provide 869 parking spaces along with the public safety facility. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the proposed project. A detailed project description is included below: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project comprises the following: • Build a new parking structure of 869 spaces, located on the parcel bounded by Church Street, Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. • Build a 10,000 -square foot (sq. ft.) Public Safety Building, to replace the existing 3,500 sq. ft. facility, currently also located in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan. • Approximately 95 residential units previously planned for the site will be relocated to the Main Street Area. Sufficiency of parking for these units will be analyzed and addressed with any application to develop such units. • Access to the parking structure will be located on Arbor Drive, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place. OVERVIEW The project comprises a relocation of uses within the northeast quadrant of the overall Victoria Gardens site. 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Me morandum.docx) 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.Isa.net LSA The Master Plan identifies approximately 1,500 spaces in parking structures at three locations. Two of those parking structures were to be located in the northeast quadrant of the Master Plan. These parking structures were proposed as part of two mid -rise residential structures that were planned in the northeast quadrant. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that each parking structure would contain approximately 500 spaces each. The proposed parking structure will represent a relocation of planned additional parking supply by two of the parking structures located within the northeast quadrant of the overall Victoria Gardens site. Therefore, it will replace most of the approximately 1,000 spaces in the two parking structures shown in the 2008 SEIR in the northeast quadrant of the Victoria Gardens site north and south of North Mainstreet and between Victoria Gardens Lane and Eden Avenue, northeast of Macys. The parking for the proposed mid -rise residential units will be analyzed and addressed with any application to develop such units at a future date. Similarly, the parking for the 95 residential units that the two parking structures will be replacing will be analyzed and addressed with any future application to develop such units. The overall number of parking spaces in the northeast quadrant will remain essentially the same, as shown in attached Table A. The small reduction will be added to the future south parking structure to maintain the overall site total parking spaces and will be evaluated at the time the south parking structure will be developed. Similarly, the Public Safety Facility will be relocated from its current location in the northeast quadrant. It will comprise an increase from the current 3,500 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. It should be noted that the existing 3,500 sq.ft. will be converted to retail use. Since, the approved EIR included total retail sq.ft. that was much greater than has currently been built, the addition of 3,500 sq.ft. of retail would not increase the overall retail sq.ft. beyond what was included in the original Master Plan EIR, so the trips are already included in the EIR analysis. TRIP ESTIMATE The Master Plan used a parking demand rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. to calculate parking demand for the entire site. Therefore, this rate has been used to calculate the equivalent square footage of retail from the proposed parking spaces for the purposes of extracting the trip generation. For the Public Safety Facility, since trips from the existing 3,500 sq.ft. facility are included in the existing traffic counts, only the additional 6,500 sq.ft. has been included in the project trip generation calculations. Trip generation for the proposed project has been developed using the same trip generation, pass -by and internal capture rates as was used in the final EIR. Based on the above described methodologies, the proposed parking garage would generate an initial estimate of 87 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 381 trips in the p.m. peak hour, as shown in attached Table B. The trips that will be relocated represent only 4.29 percent of overall Victoria Gardens trips in the a.m. peak hour and 7.17 percent of overall Victoria Gardens trips in the p.m. peak hour. As the number of parking spaces in the northeast quadrant will remain largely the same, the new parking structure location should not involve any fundamental distribution of trips, as trips would already have been destined to the northeast quadrant. 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 2 LSA This preliminary evaluation indicates that the traffic analysis can be confined to the northeast quadrant of the site and focused on intersection and driveway operations adjacent to the project site. STUDY INTERSECTIONS Based on the understanding that the project will have minor local circulation impacts at the northeast quadrant, the following intersections are being proposed to be analyzed. The first set of intersections consists of those intersections that were evaluated in the Victoria Gardens Final EIR and will be included in the current CEQA analysis. The second set of intersections will be evaluated for traffic operations and any project impact at these intersections will be identified and corresponding mitigation requirements will be included in the TIA. Figure 3 illustrates the study intersections for the proposed project. EIR Intersections • Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street; • Arbor Lane/Church Street; and • Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street. Other Offsite and Onsite Intersections for TIA only • Victoria Gardens Lane/North Main Street; • Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive; • Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive; • Kew Avenue/Cultural Center Drive; • Pavilion Gardens/Church Street; and • Eden Avenue/Cultural Center Drive. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution for the proposed project has been developed based on the overall location of parking areas within the master plan, the regional trip distribution as included in the approved EIR and in context of the currently proposed parking structure location. Following is a step-by-step explanation of how the trip distribution and assignment was developed: Step 1: Figure 1 of Appendix A illustrates the location of the project in relation to the overall master plan study area and also shows the location of the three access driveways to the project. Step 2: Based on the locations of the project and its access driveways, the most likely travel routes to the project have been identified. Figure 2 of Appendix A illustrates the most likely travel route from the North side. Figure 3 of Appendix A illustrates the most likely travel route from the South side. 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) LSA Step 3: Figures 4 and 5 of Appendix A illustrate the most likely travel routes to the Master Plan Garages in the north-east quadrant if they were not to be replaced. Comparing these figures with the figures from Step 2, it is evident that traffic to/from the new NE Parcel garage would largely already be on the street system to/from the Master Plan garage locations. Step 4: The trip distribution for the proposed project has been developed based on the assumption that traffic will not be destined to each parking lot/area within Victoria Gardens with the same overall EIR trip distribution — but will tend to be destined to those lots nearest the direction they are coming from. Therefore, traffic from Foothill Blvd will tend to park in the south (and west) lots, whereas traffic from the north would tend to park in the north, northeast (and west) lots. But by virtue of reviewing the overall EIR trip distribution, allows for the fact that some people will want to park in lots further away from their approach route and closer to their first destination. Thus, adjustments have been made to the overall EIR trip distribution to a distribution that is more appropriate for the NE parcel. This is based on the % of spaces in the four main parking areas (south, west, north, and east), and is illustrated in Figure 6 of Appendix A, which shows for each approach corridor the estimated % distribution to each major parking area. For each approach street to Victoria Gardens (e.g. Day Creek from North) the percentages of trips that would park in each of the four parking areas (N, S, E, W) were estimated based on the proximity to approach streets and the size of each parking area. An example is shown in Figures 6a and 6b of Appendix A. The process was "calibrated" by summing the end results and validating the trip distribution to each parking area. The following table shows the close correspondence between trips and parking supply for this method. Parking Area % of Spaces % of Trips N 12% 12% E 28% 27% S 50% 48% W 10% 13% This process estimated the percentage of trips from each approach route destined to the East parking area (see Figure 6 and the first column in Tables Al and A2 in Appendix A). For each approach route, this percentage was then applied to the overall EIR trip distribution percentage for the approach route (see the second column in Tables Al and A2 in Appendix A) to obtain the percentage of the overall approach route destined specifically to parking Area E (see the third column in Tables Al and A2 in Appendix A). For example, in the AM peak hour, the EIR trip distribution for the whole Victoria Gardens Site from Church St (East) is 19%. As can be seen in Figure 6b in Appendix A, an estimated 60% of Church Street (East) trips will park in Area E. Therefore, 11% (60% of 19%) of all trips will park in Area E. 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 4 LSA This process was repeated for all other street approaches to calculate the % of trips that will park in Area E. This represents 24% of all trips in the AM peak hour (Table 1) and 28% of all trips in the PM peak hour (Table A2 of Appendix A). Then, in order to estimate the source distribution of trips specific to Area E (Northeast Parcel) from each approach, the third column was normalized to a total of 100%. The last column of Tables Al and A2 in Appendix A is therefore the derived distribution of trips to the Northeast Parcel. For example, in the AM peak hour while the EIR overall trip distribution for the entire Victoria Garden Site showed 19% of trips coming from Church Street East (See Table Al and Figure 7 of Appendix A), an estimated of 45% of trips to the Northeast Parcel would come from Church Street East (See Table Al and Figure 8 of Appendix A). Tables A3 through A8 in Appendix A illustrate similar trip distribution estimates for the north, west and the south parking areas. Tables A9 and A10 in Appendix A summarize the trip distribution estimates for all parking areas under the a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectively. As shown in the two tables, the overall trip distribution combining all four parking areas is the same as the regional trip distribution from the EIR. As such, the proposed project does not add additional trips to the EIR traffic analysis, but only redistributes the trips based on the relocation of the parking structure. These result in total destination percentages to each of the four parking areas that are very close to the percentage of spaces in the supply. So in that sense the refined distribution percentages are "calibrated". The resultant garage driveway volume and the regional trip distribution estimate details are shown in Figure 9 (AM peak hour) and Figure 10 (PM peak) of Appendix A for the refined NE parcel distribution. Additionally, all three project access locations have been analyzed as full access driveways. Figures 4 and 5 show the trip distribution and assignment in the a.m. peak hour at study intersections. Figures 6 and 7 show the trip distribution and assignment in the p.m. peak hour at study intersections. It should be noted that at the intersection of Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street, negative trips have been assigned for traffic approaching and departing at the south leg. This is because, these trips are already on the street and will simply relocate to the west leg due to the relocation of the parking garage location. At all other study intersections, the trips will be diverted from other routes of travel to and from the master plan. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Analysis Scenarios were identified based on the SANBAG CMP TIA Guidelines. The traffic analysis will examine the following four analysis scenarios: • Existing conditions; • Existing plus project conditions; • Opening year (2023) without project conditions; and • Opening year (2023) plus project conditions. 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) LSA The intent of this memorandum is to establish the methodology to determine the trip generation and study area that will be used in the TIA. Upon confirmation of the methodology and the study area, LSA will prepare a formal scoping agreement letter for the preparation of the TIA. VOLUME DEVELOPMENT Traffic volumes for Opening Year without Project conditions will be developed by applying a growth rate to existing traffic volumes and adding traffic volumes from approved and pending projects. The growth rate will be obtained from City Staff. Table C includes the list of cumulative projects and the corresponding trip generation that will be included in the TIA. Figure 8 illustrates the location of the cumulative projects. Please review the list and let us know if any additional projects need to be included in the list. PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES The TIA will address whether or not the project creates any significant impacts at study area intersections based on the City's criteria. For intersections that were included in the approved EIR, the TIA will identify if any mitigations are required beyond what has been proposed in the approved EIR. For all other analysis intersections, recommended improvements (if any) will be disclosed for traffic operation purposes. Project responsibility or requirement of fair share payment will also be reported for any improvements required at any of these intersections. Levels of service for all analysis intersections will be based on the Highway Capacity Manual (Sixth Edition) for signalized and unsignalized intersections, using the Synchro 10 software. Please review the scope of the analysis outlined in this letter and the accompanying figures and tables. Should the City have any comments or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 781-9310 or via e-mail Ambarish.Mukheriee@lsa.net. ATTACHMENTS • Table A: Victoria Gardens - Parking in NE Quadrant • Table B: Victoria Gardens Parking Project Trip Generation Comparison • Table C: Cumulative Projects Trip Generation • Figure 1: Regional and Project Location • Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan • Figure 3: Study Area Intersections • Figure 4: Project Trip Distribution - A.M. Peak Hour • Figure 5: Project Trip Assignment - A.M. Peak Hour • Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution - P.M. Peak Hour • Figure 7: Project Trip Assignment - P.M. Peak Hour 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 6 LSA Figure 8: Cumulative Project Location • Appendix A: Detailed Trip Distribution Development Methodology Tables and Figures 2/1/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) LSA TABLES 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Faci l ity TIAScoping Me morandum.docx) LSA Table A - Victoria Gardens - Parking in NE Quadrant Parking Type Existing 2008 SEIR 2017 Now Proposed Surface 1,169 1,169 1,169 Garage 0 1,000 869 Total 1,169 2,169 2,038 10/9/2017 (R:\CRG131\Traffic\Trip Gen Comparison\Table A) LSA! Table B - Victoria Gardens Parking Project Trip Generation Comparison Notes: 'Trip Generation obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001. z Parking Spaces (869) converted to TSF using the Master Plan's Parking Demand Rate for Retail Uses - 4.5 Spaces Per 1000 Square Foot 3 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Shopping Center (Central Zone). 4 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Office (Central Zone). 5 Increase in Size of Public Safety Facility 10/18/2017 (R:\CRG131\Traffic\Trip Gen Comparison\Trip Gen (2) Table B) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Land Uses Units Daily Victoria Gardens Trip Generation) Northern Zone Multiple Family Residential 600.00 DU 45 213 258 169 56 225 2,506 Eastern Zone Shopping Center 150.00 TSF 81 52 133 258 279 537 6,671 Central Zone (Mall Area) Shopping Center 1,543.00 TSF 357 253 611 1,429 1,539 2,968 34,250 Office 570.00 TSF 771 86 857 99 665 764 5,055 Library/Performing Arts 40.00 TSF 30 8 38 136 148 284 2,160 Zone Total Net New Trips 1,158 347 1,506 1,664 2,352 4,016 41,465 Southern Zone Shopping Center 150.00 TSF 81 52 133 258 279 537 6,671 Project Total (Victoria Gardens) 1,365 664 2,029 2,348 2,966 5,314 57,312 Parking Garage Trip Generation Shopping Center 193.11 TSF' Trips/Unita 0.23 0.16 0.39 0.92 1.00 1.92 22.20 Net New Trips 45 32 77 178 194 372 4,286 Public Safety Facility 6.50 TSFS Trips/Unit4 1.35 0.15 1.50 0.17 1.17 1.34 8.87 Trip Generation 9 1 10 1 8 9 58 Project Total (Parking Garage) 54 33 87 179 202 381 4,344 Percentage of Total Trip Generation 4.29% 7.17% 7.58% Notes: 'Trip Generation obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001. z Parking Spaces (869) converted to TSF using the Master Plan's Parking Demand Rate for Retail Uses - 4.5 Spaces Per 1000 Square Foot 3 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Shopping Center (Central Zone). 4 Trip Generation rates obtained from Victoria Gardens CMP Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA September, 2001 for Office (Central Zone). 5 Increase in Size of Public Safety Facility 10/18/2017 (R:\CRG131\Traffic\Trip Gen Comparison\Trip Gen (2) Table B) LSA Table C - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Zone Number Land Use Units Daily A 1. Office Buildings 132.89 TSF Trip Generation' 182 25 207 34 164 198 1,466 2. Commercial Center Home Improvement Superstore 67.22 TSF Trip Generation' 57 43 100 77 80 157 2,066 Fast -Food Restaurant w/ D.T. 4.60 TSF Trip Generation' 107 102 209 78 72 150 2,283 Medical -Dental Office Building 27.74 TSF Trip Generation' 52 14 66 28 71 99 1,002 General Office Building 31.37 TSF Trip Generation' 43 6 49 8 39 47 346 Total Project Trip Generation 259 165 424 191 262 453 5,697 3. Industrial/Warehouse 100.00 TSF Trip Generation' 32 25 57 11 25 36 975 4. Hotel Business Hotel 126 Rooms Trip Generation' 43 30 73 47 31 78 916 General Office Building 3 TSF Trip Generation' 4 1 5 1 4 5 33 Total Project Trip Generation 47 31 78 48 35 83 949 S. Empire Lakes Apartments 3450 DU Trip Generation' 352 1,408 1,760 1,390 749 2,139 22,943 Shopping Center 115 TSF Trip Generation' 68 42 110 205 222 427 4,911 General Office Building 80 TSF Trip Generation' 110 15 125 20 99 119 882 Total Project Trip Generation 530 1,465 1,995 1,615 1,070 2,685 28,736 6. Walmart 189.41 TSF Trip Generation' 113 69 182 337 365 702 8,088 7. Hotel 105.00 Rooms Trip Generation' 36 23 59 33 29 62 858 8. Mixed Use Building 102.54 TSF Trip Generation' 141 19 160 26 127 153 1,131 9. Logistics Building 116.48 TSF Trip Generation' 94 13 107 14 99 113 812 10. Logistics Building 161.00 TSF Trip Generation' 130 18 148 19 137 156 1,122 11. NWC Utica -4th (Industrial) 305.75 TSF Trip Generation' 95 25 120 31 96 127 1,425 12. Piermonte - Trip Generation' 990 691 1,681 846 1,065 1,911 3,592 Zone A Gross Trip Generation' 2,649 2,569 5,218 3,205 3,474 6,679 54,851 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (12/21/2017) LSA Table C - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (12/21/2017) Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In out Total In out Total Zone Number Land Use Units Daily B 13. Westgate Specific Plan Single Family Residential 826 DU Trips/Unite 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Trip Generation 155 465 620 520 306 826 7,864 Multi Family Residential 2,422 DU Trips/Unita 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.65 Trip Generation 247 988 1,235 976 526 1,502 16,106 High School 2711 STU Trips/Unit' 0.29 0.14 0.43 0.06 0.07 0.13 1.71 Trip Generation 793 373 1,166 166 187 353 4,636 Elementary School 715 STU Trips/Units 0.25 0.20 0.45 0.07 0.08 0.15 1.29 Trip Generation 177 145 322 53 55 108 922 Retail Space 3307.51 TSF Trips/Unit6 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 42.70 Trip Generation 1,969 1,207 3,176 5,890 6,381 12,271 141,231 Pass -by Tri ps7 0 0 0 (2,003) (2,170) (4,173) (48,019) Net New Trips 1,969 1,207 3,176 3,887 4,211 8,098 93,212 Light Industrial 1114.27 TSF Trips/Unit' 0.81 0.11 0.92 0.12 0.85 0.97 6.97 Trip Generation 1,201 160 1,361 177 1,260 1,437 10,320 City Parks 33.10 AC Trips/Unit9 2.52 1.98 4.50 2.00 1.51 3.50 N/A Trip Generation 83 66 149 66 50 116 265 Total Project Trip Generation 4,625 3,404 8,029 5,845 6,595 12,440 133,325 Zone B Gross Trip Generation 4,625 3,404 8,029 5,845 6,595 12,440 133,325 C 14. Etiwanda Courts 39 DU Trips/Unite 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Trip Generation 7 22 29 25 14 39 371 Zone C Gross Trip Generation 7 22 29 25 14 39 371 D 15. Day Creek Square Restaurants 12.00 TSF Trips/Unit10 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 127.15 Trip Generation 71 58 129 71 47 118 1,526 Pass -by Trips" 0 0 0 (31) (20) (51) (328) Net New Trips 71 58 129 40 27 67 1,198 Townhomes 329 DU Trips/Unit12 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.81 Trip Generation 25 120 145 115 56 171 1,911 Single -Family Residential 51 DU Trips/Unite 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Trip Generation 10 29 39 32 19 51 486 Hotel 71 Rooms Trips/Unit13 0.31 0.22 0.53 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.17 Trip Generation 22 15 37 22 21 43 580 Total Project Trip Generation 128 222 350 209 123 332 4,175 16. Day Creek Market Place Super Market 44.99 TSF Trips/Unit14 2.11 1.29 3.40 4.83 4.65 9.48 102.24 Trip Generation 95 58 153 218 209 427 4,600 Pass-byTrips1s (34) (21) (55) (78) (75) (153) (1,656) Net New Trips 61 37 98 140 134 274 2,944 Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 15.21 TSF Trips/Unit" 1.79 1.66 3.45 4.96 4.96 9.91 96.91 Trip Generation 27 25 52 75 75 150 1,474 Pass-byTrips1s (13) (12) (25) (37) (37) (74) (722) Net New Trips 14 13 27 38 38 76 752 Fast -Food with Drive-Thru 3.60 TSF Trips/Unit1' 23.16 22.26 45.42 16.98 15.67 32.65 496.12 Trip Generation 83 80 163 61 56 117 1,786 Pass-byTrips1s (42) (40) (82) (31) (28) (59) (893) Net New Tris 41 40 81 30 28 58 893 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (12/21/2017) LSA Table C - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Zone Number Land Use Units Daily Restaurant 19.62 TSF Trips/Unit10 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 127.15 Trip Generation 117 95 212 116 77 193 2,495 Pass-byTrips's (50) (41) (91) (50) (33) (83) (1,073) Net New Trips 67 54 121 66 44 110 1,422 Retail 14.72 TSF Trips/Unit6 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 42.70 Trip Generation 9 5 14 26 28 54 629 Pass -by TriPS13 (3) (2) (5) (9) (10) (19) (214) Net New Trips 6 3 9 17 18 35 415 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru 2.00 TSF Trips/Unit18 51.30 49.28 100.58 21.40 21.40 42.80 818.58 Trip Generation 103 99 202 43 43 86 1,637 Pass-byTrips1s (52) (50) (102) (22) (22) (44) (819) Net New Trips 51 49 100 21 21 42 818 Total Project Trip Generation 348 291 639 439 391 830 10,145 Internal CaptureTrips19 0 0 0 44 39 83 83 Net Project Trip Generation 348 291 639 483 430 913 10,228 Zone D Gross Trip Generation 476 513 989 692 553 1,245 14,403 Total Net Trip Generation 7,757 6,508 14,265 9,767 10,636 20,403 202,950 Notes: TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units; AC = Acres; STU=Students 1 Trip generation forecasts were extracted from the 4th and Utica Traffic Impact Analysis. (Source: City cf Rancho Cucamonga) . ' Rates are based on Land Use 210 "Single -Family Detached Housing' from Institute of Transpiration Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 3 Rates based on Land Use 220 "Apartment' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 4 Rates based on Land Use 530 "High School' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. s Rates based on Land Use 520 "Elementary School' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 6 Rates based on Land Use 820 "Shopping Center" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 7 Pass -by rates based on Land use 820 "Shopping Center" from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. A pass -by rate of 34% was used for the p.m. peak hour. No a.m. peak and daily pass -by rates are provided, therefore, p.m. peak hour pass -by trips were applied to daily pass -by trips. 8 Rates based on Land Use 110 "General Light Industrial' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. a Rates based on Land Use 411 "City Park" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Since ITE daily rate is lower than the A.M. and P.M. peak hour rates, the sum of the peak hour traffic has been applied to the daily as a conservative approach. 10 Rates based on Land Use 932 "High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. " Pass -by rates based on Land use 932 "High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant' from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. A pass -by rate of 43% was used for the p.m. peak hour. No a.m. peak and daily pass -by rates are provided, therefore, p.m. peak hour pass -by trips were applied to daily pass -by trips. 12 Rates are based on Land Use 230 "Residential Condominium/Townhouse" from the ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 13 Rates are based on Land Use 310 "Hotel' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 14 Rates are based on Land Use 850 "Supermarket' from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 's Pass -by rates based on information provided by City Staff. 16 Rates are based on Land Use 881 "Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 17 Rates are based on Land Use 934 "Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 's Rates are based on Land Use 937 "Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive -Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 'a Internal capture rate based on information provided by City Staff. R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Cumulative Projects\Trip Gen (12/21/2017) LSA FIGURES 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) �.r� 1 1 I` '•. a3 :� •' � n. H.n.1 "w r16" . .,, � •+'' "I •' •�'� 'II ICd `LY�►17k'.�2L1 � �` {lITM SY yi!? . Lu ca A - Lu --F :.�•-i _ - '. it QT' -_ :.xrH E "t ��•� v ..�� ., '`tMrr - ., , �. _ • �• �� � ..� � „ :..�-'s-� -moi_ �S, - �....� ..� �. �,,�_�:- - CHURCH STREETrm ml ^ R■qy. r _.. L FOOTHILL BOULEVARD L " t d%ws .. I I�s Angeles County ':.!lie=_ ii►, I�IIIIY _ ' X210 �W.n._ now LSA N 0 00 00 FEET PARKING PROVIDED: PARKING STRUCTURE (2 LEVELS) SURFACE PARKING SURFACE PARKING (FOR POLICE) TOTAL = + 869 SPACES = ±758 SPACES = ± 87 SPACES = ± 24 SPACES FIGURE 2 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis SOURCE: FORESTCITY/DLR Group Conceptual Site Plan I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\fig2_SitePlan.cdr (11/30/2017) LSA LEGEND FIGURE 3 • Study Area Intersections Project Boundary Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 0 150 300 ---• Project Driveway Traffic Impact Analysis FEET Study Area Intersections SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013. I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\fig3_Intersections.mxd (11/10/2017) i a J Z W CHURCH STREET Q O V tu GATSBY DRIVE m------ W CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE v , O � NORTH MAINSTREET LSA LEGEND FIGURE 3 • Study Area Intersections Project Boundary Driveway NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 0 150 300 ---• Project Driveway Traffic Impact Analysis FEET Study Area Intersections SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013. I:\FCR1701\Reports\Traffic\fig3_Intersections.mxd (11/10/2017) I I w z TCkc CHURCH STREET C IFLULTURAL TLnc GATSBYDRIVE CENTER DRIVEE Z LEGEND • Study Area Intersections OProject Boundary ---• Driveway NORTH MAINSTREET --- Project Driveway O 200 406 FEET J-1 e (11%) e F (1%) (21 % C 33% y 1% 12% M 21% 21% T Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive ,F 62% e !f2 �i F 47% e N �J r (15%) (62%) J" N (47%) Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street Mainstreet Driveway 3 LSA XX% (YY%) Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Dist_AM\Figure (1/9/2018) FIGURE 4 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour CHURCH STREET O Lu t-, GATSBY DRIVE O m k CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE V Q LEGEND . Study Area Intersections QProject Boundary ---• Driveway ---• Project Driveway 0 200 FEET 400 33 N Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street 2 1 1 1 NORTH MAINS TREET T 10 Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural U Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street L S A. XX AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Assn_AM\Figure (1/31/2018) W Q Y Victoria Gardens Lane/North Mainstreet I �i 12 T M Kew Avenue - Project Driveway M M �J 21 7 Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway FIGURE 5 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Assignment - AM Peak Hour i I w z a w C a CHURCH STREET Cn a I� 0 O V LU GATSBY DRIVE — — _ O Cal CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE V Q ' LEGEND • Study Area Intersections QProject Boundary ---• Driveway NORTH MAINS TREE T ---• Project Driveway 0 200 400 FEET t- (8%) e F (3%) 20% C 31% y 3% 11% 20% 20% T M Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive e e M W M CO ,F 68% �i F 35% �J F, (33%) J" (68%) J" (35%) �o w Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street Mainstreet Driveway 3 LSA XX% (YY%) Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Dist_PM\Figure (1/9/2018) FIGURE 6 NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour z W 4 C CHURCH STREET Q a 4 V a I GATSBYDRIVE O Y W CULTURAL CENTER DRIVE � r O LEGEND • Study Area Intersections 0 Project Boundary Driveway NORTH MAINSTREET —• Project Driveway 0 200 400 FEET T 16 6 N F 40 T 62 y 5 19 36 36 _ T N N Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Kew Avenue - Project Driveway Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street Arbor Lane/Church Street Driveway 1 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive 2/Cultural Center Drive N OJ N F 122 �i F 63 �J 67 138 _T 71 Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Victoria Gardens Lane/North Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Street Center Drive -Eden Avenue Street Main street Driveway 3 LFIGURE 7 XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Assignment - PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\z30_Assn_PM\Figure (1/9/2018) 4T� �qm r r � Elf a N t ii�u■ft75,..- _ fu. ff 1�3 4 5 I• �._ ... flim' ' i , .AirR lipY ! SAIV-BERNARDINO AVENUE on All �11 Nor a do do i,ap 411"10, Ir • L �a ■ � � ■ - ' •`� LSA APPENDIX A DETAILED TRIP DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY TABLES AND FIGURES 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Me morandum.docx) 10 Figure 1. Project Location Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel Figure 2. Travel Routes to New Garage - North Side Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel Figure 3. Travel Routes to New Garage - South Side Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel Figure 4. Travel Routes to Master Plan East Garages - North Side Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel Figure 5. Travel Routes to Master Plan East Garages - South Side Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel N 25% N 15% S 35% S 25% J E 10% E 60% �p 0 o d N 30% W 30% Church St. W 0% N 20% S 25% a S 20% E 15% E 60% W 30% W 0% N E 1,403 Spaces a� 600 Spaces (28%) N U (12%) >1 ,A, `° Y Y 0 509 Not to Scale Spaces (10%) a� S m v 2,509 Spaces aoc (50%) m� oto J o� Legend XX Parking Supply X% Parking Supply Percentage NX% S X% Estimated % at each parking N 0% E X% section from each approach S 75% W X% N 0% Foothill Blvd. E 15% S 75% W 10% E 10% W 15% 12/13/17 The Mobility Group Figure 6. Distribution Assumption For Each Approach to Each Parking Section (Based on parking supply) Transportation Strategies & Solutions Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel N 25% N 15% S 35% g0lo_�5 E 10% 0 N 30% W 30% Church St. N 20% S 25% S 20% E 15% E 60% W 30% W 0% 25 10% E -he N 1,403 Spaces 600 Spaces (28%)CU N YY 30% 509 Not to Scale Spaces (10%) a� S m v 2,509 Spaces arc 1 (50%) Cpm 35% ot�a J�o Legend XX Parking Supply X% Parking Supply Percentage NX% S X% Estimated % at each parking N 0% E X% section from each approach S 75% W X% N 0% Foothill Blvd. E 15% S 75% W 10% E 10% W 15% 12/13/17 Figure 6a. Distribution Assumption For Day Creek Approach (North) to Each Parking Section (Based on parking supply) Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel N 25% N 15% S 35% S 25% Y E 10% E 60% W 30% W 0% N 30% Church St. o N 20% o U S 25% j S 20% - t7: E 15% E 60% W 30% W 0% [' 20% - L E 60% Y N 1,403 Spaces 600 Spaces (28%) N `A' (12%) M YY 509 Not to Scale Spaces (10%) a� S m v 2,509 Spaces 20% aqj (50%) m� oto Legend XX Parking Supply X% Parking Supply Percentage NX% S X% Estimated % at each parking N 0% E X% section from each approach S 75% W X% N 0% Foothill Blvd. E 15% S 75% W 10% E 10% W 15% 12/13/17 Figure 6b. Distribution Assumption For Church Street Approach (East) to Each Parking Section (Based on parking supply) Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel Legend X Trips to/from NE Parcel X% Trip Distribution from EIR Traffic Study 54 1 1511 1 ts/ Source: LSA Memorandum, October 18, 2017 (Based on EIR Traffic Study) The Mobility Group Figure 7. Trips to North-East Parcel - AM Peak - EIR Traffic Study Trip Distribution Transportation Strategies & Solutions Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel 19% 12/14/17 Legend X Trips to/from NE Parcel X% Trip Distribution adjusted for NE parcel 54 1 1.1 1 u / Source: LSA Memorandum, October 18, 2017 (Based on Adjusted Distribution for NE Parcel) Figure 8. Trips to North-East Parcel - AM Peak - With NE Parcel Trip Distribution 47% 2/1/18 Legend X Trips to/from NE Parcel X% Trip Distribution from EIR Traffic Study 1 /y I 2U2 I sul Source: LSA Memorandum, October 18, 2017 (Based on EIR Traffic Study) Figure 9. Trips to North-East Parcel - PM Peak - EIR Traffic Study Trip Distribution The Mobility Group Transportation Strategies & Solutions Victoria Gardens - North-East Parcel 016% 12/14/17 3% Legend X Trips to/from NE Parcel X% Trip Distribution adjusted for NE parcel 1 /y I 2U2 I sul Source: LSA Memorandum, October 18, 2017 (Based on Adjusted Distribution for NE Parcel) Figure 10. Trips to North-East Parcel - PM Peak - With NE Parcel Trip Distribution 35% 1/9/18 LSA Table Al. Trip Distribution Derivation: East Parking — AM Peak Hour Approach Street % of trips on Each Approach to Area E EIR Overall Trip Distribution (Fig 7) Net % of trips to Area E Trip Distribution To Area E Church St (East) 60% 19% 11% 47% Victoria Park Ln 60% 6% 4% 15% Day Creek (North) 10% 26% 3% 11% Church St (West) 15% 3% 0% 1% Foothill Blvd (East) 15% 34% 5% 21% Foothill Blvd (West) 10% 12% 1% 5% Total 24% 100% Table A2. Trip Distribution Derivation: East Parking — PM Peak Hour Approach Street % of trips on Each Approach to Area E EIR Overall Trip Distribution (Fig 9) Net % of trips to Area E Trip Distribution To Area E Church St (East) 60% 16% 10% 35% Victoria Park Ln 60% 15% 9% 33% Day Creek (North) 10% 22% 2% 8% Church St (West) 15% 4% 1% 3% Foothill Blvd (East) 15% 31% 5% 17% Foothill Blvd (West) 10% 12% 1% 4% Total 28% 100% 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 10 LSA Table A3. Trip Distribution Derivation: North Parking — AM Peak Hour Table A4. Trip Distribution Derivation: North Parking — PM Peak Hour % of trips on EIR Overall Net % of trips Trip Distribution Approach Street Each Approach Trip to Area N To Area N Distribution to Area N (Fig 7) Church St (East) 20% 19% 4% 31% Victoria Park Ln 15% 6% 1% 7% Day Creek (North) 25% 26% 7% 54% Church St (West) 30% 3% 1% 7% Foothill Blvd (East) 0% 34% 0% 0% Foothill Blvd 0% 12% 0% 0% (West) Total 12% 100% Table A4. Trip Distribution Derivation: North Parking — PM Peak Hour 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 11 % of trips on EIR Overall Net % of trips Trip Distribution Approach Street Each Approach Trip to Area N To Area N Distribution to Area N (Fig 7) Church St (East) 20% 16% 3% 26% Victoria Park Ln 15% 15% 2% 19% Day Creek (North) 25% 22% 6% 45% Church St (West) 30% 4% 1% 10% Foothill Blvd (East) 0% 31% 0% 0% Foothill Blvd 0% 12% 0% 0% (West) Total 12% 100% 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 11 LSA Table A5. Trip Distribution Derivation: West Parking — AM Peak Hour Table A6. Trip Distribution Derivation: West Parking — PM Peak Hour % of trips on EIR Overall Net % of trips Trip Distribution Approach Street Each Approach Trip to Area W To Area W Distribution to Area W (Fig 7) Church St (East) 0% 19% 0% 0% Victoria Park Ln 0% 6% 0% 0% Day Creek (North) 30% 26% 8% 59% Church St (West) 30% 3% 1% 7% Foothill Blvd (East) 10% 34% 3% 26% Foothill Blvd 10% 12% 1% 9% (West) Total 13% 100% Table A6. Trip Distribution Derivation: West Parking — PM Peak Hour 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 12 % of trips on EIR Overall Net % of trips Trip Distribution Approach Street Each Approach Trip to Area W To Area W Distribution to Area W (Fig 7) Church St (East) 0% 16% 0% 0% Victoria Park Ln 0% 15% 0% 0% Day Creek (North) 30% 22% 7% 55% Church St (West) 30% 4% 1% 10% Foothill Blvd (East) 10% 31% 3% 26% Foothill Blvd 10% 12% 1% 10% (West) Total 12% 100% 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 12 LSA Table A7. Trip Distribution Derivation: South Parking — AM Peak Hour Table A8. Trip Distribution Derivation: South Parking — PM Peak Hour % of trips on EIR Overall Net % of trips Trip Distribution Approach Street Each Approach Trip to Area S To Area S Distribution to Area S (Fig 7) Church St (East) 20% 19% 4% 8% Victoria Park Ln 25% 6% 2% 3% Day Creek (North) 35% 26% 9% 18% Church St (West) 25% 3% 1% 2% Foothill Blvd (East) 75% 34% 26% 51% Foothill Blvd 75% 12% 9% 19% (West) 75% 12% 9% 18% Total 50% 100% Table A8. Trip Distribution Derivation: South Parking — PM Peak Hour 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 13 % of trips on EIR Overall Net % of trips Trip Distribution Approach Street Each Approach Trip to Area S To Area S Distribution to Area S (Fig 7) Church St (East) 20% 16% 3% 7% Victoria Park Ln 25% 15% 4% 8% Day Creek (North) 35% 22% 8% 16% Church St (West) 25% 4% 1% 2% Foothill Blvd (East) 75% 31% 23% 49% Foothill Blvd 75% 12% 9% 19% (West) Total 48% 100% 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 13 LSA Table A9. Trip Distribution Derivation: All Parking Lots Combined — AM Peak Hour Table A10. Trip Distribution Derivation: All Parking Lots Combined — PM Peak Hour EIR Overall Net % of Net % of Net % of Net % of Net % of trips EIR Overall trips trips trips trips Net % of trips Approach Trip to Area to Area to Area to Area to All Parking Street Distribution E N W S Areas Street (Fig 7) E N W S (Tables AI through (Fig 9) A8 Church St 19% 11% 4% 0% 4% 19% East Victoria 6% 4% 1% 0% 2% 6% Park Ln Day Creek 26% 3% 7% 8% 9% 26% (North) 15% 9% 2% 0% 4% 15% Church St 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% West 22% 2% 6% 7% 8% 22% Foothill 34% 5% 0% 3% 26% 34% Blvd East 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% Foothill 12% 1% 0% 1% 9% 11% Blvd West Total 31% 24% 12% 13% 50% 100% Table A10. Trip Distribution Derivation: All Parking Lots Combined — PM Peak Hour 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 14 Net % of Net % of Net % of Net % of EIR Overall Net % of trips trips trips trips trips Approach Trip to Area to Area to Area to Area to All Parking Street Distribution E N W S Areas (Fig 9) (Tables AI through A8 Church St 16% 10% 3% 0% 3% 16% East Victoria Park Ln 15% 9% 2% 0% 4% 15% Day Creek (North) 22% 2% 6% 7% 8% 22% Church St 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% West Foothill Blvd East 31% 5% 0% 3% 23% 31% Foothill Blvd West 12% 1 % 0% 1 % 9% 11% Total 27% 12% 12% 48% 100% 1/11/18 (R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\NE Parcel Public Facility TIA Scoping Memorandum.docx) 14 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC COUNT SHEETS R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Rancho Cucamonga N/S: Day Creek Boulevard E/W: Church Street Weather: Clear File Name : 06_RNCDACH AM Site Code :12817343 Start Date : 5/17/2017 Page No : 2 Day Creek Boulevard Out In Total F-4-3-51 74 117 —51 181 485 74 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data ��_ C3 T t- ,is North 3 n c N F� Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A U w N L Passenger Vehicles m Trucks rucks �� rn o O Buses F+ Left Thru Ri ht 621 223 10 681 295 976 Out In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beqins at: 07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM +0 mins. 20 126 55 201 13 73 26 112 11 74 2 87 36 44 37 117 +15 mins. 12 138 66 216 15 118 31 164 9 46 3 58 25 55 35 115 +30 mins. 22 132 31 185 27 133 35 195 20 47 3 70 16 56 26 98 +45 mins. 16 127 29 172 14 115 20 149 22 56 2 80 23 52 29 104 Total Volume 70 523 181 774 69 439 112 620 62 223 10 295 100 207 127 434 % App. Total 9 67.6 23.4 11.1 70.8 18.1 21 75.6 3.4 23 47.7 29.3 PHF .795 .947 .686 .896 .639 .825 .800 .795 .705 .753 .833 .848 .694 .924 .858 .927 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Rancho Cucamonga N/S: Day Creek Boulevard E/W: Church Street Weather: Clear File Name : 06_RNCDACH PM Site Code :12817343 Start Date : 5/17/2017 Page No : 2 Day Creek Boulevard Out In Total ®7 726 F-16-0-21 91 514 121 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data 11 �C.T M %- �° North 3 m n N c F--+ Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 P it �j 0 t Passenger Vehicles m �°� Trucks --CDo O Buses w I Left Thru Right 1871 5921 73 737 852 1589 Out In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beqins at: 05:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 28 97 24 149 17 64 26 107 61 140 19 220 45 155 39 239 +15 mins. 28 135 19 182 24 72 24 120 39 160 23 222 56 147 34 237 +30 mins. 34 142 26 202 17 69 31 117 46 149 22 217 49 202 53 304 +45 mins. 31 140 22 193 20 55 20 95 41 143 9 193 50 162 49 261 Total Volume 121 514 91 726 78 260 101 439 187 592 73 852 200 666 175 1041 % App. Total 16.7 70.8 12.5 17.8 59.2 23 21.9 69.5 8.6 19.2 64 16.8 PHF .890 .905 .875 .899 .813 .903 .815 .915 .766 .925 .793 .959 .893 .824 .825 .856 ID: 17-06144-003 City: Rancho Cucamonga 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM O = NONE Y Q IL 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM AM NOON PM Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Arbor Ln & Church St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Arbor Ln AM 31 0 43 2 NOON 0 0 0 0 PM 40 8 18 2 4j ♦ 4 U 1 1 0 0 581 I 0 1482 a N s0 0 1'to 0 iffl 7 0 44 .1 1 U 210 0 636 ♦ 2 34 0 145 "!W 0 I_ AM NOON PM Total Vehicles (AM) 1 L ? L ♦ O —1 F Total Vehicles J (NOON) L* L 41 ♦ 1 < 4> L zhte*r —1 F Total Vehicles (PM) J ly L 41 ♦ 1L ♦ O z•,t1»r F PM 10Wei P AM 51 0 74 4 Day: Thursday Date: 09/14/2017 AM 1 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NOON NONE PM 1 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM => 709 0 270 n V 218 0 65 NORTHBOUND PM NOON AM 0 t 20 0 30 2 ♦ 336 0530 1 r 65 0 31 0 0 0 0 => 709 0 270 n V 218 0 65 NORTHBOUND 0 2 1 0 0 105 8 55 PM 0 0 0 0 NOON 0 20 2 17 AM O Q Arbor Ln o2 94, O 0 PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N W. Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) O O 10 Q� a O Q O Q a o2 94, O 0 �O Z O O Z O O O� PM 0 ♦ ♦ O PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM Q 0 AM AM Q Q AM NOON 0 * - ♦ 0 NOON PM 0 ♦ ♦ 0 PM �O OO O O O F. a 0 2 Z Q 2 0 Q Z O a O Per (Z> � do oo� O PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N W. Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L ID: 17-06144-004 City: Rancho Cucamonga 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM O = NONE Y Q IL 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM AM NOON PM Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Arbor Ln & Gatsby Dr Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Arbor Ln AM 19 51 0 0 NOON 0 0 0 0 PM 32 180 0 0 4j ♦ 4 U 0 1 1 0 20 I 0 133 a O 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 I_ AM NOON PM Total Vehicles (AM) 1 L ? L ♦ O —1 F Total Vehicles J (NOON) 1.l. L 41 ♦ 1 < 4> L zhte*r —1 F Total Vehicles (PM) J ly L 41 ♦ 1L ♦ O z•,t1»r F PM IP19P701 AM 35 0 184 4 Day: Thursday Date: 09/14/2017 AM 1 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NOON NONE PM 1 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM NOON AM 0 t 0 0 0 1 ♦ 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 1 1 ME => 0 I 0 I 0 PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N W Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) 0 1 1 0 n V O Q O Q a o2 94, 182 0 1 168 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 NOON 53 ♦ 0 1 13 0 AM NORTHBOUND 0 0 Arbor Ln AM Q PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N W Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) O O 10 Q� a O Q O Q a o2 94, O 0 �O Z O O Z O O O� PM 0 ♦ ♦ O PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM Q 0 AM AM Q Q AM NOON 0 * - ♦ 0 NOON PM 0 ♦ ♦ 0 PM �O OO O O O N. F aZ z 0 2 Q z 2 0 Q Z 0 a Per O O � do oo� O PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N W Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Arbor Ln & Cultural Center Dr Peak Hour Turning Movement Count ID: 17-06144-005 Arbor Ln City: Rancho Cucamonga 0 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM O = NONE Y Q IL 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM AM NOON PM AM 26 9 14 0 NOON 0 0 0 0 PM 66 31 85 0 4j ♦ 4 U 0 1 1 0 0 43 0 169 a M� O MEMO L 6 0 51 .1 1 7 7 0 42 ♦ 1 U I ff --— 1 0 8 -',k 0 IAM NOON PM Total Vehicles (AM) 1 L ? t ♦ O -1` F Total Vehicles J (NOON) L* L 41 ♦ 1 t O o2 94, F Total Vehicles (PM) J ly L 41 ♦ 1 t ♦ O z•,t1»r F PM IP19P701 AM 15 0 169 4 Day: Thursday Date: 09/14/2017 AM 1 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NOON NONE PM 1 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM NOON AM 0 t 95 0 2 1 ♦ 94 0 14 1 r 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,7> 139 I 0 123 PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? t o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) 0 0 1 0 n V O Q O Q a o2 94, 43 1 9 23 12 PM 0 0 0 0 0 NOON 11 ♦ 0 3 7 2 AM NORTHBOUND 0 0 Arbor Ln AM Q PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? t o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) O O 10 Q� a O Q O Q a o2 94, O 0 �O Z O O Z O O O� PM 0 ♦ ♦ O PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM Q 0 AM AM Q Q AM NOON 0 * - ♦ 0 NOON PM 0 ♦ ♦ 0 PM �O OO O O O F. O O 94, a02 Z Q 20 Q Z a Per O O � do oo� O PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? t Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Kew Ave & Cultural Center Dr Peak Hour Turning Movement Count ID: 17-06144-006 Kew Ave Day: Thursday City: Rancho Cucamonga SOUTHBOUND Date: 09/14/2017 0 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM AM 0 0 0 0 0 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM c z O i = NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE m Y M IL 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 0 0 0 0 0 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM N AM NOON PM 4 ♦ 4 U 4 PM NOON AM 0 22 0 164 a n L • -• 1 ♦ 89 0 19 = � r' • 0 0 0 0 3 -Way Stop(NB/EB/WB) 1 r 33 0 18 n L 0 0 0 0 68 0 364 0 0 0 0 • CD AM NOON PMCD 3 0 59 -111111111111 0.89 0.93 U � 109 0 10 18 0 58 1 0 0 1 0 AM NOON PM n #1 ♦ & PM NOON AM Total Vehicles (AM) PM 91 0 75 0 50 PM Total Vehicles (AM) I L NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON I L J t Ann 36 0 3 0 7 AM J t z r NORTHBOUND z r F Kew Ave F Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON) IL �y Pedestrians (Crosswalks) o J ♦ L► a �o°� Z Z 2Oo2 41 ♦ Lo.D ptS a Z Q Q Z a '94,y� O O J t J O(Z) Q O ♦lk o 0 0 0 0 0� 3�r 0 PM F NOON 0 ♦ ~ 0 NOON Pm 0 Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 AM 0 0 AM AM Total Vehicles (PM) L NOON 0* ♦ 0 NOON L � ♦ y PM 0 ♦ ♦ 0 PM J � ♦ y J � t 0 O O P♦J 111 [�''�111I♦t 64 +.<4>OI o o F. a 0 2 2 0 a P -r Z Z Q) F p� r -i i* ID: 17-06144-007 City: Rancho Cucamonga 07:15 AM -08:15 AM O = NONE Y Q IL 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM AM NOON PM Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Eden Ave & Church St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Eden Ave AM 0 0 0 0 NOON 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 4j ♦ 4 LJ* 0 0 0 0 580 I 0 1423 a N s 0 0 0'to 0 i �• s 0 0 0 Jo U 286 0 696 ♦ 2 6 0 15 "!W 0 I_ AM NOON PM Total Vehicles (AM) 1 L ? L ♦ O —1 F Total Vehicles J (NOON) 1.l. L 41 ♦ 1 < 4> L zhte*r —1 F Total Vehicles (PM) J ly L 41 ♦ 1L ♦ O z•,t1»r F PM IP19P701 AM 0 0 0 4 Day: Thursday Date: 09/14/2017 AM 1 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NOON NONE PM 1 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0- 2 ♦ 423 ' 0 580 1 r 87 0 32 0 Iq 0 0 0 =:> 780 I 0 1294 Eden Ave 0 0 0 1 n V n 41 f o2 94, 102 0 0 0 84 PM 0 0 0 0 0 NOON 38 0 0 0 8 AM Eden Ave PM NOON AM 0 O C Z 1 M M O O N W. Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) O O 10 Q� a O Q O Q a o2 94, O 0 �O Z O O Z O O O� PM 0 ♦ ♦ O PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM Q 0 AM AM Q Q AM NOON 0 * - ♦ 0 NOON PM 0 ♦ ♦ 0 PM �O OO O O O F. a 0 2 Z Q 2 0 Q Z O a O Per (Z> � do oo� O PM NOON AM 0 O C Z 1 M M O O N W. Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t ♦ l � J F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? L Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Eden Ave & Cultural Center Dr Peak Hour Turning Movement Count ID: 17-06144-008 Eden Ave City: Rancho Cucamonga 0 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM O = NONE Y Q IL 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM AM NOON PM AM 29 0 17 0 NOON 0 0 0 0 PM 78 0 28 0 4j ♦ 4 U 0 1 0 0 0 37 0 121 a L 0 0 0 0 L 7 0 66 1 7 3 0 42 ♦ 1 U E 0 IAM NOON PM Total Vehicles (AM) 1 L ? t ♦ O —1 F Total Vehicles J (NOON) L* L 41 ♦ 1 t ♦ O o2 94, F Total Vehicles (PM) J ly L 41 ♦ 1 t ♦ O z•,t1»r F PM IP19P701 AM 14 0 83 4 Day: Thursday Date: 09/14/2017 AM 1 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NOON NONE PM 1 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM NOON AM 0 t 17 0 7 14- 43 0 8 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave 0 0 0 0 n V O Q O Q a o2 94, 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 NOON 0 0 0 0 0 AM Eden Ave PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? t o� Pedestrians (Crosswalks) O O 10 Q� a O Q O Q a o2 94, O 0 �O Z O O Z O O O� PM 0 ♦ ♦ O PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM Q 0 AM AM Q Q AM NOON 0 * - ♦ 0 NOON PM 0 ♦ ♦ 0 PM �O OO O O O F. a 0 2 Z Q 2 0 Q Z O a O Per (Z> � do oo� O PM NOON AM 0 O C z 1 M M O O N Total Vehicles (AM) 41 ♦ L* L S t F Total Vehicles (NOON) —1 L t if1 i r* Ir F Total Vehicles (PM) J L ? t Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Rancho Cucamonga N/S: Victoria Park Ln/Victoria Gardens L E/W: Church Street Weather: Clear File Name : 10 RNCVPCH AM Site Code : 12817343 Start Date : 5/17/2017 Page No :2 Victoria Park Lane Out In Total 112 1 275 54 30 79 Right Thru Left N Peak Hour Data _ 1 - North 3 - n c2, R 2 N F� Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A - F 0 w �jCDt Passenger Vehicles m �°� Trucks a o O Buses a cm I Left Thru Ri ht 31 16 29 =41 48 F 122 Out InTotal Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beqins at: 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 08:00 AM 07:15 AM +0 mins. 20 11 6 37 8 105 18 131 2 7 6 15 2 74 0 76 +15 mins. 23 9 16 48 15 168 14 197 1 5 8 14 5 67 0 72 +30 mins. 14 6 16 36 12 154 15 181 1 4 7 12 8 70 0 78 +45 mins. 22 4 16 42 9 132 28 169 2 6 10 18 6 81 0 87 Total Volume 79 30 54 163 44 559 75 678 6 22 31 59 21 292 0 313 % App. Total 48.5 18.4 33.1 6.5 82.4 11.1 10.2 37.3 52.5 6.7 93.3 0 PHF .859 .682 .844 .849 .733 .832 .670 .860 .750 .786 .775 .819 .656 .901 .000 .899 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Rancho Cucamonga N/S: Victoria Park Ln/Victoria Gardens L E/W: Church Street Weather: Clear File Name : 10_RNCVPCH PM Site Code : 12817343 Start Date : 5/17/2017 Page No :2 Victoria Park Lane Out In Total 22 15 07 71 56 26 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data �0OD 0 T N J North 3 A 41 (7 N 5 � N O 2 � c F� Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 P �� w U O CO L Passenger Vehicles m � �°� Trucks m o O Buses 0D I Left Thru Ri ht 271 1021 188 186 317 503 Out InTotal ngl Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beqins at: 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 9 15 16 40 26 93 8 127 11 27 40 78 16 150 7 173 +15 mins. 9 12 16 37 23 87 11 121 15 17 53 85 17 146 3 166 +30 mins. 4 11 21 36 23 103 13 139 5 19 50 74 27 183 4 214 +45 mins. 7 17 20 44 26 109 10 145 8 30 43 81 14 160 16 190 Total Volume 29 55 73 157 98 392 42 532 39 93 186 318 74 639 30 743 % App. Total 18.5 35 46.5 18.4 73.7 7.9 12.3 29.2 58.5 10 86 4 PHF .806 .809 .869 .892 .942 .899 .808 .917 .650 .775 .877 .935 .685 .873 .469 .868 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Rancho Cucamonga N/S: Victoria Gardens Lane E/W: North Mainstreet Weather: Clear File Name : 19_RNCVGNM AM Site Code : 12817343 Start Date : 5/17/2017 Page No : 2 Victoria Gardens Lane Out In Total F-7-21 7 ®1 16 70 1 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data c7 H-00 0 a) North o Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 A �� m O N � o � N t Passenger Vehicles m Z �Trucks �� o O Buses �0 I Left Thru Ri ht 121 631 1 =31 76 F 149 Out InTotal Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beqins at: 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM 07:00 AM +0 mins. 1 15 5 21 1 0 1 2 1 17 0 18 2 0 1 3 +15 mins. 0 21 4 25 0 0 0 0 3 14 1 18 1 0 0 1 +30 mins. 1 12 5 18 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 20 4 0 0 4 +45 mins. 1 18 7 26 2 2 0 4 3 17 0 20 1 0 2 3 Total Volume 3 66 21 90 3 2 1 6 12 63 1 76 8 0 3 11 % App. Total 3.3 73.3 23.3 50 33.3 16.7 15.8 82.9 1.3 72.7 0 27.3 PHF .750 .786 .750 .865 .375 .250 .250 .375 .600 .926 .250 .950 .500 .000 .375 .688 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Rancho Cucamonga N/S: Victoria Gardens Lane E/W: North Mainstreet Weather: Clear File Name : 19_RNCVGNM PM Site Code : 12817343 Start Date : 5/17/2017 Page No : 2 Victoria Gardens Lane Out In Total 0 24 ®1 105 128 16 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data -cc:[CN4 Do H .Z1 A.C.. North3 O m Z a)N fA � C C N ` F� Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PT. OD A 0 o CO t Passenger Vehicles m Z o� �°� Trucks a Buses H--j F+ Left Thru Ri ht 761 193 10 195 279 474 Out InTotal Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beqins at: 05:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM +0 mins. 4 25 15 44 3 5 7 15 19 53 4 76 32 2 7 41 +15 mins. 4 33 30 67 11 3 3 17 19 52 2 73 25 7 12 44 +30 mins. 3 35 24 62 8 6 5 19 22 42 1 65 40 8 6 54 +45 mins. 5 35 36 76 11 5 7 23 16 46 3 65 30 6 8 44 Total Volume 16 128 105 249 33 19 22 74 76 193 10 279 127 23 33 183 % App. Total 6.4 51.4 42.2 44.6 25.7 29.7 27.2 69.2 3.6 69.4 12.6 18 PHF .800 .914 .729 .819 .750 .792 .786 .804 .864 .910 .625 .918 .794 .719 .688 .847 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` APPENDIX C: VOLUME DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour Existing Existing Without Project With Project Trips Project 1 Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street NBL 63 0 NBT 228 0 NBR 9 0 SBL 65 6 SBT 490 0 SBR 182 0 EBL 101 0 EBT 187 0 EBR 129 0 WBL 64 7 W BT 412 0 WBR 105 4 North Leg 40 86 Approach 737 6 Departure 434 4 Total 1,171 10 South Leg 14 740 Approach 300 0 Departure 683 7 Total 983 7 East Leg 0 855 Approach 581 11 Departure 261 6 Total 842 17 West Leg 62 543 Approach 417 0 Departure 657 0 Total 1,074 0 Total Approaches 5 1,018 Approach 2,035 17 Departure 2,035 17 Total 4,070 34 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) P.M. Peak Hour Existing Existing Without Project With Project Trips Project 63 188 0 188 228 596 0 596 9 71 0 71 71 117 14 131 490 518 0 518 182 91 0 91 101 194 0 194 187 637 5 642 129 182 0 182 71 46 40 86 412 332 6 338 109 103 16 119 743 726 14 740 438 893 16 909 1,181 1,619 30 1,649 300 855 0 855 690 746 40 786 990 11601 40 1,641 592 481 62 543 267 825 19 844 859 11306 81 1,387 417 11013 5 1,018 657 611 6 617 1,074 1,624 11 1,635 2,052 3,075 81 3,156 2,052 3,075 81 3,156 4,104 6,150 162 6,312 LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 2 Arbor Lane/Church Street NBL 20 11 31 105 62 167 NBT 2 0 2 8 0 8 NBR 17 0 17 55 0 55 SBL 43 0 43 18 0 18 SBT 0 0 0 8 0 8 SBR 31 0 31 40 0 40 EBL 17 0 17 44 0 44 EBT 210 0 210 636 0 636 EBR 34 6 40 145 19 164 W BL 31 0 31 65 0 65 W BT 530 0 530 336 0 336 WBR 30 0 30 20 0 20 North Leg Approach 74 0 74 66 0 66 Departure 49 0 49 72 0 72 Total 123 0 123 138 0 138 South Leg Approach 39 11 50 168 62 230 Departure 65 6 71 218 19 237 Total 104 17 121 386 81 467 East Leg Approach 591 0 591 421 0 421 Departure 270 0 270 709 0 709 Total 861 0 861 11130 0 1,130 West Leg Approach 261 6 267 825 19 844 Departure 581 11 592 481 62 543 Total 842 17 859 11306 81 1,387 Total Approaches Approach 965 17 982 11480 81 1,561 Departure 965 17 982 11480 81 1,561 Total 1,930 34 1,964 2,960 162 3,122 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 3 Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Driveway 1 NBL 1 0 1 1 0 1 NBT 13 0 13 168 0 168 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 6 6 0 19 19 SBT 51 0 51 180 0 180 SBR 19 0 19 32 0 32 EBL 22 0 22 16 0 16 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 0 2 2 0 2 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 11 11 0 62 62 North Leg Approach 70 6 76 212 19 231 Departure 35 11 46 184 62 246 Total 105 17 122 396 81 477 South Leg Approach 14 0 14 169 0 169 Departure 53 0 53 182 0 182 Total 67 0 67 351 0 351 East Leg Approach 0 11 11 0 62 62 Departure 0 6 6 0 19 19 Total 0 17 17 0 81 81 West Leg Approach 24 0 24 18 0 18 Departure 20 0 20 33 0 33 Total 44 0 44 51 0 51 Total Approaches Approach 108 17 125 399 81 480 Departure 108 17 125 399 81 480 Total 216 34 250 798 162 960 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 4 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive NBL 3 0 3 9 0 9 NBT 7 0 7 23 0 23 NBR 2 0 2 12 0 12 SBL 14 0 14 85 0 85 SBT 9 0 9 31 0 31 SBR 26 0 26 66 0 66 EBL 6 0 6 51 0 51 EBT 7 11 18 42 36 78 EBR 1 0 1 8 0 8 WBL 1 0 1 3 0 3 WBT 14 0 14 94 0 94 WBR 2 0 2 95 0 95 North Leg Approach 49 0 49 182 0 182 Departure 15 0 15 169 0 169 Total 64 0 64 351 0 351 South Leg Approach 12 0 12 44 0 44 Departure 11 0 11 42 0 42 Total 23 0 23 86 0 86 East Leg Approach 17 0 17 192 0 192 Departure 23 11 34 139 36 175 Total 40 11 51 331 36 367 West Leg Approach 14 11 25 101 36 137 Departure 43 0 43 169 0 169 Total 57 11 68 270 36 306 Total Approaches Approach 92 11 103 519 36 555 Departure 92 11 103 519 36 555 Total 184 22 206 11038 72 1,110 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 5 Kew Avenue - Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive NBL 3 0 3 75 0 75 NBT 0 3 3 0 2 2 NBR 7 0 7 50 0 50 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 2 2 0 2 2 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 11 11 0 36 36 EBT 3 0 3 59 0 59 EBR 18 0 18 58 0 58 WBL 18 0 18 33 0 33 WBT 19 0 19 89 0 89 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 2 2 0 2 2 Departure 0 14 14 0 38 38 Total 0 16 16 0 40 40 South Leg Approach 10 3 13 125 2 127 Departure 36 2 38 91 2 93 Total 46 5 51 216 4 220 East Leg Approach 37 0 37 122 0 122 Departure 10 0 10 109 0 109 Total 47 0 47 231 0 231 West Leg Approach 21 11 32 117 36 153 Departure 22 0 22 164 0 164 Total 43 11 54 281 36 317 Total Approaches Approach 68 16 84 364 40 404 Departure 68 16 84 364 40 404 Total 136 32 168 728 80 808 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 6 Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 8 21 29 84 138 222 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 286 0 286 696 0 696 EBR 6 0 6 15 0 15 WBL 32 33 65 87 122 209 W BT 580 0 580 423 0 423 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Leg Approach 8 21 29 84 138 222 Departure 38 33 71 102 122 224 Total 46 54 100 186 260 446 East Leg Approach 612 33 645 510 122 632 Departure 294 21 315 780 138 918 Total 906 54 960 11290 260 1,550 West Leg Approach 292 0 292 711 0 711 Departure 580 0 580 423 0 423 Total 872 0 872 11134 0 1,134 Total Approaches Approach 912 54 966 11305 260 1,565 Departure 912 54 966 11305 260 1,565 Total 1,824 108 1,932 2,610 520 3,130 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 7 Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 17 0 17 28 0 28 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 29 0 29 78 0 78 EBL 7 0 7 66 0 66 EBT 3 0 3 42 0 42 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 W BT 8 0 8 43 0 43 WBR 7 0 7 17 0 17 North Leg Approach 46 0 46 106 0 106 Departure 14 0 14 83 0 83 Total 60 0 60 189 0 189 South Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Leg Approach 15 0 15 60 0 60 Departure 20 0 20 70 0 70 Total 35 0 35 130 0 130 West Leg Approach 10 0 10 108 0 108 Departure 37 0 37 121 0 121 Total 47 0 47 229 0 229 Total Approaches Approach 71 0 71 274 0 274 Departure 71 0 71 274 0 274 Total 142 0 142 548 0 548 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 8 Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street NBL 3 0 3 28 0 28 NBT 16 0 16 102 0 102 NBR 29 0 29 188 0 188 SBL 79 0 79 26 0 26 SBT 30 0 30 57 0 57 SBR 53 8 61 74 59 133 EBL 20 5 25 81 67 148 EBT 274 16 290 664 71 735 EBR 0 0 0 34 0 34 WBL 44 0 44 98 0 98 WBT 556 25 581 408 63 471 WBR 76 0 76 42 0 42 North Leg Approach 162 8 170 157 59 216 Departure 112 5 117 225 67 292 Total 274 13 287 382 126 508 South Leg Approach 48 0 48 318 0 318 Departure 74 0 74 189 0 189 Total 122 0 122 507 0 507 East Leg Approach 676 25 701 548 63 611 Departure 382 16 398 878 71 949 Total 1,058 41 1,099 1,426 134 1,560 West Leg Approach 294 21 315 779 138 917 Departure 612 33 645 510 122 632 Total 906 54 960 11289 260 1,549 Total Approaches Approach 1,180 54 1,234 1,802 260 2,062 Departure 1,180 54 1,234 1,802 260 2,062 Total 2,360 108 2,468 3,604 520 4,124 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 9 Victoria Gardens Lane/North Mainstreet NBL 14 0 14 76 0 76 NBT 42 0 42 184 0 184 NBR 1 0 1 10 0 10 SBL 1 0 1 16 0 16 SBT 72 0 72 129 0 129 SBR 16 0 16 105 0 105 EBL 5 0 5 121 0 121 EBT 0 0 0 23 0 23 EBR 3 0 3 33 0 33 WBL 1 0 1 34 0 34 WBT 0 0 0 8 0 8 WBR 1 0 1 11 0 11 North Leg Approach 89 0 89 250 0 250 Departure 48 0 48 316 0 316 Total 137 0 137 566 0 566 South Leg Approach 57 0 57 270 0 270 Departure 76 0 76 196 0 196 Total 133 0 133 466 0 466 East Leg Approach 2 0 2 53 0 53 Departure 2 0 2 49 0 49 Total 4 0 4 102 0 102 West Leg Approach 8 0 8 177 0 177 Departure 30 0 30 189 0 189 Total 38 0 38 366 0 366 Total Approaches Approach 156 0 156 750 0 750 Departure 156 0 156 750 0 750 Total 312 0 312 11500 0 1,500 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-1- Existing (2017) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) Existing Existing Existing Existing Without Project With Without Project With Project Trips Project Project Trips Project 10 Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 0 4 76 0 76 NBR 10 0 10 7 0 7 SBL 4 0 4 4 0 4 SBT 34 0 34 98 0 98 SBR 0 33 33 0 122 122 EBL 0 21 21 0 138 138 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 12 0 12 8 0 8 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 4 0 4 8 0 8 North Leg Approach 38 33 71 102 122 224 Departure 8 21 29 84 138 222 Total 46 54 100 186 260 446 South Leg Approach 14 0 14 83 0 83 Departure 46 0 46 106 0 106 Total 60 0 60 189 0 189 East Leg Approach 16 0 16 16 0 16 Departure 14 0 14 11 0 11 Total 30 0 30 27 0 27 West Leg Approach 0 21 21 0 138 138 Departure 0 33 33 0 122 122 Total 0 54 54 0 260 260 Total Approaches Approach 68 54 122 201 260 461 Departure 68 54 122 201 260 461 Total 136 108 244 402 520 922 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\2017 TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 1 Day Creek Boulevard/Church Street NBL 71 0 71 0 71 211 0 211 0 211 NBT 255 133 388 0 388 668 232 900 0 900 NBR 10 70 80 0 80 80 90 170 0 170 SBL 73 54 127 6 133 131 96 227 14 241 SBT 549 178 727 0 727 580 197 777 0 777 SBR 204 120 324 0 324 102 240 342 0 342 EBL 113 152 265 0 265 217 222 439 0 439 EBT 209 29 238 0 238 713 59 772 5 777 EBR 144 0 144 0 144 204 0 204 0 204 WBL 72 68 140 7 147 52 88 140 40 180 WBT 461 50 511 0 511 372 44 416 6 422 WBR 118 67 185 4 189 115 94 209 16 225 North Leg Approach 826 352 1,178 6 1,184 813 533 1,346 14 1,360 Departure 486 352 838 4 842 1,000 548 1,548 16 1,564 Total 1,312 704 2,016 10 2,026 1,813 1,081 2,894 30 2,924 South Leg Approach 336 203 539 0 539 959 322 1,281 0 1,281 Departure 765 246 1,011 7 1,018 836 285 1,121 40 1,161 Total 1,101 449 1,550 7 1,557 1,795 607 2,402 40 2,442 East Leg Approach 651 185 836 11 847 539 226 765 62 827 Departure 292 153 445 6 451 924 245 1,169 19 1,188 Total 943 338 1,281 17 1,298 1,463 471 1,934 81 2,015 West Leg Approach 466 181 647 0 647 1,134 281 1,415 5 1,420 Departure 736 170 906 0 906 685 284 969 6 975 Total 1,202 351 1,553 0 1,553 1,819 565 2,384 11 2,395 Total Approaches Approach 2,279 921 3,200 17 3,217 3,445 1,362 4,807 81 4,888 Departure 2,279 921 3,200 17 3,217 3,445 1,362 4,807 81 4,888 Total 4,558 1,842 6,400 34 6,434 6,890 2,724 9,614 162 9,776 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 2 Arbor Lane/Church Street NBL 22 0 22 11 33 118 0 118 62 180 NBT 2 0 2 0 2 9 0 9 0 9 NBR 19 0 19 0 19 62 0 62 0 62 SBL 48 0 48 0 48 20 0 20 0 20 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 SBR 35 32 67 0 67 45 41 86 0 86 EBL 19 14 33 0 33 49 55 104 0 104 EBT 235 138 373 0 373 712 190 902 0 902 EBR 38 0 38 6 44 162 0 162 19 181 WBL 35 0 35 0 35 73 0 73 0 73 WBT 594 153 747 0 747 376 185 561 0 561 WBR 34 0 34 0 34 22 0 22 0 22 North Leg Approach 83 32 115 0 115 74 41 115 0 115 Departure 55 14 69 0 69 80 55 135 0 135 Total 138 46 184 0 184 154 96 250 0 250 South Leg Approach 43 0 43 11 54 189 0 189 62 251 Departure 73 0 73 6 79 244 0 244 19 263 Total 116 0 116 17 133 433 0 433 81 514 East Leg Approach 663 153 816 0 816 471 185 656 0 656 Departure 302 138 440 0 440 794 190 984 0 984 Total 965 291 1,256 0 1,256 1,265 375 1,640 0 1,640 West Leg Approach 292 152 444 6 450 923 245 1,168 19 1,187 Departure 651 185 836 11 847 539 226 765 62 827 Total 943 337 1,280 17 1,297 1,462 471 1,933 81 2,014 Total Approaches Approach 1,081 337 1,418 17 1,435 1,657 471 2,128 81 2,209 Departure 1,081 337 1,418 17 1,435 1,657 471 2,128 81 2,209 Total 2,162 674 2,836 34 2,870 3,314 942 4,256 162 4,418 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 3 Arbor Lane/Gatsby Drive - Project Driveway 1 NBL 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 NBT 15 0 15 0 15 188 0 188 0 188 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 19 19 SBT 57 0 57 0 57 202 0 202 0 202 SBR 21 0 21 0 21 36 0 36 0 36 EBL 25 0 25 0 25 18 0 18 0 18 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 62 62 North Leg Approach 78 0 78 6 84 238 0 238 19 257 Departure 40 0 40 11 51 206 0 206 62 268 Total 118 0 118 17 135 444 0 444 81 525 South Leg Approach 16 0 16 0 16 189 0 189 0 189 Departure 59 0 59 0 59 204 0 204 0 204 Total 75 0 75 0 75 393 0 393 0 393 East Leg Approach 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 62 62 Departure 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 19 19 Total 0 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 81 81 West Leg Approach 27 0 27 0 27 20 0 20 0 20 Departure 22 0 22 0 22 37 0 37 0 37 Total 49 0 49 0 49 57 0 57 0 57 Total Approaches Approach 121 0 121 17 138 447 0 447 81 528 Departure 121 0 121 17 138 447 0 447 81 528 Total 242 0 242 34 276 894 0 894 162 1,056 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 4 Arbor Lane/Cultural Center Drive NBL 3 0 3 0 3 10 0 10 0 10 NBT 8 0 8 0 8 26 0 26 0 26 NBR 2 0 2 0 2 13 0 13 0 13 SBL 16 0 16 0 16 95 0 95 0 95 SBT 10 0 10 0 10 35 0 35 0 35 SBR 29 0 29 0 29 74 0 74 0 74 EBL 7 0 7 0 7 57 0 57 0 57 EBT 8 0 8 11 19 47 0 47 36 83 EBR 1 0 1 0 1 9 0 9 0 9 WBL 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 3 WBT 16 0 16 0 16 105 0 105 0 105 WBR 2 0 2 0 2 106 0 106 0 106 North Leg Approach 55 0 55 0 55 204 0 204 0 204 Departure 17 0 17 0 17 189 0 189 0 189 Total 72 0 72 0 72 393 0 393 0 393 South Leg Approach 13 0 13 0 13 49 0 49 0 49 Departure 12 0 12 0 12 47 0 47 0 47 Total 25 0 25 0 25 96 0 96 0 96 East Leg Approach 19 0 19 0 19 214 0 214 0 214 Departure 26 0 26 11 37 155 0 155 36 191 Total 45 0 45 11 56 369 0 369 36 405 West Leg Approach 16 0 16 11 27 113 0 113 36 149 Departure 48 0 48 0 48 189 0 189 0 189 Total 64 0 64 11 75 302 0 302 36 338 Total Approaches Approach 103 0 103 11 114 580 0 580 36 616 Departure 103 0 103 11 114 580 0 580 36 616 Total 206 0 206 22 228 1,160 0 1,160 72 1,232 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 5 Kew Avenue - Project Driveway 2/Cultural Center Drive NBL 3 0 3 0 3 84 0 84 0 84 NBT 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 NBR 8 0 8 0 8 56 0 56 0 56 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 36 36 EBT 3 0 3 0 3 66 0 66 0 66 EBR 20 0 20 0 20 65 0 65 0 65 WBL 20 0 20 0 20 37 0 37 0 37 WBT 21 0 21 0 21 100 0 100 0 100 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 Departure 0 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 38 38 Total 0 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 40 40 South Leg Approach 11 0 11 3 14 140 0 140 2 142 Departure 40 0 40 2 42 102 0 102 2 104 Total 51 0 51 5 56 242 0 242 4 246 East Leg Approach 41 0 41 0 41 137 0 137 0 137 Departure 11 0 11 0 11 122 0 122 0 122 Total 52 0 52 0 52 259 0 259 0 259 West Leg Approach 23 0 23 11 34 131 0 131 36 167 Departure 24 0 24 0 24 184 0 184 0 184 Total 47 0 47 11 58 315 0 315 36 351 Total Approaches Approach 75 0 75 16 91 408 0 408 40 448 Departure 75 0 75 16 91 408 0 408 40 448 Total 150 0 150 32 182 816 0 816 80 896 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 6 Pavilion Gardens Place/Church Street NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 9 0 9 21 30 94 0 94 138 232 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 320 138 458 0 458 780 190 970 0 970 EBR 7 0 7 0 7 17 0 17 0 17 WBL 36 0 36 33 69 97 0 97 122 219 WBT 650 153 803 0 803 474 185 659 0 659 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Leg Approach 9 0 9 21 30 94 0 94 138 232 Departure 43 0 43 33 76 114 0 114 122 236 Total 52 0 52 54 106 208 0 208 260 468 East Leg Approach 686 153 839 33 872 571 185 756 122 878 Departure 329 138 467 21 488 874 190 1,064 138 1,202 Total 1,015 291 1,306 54 1,360 1,445 375 1,820 260 2,080 West Leg Approach 327 138 465 0 465 797 190 987 0 987 Departure 650 153 803 0 803 474 185 659 0 659 Total 977 291 1,268 0 1,268 1,271 375 1,646 0 1,646 Total Approaches Approach 1,022 291 1,313 54 1,367 1,462 375 1,837 260 2,097 Departure 1,022 291 1,313 54 1,367 1,462 375 1,837 260 2,097 Total 2,044 582 2,626 108 2,734 2,924 750 3,674 520 4,194 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 7 Pavilion Gardens Place/Cultural Center Drive -Eden Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 19 0 19 0 19 31 0 31 0 31 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 32 0 32 0 32 87 0 87 0 87 EBL 8 0 8 0 8 74 0 74 0 74 EBT 3 0 3 0 3 47 0 47 0 47 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 9 0 9 0 9 48 0 48 0 48 WBR 8 0 8 0 8 19 0 19 0 19 North Leg Approach 51 0 51 0 51 118 0 118 0 118 Departure 16 0 16 0 16 93 0 93 0 93 Total 67 0 67 0 67 211 0 211 0 211 South Leg Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Leg Approach 17 0 17 0 17 67 0 67 0 67 Departure 22 0 22 0 22 78 0 78 0 78 Total 39 0 39 0 39 145 0 145 0 145 West Leg Approach 11 0 11 0 11 121 0 121 0 121 Departure 41 0 41 0 41 135 0 135 0 135 Total 52 0 52 0 52 256 0 256 0 256 Total Approaches Approach 79 0 79 0 79 306 0 306 0 306 Departure 79 0 79 0 79 306 0 306 0 306 Total 158 0 158 0 158 612 0 612 0 612 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 8 Victoria Gardens Lane/Church Street NBL 3 0 3 0 3 31 0 31 0 31 NBT 18 0 18 0 18 114 0 114 0 114 NBR 32 0 32 0 32 211 1 212 0 212 SBL 88 0 88 0 88 29 0 29 0 29 SBT 34 0 34 0 34 64 0 64 0 64 SBR 59 40 99 8 107 83 38 121 59 180 EBL 22 25 47 5 52 91 49 140 67 207 EBT 307 114 421 16 437 744 141 885 71 956 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 38 0 38 WBL 49 1 50 0 50 110 0 110 0 110 WBT 623 113 736 25 761 457 147 604 63 667 WBR 85 0 85 0 85 47 0 47 0 47 North Leg Approach 181 40 221 8 229 176 38 214 59 273 Departure 125 25 150 5 155 252 49 301 67 368 Total 306 65 371 13 384 428 87 515 126 641 South Leg Approach 53 0 53 0 53 356 1 357 0 357 Departure 83 1 84 0 84 212 0 212 0 212 Total 136 1 137 0 137 568 1 569 0 569 East Leg Approach 757 114 871 25 896 614 147 761 63 824 Departure 427 114 541 16 557 984 142 1,126 71 1,197 Total 1,184 228 1,412 41 1,453 1,598 289 1,887 134 2,021 West Leg Approach 329 139 468 21 489 873 190 1,063 138 1,201 Departure 685 153 838 33 871 571 185 756 122 878 Total 1,014 292 1,306 54 1,360 1,444 375 1,819 260 2,079 Total Approaches Approach 1,320 293 1,613 54 1,667 2,019 376 2,395 260 2,655 Departure 1,320 293 1,613 54 1,667 2,019 376 2,395 260 2,655 Total 2,640 586 3,226 108 3,334 4,038 752 4,790 520 5,310 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 9 Victoria Gardens Lane/North Mainstreet NBL 16 0 16 0 16 85 0 85 0 85 NBT 47 0 47 0 47 206 1 207 0 207 N B R 1 0 1 0 1 11 0 11 0 11 SBL 1 0 1 0 1 18 0 18 0 18 SBT 81 1 82 0 82 144 0 144 0 144 SBR 18 0 18 0 18 118 0 118 0 118 EBL 6 0 6 0 6 136 0 136 0 136 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 26 0 26 EBR 3 0 3 0 3 37 0 37 0 37 WBL 1 0 1 0 1 38 0 38 0 38 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 WBR 1 0 1 0 1 12 0 12 0 12 North Leg Approach 100 1 101 0 101 280 0 280 0 280 Departure 54 0 54 0 54 354 1 355 0 355 Total 154 1 155 0 155 634 1 635 0 635 South Leg Approach 64 0 64 0 64 302 1 303 0 303 Departure 85 1 86 0 86 219 0 219 0 219 Total 149 1 150 0 150 521 1 522 0 522 East Leg Approach 2 0 2 0 2 59 0 59 0 59 Departure 2 0 2 0 2 55 0 55 0 55 Total 4 0 4 0 4 114 0 114 0 114 West Leg Approach 9 0 9 0 9 199 0 199 0 199 Departure 34 0 34 0 34 212 0 212 0 212 Total 43 0 43 0 43 411 0 411 0 411 Total Approaches Approach 175 1 176 0 176 840 1 841 0 841 Departure 175 1 176 0 176 840 1 841 0 841 Total 350 2 352 0 352 1,680 2 1,682 0 1,682 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) LSA Table C-2- Opening Year (2023) Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) Opening Year CumulativeOpening Year Opening Year Opening Year Cumulative Opening Year Cumulative With Project Without Project With With Project Without Project With Ambient GrowtF Trips Project Trips Project Ambient Growth Trips Project Trips Project 10 Pavilion Gardens Place/Project Driveway 3 - Driveway NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 0 4 0 4 85 0 85 0 85 NBR 11 0 11 0 11 8 0 8 0 8 SBL 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 SBT 38 0 38 0 38 110 0 110 0 110 SBR 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 0 122 122 EBL 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 138 138 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 13 0 13 0 13 9 0 9 0 9 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 4 0 4 0 4 9 0 9 0 9 North Leg Approach 42 0 42 33 75 114 0 114 122 236 Departure 8 0 8 21 29 94 0 94 138 232 Total 50 0 50 54 104 208 0 208 260 468 South Leg Approach 15 0 15 0 15 93 0 93 0 93 Departure 51 0 51 0 51 119 0 119 0 119 Total 66 0 66 0 66 212 0 212 0 212 East Leg Approach 17 0 17 0 17 18 0 18 0 18 Departure 15 0 15 0 15 12 0 12 0 12 Total 32 0 32 0 32 30 0 30 0 30 West Leg Approach 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 138 138 Departure 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 0 122 122 Total 0 0 0 54 54 0 0 0 260 260 Total Approaches Approach 74 0 74 54 128 225 0 225 260 485 Departure 74 0 74 54 128 225 0 225 260 485 Total 148 0 148 108 256 450 0 450 520 970 R:\FCR1701\Traffic\VG Parking Traffic Memo\Model\Cumul TM (1/16/2018) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` APPENDIX D: LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS R:\FCR1701\Traffic\NE Parcel Public Parking Facility TIA.docx (02/01/18) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1566 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101 187 129 64 412 105 63 228 9 65 490 182 Future Volume (veh/h) 101 187 129 64 412 105 63 228 9 65 490 182 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 347 1.00 1.00 653 1.00 1.00 2298 1.00 1.00 2303 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 386 No 470 347 No 424 267 No 896 286 No 916 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 208 143 71 458 117 70 253 10 72 544 202 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 307 401 263 286 653 291 205 2298 896 207 2303 916 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 1979 1298 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 178 173 71 458 117 70 253 10 72 544 202 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1566 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 8.4 8.9 2.8 10.2 3.7 3.4 2.6 0.2 3.5 6.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 8.4 8.9 2.8 10.2 3.7 3.4 2.6 0.2 3.5 6.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 307 347 318 286 653 291 205 2298 896 207 2303 916 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.51 0.54 0.25 0.70 0.40 0.34 0.11 0.01 0.35 0.24 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 513 470 347 950 424 267 2298 896 286 2303 916 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.0 31.9 32.1 26.6 25.7 12.7 36.4 13.4 7.7 36.3 14.3 2.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.2 1.4 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 3.5 3.4 1.1 3.5 1.7 1.5 0.9 0.1 1.5 2.2 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 33.1 33.6 27.0 26.7 13.4 37.3 13.5 7.7 37.3 14.5 3.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C C B D B A D B A Approach Vol, veh/h 463 646 333 818 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 24.4 18.4 13.7 Approach LOS C C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 44.1 12.8 20.3 12.8 44.2 13.9 19.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 23.5 11.5 24.5 11.5 24.5 13.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.5 4.6 4.8 10.9 5.4 8.0 2.9 12.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.1 4.1 0.2 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Existing NP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 210 34 31 530 30 20 2 17 43 0 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 210 34 31 530 30 20 2 17 43 0 31 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 572 No 0 347 No 0.33 0.33 No 0.33 0.33 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 233 38 34 589 33 22 2 19 48 0 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 221 762 340 311 835 373 1228 54 517 390 0 347 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 147 1400 1714 0 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 19 233 38 34 589 33 22 0 21 48 0 34 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1548 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.8 2.1 1.4 15.1 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.8 2.1 1.4 15.1 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 221 762 340 311 835 373 1228 0 572 390 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.71 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 359 1045 466 402 1026 458 1228 0 572 390 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.6 35.1 33.4 28.4 38.2 32.1 18.0 0.0 18.1 27.6 0.0 27.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 2.5 0.8 0.6 7.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 35.3 33.5 28.5 39.9 32.2 18.0 0.0 18.3 28.3 0.0 28.0 LnGrp LOS D D C C D C B A B C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 290 656 43 82 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 38.9 18.2 28.2 Approach LOS D D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.2 10.2 22.0 22.5 8.3 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 10.5 25.0 18.0 11.0 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.8 3.4 7.8 4.0 2.0 17.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.3 HCM 6th LOS D LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Vii Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 0 2 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 51 19 Future Vol, veh/h 22 0 2 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 51 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 28 0 3 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 65 24 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 95 95 77 97 107 16 89 0 0 16 0 0 Stage 1 77 77 - 18 18 - - - - - - - Stage 2 18 18 - 79 89 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 893 799 990 890 787 1069 1519 1615 - Stage 1 937 835 - 1006 884 - - - - - Stage 2 1006 884 - 935 825 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 892 798 990 887 786 1069 1519 1615 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 892 798 - 887 786 - - - - - Stage 1 936 835 - 1005 883 - - - Stage 2 1005 883 - 933 825 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0 0.5 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1519 - 899 1615 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.034 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.1 0 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 17% 0% 12% 0% 12% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 7 1 1 14 2 3 7 2 14 9 26 Future Vol, veh/h 6 7 1 1 14 2 3 7 2 14 9 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 8 9 1 1 18 3 4 9 3 18 11 33 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 693 781 WB 782 705 NB Service Time 2.612 SB 2.311 2.897 Opposing Approach WB 1.789 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.012 0.013 SB 0.026 0.026 NB HCM Control Delay 7.7 Opposing Lanes 2 7.9 7.4 2 7 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 A A Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.1 0 NB 0 0.1 EB 0.2 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.4 7.7 7.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 25% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 58% 0% 88% 0% 88% 0% 26% Vol Right, % 17% 0% 12% 0% 12% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 12 6 8 1 16 14 35 LT Vol 3 6 0 1 0 14 0 Through Vol 7 0 7 0 14 0 9 RT Vol 2 0 1 0 2 0 26 Lane Flow Rate 15 8 10 1 20 18 44 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.019 0.011 0.013 0.002 0.026 0.025 0.05 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.563 5.145 4.557 5.144 4.555 5.075 4.054 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 781 693 781 693 782 705 881 Service Time 2.612 2.899 2.311 2.897 2.308 2.81 1.789 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.012 0.013 0.001 0.026 0.026 0.05 HCM Control Delay 7.7 8 7.4 7.9 7.4 7.9 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r Vii 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 18 18 19 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 18 18 19 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 3 20 20 21 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB Service Time WB 2.252 1.551 NB 2.235 2.06 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.004 Opposing Approach WB 0.026 EB HCM Control Delay 6.7 SB 6.6 7.9 7.4 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A 2 A N 1 0 0 0.1 1 0.1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 6.7 7.6 6.7 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 30% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 70% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 10 3 18 18 19 0 LT Vol 3 0 0 18 0 0 Through Vol 0 3 0 0 19 0 RT Vol 7 0 18 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 11 3 20 20 21 0 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.011 0.004 0.021 0.028 0.027 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 3.649 4.54 3.84 5.031 4.531 4.018 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 976 791 935 715 794 0 Service Time 1.69 2.252 1.551 2.735 2.235 2.06 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.004 0.021 0.028 0.026 0 HCM Control Delay 6.7 7.3 6.6 7.9 7.4 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A N HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r Vii tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 286 6 32 580 0 8 Future Vol, veh/h 286 6 32 580 0 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 321 7 36 652 0 9 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 328 0 - 161 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1243 0 862 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1243 - 862 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 862 - 1243 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.029 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - 8 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 6.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 3 8 7 17 29 Future Vol, veh/h 7 3 8 7 17 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 4 10 9 22 38 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 19 0 - 0 37 15 Stage 1 - - - - 15 - Stage 2 - - 22 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1611 - 981 1070 Stage 1 - - 1013 - Stage 2 - - 1006 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1611 - 975 1070 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 975 - Stage 1 - 1007 Stage 2 - 1006 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.1 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1611 - - 1033 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 274 0 44 556 76 3 16 29 79 30 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 274 0 44 556 76 3 16 29 79 30 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 516 1.00 1.00 836 1.00 1.00 1595 1.00 1.00 855 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 343 No 585 560 No 492 586 No 711 248 No 381 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 295 0 47 598 82 3 17 31 85 32 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 128 516 230 560 836 373 586 1595 711 215 855 381 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.47 0.47 0.13 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 295 0 47 598 82 3 17 31 85 32 57 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 7.2 0.0 1.1 14.4 3.9 0.1 0.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 7.2 0.0 1.1 14.4 3.9 0.1 0.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 516 230 560 836 373 586 1595 711 215 855 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.57 0.00 0.08 0.72 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.39 0.04 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 343 1311 585 560 1102 492 586 1595 711 248 855 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.0 35.5 0.0 31.6 31.1 27.1 19.5 12.9 3.2 36.2 25.6 15.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 3.0 0.0 0.4 6.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.3 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 36.5 0.0 31.6 32.6 27.4 19.5 12.9 3.3 37.4 25.6 16.3 LnGrp LOS D D A C C C B B A D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 317 727 51 174 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.7 32.0 7.5 28.3 Approach LOS D C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 44.0 17.2 15.6 32.8 24.5 8.7 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 19.5 10.0 32.0 10.0 20.0 15.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.1 2.5 3.1 9.2 2.1 4.0 3.1 16.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.7 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Existing NP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1525 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 0 3 1 0 1 14 42 1 1 72 16 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 0 3 1 0 1 14 42 1 1 72 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 542 1.00 1.00 475 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 880 475 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 0 3 1 0 1 15 46 1 1 79 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 164 0 73 57 0 51 947 1084 23 880 773 171 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3429 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 3422 74 1714 2784 615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 0 3 1 0 1 15 23 24 1 48 49 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 1710 1787 1714 1710 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 0 73 57 0 51 947 542 566 880 475 469 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 781 0 347 390 0 347 947 542 566 880 475 469 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.9 0.0 40.9 42.1 0.0 42.1 9.1 21.3 21.3 10.7 24.1 24.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 0.0 41.1 42.2 0.0 42.2 9.1 21.4 21.4 10.7 24.6 24.6 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D A C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 8 2 62 98 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 42.2 18.5 24.5 Approach LOS D D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),48.2 30.5 6.3 51.7 27.0 5.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (GmaiQ1,.a 26.0 18.0 13.5 22.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I ,0; 2.8 2.2 2.4 4.0 2.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Existing NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 56 59 36 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 4 10 4 34 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 4 10 4 34 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 946 - 1042 - 841 - 1588 - - 1616 - - 975 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 887 0 975 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 4 11 4 36 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 56 59 36 54 54 10 36 0 0 15 0 0 Stage 1 44 44 - 10 10 - - - - - - - Stage 2 12 15 - 44 44 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 946 836 1042 949 841 1077 1588 - 1616 - Stage 1 975 862 - 1016 891 - - - - - Stage 2 1014 887 - 975 862 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 940 833 1042 947 838 1077 1588 - 1616 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 940 833 - 947 838 - - - - - Stage 1 975 859 - 1016 891 - - - Stage 2 1010 887 - 972 859 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 8.8 0 0.8 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1588 - - 976 1616 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.017 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 8.8 7.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1665 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 194 637 182 46 332 103 188 596 71 117 518 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 194 637 182 46 332 103 188 596 71 117 518 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 550 1.00 1.00 990 1.00 1.00 1332 1.00 1.00 1578 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 599 No 596 372 No 458 312 No 576 364 No 701 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 209 685 196 49 357 111 202 641 76 126 557 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 497 844 241 315 990 442 278 1332 576 364 1578 701 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 2624 751 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 209 446 435 49 357 111 202 641 76 126 557 98 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1665 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 21.6 21.6 1.7 8.8 3.4 10.1 9.8 1.5 5.6 7.8 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 21.6 21.6 1.7 8.8 3.4 10.1 9.8 1.5 5.6 7.8 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 497 550 535 315 990 442 278 1332 576 364 1578 701 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.81 0.81 0.16 0.36 0.25 0.73 0.48 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 599 612 596 372 1026 458 312 1332 576 364 1578 701 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 28.0 28.0 20.6 32.9 10.0 35.8 27.5 6.8 30.1 23.4 14.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 7.5 7.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 7.2 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 9.6 9.4 0.7 3.9 2.2 4.7 3.9 0.7 2.3 3.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.9 35.5 35.7 20.8 33.1 10.2 43.1 28.7 7.2 30.7 24.0 14.5 LnGrp LOS B D D C C B D C A C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1090 517 919 781 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.0 27.0 30.1 23.9 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.1 26.4 11.6 30.9 16.6 30.9 14.4 28.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.3 21.9 10.1 29.7 13.9 18.3 15.3 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.6 11.8 3.7 23.6 12.1 9.8 8.9 10.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.3 0.0 2.9 0.1 2.6 0.3 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.8 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Existing NP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 1739 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 636 145 65 336 20 105 8 55 18 8 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 636 145 65 336 20 105 8 55 18 8 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 492 No 0 347 No 2.00 2.00 No 0.33 0.33 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 669 153 68 354 21 111 8 58 19 8 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 427 848 378 342 899 401 1053 60 433 279 117 347 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 188 1366 1224 515 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 669 153 68 354 21 111 0 66 27 0 42 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1554 1739 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 14.6 5.7 2.4 8.8 1.1 2.1 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 14.6 5.7 2.4 8.8 1.1 2.1 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 427 848 378 342 899 401 1053 0 492 396 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.79 0.40 0.20 0.39 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 487 1045 466 386 1064 475 1053 0 492 396 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.4 20.7 18.5 21.3 34.3 30.8 21.7 0.0 21.9 27.3 0.0 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.6 4.4 1.8 1.0 3.9 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 23.0 19.0 21.6 34.6 30.9 21.9 0.0 22.5 27.6 0.0 28.3 LnGrp LOS B C B C C C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 868 443 177 69 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 32.4 22.2 28.0 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.5 12.7 24.3 22.5 11.3 25.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 10.5 25.0 18.0 10.0 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 4.4 16.6 4.0 3.5 10.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.6 0.1 3.3 0.2 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Vii Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 0 2 0 0 0 1 168 0 0 180 32 Future Vol, veh/h 16 0 2 0 0 0 1 168 0 0 180 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 17 0 2 0 0 0 1 183 0 0 196 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 399 399 214 400 416 183 231 0 0 183 0 0 Stage 1 214 214 - 185 185 - - - - - - - Stage 2 185 185 - 215 231 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 565 542 831 564 530 865 1349 1404 - Stage 1 793 729 - 821 751 - - - - - Stage 2 821 751 - 792 717 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 564 541 831 562 529 865 1349 1404 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 564 541 - 562 529 - - - - - Stage 1 792 729 - 820 750 - - - Stage 2 820 750 - 790 717 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.4 0 0 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1349 - 585 1404 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.033 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 11.4 0 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 9.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 27% 0% 16% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 42 8 3 94 95 9 23 12 85 31 66 Future Vol, veh/h 51 42 8 3 94 95 9 23 12 85 31 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 59 48 9 3 108 109 10 26 14 98 36 76 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 604 674 WB 723 606 NB Service Time 3.575 SB 3.046 3.565 Opposing Approach WB 2.675 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.098 0.085 SB 0.3 0.162 NB HCM Control Delay 9 Opposing Lanes 2 8.6 9.8 2 8.6 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 A A Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.2 0.3 NB 0 1.3 EB 0.5 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 8.9 9.8 9 9.2 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 20% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 52% 0% 84% 0% 50% 0% 32% Vol Right, % 27% 0% 16% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 44 51 50 3 189 85 97 LT Vol 9 51 0 3 0 85 0 Through Vol 23 0 42 0 94 0 31 RT Vol 12 0 8 0 95 0 66 Lane Flow Rate 51 59 57 3 217 98 111 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.077 0.096 0.084 0.006 0.299 0.16 0.152 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.505 5.906 5.289 5.816 4.958 5.9 4.918 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 646 604 674 614 723 606 726 Service Time 3.575 3.664 3.046 3.565 2.706 3.657 2.675 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 0.098 0.085 0.005 0.3 0.162 0.153 HCM Control Delay 9 9.3 8.5 8.6 9.8 9.8 8.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 1.3 0.6 0.5 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 8.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r Vii 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 59 58 33 89 0 75 0 50 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 59 58 33 89 0 75 0 50 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 63 62 35 96 0 81 0 54 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB Service Time WB 2.649 1.946 NB 2.634 2.681 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.087 Opposing Approach WB 0.131 EB HCM Control Delay 8.3 SB 7.3 8.4 8.4 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A 2 A N 1 0.6 0.3 0.2 1 0.4 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.7 8.4 8.3 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 60% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 40% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 125 59 58 33 89 0 LT Vol 75 0 0 33 0 0 Through Vol 0 59 0 0 89 0 RT Vol 50 0 58 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 134 63 62 35 96 0 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.164 0.087 0.073 0.053 0.131 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.38 4.932 4.229 5.419 4.916 4.66 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 821 728 849 663 731 0 Service Time 2.393 2.649 1.946 3.136 2.634 2.681 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.163 0.087 0.073 0.053 0.131 0 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.1 7.3 8.4 8.4 7.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A N HCM 95th -tile Q 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r Vii tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 696 15 87 423 0 84 Future Vol, veh/h 696 15 87 423 0 84 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 733 16 92 445 0 88 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 749 0 - 367 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 869 0 636 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 869 - 636 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 636 - 869 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.139 - 0.105 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 0.4 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 5.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 66 42 43 17 28 78 Future Vol, veh/h 66 42 43 17 28 78 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 73 47 48 19 31 87 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 67 0 - 0 251 58 Stage 1 - - - - 58 - Stage 2 - - 193 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1547 - 742 1014 Stage 1 - - 970 - Stage 2 - - 845 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1547 - 707 1014 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 707 - Stage 1 - 924 Stage 2 - 845 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.5 0 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1547 - - 910 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - - 0.129 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 664 34 98 408 42 28 102 188 26 57 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 664 34 98 408 42 28 102 188 26 57 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 959 1.00 1.00 976 1.00 1.00 1430 1.00 1.00 1421 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 326 No 610 462 No 532 238 No 638 238 No 634 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 692 35 102 425 44 29 106 196 27 59 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 215 959 428 433 976 435 146 1430 638 141 1421 634 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 692 35 102 425 44 29 106 196 27 59 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 16.4 1.1 2.5 9.1 1.9 1.4 1.7 4.7 1.3 0.9 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 16.4 1.1 2.5 9.1 1.9 1.4 1.7 4.7 1.3 0.9 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 215 959 428 433 976 435 146 1430 638 141 1421 634 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.72 0.08 0.24 0.44 0.10 0.20 0.07 0.31 0.19 0.04 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 326 1368 610 462 1193 532 238 1430 638 238 1421 634 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.2 29.2 13.2 35.1 26.2 23.7 38.3 15.7 6.4 38.5 15.6 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.7 6.7 0.5 1.0 3.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 2.7 0.6 0.4 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.4 30.3 13.2 35.4 26.6 23.8 39.0 15.8 7.6 39.2 15.7 16.6 LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D B A D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 811 571 331 163 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.3 27.9 13.0 20.0 Approach LOS C C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 39.6 13.7 27.2 9.7 39.4 13.3 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 18.5 10.0 33.5 10.0 18.5 14.6 28.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.3 6.7 4.5 18.4 3.4 4.8 6.1 11.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Existing NP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1625 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 23 33 34 8 11 76 184 10 16 129 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 23 33 34 8 11 76 184 10 16 129 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 504 1.00 1.00 456 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 630 456 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 148 0 31 36 8 12 80 194 11 17 136 111 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 472 0 210 191 72 109 678 969 55 630 494 374 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.29 0.29 0.74 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 3429 0 1525 1714 650 975 1714 3291 185 1714 1854 1404 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 0 31 36 0 20 80 100 105 17 125 122 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 0 1525 1714 0 1625 1714 1710 1767 1714 1710 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 0.2 3.6 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 0.2 3.6 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.91 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 472 0 210 191 0 181 678 504 520 630 456 413 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 0 373 390 0 370 678 504 520 630 456 413 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 0.0 34.2 36.3 0.0 36.0 17.3 23.8 23.8 7.6 16.2 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.5 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlld.5 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.8 0.1 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 0.0 34.5 36.8 0.0 36.2 17.3 24.7 24.7 7.6 17.7 18.1 LnGrp LOS D A C D A D B C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 179 56 285 264 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 36.6 22.6 17.3 Approach LOS D D C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), 35.1 28.5 14.4 37.6 26.0 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gma1Qt➢,.3 24.0 19.5 13.0 21.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+Iq,a 6.0 5.5 4.7 5.9 3.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Existing NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 199 198 103 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 76 7 4 98 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 76 7 4 98 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 764 - 957 - 704 - 1502 - 1522 - - 899 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 827 0 899 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 80 7 4 103 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 199 198 103 195 195 84 103 0 0 87 0 0 Stage 1 111 111 - 84 84 - - - - - - - Stage 2 88 87 - 111 111 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 764 701 957 769 704 981 1502 1522 - Stage 1 899 807 - 929 829 - - - - - Stage 2 925 827 - 899 807 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 756 699 957 767 702 981 1502 1522 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 756 699 - 767 702 - - - - - Stage 1 899 805 - 929 829 - - - Stage 2 917 827 - 896 805 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 9.3 0 0.3 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1502 - - 861 1522 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.02 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 9.3 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1566 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101 187 129 70 412 109 63 228 9 71 490 182 Future Volume (veh/h) 101 187 129 70 412 109 63 228 9 71 490 182 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 342 1.00 1.00 653 1.00 1.00 2283 1.00 1.00 2302 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 386 No 470 347 No 424 267 No 896 286 No 916 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 208 143 78 458 121 70 253 10 79 544 202 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 307 396 260 291 653 291 205 2283 896 212 2302 916 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 1979 1298 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 178 173 78 458 121 70 253 10 79 544 202 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1566 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 8.4 8.9 3.1 10.2 3.8 3.4 2.6 0.2 3.8 6.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 8.4 8.9 3.1 10.2 3.8 3.4 2.6 0.2 3.8 6.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 307 342 313 291 653 291 205 2283 896 212 2302 916 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.52 0.55 0.27 0.70 0.42 0.34 0.11 0.01 0.37 0.24 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 513 470 347 950 424 267 2283 896 286 2302 916 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.0 32.2 32.4 26.6 25.7 12.6 36.4 13.6 7.7 36.2 14.3 2.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.2 1.5 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 3.5 3.5 1.2 3.5 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.1 1.6 2.2 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 33.4 33.9 27.0 26.7 13.4 37.3 13.7 7.7 37.3 14.5 3.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C C B D B A D B A Approach Vol, veh/h 463 657 333 825 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 24.3 18.5 13.9 Approach LOS C C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 43.8 13.1 20.0 12.8 44.2 13.9 19.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 23.5 11.5 24.5 11.5 24.5 13.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.8 4.6 5.1 10.9 5.4 8.0 2.9 12.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.1 4.1 0.2 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.6 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Existing WP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 210 40 31 530 30 30 2 17 43 0 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 210 40 31 530 30 30 2 17 43 0 31 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 575 No 0 347 No 0.33 0.33 No 0.33 0.33 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 233 44 34 589 33 33 2 19 48 0 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 219 753 336 308 827 369 1236 55 521 390 0 347 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 147 1400 1714 0 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 19 233 44 34 589 33 33 0 21 48 0 34 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1548 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.8 2.4 1.5 15.1 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.8 2.4 1.5 15.1 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 753 336 308 827 369 1236 0 575 390 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.31 0.13 0.11 0.71 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 376 969 432 437 988 441 1236 0 575 390 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.8 35.2 33.7 28.6 38.4 32.2 17.9 0.0 18.0 27.6 0.0 27.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 2.5 0.9 0.6 7.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.0 35.5 33.8 28.7 40.3 32.3 18.0 0.0 18.1 28.3 0.0 28.0 LnGrp LOS D D C C D C B A B C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 296 656 54 82 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 39.3 18.0 28.2 Approach LOS D D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.5 10.2 21.8 22.5 8.3 23.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 12.5 23.0 18.0 12.0 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.8 3.5 7.8 4.0 2.0 17.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.4 HCM 6th LOS D LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 0 2 0 0 10 1 13 0 6 51 19 Future Vol, veh/h 22 0 2 0 0 10 1 13 0 6 51 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 28 0 3 0 0 13 1 16 0 8 65 24 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 118 111 77 113 123 16 89 0 0 16 0 0 Stage 1 93 93 - 18 18 - - - - - - - Stage 2 25 18 - 95 105 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 863 783 990 869 771 1069 1519 1615 - Stage 1 919 822 - 1006 884 - - - - - Stage 2 998 884 - 917 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 849 778 990 863 766 1069 1519 1615 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 849 778 - 863 766 - - - - - Stage 1 918 818 - 1005 883 - - - Stage 2 986 883 - 910 808 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 8.4 0.5 0.6 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1519 - 859 1069 1615 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.035 0.012 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.3 8.4 7.2 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 17% 0% 5% 0% 12% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 19 1 1 14 2 3 7 2 14 9 26 Future Vol, veh/h 6 19 1 1 14 2 3 7 2 14 9 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 8 24 1 1 18 3 4 9 3 18 11 33 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 693 772 WB 780 700 NB Service Time 2.649 SB 2.363 2.908 Opposing Approach WB 1.825 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.012 0.032 SB 0.026 0.026 NB HCM Control Delay 7.7 Opposing Lanes 2 7.9 7.4 2 7 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 A A Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.1 0 NB 0 0.1 EB 0.2 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.6 7.4 7.7 7.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 25% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 58% 0% 95% 0% 88% 0% 26% Vol Right, % 17% 0% 5% 0% 12% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 12 6 20 1 16 14 35 LT Vol 3 6 0 1 0 14 0 Through Vol 7 0 19 0 14 0 9 RT Vol 2 0 1 0 2 0 26 Lane Flow Rate 15 8 25 1 20 18 44 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.019 0.011 0.032 0.002 0.026 0.025 0.05 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.59 5.145 4.61 5.152 4.563 5.101 4.081 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 775 693 772 691 780 700 873 Service Time 2.649 2.899 2.363 2.908 2.32 2.846 1.825 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.012 0.032 0.001 0.026 0.026 0.05 HCM Control Delay 7.7 8 7.5 7.9 7.4 8 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r 54% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 3 18 18 19 0 3 3 7 0 2 0 Future Vol, veh/h 12 3 18 18 19 0 3 3 7 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 13 3 20 20 21 0 3 3 8 0 2 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 878 Service Time WB 2.664 1.563 NB 2.258 2.099 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.023 Opposing Approach WB 0.028 0.027 EB HCM Control Delay 6.9 SB 6.6 7.9 7.4 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A A 2 A A 1 0 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach RighNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.6 6.9 7.1 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 23% 80% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 23% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 54% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 13 15 18 18 19 2 LT Vol 3 12 0 18 0 0 Through Vol 3 3 0 0 19 2 RT Vol 7 0 18 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 14 17 20 20 21 2 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.015 0.023 0.021 0.028 0.027 0.002 Departure Headway (Hd) 3.756 4.95 3.849 5.048 4.548 4.043 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 945 725 932 712 790 878 Service Time 1.81 2.664 1.563 2.758 2.258 2.099 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.023 0.021 0.028 0.027 0.002 HCM Control Delay 6.9 7.8 6.6 7.9 7.4 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 286 6 65 580 0 29 Future Vol, veh/h 286 6 65 580 0 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 321 7 73 652 0 33 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 328 0 - 161 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1243 0 862 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1243 - 862 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 862 - 1243 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - 0.059 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 8.1 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 3 8 7 17 29 Future Vol, veh/h 7 3 8 7 17 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 4 10 9 22 38 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 19 0 - 0 37 15 Stage 1 - - - - 15 - Stage 2 - - 22 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1611 - 981 1070 Stage 1 - - 1013 - Stage 2 - - 1006 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1611 - 975 1070 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 975 - Stage 1 - 1007 Stage 2 - 1006 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.1 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1611 - - 1033 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 290 0 44 581 76 3 16 29 79 30 61 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 290 0 44 581 76 3 16 29 79 30 61 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 536 1.00 1.00 846 1.00 1.00 1559 1.00 1.00 855 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 381 No 585 576 No 458 568 No 695 248 No 381 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 312 0 47 625 82 3 17 31 85 32 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 141 536 239 576 846 377 568 1559 695 215 855 381 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.16 0.00 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 312 0 47 625 82 3 17 31 85 32 66 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 7.6 0.0 1.1 15.1 3.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 7.6 0.0 1.1 15.1 3.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 536 239 576 846 377 568 1559 695 215 855 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.58 0.00 0.08 0.74 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.39 0.04 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 381 1311 585 576 1026 458 568 1559 695 248 855 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.5 35.2 0.0 31.2 31.2 26.9 20.2 13.4 3.4 36.2 25.6 15.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 3.2 0.0 0.4 6.4 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.8 0.3 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 36.2 0.0 31.3 33.5 27.2 20.2 13.4 3.5 37.4 25.6 16.1 LnGrp LOS D D A C C C C B A D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 339 754 51 183 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 32.6 7.8 27.7 Approach LOS D C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 43.0 17.6 16.1 31.8 24.5 9.4 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 19.5 10.0 32.0 10.0 20.0 17.5 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.1 2.5 3.1 9.6 2.1 4.3 3.3 17.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.0 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Existing WP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1525 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 0 3 1 0 1 14 42 1 1 72 16 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 0 3 1 0 1 14 42 1 1 72 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 542 1.00 1.00 475 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 880 475 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 0 3 1 0 1 15 46 1 1 79 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 164 0 73 57 0 51 947 1084 23 880 773 171 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3429 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 3422 74 1714 2784 615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 0 3 1 0 1 15 23 24 1 48 49 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 1710 1787 1714 1710 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 0 73 57 0 51 947 542 566 880 475 469 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 781 0 347 390 0 347 947 542 566 880 475 469 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.9 0.0 40.9 42.1 0.0 42.1 9.1 21.3 21.3 10.7 24.1 24.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 0.0 41.1 42.2 0.0 42.2 9.1 21.4 21.4 10.7 24.6 24.6 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D A C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 8 2 62 98 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 42.2 18.5 24.5 Approach LOS D D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),48.2 30.5 6.3 51.7 27.0 5.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (GmaiQ1,.a 26.0 18.0 13.5 22.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I ,0; 2.8 2.2 2.4 4.0 2.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Existing WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 74 77 54 Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 0 0 12 0 4 0 4 10 4 34 33 Future Vol, veh/h 21 0 0 12 0 4 0 4 10 4 34 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 921 - 1019 - 805 - 1542 - - 1616 - - 954 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 887 0 954 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 22 0 0 13 0 4 0 4 11 4 36 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 74 77 54 72 89 10 71 0 0 15 0 0 Stage 1 62 62 - 10 10 - - - - - - - Stage 2 12 15 - 62 79 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 921 817 1019 924 805 1077 1542 - 1616 - Stage 1 954 847 - 1016 891 - - - - - Stage 2 1014 887 - 954 833 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 915 815 1019 922 803 1077 1542 - 1616 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 915 815 - 922 803 - - - - - Stage 1 954 844 - 1016 891 - - - Stage 2 1010 887 - 951 831 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 8.8 0 0.4 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1542 - 915 956 1616 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.024 0.018 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9 8.8 7.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1666 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 194 642 182 86 338 119 188 596 71 131 518 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 194 642 182 86 338 119 188 596 71 131 518 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 552 1.00 1.00 1067 1.00 1.00 1332 1.00 1.00 1467 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 615 No 596 372 No 476 312 No 608 325 No 666 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 209 690 196 92 363 128 202 641 76 141 557 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 513 848 241 351 1067 476 278 1332 608 325 1467 666 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 2629 747 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 209 449 437 92 363 128 202 641 76 141 557 98 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1666 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 21.7 21.7 3.0 8.9 4.0 10.1 9.8 1.5 6.5 8.1 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 21.7 21.7 3.0 8.9 4.0 10.1 9.8 1.5 6.5 8.1 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 513 552 537 351 1067 476 278 1332 608 325 1467 666 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.81 0.81 0.26 0.34 0.27 0.73 0.48 0.12 0.43 0.38 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 615 612 596 372 1067 476 312 1332 608 325 1467 666 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.6 28.0 28.0 19.6 31.7 10.4 35.8 27.5 6.4 32.2 25.0 15.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 7.6 7.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 7.2 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 9.7 9.5 1.2 4.0 2.6 4.7 3.9 0.7 2.8 3.2 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.1 35.6 35.8 19.9 31.9 10.6 43.1 28.7 6.8 33.1 25.7 15.7 LnGrp LOS B D D B C B D C A C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1095 583 919 796 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.9 25.4 30.1 25.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.1 26.4 13.5 31.0 16.6 28.9 14.4 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.3 21.9 10.1 29.7 13.9 18.3 15.3 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.5 11.8 5.0 23.7 12.1 10.1 8.7 10.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.3 0.1 2.8 0.1 2.6 0.3 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.9 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Existing WP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 1739 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 636 164 65 336 20 167 8 55 18 8 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 636 164 65 336 20 167 8 55 18 8 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 495 No 0 347 No 2.00 2.00 No 0.33 0.33 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 669 173 68 354 21 176 8 58 19 8 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 425 842 376 339 893 398 1059 60 435 279 117 347 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,vehlh 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 188 1366 1224 515 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 669 173 68 354 21 176 0 66 27 0 42 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1554 1739 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 14.7 6.7 2.4 8.8 1.1 3.4 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 14.7 6.7 2.4 8.8 1.1 3.4 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 425 842 376 339 893 398 1059 0 495 396 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.79 0.46 0.20 0.40 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 485 1007 449 402 1064 475 1059 0 495 396 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 17.5 20.9 18.9 21.4 34.4 30.9 22.1 0.0 21.8 27.3 0.0 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.6 4.4 2.1 1.0 3.9 0.4 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.6 23.4 19.5 21.7 34.7 31.0 22.4 0.0 22.4 27.6 0.0 28.3 LnGrp LOS B C B C C C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 888 443 242 69 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 32.5 22.4 28.0 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.7 12.7 24.2 22.5 11.3 25.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 11.5 24.0 18.0 10.0 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.4 4.4 16.7 4.0 3.5 10.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.8 0.1 3.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 0 2 0 0 62 1 168 0 19 180 32 Future Vol, veh/h 16 0 2 0 0 62 1 168 0 19 180 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 17 0 2 0 0 67 1 183 0 21 196 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 475 441 214 442 458 183 231 0 0 183 0 0 Stage 1 256 256 - 185 185 - - - - - - - Stage 2 219 185 - 257 273 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 503 513 831 529 502 865 1349 1404 - Stage 1 753 699 - 821 751 - - - - - Stage 2 788 751 - 752 688 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 458 505 831 521 494 865 1349 1404 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 458 505 - 521 494 - - - - - Stage 1 752 689 - 820 750 - - - Stage 2 726 750 - 739 678 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 9.5 0 0.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1349 - 482 865 1404 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.041 0.078 0.015 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 12.8 9.5 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.3 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 9.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 27% 0% 9% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 78 8 3 94 95 9 23 12 85 31 66 Future Vol, veh/h 51 78 8 3 94 95 9 23 12 85 31 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 59 90 9 3 108 109 10 26 14 98 36 76 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 603 666 WB 713 594 NB Service Time 3.7 SB 3.112 3.63 Opposing Approach WB 2.789 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.098 0.149 SB 0.304 0.165 NB HCM Control Delay 9.2 Opposing Lanes 2 8.7 10 2 8.7 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 A A Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.3 0.3 NB 0 1.3 EB 0.5 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 9.1 10 9.2 9.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 20% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 52% 0% 91% 0% 50% 0% 32% Vol Right, % 27% 0% 9% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 44 51 86 3 189 85 97 LT Vol 9 51 0 3 0 85 0 Through Vol 23 0 78 0 94 0 31 RT Vol 12 0 8 0 95 0 66 Lane Flow Rate 51 59 99 3 217 98 111 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.079 0.096 0.147 0.006 0.303 0.163 0.155 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.613 5.917 5.347 5.871 5.013 6.001 5.019 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 632 603 666 607 713 594 709 Service Time 3.7 3.683 3.112 3.63 2.771 3.772 2.789 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.081 0.098 0.149 0.005 0.304 0.165 0.157 HCM Control Delay 9.2 9.3 9 8.7 10 10 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.5 0 1.3 0.6 0.5 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r 39% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 59 58 33 89 0 75 2 50 0 2 0 Future Vol, veh/h 36 59 58 33 89 0 75 2 50 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 39 63 62 35 96 0 81 2 54 0 2 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 750 Service Time WB 2.858 1.964 NB 2.691 2.797 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.146 Opposing Approach WB 0.053 0.133 EB HCM Control Delay 8.4 SB 7.3 8.5 8.4 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A A 2 A A 1 0.6 0.5 0.2 1 0.5 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach RighNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.4 8.4 7.8 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 59% 38% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 2% 62% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 39% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 127 95 58 33 89 2 LT Vol 75 36 0 33 0 0 Through Vol 2 59 0 0 89 2 RT Vol 50 0 58 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 137 102 62 35 96 2 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.17 0.146 0.074 0.054 0.132 0.003 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.485 5.138 4.245 5.472 4.969 4.77 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 802 700 845 656 723 750 Service Time 2.503 2.858 1.964 3.194 2.691 2.797 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.171 0.146 0.073 0.053 0.133 0.003 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.7 7.3 8.5 8.4 7.8 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 696 15 209 423 0 222 Future Vol, veh/h 696 15 209 423 0 222 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 733 16 220 445 0 234 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 749 0 - 367 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 869 0 636 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 869 - 636 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.5 13.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 636 - 869 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.367 - 0.253 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.9 - 10.5 HCM Lane LOS B - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 - 1 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 5.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 66 42 43 17 28 78 Future Vol, veh/h 66 42 43 17 28 78 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 73 47 48 19 31 87 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 67 0 - 0 251 58 Stage 1 - - - - 58 - Stage 2 - - 193 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1547 - 742 1014 Stage 1 - - 970 - Stage 2 - - 845 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1547 - 707 1014 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 707 - Stage 1 - 924 Stage 2 - 845 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.5 0 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1547 - - 910 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - - 0.129 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 735 34 98 471 42 28 102 188 26 57 133 Future Volume (veh/h) 148 735 34 98 471 42 28 102 188 26 57 133 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1032 1.00 1.00 1011 1.00 1.00 1357 1.00 1.00 1348 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 326 No 610 462 No 532 238 No 605 238 No 601 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 154 766 35 102 491 44 29 106 196 27 59 139 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 234 1032 460 433 1011 451 146 1357 605 141 1348 601 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 766 35 102 491 44 29 106 196 27 59 139 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 18.1 1.1 2.5 10.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 4.9 1.3 1.0 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 18.1 1.1 2.5 10.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 4.9 1.3 1.0 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 1032 460 433 1011 451 146 1357 605 141 1348 601 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.74 0.08 0.24 0.49 0.10 0.20 0.08 0.32 0.19 0.04 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 326 1368 610 462 1193 532 238 1357 605 238 1348 601 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.9 28.3 12.1 35.1 26.1 23.0 38.3 16.9 7.2 38.5 16.8 18.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.4 7.4 0.5 1.0 4.3 0.7 0.6 0.7 2.8 0.6 0.4 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.0 29.8 12.2 35.4 26.4 23.1 39.0 17.0 8.6 39.2 16.9 19.1 LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D B A D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 955 637 331 225 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.8 27.6 13.9 20.9 Approach LOS C C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 37.7 13.7 29.2 9.7 37.5 14.3 28.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 18.5 10.0 33.5 10.0 18.5 14.6 28.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.3 6.9 4.5 20.1 3.4 7.5 9.7 12.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Existing WP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1625 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 23 33 34 8 11 76 184 10 16 129 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 23 33 34 8 11 76 184 10 16 129 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 504 1.00 1.00 456 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 630 456 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 148 0 31 36 8 12 80 194 11 17 136 111 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 472 0 210 191 72 109 678 969 55 630 494 374 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.29 0.29 0.74 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 3429 0 1525 1714 650 975 1714 3291 185 1714 1854 1404 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 0 31 36 0 20 80 100 105 17 125 122 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 0 1525 1714 0 1625 1714 1710 1767 1714 1710 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 0.2 3.6 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 0.2 3.6 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.91 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 472 0 210 191 0 181 678 504 520 630 456 413 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 0 373 390 0 370 678 504 520 630 456 413 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 0.0 34.2 36.3 0.0 36.0 17.3 23.8 23.8 7.6 16.2 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.5 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlld.5 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.8 0.1 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 0.0 34.5 36.8 0.0 36.2 17.3 24.7 24.7 7.6 17.7 18.1 LnGrp LOS D A C D A D B C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 179 56 285 264 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 36.6 22.6 17.3 Approach LOS D D C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), 35.1 28.5 14.4 37.6 26.0 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gma1Qt➢,.3 24.0 19.5 13.0 21.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+Iq,a 6.0 5.5 4.7 5.9 3.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Existing WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 263 262 167 Traffic Vol, veh/h 138 0 0 8 0 8 0 76 7 4 98 122 Future Vol, veh/h 138 0 0 8 0 8 0 76 7 4 98 122 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 694 - 882 - 598 - 1349 - 1522 - - 832 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 827 0 832 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 145 0 0 8 0 8 0 80 7 4 103 128 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 263 262 167 259 323 84 231 0 0 87 0 0 Stage 1 175 175 - 84 84 - - - - - - - Stage 2 88 87 - 175 239 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 694 646 882 698 598 981 1349 1522 - Stage 1 832 758 - 929 829 - - - - - Stage 2 925 827 - 832 711 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 686 644 882 697 596 981 1349 1522 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 686 644 - 697 596 - - - - - Stage 1 832 756 - 929 829 - - - Stage 2 917 827 - 830 709 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 9.5 0 0.1 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1349 - 686 815 1522 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.212 0.021 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.7 9.5 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.8 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1581 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 238 144 140 511 185 71 388 80 127 727 324 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 238 144 140 511 185 71 388 80 127 727 324 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 422 1.00 1.00 754 1.00 1.00 1927 1.00 1.00 1987 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 393 No 474 347 No 424 267 No 807 286 No 865 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 294 264 160 156 568 206 79 431 89 141 808 360 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 367 512 300 314 754 336 212 1927 807 232 1987 865 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.44 0.44 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.14 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 2074 1217 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 294 216 208 156 568 206 79 431 89 141 808 360 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1581 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 9.8 10.3 6.6 12.5 6.5 3.8 5.3 2.6 7.0 10.5 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 9.8 10.3 6.6 12.5 6.5 3.8 5.3 2.6 7.0 10.5 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 367 422 390 314 754 336 212 1927 807 232 1987 865 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.51 0.53 0.50 0.75 0.61 0.37 0.22 0.11 0.61 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 513 474 347 950 424 267 1927 807 286 1987 865 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 29.2 29.4 25.4 23.1 10.8 36.2 18.2 10.6 36.6 19.1 3.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.6 1.0 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.6 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 4.1 3.9 2.4 4.0 2.7 1.6 2.0 0.9 3.0 4.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 30.2 30.5 26.1 24.6 11.9 37.3 18.5 10.9 39.2 19.7 5.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B D B B D B A Approach Vol, veh/h 718 930 599 1309 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.3 22.1 19.8 17.8 Approach LOS D C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 37.3 14.3 24.2 13.1 38.4 16.6 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 23.5 11.5 24.5 11.5 24.5 13.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.0 7.3 8.6 12.3 5.8 12.5 12.0 14.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.0 0.1 5.4 0.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.0 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 0 1546 1714 0 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 373 38 35 747 34 22 2 19 48 0 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 373 38 35 747 34 22 2 19 48 0 67 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1002 1.00 1.00 1009 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 342 No 466 386 No 458 976 No 454 390 No 347 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 414 42 39 830 38 24 2 21 53 0 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 247 1002 447 305 1009 450 976 39 414 390 0 347 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 134 1412 1714 0 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 414 42 39 830 38 24 0 23 53 0 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1546 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.3 2.3 1.6 21.4 2.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.3 2.3 1.6 21.4 2.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 247 1002 447 305 1009 450 976 0 454 390 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.41 0.09 0.13 0.82 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 342 1045 466 386 1026 458 976 0 454 390 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.4 33.4 29.8 25.5 38.3 29.6 22.6 0.0 22.8 27.7 0.0 28.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 5.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.8 4.7 0.8 0.6 10.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 33.6 29.9 25.7 43.7 29.6 22.7 0.0 23.0 28.4 0.0 29.6 LnGrp LOS D C C C D C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 493 907 47 127 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.8 42.4 22.8 29.1 Approach LOS C D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.4 10.7 28.4 22.5 10.5 28.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 10.5 25.0 18.0 11.0 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.0 3.6 12.3 5.5 2.0 23.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 6th LOS D LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 0 2 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 57 21 Future Vol, veh/h 25 0 2 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 57 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 32 0 3 0 0 0 1 19 0 0 72 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 107 107 86 108 120 19 99 0 0 19 0 0 Stage 1 86 86 - 21 21 - - - - - - - Stage 2 21 21 - 87 99 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 877 787 978 876 774 1065 1507 1611 - Stage 1 927 827 - 1003 882 - - - - - Stage 2 1003 882 - 926 817 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 876 786 978 873 773 1065 1507 1611 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 876 786 - 873 773 - - - - - Stage 1 926 827 - 1002 881 - - - Stage 2 1002 881 - 924 817 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 0.5 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1507 - 883 1611 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.039 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.2 0 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 15% 0% 11% 0% 11% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 8 1 1 16 2 3 8 2 16 10 29 Future Vol, veh/h 7 8 1 1 16 2 3 8 2 16 10 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 10 1 1 20 3 4 10 3 20 13 37 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 689 775 WB 776 703 NB Service Time 2.638 SB 2.345 2.922 Opposing Approach WB 1.803 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.013 0.014 SB 0.03 0.028 NB HCM Control Delay 7.7 Opposing Lanes 2 7.9 7.5 2 7 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 A A Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.1 0 NB 0 0.1 EB 0.2 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 23% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 62% 0% 89% 0% 89% 0% 26% Vol Right, % 15% 0% 11% 0% 11% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 13 7 9 1 18 16 39 LT Vol 3 7 0 1 0 16 0 Through Vol 8 0 8 0 16 0 10 RT Vol 2 0 1 0 2 0 29 Lane Flow Rate 16 9 11 1 23 20 49 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.021 0.013 0.015 0.002 0.029 0.029 0.056 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.58 5.162 4.583 5.16 4.582 5.083 4.062 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 776 689 775 689 776 703 878 Service Time 2.638 2.924 2.345 2.922 2.343 2.825 1.803 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.013 0.014 0.001 0.03 0.028 0.056 HCM Control Delay 7.7 8 7.4 7.9 7.5 8 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r 73% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 20 20 21 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 20 20 21 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 3 22 22 23 0 3 0 9 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB Service Time WB 2.256 1.556 NB 2.239 2.076 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.004 Opposing Approach WB 0.029 EB HCM Control Delay 6.7 SB 6.7 7.9 7.4 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A 2 A N 1 0 0 0.1 1 0.1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 6.8 7.6 6.7 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 27% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 73% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 11 3 20 20 21 0 LT Vol 3 0 0 20 0 0 Through Vol 0 3 0 0 21 0 RT Vol 8 0 20 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 12 3 22 22 23 0 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.012 0.004 0.024 0.031 0.029 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 3.638 4.544 3.844 5.034 4.534 4.03 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 978 790 934 715 794 0 Service Time 1.683 2.256 1.556 2.739 2.239 2.076 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 0.004 0.024 0.031 0.029 0 HCM Control Delay 6.7 7.3 6.7 7.9 7.4 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A N HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 458 7 36 803 0 9 Future Vol, veh/h 458 7 36 803 0 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 515 8 40 902 0 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 523 0 - 258 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1054 0 747 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1054 - 747 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 9.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 747 - 1054 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.038 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - 8.6 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 6.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 3 9 8 19 32 Future Vol, veh/h 8 3 9 8 19 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 4 12 10 25 42 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 22 0 - 0 41 17 Stage 1 - - - - 17 - Stage 2 - - 24 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1607 - 975 1068 Stage 1 - - 1011 - Stage 2 - - 1004 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1607 - 969 1068 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 969 - Stage 1 - 1005 Stage 2 - 1004 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.3 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1607 - - 1029 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 421 0 50 736 85 3 18 32 88 34 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 421 0 50 736 85 3 18 32 88 34 99 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 696 1.00 1.00 998 1.00 1.00 1310 1.00 1.00 855 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 343 No 585 652 No 492 448 No 584 248 No 381 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 453 0 54 791 91 3 19 34 95 37 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 185 696 310 652 998 445 448 1310 584 220 855 381 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.38 0.38 0.13 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 453 0 54 791 91 3 19 34 95 37 106 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 10.9 0.0 1.2 19.2 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 4.6 0.7 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 10.9 0.0 1.2 19.2 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 4.6 0.7 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 185 696 310 652 998 445 448 1310 584 220 855 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.65 0.00 0.08 0.79 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.43 0.04 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 343 1311 585 652 1102 492 448 1310 584 248 855 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.9 32.9 0.0 29.6 29.4 24.0 24.6 17.2 4.7 36.2 25.6 14.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.1 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 4.5 0.0 0.5 8.1 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.3 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 33.9 0.0 29.6 33.1 24.2 24.6 17.2 4.9 37.5 25.7 16.0 LnGrp LOS D C A C C C C B A D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 504 936 56 238 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.3 32.0 10.2 26.1 Approach LOS C C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 36.5 19.7 20.3 25.5 24.5 11.7 28.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 19.5 10.0 32.0 10.0 20.0 15.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.6 2.7 3.2 12.9 2.1 5.6 4.5 21.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1525 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 0 3 1 0 1 16 47 1 1 82 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 0 3 1 0 1 16 47 1 1 82 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 542 1.00 1.00 475 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 872 475 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 0 3 1 0 1 18 52 1 1 90 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 180 0 80 57 0 51 939 1087 21 872 777 168 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, vehlh 3429 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 3432 66 1714 2798 604 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 0 3 1 0 1 18 26 27 1 54 56 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/lnl714 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 1710 1788 1714 1710 1691 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 0 80 57 0 51 939 542 566 872 475 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 781 0 347 390 0 347 939 542 566 872 475 470 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 40.5 42.1 0.0 42.1 9.3 21.3 21.3 10.9 24.2 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 0.0 40.7 42.2 0.0 42.2 9.3 21.5 21.5 10.9 24.7 24.8 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D A C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 10 2 71 111 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.6 42.2 18.4 24.6 Approach LOS D D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),47.8 30.5 6.7 51.3 27.0 5.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gma1q,.9 26.0 18.0 13.5 22.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I ,0; 2.9 2.2 2.4 4.2 2.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Opening Year (2023) NP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 60 64 40 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 4 11 4 38 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 4 11 4 38 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 941 - 1037 - 837 - 1583 - 1615 - - 971 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 886 0 971 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 14 0 4 0 4 12 4 40 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 60 64 40 58 58 10 40 0 0 16 0 0 Stage 1 48 48 - 10 10 - - - - - - - Stage 2 12 16 - 48 48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 941 831 1037 944 837 1077 1583 1615 - Stage 1 971 859 - 1016 891 - - - - - Stage 2 1014 886 - 971 859 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 935 829 1037 942 834 1077 1583 1615 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 935 829 - 942 834 - - - - - Stage 1 971 856 - 1016 891 - - - Stage 2 1010 886 - 968 856 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 8.8 0 0.7 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1583 - - 971 1615 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.018 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 8.8 7.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1673 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 439 772 204 140 416 209 211 900 170 227 777 342 Future Volume (veh/h) 439 772 204 140 416 209 211 900 170 227 777 342 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 602 1.00 1.00 994 1.00 1.00 1332 1.00 1.00 1214 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 549 No 599 353 No 458 312 No 622 260 No 678 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 472 830 219 151 447 225 227 968 183 244 835 368 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 549 942 249 347 994 443 301 1332 622 260 1214 678 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.15 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 2677 706 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 472 530 519 151 447 225 227 968 183 244 835 368 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1673 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.7 26.2 26.2 5.2 11.1 8.1 11.3 16.1 4.3 12.7 13.9 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.7 26.2 26.2 5.2 11.1 8.1 11.3 16.1 4.3 12.7 13.9 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 549 602 589 347 994 443 301 1332 622 260 1214 678 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.44 0.45 0.51 0.75 0.73 0.29 0.94 0.69 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 612 599 353 1026 458 312 1332 622 260 1214 678 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 27.4 27.4 21.6 33.9 14.4 35.2 29.8 7.2 37.8 30.7 18.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.0 13.9 14.2 0.8 0.3 0.8 9.6 3.5 1.2 39.4 3.2 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.0 12.6 12.3 2.2 5.1 3.1 5.4 6.6 1.9 8.1 5.7 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.2 41.3 41.6 22.4 34.2 15.2 44.8 33.3 8.4 77.2 33.9 21.4 LnGrp LOS C D D C C B D C A E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1521 823 1378 1447 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.9 26.8 31.9 38.0 Approach LOS D C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.6 26.4 14.3 33.7 17.8 24.2 19.8 28.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.3 21.9 10.1 29.7 13.9 18.3 15.3 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.7 18.1 7.2 28.2 13.3 17.9 18.7 13.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.4 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.6 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 0 1554 1739 0 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 104 902 162 73 561 22 118 9 62 20 9 86 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 902 162 73 561 22 118 9 62 20 9 86 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1035 1.00 1.00 1004 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 423 No 466 356 No 475 858 No 401 396 No 347 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 949 171 77 591 23 124 9 65 21 9 91 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 411 1035 462 319 1004 448 858 49 352 277 119 347 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 189 1365 1217 522 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 949 171 77 591 23 124 0 74 30 0 91 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1554 1739 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 22.2 5.1 2.6 14.9 1.2 2.6 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 22.2 5.1 2.6 14.9 1.2 2.6 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 411 1035 462 319 1004 448 858 0 401 396 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.92 0.37 0.24 0.59 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 423 1045 466 356 1064 475 858 0 401 396 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.47 0.47 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.3 16.8 13.4 20.9 35.4 29.3 25.7 0.0 26.0 27.3 0.0 28.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 6.6 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.1 5.6 1.5 1.1 6.9 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.4 23.3 13.6 21.3 36.2 29.3 26.1 0.0 27.0 27.7 0.0 30.4 LnGrp LOS B C B C D C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1229 691 198 121 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 34.3 26.4 29.7 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.2 13.0 29.2 22.5 13.8 28.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 10.5 25.0 18.0 10.0 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.3 4.6 24.2 6.4 5.1 16.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 0 2 0 0 0 1 188 0 0 202 36 Future Vol, veh/h 18 0 2 0 0 0 1 188 0 0 202 36 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 20 0 2 0 0 0 1 204 0 0 220 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 446 446 240 447 465 204 259 0 0 204 0 0 Stage 1 240 240 - 206 206 - - - - - - - Stage 2 206 206 - 241 259 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 526 510 804 525 498 842 1317 1380 - Stage 1 768 711 - 801 735 - - - - - Stage 2 801 735 - 767 697 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 525 509 804 523 498 842 1317 1380 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 525 509 - 523 498 - - - - - Stage 1 767 711 - 800 734 - - - Stage 2 800 734 - 765 697 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 0 0 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1317 - 544 1380 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.04 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 11.9 0 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 9.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 27% 0% 16% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 47 9 3 105 106 10 26 13 95 35 74 Future Vol, veh/h 57 47 9 3 105 106 10 26 13 95 35 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 66 54 10 3 121 122 11 30 15 109 40 85 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 590 657 WB 706 593 NB Service Time 3.753 SB 3.189 3.691 Opposing Approach WB 2.809 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.112 0.097 SB 0.344 0.184 NB HCM Control Delay 9.3 Opposing Lanes 2 8.7 10.5 2 8.9 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 B B Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.3 0.4 NB 0 1.5 EB 0.6 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 9.2 10.5 9.3 9.5 HCM LOS A B A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 20% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 53% 0% 84% 0% 50% 0% 32% Vol Right, % 27% 0% 16% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 49 57 56 3 211 95 109 LT Vol 10 57 0 3 0 95 0 Through Vol 26 0 47 0 105 0 35 RT Vol 13 0 9 0 106 0 74 Lane Flow Rate 56 66 64 3 243 109 125 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.089 0.11 0.097 0.006 0.341 0.182 0.175 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.661 6.03 5.412 5.925 5.066 6.016 5.035 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 627 590 657 601 706 593 707 Service Time 3.753 3.808 3.189 3.691 2.832 3.791 2.809 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.089 0.112 0.097 0.005 0.344 0.184 0.177 HCM Control Delay 9.3 9.6 8.8 8.7 10.5 10.1 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A A B B A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.4 0.3 0 1.5 0.7 0.6 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r 40% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 66 65 37 100 0 84 0 56 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 66 65 37 100 0 84 0 56 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 71 70 40 108 0 90 0 60 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB Service Time WB 2.714 2.01 NB 2.695 2.786 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.099 Opposing Approach WB 0.149 EB HCM Control Delay 8.5 SB 7.4 8.6 8.6 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A 2 A N 1 0.7 0.3 0.3 1 0.5 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.9 8.6 8.5 0 HCM LOS A A A - Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 60% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 40% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 140 66 65 37 100 0 LT Vol 84 0 0 37 0 0 Through Vol 0 66 0 0 100 0 RT Vol 56 0 65 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 151 71 70 40 108 0 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.186 0.098 0.083 0.061 0.149 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.454 4.991 4.287 5.475 4.973 4.76 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 807 719 837 656 723 0 Service Time 2.471 2.714 2.01 3.197 2.695 2.786 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.187 0.099 0.084 0.061 0.149 0 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.3 7.4 8.6 8.6 7.8 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A N HCM 95th -tile Q 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 970 17 97 659 0 94 Future Vol, veh/h 970 17 97 659 0 94 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1021 18 102 694 0 99 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1039 0 - 511 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 677 0 513 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 677 - 513 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.4 13.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 513 - 677 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.193 - 0.151 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 - 11.3 HCM Lane LOS B - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 0.5 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 5.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 74 47 48 19 31 87 Future Vol, veh/h 74 47 48 19 31 87 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 82 52 53 21 34 97 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 74 0 - 0 280 64 Stage 1 - - - - 64 - Stage 2 - - 216 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1538 - 714 1006 Stage 1 - - 964 - Stage 2 - - 825 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1538 - 676 1006 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 676 - Stage 1 - 913 Stage 2 - 825 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.6 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1538 - - 892 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 - - 0.147 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 - - 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.5 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 885 38 110 604 47 31 114 212 29 64 121 Future Volume (veh/h) 140 885 38 110 604 47 31 114 212 29 64 121 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1172 1.00 1.00 1160 1.00 1.00 1195 1.00 1.00 1187 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 326 No 610 462 No 532 238 No 533 238 No 529 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 922 40 115 629 49 32 119 221 30 67 126 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 233 1172 523 441 1160 517 153 1195 533 148 1187 529 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 146 922 40 115 629 49 32 119 221 30 67 126 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 21.8 1.1 2.8 13.4 2.0 1.6 2.1 6.4 1.5 1.2 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 21.8 1.1 2.8 13.4 2.0 1.6 2.1 6.4 1.5 1.2 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 233 1172 523 441 1160 517 153 1195 533 148 1187 529 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.79 0.08 0.26 0.54 0.09 0.21 0.10 0.41 0.20 0.06 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 326 1368 610 462 1193 532 238 1195 533 238 1187 529 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.7 26.6 10.1 35.1 24.1 20.3 38.1 19.7 9.2 38.2 19.6 20.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 2.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.7 0.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.2 9.0 0.6 1.1 5.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 3.6 0.6 0.5 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.5 29.3 10.2 35.4 24.6 20.4 38.7 19.9 11.5 38.9 19.7 22.0 LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D B B D B C Approach Vol, veh/h 1108 793 372 223 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.0 25.9 16.5 23.6 Approach LOS C C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 33.5 13.9 32.8 10.0 33.2 14.2 32.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 18.5 10.0 33.5 10.0 18.5 14.6 28.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.5 8.4 4.8 23.8 3.6 7.3 9.2 15.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.1 0.1 4.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 3.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1627 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 136 26 37 38 9 12 85 207 11 18 144 118 Future Volume (veh/h) 136 26 37 38 9 12 85 207 11 18 144 118 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 504 1.00 1.00 456 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 623 456 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 166 0 35 40 9 13 89 218 12 19 152 124 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 474 0 211 198 77 111 670 971 53 623 493 375 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.73 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 3429 0 1525 1714 666 961 1714 3297 180 1714 1849 1408 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 0 35 40 0 22 89 112 118 19 140 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 0 1525 1714 0 1627 1714 1710 1768 1714 1710 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.0 1.1 3.0 4.5 4.5 0.3 4.1 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.0 1.1 3.0 4.5 4.5 0.3 4.1 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.91 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 474 0 211 198 0 188 670 504 520 623 456 412 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.17 0.20 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.22 0.23 0.03 0.31 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 0 373 390 0 371 670 504 520 623 456 412 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.1 0.0 34.2 36.1 0.0 35.7 17.6 24.0 24.0 7.9 16.4 16.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlld.7 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.4 1.2 1.9 2.0 0.1 1.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.6 0.0 34.6 36.6 0.0 36.0 17.7 25.0 25.0 7.9 18.1 18.6 LnGrp LOS D A C D A D B C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 201 62 319 295 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 36.4 23.0 17.6 Approach LOS D D C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), 34.7 28.5 14.4 37.2 26.0 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gma1Qt➢,.3 24.0 19.5 13.0 21.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I q,33 6.5 5.9 5.0 6.5 3.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Opening Year (2023) NP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 222 221 116 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 85 8 4 110 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 85 8 4 110 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 738 - 942 - 685 - 1485 - 1509 - - 885 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 819 0 885 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 89 8 4 116 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 222 221 116 217 217 93 116 0 0 97 0 0 Stage 1 124 124 - 93 93 - - - - - - - Stage 2 98 97 - 124 124 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 738 681 942 744 685 970 1485 1509 - Stage 1 885 797 - 919 822 - - - - - Stage 2 913 819 - 885 797 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 729 679 942 743 683 970 1485 1509 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 729 679 - 743 683 - - - - - Stage 1 885 795 - 919 822 - - - Stage 2 904 819 - 882 795 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 9.4 0 0.3 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1485 - - 841 1509 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.023 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 9.4 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1581 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 238 144 146 511 189 71 388 80 133 727 324 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 238 144 146 511 189 71 388 80 133 727 324 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 421 1.00 1.00 754 1.00 1.00 1924 1.00 1.00 1986 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 393 No 474 347 No 424 267 No 806 286 No 865 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 294 264 160 162 568 210 79 431 89 148 808 360 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 367 511 300 315 754 337 212 1924 806 233 1986 865 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.44 0.44 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.14 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 2074 1217 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 294 216 208 162 568 210 79 431 89 148 808 360 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1581 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 9.8 10.3 6.9 12.5 6.7 3.8 5.3 2.6 7.3 10.6 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 9.8 10.3 6.9 12.5 6.7 3.8 5.3 2.6 7.3 10.6 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 367 421 390 315 754 337 212 1924 806 233 1986 865 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.51 0.53 0.51 0.75 0.62 0.37 0.22 0.11 0.63 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 513 474 347 950 424 267 1924 806 286 1986 865 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 29.2 29.4 25.5 23.1 10.8 36.2 18.3 10.6 36.8 19.1 3.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.7 1.0 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 3.2 0.6 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 4.1 3.9 2.5 4.0 2.8 1.6 2.0 0.9 3.2 4.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 30.2 30.6 26.2 24.6 11.9 37.3 18.5 10.9 40.0 19.7 5.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B D B B D B A Approach Vol, veh/h 718 940 599 1316 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.3 22.0 19.9 18.0 Approach LOS D C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 37.2 14.3 24.2 13.1 38.4 16.7 21.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 23.5 11.5 24.5 11.5 24.5 13.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.3 7.3 8.9 12.3 5.8 12.6 12.0 14.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.0 0.1 5.4 0.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.0 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 373 44 35 747 34 32 2 19 48 0 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 373 44 35 747 34 32 2 19 48 0 67 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 463 No 0 347 No 0.33 0.33 No 0.33 0.33 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 414 49 39 830 38 36 2 21 53 0 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 243 980 437 299 988 441 997 40 423 390 0 347 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 134 1412 1714 0 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 414 49 39 830 38 36 0 23 53 0 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1546 1714 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.3 2.6 1.6 21.5 2.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.3 2.6 1.6 21.5 2.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 980 437 299 988 441 997 0 463 390 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.42 0.11 0.13 0.84 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 980 437 418 988 441 997 0 463 390 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 33.7 30.3 25.9 38.7 29.9 22.3 0.0 22.4 27.7 0.0 28.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 6.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.8 4.7 1.0 0.7 10.7 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 34.0 30.4 26.1 45.3 30.0 22.4 0.0 22.6 28.4 0.0 29.6 LnGrp LOS D C C C D C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 500 907 59 127 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.1 43.8 22.5 29.1 Approach LOS C D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 10.7 27.8 22.5 10.5 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 12.5 23.0 18.0 12.0 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.0 3.6 12.3 5.5 2.0 23.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.8 HCM 6th LOS D LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Vii Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 0 2 0 0 10 1 15 0 6 57 21 Future Vol, veh/h 25 0 2 0 0 10 1 15 0 6 57 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 32 0 3 0 0 13 1 19 0 8 72 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 130 123 86 124 136 19 99 0 0 19 0 0 Stage 1 102 102 - 21 21 - - - - - - - Stage 2 28 21 - 103 115 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 847 771 978 855 759 1065 1507 1611 - Stage 1 909 815 - 1003 882 - - - - - Stage 2 994 882 - 908 804 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 833 766 978 849 754 1065 1507 1611 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 833 766 - 849 754 - - - - - Stage 1 908 811 - 1002 881 - - - Stage 2 982 881 - 901 800 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 8.4 0.5 0.5 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1507 - 842 1065 1611 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.041 0.012 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.5 8.4 7.2 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 15% 0% 5% 0% 11% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 20 1 1 16 2 3 8 2 16 10 29 Future Vol, veh/h 7 20 1 1 16 2 3 8 2 16 10 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 25 1 1 20 3 4 10 3 20 13 37 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 689 768 WB 774 698 NB Service Time 2.674 SB 2.39 2.934 Opposing Approach WB 1.839 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.013 0.035 SB 0.03 0.029 NB HCM Control Delay 7.8 Opposing Lanes 2 7.9 7.5 2 7.1 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 A A Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.1 0 NB 0 0.1 EB 0.2 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 23% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 62% 0% 95% 0% 89% 0% 26% Vol Right, % 15% 0% 5% 0% 11% 0% 74% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 13 7 21 1 18 16 39 LT Vol 3 7 0 1 0 16 0 Through Vol 8 0 20 0 16 0 10 RT Vol 2 0 1 0 2 0 29 Lane Flow Rate 16 9 27 1 23 20 49 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.021 0.013 0.034 0.002 0.029 0.029 0.056 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.607 5.162 4.628 5.169 4.59 5.11 4.089 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 770 689 768 688 774 698 870 Service Time 2.674 2.924 2.39 2.934 2.355 2.861 1.839 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.013 0.035 0.001 0.03 0.029 0.056 HCM Control Delay 7.8 8 7.6 7.9 7.5 8 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r Vii 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 3 20 20 21 0 3 3 8 0 2 0 Future Vol, veh/h 12 3 20 20 21 0 3 3 8 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 13 3 22 22 23 0 3 3 9 0 2 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 875 Service Time WB 2.671 1.57 NB 2.263 2.114 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.023 Opposing Approach WB 0.031 0.029 EB HCM Control Delay 6.9 SB 6.7 7.9 7.4 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A A 2 A A 1 0 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach RighNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 7.2 7.6 6.9 7.1 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 21% 80% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 21% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 57% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 14 15 20 20 21 2 LT Vol 3 12 0 20 0 0 Through Vol 3 3 0 0 21 2 RT Vol 8 0 20 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 16 17 22 22 23 2 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.016 0.023 0.024 0.031 0.029 0.003 Departure Headway (Hd) 3.744 4.954 3.854 5.051 4.551 4.055 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 947 724 931 711 789 875 Service Time 1.802 2.671 1.57 2.764 2.263 2.114 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.023 0.024 0.031 0.029 0.002 HCM Control Delay 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.9 7.4 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r Vii tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 458 7 69 803 0 30 Future Vol, veh/h 458 7 69 803 0 30 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 515 8 78 902 0 34 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 523 0 - 258 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1054 0 747 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1054 - 747 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 747 - 1054 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - 0.074 HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 3 9 8 19 32 Future Vol, veh/h 8 3 9 8 19 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 4 12 10 25 42 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 22 0 - 0 41 17 Stage 1 - - - - 17 - Stage 2 - - 24 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1607 - 975 1068 Stage 1 - - 1011 - Stage 2 - - 1004 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1607 - 969 1068 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 969 - Stage 1 - 1005 Stage 2 - 1004 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.3 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1607 - - 1029 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 52 437 0 50 761 85 3 18 32 88 34 107 Future Volume (veh/h) 52 437 0 50 761 85 3 18 32 88 34 107 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 715 1.00 1.00 1017 1.00 1.00 1279 1.00 1.00 855 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 343 No 585 664 No 492 433 No 570 248 No 381 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 470 0 54 818 91 3 19 34 95 37 115 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 191 715 319 664 1017 453 433 1279 570 220 855 381 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.21 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 470 0 54 818 91 3 19 34 95 37 115 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 11.3 0.0 1.2 19.9 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 4.6 0.7 4.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 11.3 0.0 1.2 19.9 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 4.6 0.7 4.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 191 715 319 664 1017 453 433 1279 570 220 855 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.66 0.00 0.08 0.80 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.43 0.04 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 343 1311 585 664 1102 492 433 1279 570 248 855 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.7 32.6 0.0 29.3 29.2 23.6 25.2 17.7 4.9 36.2 25.6 14.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.1 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 4.7 0.0 0.5 8.5 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.3 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 33.7 0.0 29.3 33.4 23.8 25.2 17.8 5.1 37.5 25.7 16.1 LnGrp LOS D C A C C C C B A D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 526 963 56 247 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.1 32.2 10.5 25.8 Approach LOS C C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 35.6 20.0 20.8 24.7 24.5 12.0 28.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 19.5 10.0 32.0 10.0 20.0 15.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.6 2.7 3.2 13.3 2.1 6.0 4.7 21.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1525 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 0 3 1 0 1 16 47 1 1 82 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 0 3 1 0 1 16 47 1 1 82 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 542 1.00 1.00 475 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 872 475 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 0 3 1 0 1 18 52 1 1 90 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 180 0 80 57 0 51 939 1087 21 872 777 168 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, vehlh 3429 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 3432 66 1714 2798 604 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 0 3 1 0 1 18 26 27 1 54 56 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/lnl714 0 1525 1714 0 1525 1714 1710 1788 1714 1710 1691 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 0 80 57 0 51 939 542 566 872 475 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 781 0 347 390 0 347 939 542 566 872 475 470 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 40.5 42.1 0.0 42.1 9.3 21.3 21.3 10.9 24.2 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 0.0 40.7 42.2 0.0 42.2 9.3 21.5 21.5 10.9 24.7 24.8 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D A C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 10 2 71 111 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.6 42.2 18.4 24.6 Approach LOS D D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),47.8 30.5 6.7 51.3 27.0 5.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gma1q,.9 26.0 18.0 13.5 22.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I ,0; 2.9 2.2 2.4 4.2 2.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Opening Year (2023) WP - AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 78 82 58 Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 0 0 13 0 4 0 4 11 4 38 33 Future Vol, veh/h 21 0 0 13 0 4 0 4 11 4 38 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 916 - 1014 - 801 - 1537 - - 1615 - - 950 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 886 0 950 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 22 0 0 14 0 4 0 4 12 4 40 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 78 82 58 76 93 10 75 0 0 16 0 0 Stage 1 66 66 - 10 10 - - - - - - - Stage 2 12 16 - 66 83 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 916 812 1014 919 801 1077 1537 - 1615 - Stage 1 950 844 - 1016 891 - - - - - Stage 2 1014 886 - 950 830 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 911 810 1014 917 799 1077 1537 - 1615 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 911 810 - 917 799 - - - - - Stage 1 950 841 - 1016 891 - - - Stage 2 1010 886 - 947 828 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 8.9 0 0.4 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1537 - 911 950 1615 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.024 0.019 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.1 8.9 7.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 02/01/2018 Page 10 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 1: Day Creek Boulevard & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tib 1673 1714 tt r ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 439 777 204 180 422 225 211 900 170 241 777 342 Future Volume (veh/h) 439 777 204 180 422 225 211 900 170 241 777 342 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 603 1.00 1.00 1002 1.00 1.00 1332 1.00 1.00 1202 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 546 No 599 352 No 458 312 No 624 256 No 675 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 472 835 219 194 454 242 227 968 183 259 835 368 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 546 945 248 349 1002 447 301 1332 624 256 1202 675 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.15 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 2681 703 1714 3420 1525 1714 4914 1525 1714 4914 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 472 533 521 194 454 242 227 968 183 259 835 368 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1673 1714 1710 1525 1714 1638 1525 1714 1638 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.7 26.4 26.4 6.7 11.3 8.8 11.3 16.1 4.3 13.4 13.9 16.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.7 26.4 26.4 6.7 11.3 8.8 11.3 16.1 4.3 13.4 13.9 16.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 546 603 590 349 1002 447 301 1332 624 256 1202 675 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.56 0.45 0.54 0.75 0.73 0.29 1.01 0.69 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 546 612 599 352 1026 458 312 1332 624 256 1202 675 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 27.4 27.4 22.1 33.8 14.6 35.2 29.8 7.2 38.3 30.9 18.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.5 14.2 14.5 1.7 0.3 1.1 9.6 3.5 1.2 59.3 3.3 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.1 12.7 12.4 2.9 5.2 3.5 5.4 6.6 1.9 9.8 5.7 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.6 41.5 41.8 23.8 34.1 15.7 44.8 33.3 8.4 97.6 34.3 21.6 LnGrp LOS C D D C C B D C A F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1526 890 1378 1462 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 26.9 31.9 42.3 Approach LOS D C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 26.4 14.4 33.7 17.8 24.0 19.8 28.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.3 21.9 10.1 29.7 13.9 18.3 15.3 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 15.4 18.1 8.7 28.4 13.3 18.0 18.7 13.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.8 HCM 6th LOS D LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 2: Arbor Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt r ) tt r )) 0 1554 1739 0 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 104 902 181 73 561 22 180 9 62 20 9 86 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 902 181 73 561 22 180 9 62 20 9 86 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1007 1.00 1.00 976 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 445 No 449 366 No 449 885 No 414 396 No 347 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 949 191 77 591 23 189 9 65 21 9 91 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 404 1007 449 309 976 436 885 50 363 277 119 347 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 3326 189 1365 1217 522 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 949 191 77 591 23 189 0 74 30 0 91 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1663 0 1554 1739 0 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 23.1 6.2 2.7 14.9 1.2 4.0 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 23.1 6.2 2.7 14.9 1.2 4.0 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 404 1007 449 309 976 436 885 0 414 396 0 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.94 0.43 0.25 0.61 0.05 0.21 0.00 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 445 1007 449 366 1007 449 885 0 414 396 0 347 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.7 17.8 14.3 21.7 35.9 29.7 25.7 0.0 25.4 27.3 0.0 28.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 8.8 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.1 6.1 1.8 1.1 6.9 0.5 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.8 26.5 14.6 22.1 36.9 29.7 26.2 0.0 26.4 27.7 0.0 30.4 LnGrp LOS B C B C D C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1249 691 263 121 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.7 35.0 26.3 29.7 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 13.0 28.5 22.5 13.8 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 11.5 24.0 18.0 11.5 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.0 4.7 25.1 6.4 5.2 16.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 3: Arbor Lane & Gatsby Drive/Project Driveway 1 Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Vii Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 0 2 0 0 62 1 188 0 19 202 36 Future Vol, veh/h 18 0 2 0 0 62 1 188 0 19 202 36 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 30 - 30 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 20 0 2 0 0 67 1 204 0 21 220 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 522 488 240 489 507 204 259 0 0 204 0 0 Stage 1 282 282 - 206 206 - - - - - - - Stage 2 240 206 - 283 301 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 468 483 804 493 471 842 1317 1380 - Stage 1 729 681 - 801 735 - - - - - Stage 2 768 735 - 728 669 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 425 475 804 486 463 842 1317 1380 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 425 475 - 486 463 - - - - - Stage 1 728 671 - 800 734 - - - Stage 2 706 734 - 715 659 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 9.6 0 0.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1317 - 446 842 1380 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.049 0.08 0.015 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 13.5 9.6 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 0.3 0 - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 3 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 4: Cultural Center Drive & Arbor Lane Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 9.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0% 1� Vol Right, % 27% 0% 10% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 83 9 3 105 106 10 26 13 95 35 74 Future Vol, veh/h 57 83 9 3 105 106 10 26 13 95 35 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 66 95 10 3 121 122 11 30 15 109 40 85 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB 588 649 WB 696 582 NB Service Time 3.881 SB 3.258 3.765 Opposing Approach WB 2.924 HCM Lane V/C Ratio EB 0.112 0.163 SB 0.349 0.187 NB HCM Control Delay 9.5 Opposing Lanes 2 8.8 10.6 2 9.1 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A 1 B B Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.3 0.4 NB 0 1.5 EB 0.6 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 9.4 10.6 9.5 9.7 HCM LOS A B A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 20% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 53% 0% 90% 0% 50% 0% 32% Vol Right, % 27% 0% 10% 0% 50% 0% 68% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 49 57 92 3 211 95 109 LT Vol 10 57 0 3 0 95 0 Through Vol 26 0 83 0 105 0 35 RT Vol 13 0 9 0 106 0 74 Lane Flow Rate 56 66 106 3 243 109 125 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.092 0.11 0.161 0.006 0.345 0.186 0.179 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.881 6.041 5.467 5.982 5.123 6.117 5.135 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 613 588 649 594 696 582 692 Service Time 3.881 3.832 3.258 3.765 2.905 3.907 2.924 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 0.112 0.163 0.005 0.349 0.187 0.181 HCM Control Delay 9.5 9.6 9.3 8.8 10.6 10.3 9.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A B B A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.4 0.6 0 1.5 0.7 0.6 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 4 HCM 6th AWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 5: Kew Avenue/Project Driveway 2 & Cultural Center Drive Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r Vii 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 66 65 37 100 0 84 2 56 0 2 0 Future Vol, veh/h 36 66 65 37 100 0 84 2 56 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 39 71 70 40 108 0 90 2 60 0 2 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 734 Service Time WB 2.911 2.03 NB 2.756 2.902 HCM Lane V/C Ratio SB 0.159 Opposing Approach WB 0.062 0.151 EB HCM Control Delay 8.7 SB 7.4 8.6 8.6 NB HCM Lane LOS Opposing Lanes 2 A A 2 A A 1 0.7 0.6 0.3 1 0.5 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach RighNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.6 8.7 7.9 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 59% 35% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 1 % 65% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 39% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 142 102 65 37 100 2 LT Vol 84 36 0 37 0 0 Through Vol 2 66 0 0 100 2 RT Vol 56 0 65 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 153 110 70 40 108 2 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.193 0.158 0.084 0.061 0.15 0.003 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.556 5.185 4.304 5.531 5.029 4.868 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 788 692 832 648 714 734 Service Time 2.579 2.911 2.03 3.258 2.756 2.902 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.194 0.159 0.084 0.062 0.151 0.003 HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.9 7.4 8.6 8.6 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 0 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 6: Pavilion Gardens Place & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r Vii tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) r Traffic Vol, veh/h 970 17 219 659 0 232 Future Vol, veh/h 970 17 219 659 0 232 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 100 60 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1021 18 231 694 0 244 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1039 0 - 511 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 677 0 513 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 677 - 513 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.3 18.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 513 - 677 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.476 - 0.341 HCM Control Delay (s) 18.2 - 13 HCM Lane LOS C - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.5 - 1.5 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 7: Cultural Center Drive/Eden Avenue & Pavilion Gardens Place Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 5.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + Traffic Vol, veh/h 74 47 48 19 31 87 Future Vol, veh/h 74 47 48 19 31 87 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 82 52 53 21 34 97 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 74 0 - 0 280 64 Stage 1 - - - - 64 - Stage 2 - - 216 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1538 - 714 1006 Stage 1 - - 964 - Stage 2 - - 825 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1538 - 676 1006 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 676 - Stage 1 - 913 Stage 2 - 825 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.6 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1538 - - 892 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 - - 0.147 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 - - 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.5 LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 8: Victoria Gardens Lane/Victoria Park Lane & Church Street Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1714 tt r 1663 tt r 1714 tt r 1714 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 956 38 110 667 47 31 114 212 29 64 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 956 38 110 667 47 31 114 212 29 64 180 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1229 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1138 1.00 1.00 1129 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 326 No 610 462 No 532 238 No 508 238 No 504 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 216 996 40 115 695 49 32 119 221 30 67 188 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 292 1229 548 441 1100 491 153 1138 508 148 1129 504 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1714 3420 1525 3326 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 1714 3420 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 996 40 115 695 49 32 119 221 30 67 188 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1710 1525 1663 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 1714 1710 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.8 23.7 1.1 2.8 15.6 2.0 1.6 2.2 6.6 1.5 1.2 8.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 23.7 1.1 2.8 15.6 2.0 1.6 2.2 6.6 1.5 1.2 8.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 292 1229 548 441 1100 491 153 1138 508 148 1129 504 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.81 0.07 0.26 0.63 0.10 0.21 0.10 0.44 0.20 0.06 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 326 1368 610 462 1193 532 238 1138 508 238 1129 504 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.4 26.1 9.4 35.1 26.0 21.4 38.1 20.8 9.9 38.2 20.6 23.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.8 3.5 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 2.7 0.7 0.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.0 9.8 0.5 1.1 6.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 3.7 0.6 0.5 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.2 29.5 9.5 35.4 26.9 21.5 38.7 20.9 12.6 38.9 20.7 25.1 LnGrp LOS D C A D C C D C B D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1252 859 372 285 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 27.8 17.5 25.5 Approach LOS C C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 31.9 13.9 34.3 10.0 31.7 17.3 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 18.5 10.0 33.5 10.0 18.5 14.6 28.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.5 8.6 4.8 25.7 3.6 10.5 12.8 17.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 6th LOS C LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 9: Victoria Gardens Lane & North Mainstreet Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour -11 --1. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1525 1714 r 1627 1714 1710 ) t 1710 ) t 0.0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 136 26 37 38 9 12 85 207 11 18 144 118 Future Volume (veh/h) 136 26 37 38 9 12 85 207 11 18 144 118 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 504 1.00 1.00 456 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 623 456 No HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 1.00 No 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 166 0 35 40 9 13 89 218 12 19 152 124 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 474 0 211 198 77 111 670 971 53 623 493 375 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.73 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 3429 0 1525 1714 666 961 1714 3297 180 1714 1849 1408 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 0 35 40 0 22 89 112 118 19 140 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In1714 0 1525 1714 0 1627 1714 1710 1768 1714 1710 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.0 1.1 3.0 4.5 4.5 0.3 4.1 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.0 1.1 3.0 4.5 4.5 0.3 4.1 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.91 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 474 0 211 198 0 188 670 504 520 623 456 412 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.17 0.20 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.22 0.23 0.03 0.31 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 0 373 390 0 371 670 504 520 623 456 412 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.1 0.0 34.2 36.1 0.0 35.7 17.6 24.0 24.0 7.9 16.4 16.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlld.7 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.4 1.2 1.9 2.0 0.1 1.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.6 0.0 34.6 36.6 0.0 36.0 17.7 25.0 25.0 7.9 18.1 18.6 LnGrp LOS D A C D A D B C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 201 62 319 295 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 36.4 23.0 17.6 Approach LOS D D C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), 34.7 28.5 14.4 37.2 26.0 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gma1Qt➢,.3 24.0 19.5 13.0 21.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I q,33 6.5 5.9 5.0 6.5 3.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 9 HCM 6th TWSC NE Parcel Public Parking Facility 10: Pavilion Gardens Place & Project Driveway 3/Driveway Opening Year (2023) WP - PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 286 285 180 Traffic Vol, veh/h 138 0 0 9 0 9 0 85 8 4 110 122 Future Vol, veh/h 138 0 0 9 0 9 0 85 8 4 110 122 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy - None - 3.5 None 3.3 - None Storage Length Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 670 - 868 - 581 - 1334 - 1509 - - 818 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - 819 0 818 Grade, % - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 145 0 0 9 0 9 0 89 8 4 116 128 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 286 285 180 281 345 93 244 0 0 97 0 0 Stage 1 188 188 - 93 93 - - - - - - - Stage 2 98 97 - 188 252 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 670 628 868 675 581 970 1334 1509 - Stage 1 818 748 - 919 822 - - - - - Stage 2 913 819 - 818 702 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 662 626 868 674 579 970 1334 1509 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 662 626 - 674 579 - - - - - Stage 1 818 746 - 919 822 - - - Stage 2 904 819 - 816 700 - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12 9.6 0 0.1 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1334 - 662 795 1509 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.219 0.024 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 12 9.6 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.8 0.1 0 - - LSA Synchro 9 Report 01/12/2018 Page 10 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(SCH NO. 2001031028) APRIL 2018 Appendix B: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis R:\FCR1701\Addendum\Final NE Parcel Addendum 4-19-18 CL.docx(04/20/18) VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN C RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J BERKELEY LSA CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE MEMORANDUM ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO DATE: March 7, 2018 To: City of Rancho Cucamonga FROM: Jason Lui, Senior Noise Specialist, LSA SUBJECT: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Memorandum for the NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Project in Rancho Cucamonga, California INTRODUCTION This noise and vibration impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the potential noise and vibration impacts and identify mitigation measures associated with the NE Parcel Public Parking Facility Project in Rancho Cucamonga, California (project). This report is intended to satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga's (City) requirement for a project -specific noise and vibration impact analysis by examining the impacts of the proposed uses on the project site and determining if mitigation measures would be required to reduce noise impacts. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located on the southeast corner of Church Street and Arbor Lane in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Figure 1 shows the regional and project location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project seeks to develop a public parking structure and police substation on a vacant 5.33 -acre parcel ("NE Parcel") owned by the City in the northeasterly portion of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (Master Plan) area. The public parking and police substation would serve the City's adjacent Cultural Center, the Victoria Gardens shopping center, and surrounding areas. The public parking facility would initially consist of a surface parking lot composed of 506 parking spaces and, eventually, a two-level parking structure (ground floor plus a single deck level above) providing a maximum of up to 869 total parking spaces, of which approximately 30 spaces would be dedicated for use by the police substation. The police substation building would be a single -story building containing up to 10,000 square feet of building area. The proposed Master Plan amendment would change the designation of the NE Parcel from Residential to Parking/Civic and Public Facilities. Figure 2 illustrates the site plan. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.Isa.net �, � �j '•;r., •.. i .k. � r r � �.ric, ��.y•.• n.. �i tt.[. yap �a 1�^-. _ �.r� 1 1 I` '•. a3 :� •' � n•H.n.1 "w . .,, � •+'' "I •' •�'r 'II ICd `LY�►17k'.�2L1 � �` {lITM SY yi!? . I ca Pip 41 . �. - - .. 1:. U re aP r • • • err rl•• I L -� ���� CHURCH STREET y `yam,. _. .� IJ X14:'- s • C� �,r_. im won Isi. • ° /..+sir' !';. e _.. L FOOTHILL BOULEVARD L " Atm Ij I,os Angeles County Aq 210 iRnnannmom - uiiii ■� • 91 r'��� i�'© ii� �1� ell �ti I T E,MME:a ��■■� _ �_ _ ► _ ! �i�l�A>/�+� a,!���/cc: � ISI LSAPARKING PROVIDED: FIGURE 2 PARKING STRUCTURE (2 LEVELS) = ±758 SPACES SURFACE PARKING = ± 87 SPACES SURFACE PARKING (FOR POLICE) = ± 24 SPACES TOTAL = + 869 SPACES N 0 00 00 FEET NE Parcel Public Parking Facility SOURCE: FORESTCITY/DLR Group Site Plan I:\FCR1701\G\Site Plan.cdr (2/16/2018) LSA To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, whereas loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a sound wave, which results in the tone's range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound's effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses. Measurement of Sound Sound intensity is measured with the A -weighted decibel scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A -weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound, similar to the human ear's de -emphasis of these frequencies. Decibels, unlike linear units (e.g., inches or pounds), are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve. For example, 10 decibels (dB) are 10 times more intense than 1 dB, 20 dB are 100 times more intense than 1 dB, and 30 dB are 1,000 times more intense than 1 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represent 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the sound's loudness. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound levels dissipate exponentially with distance from their noise sources. For a single -point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations) the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source sound levels decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time -varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day -night average noise level (Ldn) based on A -weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours), and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 4 LSA adjustment for events occurring during the relaxation and sleeping hours. CNEL and Ld„ are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term noise impact assessment. Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum instantaneous noise level (1 -max), which is the highest exponential time -averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak - operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level that was exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level (i.e., this noise level was exceeded half the time, and it was not the other half the time). The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time; it is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, Leq and L50 are approximately the same. Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category includes audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 dB and 3 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to sound levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high sound levels affects the entire system, with prolonged sound exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of sound exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the sound level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of sound is called the threshold of feeling. As sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by a feeling of pain in the ear (i.e., the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160-165 dBA will result in dizziness or a loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas. Table A lists definitions of acoustical terms and Table B shows common sound levels and their sources. Table C shows noise/land use compatibility guidelines from Figure PS -8 of the City's General Plan Public Health and Safety Chapter. 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» LSA Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit of sound level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the 140 Deafening number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio. Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., the 64 times as loud number of cycles per second). A -Weighted Sound The sound level obtained by use of A -weighting. The A -weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and Level, dBA very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the 16 times as loud human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A - 100 Very Loud weighted, unless reported otherwise.) Loi, Lio, Lso, L90 The fast A -weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level 1%, 10%, 50%, — and 90% of a stated time period, respectively. Equivalent Continuous The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A - Noise Level, Le weighted sound energy as the time varying sound. Community Noise The 24-hour A -weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of Equivalent Level, CNEL 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of Busy Restaurant 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Day/Night Noise Level, The 24-hour A -weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of Ldn 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A -weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a One-half as loud designated time interval, using fast time averaging. Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a composite Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment of sound from many sources from many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant. Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative 45 Quiet intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and Average Residence without Stereo Playing tonal or informational content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control (Harris 1991). Table B: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources Noise Source A -Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud — Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud — Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud — Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference level Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet — Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One-quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet — Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One-eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint — Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint — Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing — 0 Very Faint — Source: Compiled by LSA (2004). 3/8/18 ,P:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» Table C: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL, dBA Land Use Category 55 6o 65 70 75 80 Rcs.identiil - Law Density Single Laic Duplex. Mobile Hones ....... a ........ a ....... M....... Residentlal -Multiple Unit, Mixed Use ................................................... W Lodging - Nobela ...................................................... ■........ e ........ I ....... 0 ....... 4....... Schools, Libraries, Community Centers, Religious Institutions, Hospitals, Nursing Humes ................................................... Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters - ................................................... Sports Assnas, au6door Spectator Sports - ................................................... PlaygrourNk, "hbodwmd Parke ................................................... Outdoor Rdscreaiivn (Commerdd and Public) ................................................... flMlea, Rahail and CemmwelaI ................................................... Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, - Agriculture ................................................... ....... e ................ W....... 55 00 55 70 is so LSA Mormally Acceptable Nonnally Unacceptable Specified land ,iso is satisfactory based upon New construction or develoomenl should generally the assumptior that any buildings involved are be discouragac. If new cons:rucfion or development of normal conventional construction wdhout any docs proceed, a detailed aralysis of the noise spat al noise insulation requirements, reduction reauirements must be made with reeded noise insulation features ncluded in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Conditionally Acceptable %XXXX Clearly Unacceptable New construction or davelooment should be New construction or development should generally undertaker only after a detailed analysis of the not oe undertaken. Conslniction costs to make the noise reduction requirements is made and indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive nccoed naisc insulat onfcetures arc included in and :hr, outdoor onvironn•en: would not be usable, the design. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice, Outdoor environment will seem noisy. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Public Health and Safety Chapter, Noise, Figure PS -8 (2010). 3/8/18 ,P:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx. 7 LSA FUNDAMENTALS OF VIBRATION Vibration refers to ground -borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground -borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernible, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as the motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items sitting on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low - frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibration of walls, floors, and ceilings that radiate sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings. Typical sources of ground -borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile -driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel -wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with both ground -borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet (ft) from the vibration source, although there are examples of ground -borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft (Federal Transit Authority [FTA] 2006). When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground -borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, both construction of the project and the freight train operations could result in ground - borne vibration that may be perceptible and annoying. Ground -borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path will usually be greater than ground -borne noise. Ground -borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train -induced ground -borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile -driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA 2006). Ground -borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root -mean -square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). The RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as: L„ = 20 IOglo [V/Vref] where "Lv" is the vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), "V" is the RMS velocity amplitude, and "Vref " is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10-6 inches/second (in/sec) used in the United States. Table D illustrates human response to various vibration levels, as described in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 8 LSA Table D: Human Response to Different Levels of Ground -Borne Noise and Vibration Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz. Z Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz. dBA = A -weighted decibels Hz = Hertz FTA = Federal Transit Administration VdB = vibration velocity decibels The following includes factors that influence ground -borne vibration and noise. • Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, railroad track/roadway surface, railroad track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source. • Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth. • Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption. Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground -borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Experience with ground -borne vibration indicates: (1) vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils than in loose sandy soils; and (2) shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground -borne vibration problems at large distances from a railroad track. Factors such as layering of the soil and the depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground -borne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils. 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» Noise Level Vibration Human Response Low Mid Velocity Level 1 2 Frequency Frequency Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. Low -frequency 65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA sound is usually inaudible; mid -frequency sound is excessive for quiet sleeping areas. Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly 75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level unacceptable. Low -frequency noise is acceptable for sleeping areas; mid -frequency noise is annoying in most quiet occupied areas. Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events 85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA per day. Low -frequency noise is unacceptable for sleeping areas; mid - frequency noise is unacceptable even for infrequent events with institutional land uses, such as schools and churches. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz. Z Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz. dBA = A -weighted decibels Hz = Hertz FTA = Federal Transit Administration VdB = vibration velocity decibels The following includes factors that influence ground -borne vibration and noise. • Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, railroad track/roadway surface, railroad track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source. • Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth. • Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption. Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground -borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Experience with ground -borne vibration indicates: (1) vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils than in loose sandy soils; and (2) shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground -borne vibration problems at large distances from a railroad track. Factors such as layering of the soil and the depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground -borne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils. 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» LSA REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Federal Transit Administration Vibration standards included in the FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) are used in this analysis for ground -borne vibration impacts on human annoyance, as shown in Table E. The criteria presented in Table E account for the variations in project types as well as the frequency of events, which differ widely among projects. It is intuitive that when there will be fewer events per day, higher vibration levels would be required to evoke the same community response. This is accounted for in the criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent and infrequent events, in which the term "occasional events" is defined as between 30 and 70 events per day. Table E: Ground -Borne Vibration and Ground -Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 1 Frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day. Z Occasional events are defined as between 30 and 70 events per day. 3 Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration -sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 5 Vibration -sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground -borne noise. pin/sec = microinch/microinches per second FTA = Federal Transit Administration µPa = micropascals VdB = vibration velocity decibels dB = decibels dBA = A -weighted decibels The criteria for environmental impact from ground -borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table F lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 PPV [in/sec], FTA 2006) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non - engineered timber and masonry building, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 PPV [in/sec]). 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 10 Ground -Borne Vibration Impact Levels Ground -Borne Noise Impact Levels (VdB re 1 pin/sec) (dB re 20 µPa) Land Use Category Frequent' Occasiona12 Infrequent3 Frequent' Occasiona12 Infrequent3 Events Events Events Events Events Events Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A' N/A' N/A' interior operations. Category 2: Residences and buildings 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA where people normally sleep. Category 3: Institutional land uses 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA with primarily daytime use. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 1 Frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day. Z Occasional events are defined as between 30 and 70 events per day. 3 Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration -sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 5 Vibration -sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground -borne noise. pin/sec = microinch/microinches per second FTA = Federal Transit Administration µPa = micropascals VdB = vibration velocity decibels dB = decibels dBA = A -weighted decibels The criteria for environmental impact from ground -borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table F lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 PPV [in/sec], FTA 2006) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non - engineered timber and masonry building, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 PPV [in/sec]). 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 10 LSA Table F: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv (VdB)1 Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98 Non -engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 µin/sec. pin/sec = microinch/microinches per second PPV = peak particle velocity FTA = Federal Transit Administration RMS = root -mean -square in/sec = inch/inches per second VdB = vibration velocity decibels Lv = velocity in decibels Local Regulations City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element of the General Plan. The Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines shown on Figure PS -8 of the City's General Plan Public Health and Safety Element (shown in Table C of this document) were used as a guideline to evaluate noise impacts. As shown in Table C, normally acceptable noise levels for residences and office land uses are 60 dBA CNEL and 70 dBA CNEL, respectively. Exceeding the normally acceptable noise levels would be considered disturbing and annoying. Therefore, the 60 dBA CNEL and 70 dBA CNEL is considered the City's exterior noise standard for residences and office land uses, respectively. Municipal Code. Section 17.66.050 of the City's Municipal Code (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2012) establishes noise standards for residential, commercial, and office land uses affected by stationary noise sources, which are shown in Table G. Table G provides the City's maximum noise exterior and interior standards based on the noise and the time period. In addition, the City's Municipal Code limits construction activities adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use to occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. When construction activities occur adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the City's Municipal Code limits the noise generating activities to take place between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE Thresholds of Significance for Noise Based on the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, State Public Resource Code Sections 15000-15387 (Association of Environmental Professionals 2016), a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 11 LSA Table G. Maximum Noise Level Standards Noise Zone Time Noise Standard L25 (dBA) L15 (dBA) L8 (dBA) Lma„ (dBA) 15 Minutes 10 Minutes 5 Minutes Any Time Daytime 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65 65 70 79 80 Residential (Exterior) Nighttime 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60 60 65 74 75 Daytime 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 --1 Residential (Interior) Nighttime 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 Commercial and Office Daytime 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 70 70 75 84 85 (Exterior) Nighttime 1 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 65 65 70 79 80 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Municipal Code (2012). 1 The corrections apply to exterior noise only. City = City of Rancho Cucamonga dBA = A -weighted decibels environmental plans and the goals of the community in which it is located. The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the criteria in the Public Health and Safety Element of the City's General Plan and its Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Thresholds of Significance for Vibration Federal Transit Administration The criteria for environmental impact from ground -borne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table F lists the potential vibration damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV, FTA 2006) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non -engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV). Based on Table 8-3 in the FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006), interpretation of vibration criteria for detailed analysis is 78 VdB for residential uses during daytime hours. During nighttime hours, the vibration criterion is 72 VdB. For commercial and office buildings, the FTA guidelines suggest that a vibration level of 84 VdB should be used for a detailed analysis. A vibration level of 75 VdB from Table E was used to analyze institutional uses. EXISTING SETTING Land Uses in the Project Vicinity Land uses located in vicinity of the project site include residences, parking lots, a parking structure, a cultural center, and commercial/retail uses. The areas adjacent to the project site include the following uses: • North: Single-family residences (approximately 110 ft from the construction boundary) • East: A surface parking lot 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 12 LSA South: A parking structure, parking lot, and commercial/retail (approximately 70 ft, 60 ft, and 200 ft, respectively, from the construction boundary) West: Multifamily residences (approximately 80 ft from the construction boundary) Southwest: Victoria Gardens Cultural Center (approximately 170 ft from the construction boundary) Overview of the Existing Noise Environment Transportation facilities make up the primary existing noise sources in the project area. Traffic on Church Street, Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place is a steady source of ambient noise. Existing Aircraft Noise Ontario International Airport is 5.1 miles (mi) southwest of the project site. Based on the noise contour map for the Ontario International Airport (Los Angeles World Airports, October 2016), the project site would be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the airport. Existing Traffic Noise The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77- 108) was used to evaluate traffic -related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. The standard vehicle mix for Southern California roadways was used for traffic on these roadway segments. The existing 2017 traffic volumes on all roadways in project vicinity were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2018). Table H shows the modeled 24- hour CNEL levels for the existing conditions. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are attached to this memorandum. IMPACTS Short -Term Construction Noise Impacts Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during project construction. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 ft would generate up to a maximum of 84 dBA), the effect on longer-term ambient noise levels would be small when compared to existing hourly/daily traffic volumes of 1,134/11,340, 396/3,960, 331/3,310 and 189/1,890 vehicles on Church Street, Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place, respectively. Vehicles would use Arbor Lane, Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place to access the project site. Because construction -related vehicle trips would not approach the hourly/daily traffic volumes on Church Street, Arbor Lane, 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 13 LSA Table H: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). Note: Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with specific information. Noise modeling performed using "Soft' setting and Southern California traffic percentages. ADT = average daily traffic CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level ft = foot/feet dBA = A -weighted decibels Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place, traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term, construction -related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, excavation, grading, and building erection on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site, and therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction -related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table I lists typical construction equipment noise levels (reference maximum noise levels) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor, taken from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM; FHWA 2006). 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 14 Centerline to Centerline to Centerline to CNEL (dBA) 50 ft Roadway Segment ADT 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL from Centerline of (ft) (ft) (ft) Outermost Lane Church Street Between Day Creek 13,060 < 50 78 160 65.0 Boulevard and Arbor Lane Church Street Between Arbor Lane and 11,340 < 50 72 146 64.4 Pavilion Gardens Place Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens 12,900 < 50 78 158 65.0 Place and Victoria Gardens Lane Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane 510 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.8 Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek 2,700 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.3 Boulevard and Arbor Lane Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane 3,310 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.2 and Kew Avenue Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue 2,310 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.6 and Pavilion Gardens Place Arbor Lane Between Church Street and 3,960 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.2 Gatsby Drive Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and 3,510 < 50 < 50 < 50 50.7 Cultural Center Drive Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive 2,160 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.2 Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive 1,300 < 50 < 50 < 50 46.6 Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church 1,890 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.7 Street and Cultural Center Drive Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church 5,660 < 50 < 50 78 60.0 Street and North Mainstreet Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). Note: Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with specific information. Noise modeling performed using "Soft' setting and Southern California traffic percentages. ADT = average daily traffic CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level ft = foot/feet dBA = A -weighted decibels Cultural Center Drive, and Pavilion Gardens Place, traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term, construction -related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, excavation, grading, and building erection on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site, and therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction -related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table I lists typical construction equipment noise levels (reference maximum noise levels) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor, taken from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM; FHWA 2006). 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 14 LSA Table I: RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor' Spec. 721.560 Lm„, at 50 ft (dBA, slow) All Other Equipment > 5 HP 50 85 Auger Drill Rig 20 85 Backhoe 40 80 Chain Saw 20 85 Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 93 Compactor (ground) 20 80 Compressor (air) 40 80 Concrete Batch Plant 15 83 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 Concrete Pump Truck 20 82 Concrete Saw 20 90 Crane 16 85 Dozer 40 85 Drill Rig Truck 20 84 Drum Mixer 50 80 Dump Truck 40 84 Excavator 40 85 Flat Bed Truck 40 84 Front End Loader 40 80 Generator 50 82 Generator (< 25 kVA, VMS) 50 70 Grader 40 85 Impact Pile Driver 20 95 Jackhammer 20 85 Man Lift 20 85 Paver 50 85 Pickup Truck 40 55 Pneumatic Tools 50 85 Pumps 50 77 Roller 20 85 Scraper 40 85 Tractor 40 84 Vacuum Excavator (Vac -Truck) 40 85 Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 80 Vibratory Pile Driver 20 95 Warning Horn 5 85 Welder/Torch 40 73 Source: FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1 (FHWA 2006). Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. ' Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power. Z Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the CANT program to be consistent with the City of Boston, Massachusetts, Noise Code for the "Big Dig” project. CANT = Central Artery/Tunnel kVA = kilovolt -amperes dBA = A -weighted decibels L,,,= maximum instantaneous noise level FHWA = Federal Highway Administration N/A = not applicable ft = foot/feet RCNM = Roadway Construction Noise Model HP = horsepower VMS = variable message sign 3/8/18 ,P:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 15 LSA In addition to the reference maximum noise level, the usage factor provided in Table I is utilized to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation: L�,q(e (equip) = E.L.+10lo (U.F.) — 20lo g D ) 50 where: Leq(equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period E.L. = noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 ft U.F. = usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Utilizing the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously: n Ln Leq (composite) = 10 * loglo Y' 1010 1 The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Project construction during the grading phase is expected to require the use of excavator, grader, bulldozer, and backhoe. Assuming the two noisiest pieces of equipment, excavator and dozer, would operate simultaneously, the composite noise level would be 88 dBA Lmax or 84 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 ft from the construction area. This composite reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation: Leq (at distance X) = Leq (at 50 feet) — 20 * log10 X `501 In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA. The closest residences to the project site are located approximately 80 ft and 110 ft west and north, respectively, from the project construction boundary. These residences would be exposed to construction noise reaching 84 dBA Lmax (80 dBA Leq) and 81 dBA Lmax (77 dBA Leq), respectively. In addition, the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the closest commercial use to the project site are located approximately 170 ft and 200 ft southwest and south, respectively, from the project 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 16 LSA construction boundary. The Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the closest commercial use would be exposed to construction noise reaching 77 dBA Lmax (73 dBA Leq) and 76 dBA Lmax (72 dBA Leq), respectively. Table J summarizes the locations of the closest residences, commercial use, and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center along with their noise level exposure from construction activities. Construction noise levels would exceed the City's noise standard of 65 dBA for residences and Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the City's noise standard of 70 dBA for commercial uses. Therefore, noise generated from construction activities would be significant. The implementation of mitigation measures listed below would result in a less than significant impact. Table J: Summary of Construction Noise Levels Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). ft = foot/feet dBA = A -weighted decibels L,Q = equivalent continuous sound level LR,,,= maximum instantaneous noise level Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) and shall submit the plan to the City for review and approval. The plan shall include, but will not be limited to the following: • The construction contractor shall conform to the City's noise ordinance standards through the use of the following but not limited to smaller construction equipment, equipment operation time restrictions, and/or temporary construction barriers. The City's noise ordinance standards limits construction activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line for residences, school, church or similar type of use. For adjacent commercial or industrial uses, the City's Municipal Code limits construction activity to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.1A in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. • During all project site excavation and grading, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.16 in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors to the north 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 17 Reference Reference Noise Level Noise Level Land Use Direction Noise Level Noise Level Distance (ft) (dBA Leq) (dBA L_) (dBA Leq) at 50 ft (dBA L—) at 50 ft west 80 80 84 Residential North 110 78 82 84 88 Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Southwest 190 72 76 Commercial South 200 72 76 Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). ft = foot/feet dBA = A -weighted decibels L,Q = equivalent continuous sound level LR,,,= maximum instantaneous noise level Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) and shall submit the plan to the City for review and approval. The plan shall include, but will not be limited to the following: • The construction contractor shall conform to the City's noise ordinance standards through the use of the following but not limited to smaller construction equipment, equipment operation time restrictions, and/or temporary construction barriers. The City's noise ordinance standards limits construction activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line for residences, school, church or similar type of use. For adjacent commercial or industrial uses, the City's Municipal Code limits construction activity to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.1A in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. • During all project site excavation and grading, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.16 in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors to the north 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 17 LSA and west of the project site during all project construction. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.1C in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. • The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site to the north and west of the project boundaries. • The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators. • All residential units located within 500 ft of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the project construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 ft shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the "noise disturbance coordinator." • A "noise disturbance coordinator" shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. Short -Term Construction Vibration Impacts This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, whereas vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. As shown in Table F, the FTA guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 VdB (an equivalent to 0.5 PPV [in/sec]) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage (FTA 2006). For a non - engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 PPV [in/sec]). 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 18 LSA Table K shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 ft from the construction vibration source. As shown in Table K, bulldozers and other heavy -track construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of ground -borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). This level of ground -borne vibration levels would result in potential annoyance to residences and workers located adjacent to the project site, but would not cause any damage to the buildings. Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial buildings in the project vicinity). Outdoor site preparation for the project is expected to use a bulldozer and a loaded truck. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below. LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) — 30 Log (D/25) PPV,quip = PPVref x (25/D) 1.5 Table K: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/Lv at 25 ft PPV (in/sec) Lv (VdB)1 Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104 Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Large Bulldozerz 0.089 87 Caisson Drilling 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks2 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). ' RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 pin/sec. Z Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site. pin/sec = microinch/microinches per Lv = velocity in decibels second PPV = peak particle velocity ft = foot/feet RMS = root -mean -square FTA = Federal Transit Administration VdB = vibration velocity decibels in/sec = inch/inches per second Table L lists the projected vibration level from various construction equipment expected to be used on the project site to the nearest buildings in the project vicinity. For typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 87 VdB at 25 ft. The closest residences to the west and north are approximately 80 ft and 110 ft, respectively, from the project construction boundary. The closest building to the south and southwest is a parking structure and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center located approximately 75 ft and 170 ft, respectively, from the project construction boundary. As shown in Table L, the closest residences to the west and north would experience vibration levels of up to 72 VdB (0.016 PPV 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 19 LSA Table L: Summary of Construction Equipment and Activity Vibration Land Use Direction Equipment/ Activity Reference Vibration Level (VdB) at 25 ft Reference Vibration Level (PPV) at 25 ft Distance (ft) Maximum Vibration Level (VdB) Maximum Vibration Level (PPV) Residential West Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 80 72 0.016 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 80 71 0.013 Residential North Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 110 68 0.010 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 110 67 0.008 Parking Structure South Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 75 73 0.017 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 75 72 0.015 Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Southwest Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 170 62 0.005 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 170 61 0.004 Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). Note: The FTA -recommended building damage threshold is 0.2 PPV (in/sec) or approximately 94 VdB at the receiving residential structure and 0.3 PPV (in/sec) or approximately 98 VdB at the receiving commercial structure. ft = foot/feet PPV = peak particle velocity in/sec = inch/inches per second VdB = vibration velocity decibels FTA = Federal Transit Administration [in/sec]) and 68 VdB (0.010 PPV [in/sec]), respectively. The parking structure to the south and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center to the southwest would experience vibration levels of up to 73 VdB (0.017 PPV [in/sec]) and 62 VdB (0.005 PPV [in/sec]), respectively. Other adjacent buildings in the project area are farther away and would experience lower vibration levels. Construction vibration levels at residential structures from construction equipment or activity would not exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for building damage when bulldozers and loaded trucks operate at the project construction boundary. Construction vibration levels at residential uses would not result in annoyance. In addition, construction vibration levels at the parking structure and Victoria Gardens Cultural Center building from construction equipment or activity would not exceed the FTA threshold of 98 VdB (0.3 PPV [in/sec]) for building damage. Construction vibration levels at the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center building would not result in annoyance. Therefore, construction vibration levels would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Long -Term Aircraft Noise Impacts As discussed above, Ontario International Airport is 5.1 mi southwest of the project site. Based on the noise contour map for the Ontario International Airport (Los Angeles World Airports, October 2016), the project site would be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The aircraft noise generated from the Ontario International Airport would be lower than 65 dBA CNEL, and the proposed police substation would not be exposed to aircraft noise that exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for commercial and office uses. Therefore, noise generated from aircraft noise would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Long -Term Off -Site Traffic Noise Impacts This noise impact analysis is based on information from the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2018) conducted for the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the existing and opening year (2023) 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 20 LSA scenarios were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2018). The baseline scenarios and with - project scenarios are evaluated to determine potential traffic noise impacts on sensitive land uses on and off the project site. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic - related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. The standard vehicle mix for Southern California roadways was used for traffic on these roadway segments. Tables M and N provide the traffic noise levels for the existing with and without project scenarios and the opening year (2023) with and without project scenarios, respectively. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes no shielding would be provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are attached to this memorandum. Tables M and N show that the project -related traffic noise level increase would be up to 0.8 dBA. This noise increase would not exceed the 3 dBA threshold normally perceptible by the human ear in an outdoor environment. Pavilion Gardens Drive between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive, which is located east of the project site, would experience a project -related traffic noise level increase of up to 3.7 dBA. However, Pavilion Gardens Drive is an internal street with no adjacent noise -sensitive uses and the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours would be confined to the roadway right-of-way. No project -related traffic noise impacts would occur at off-site noise -sensitive land uses. Therefore, project -related traffic noise on off-site noise -sensitive land uses would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Long -Term On -Site Traffic Noise Impacts Table N shows that the highest daily traffic volumes for Church Street between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place, Arbor Lane, and Cultural Center Drive between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue (16,460, 5,250, 4,050 average daily traffic, respectively) are under the opening year with project scenario. As shown in Table O, traffic noise from Church Street, Arbor Lane and Cultural Center Drive would potentially expose the proposed police substation to a combined noise level of 63 dBA CNEL. This level would not exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for offices. No traffic noise impacts would occur at the proposed police substation. Therefore, traffic noise at the proposed police substation would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Long -Term Ground -Borne Noise and Vibration The proposed parking lot, parking structure and police substation would not generate vibration levels. In addition, vibration levels generated from project -related traffic on the adjacent roadways would not be significant because on -road vehicles use rubber tires and suspension systems that isolate vibration. Vibration levels generated from project -related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 21 LSA Table M: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Roadway Segment ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Existing Without Project Centerline to Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL (ft) (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane ADT Change in ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Existing With Project Centerline to Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL (ft) (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Increase over Existing CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Church Street Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane 13,060 < 50 78 160 65.0 13,870 810 < 50 81 166 65.3 0.3 Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place 11,340 < 50 72 146 64.4 11,340 0 < 50 72 146 64.4 0.0 Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens Place and Victoria Gardens Lane 12,900 < 50 78 158 65.0 15,500 2,600 < 50 86 178 65.8 0.8 Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane 510 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.8 510 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.8 0.0 Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane 2,700 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.3 3,060 360 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.9 0.6 Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue 3,310 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.2 3,670 360 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.6 0.4 Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue and Pavilion Gardens Place 2,310 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.6 2,310 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.6 0.0 Arbor Lane Between Church Street and Gatsby Drive 3,960 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.2 4,770 810 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.0 0.8 Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and Cultural Center Drive 3,510 < 50 < 50 < 50 50.7 3,510 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 50.7 0.0 Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive 2,160 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.2 2,200 40 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.2 0.0 Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive 1,300 < 50 < 50 < 50 46.6 1,300 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 46.6 0.0 Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive 1,890 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.7 4,460 2,570 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.4 3.7 Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church Street and North Mainstreet 5,660 < 50 < 50 78 60.0 5,660 0 < 50 < 50 78 60.0 0.0 Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). Note: Noise modeling performed using the "Soft" setting and Southern California traffic percentages. ADT = average daily traffic ft = foot/feet CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA = A -weighted decibels Table N: Opening Year (2023) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Roadway Segment ADT Opening Year (2023) Without Project Centerline to Centerline to Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL (ft) (ft) (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane ADT Change in ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Opening Year (2023) With Project Centerline to Centerline to CNEL (dBA) 50 ft 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL from Centerline of (ft) (ft) Outermost Lane Increase over Existing CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Church Street Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane 19,340 < 50 99 206 66.7 20,150 810 < 50 101 212 66.9 0.2 Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place 16,460 < 50 90 185 66.0 16,460 0 < 50 90 185 66.0 0.0 Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens Place and Victoria Gardens Lane 18,200 < 50 95 198 66.5 20,800 2,600 < 50 103 216 67.0 0.5 Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane 570 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.3 570 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.3 0.0 Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane 3,020 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.8 3,380 360 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.3 0.5 Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue 3,690 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.7 4,050 360 < 50 < 50 < 50 58.1 0.4 Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue and Pavilion Gardens Place 2,590 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.1 2,590 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.1 0.0 Arbor Lane Between Church Street and Gatsby Drive 4,440 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.7 5,250 810 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.4 0.7 Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and Cultural Center Drive 3,930 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.2 3,930 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.2 0.0 Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive 2,420 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.6 2,460 40 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.7 0.1 Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive 1,450 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.1 1,450 0 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.1 0.0 Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive 2,110 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.2 4,680 2,570 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.6 3.4 Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church Street and North Mainstreet 6,350 < 50 < 50 83 60.5 6,350 0 < 50 < 50 83 60.5 0.0 Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). Note: Noise modeling performed using the "Soft" setting and Southern California traffic percentages. ADT = average daily traffic ft = foot/feet CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA = A -weighted decibels 3/8/18 ,P:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 22 LSA Table O: Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). ft = foot/feet dBA = A -weighted decibels CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level Long -Term Off -Site Stationary Noise Impacts The off-site sensitive land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary -source noise impacts associated with the project from parking lot activities and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Parking Lot Activity The proposed project would construct a surface parking lot in the short-term and a parking structure in the future. Noise generated from parking activities would include noise generated by vehicles traveling at slow speeds, engine start-up noise, car door slams, car horns, car alarms, and tire squeals. Representative parking activities would generate approximately 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Noise levels generated from parking activities are intermittent in nature. The on-site parking lot is approximately 80 ft from the residences to the west, 110 ft from the residences to the north, 170 ft from the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, and 200 ft from the closest commercial use. At a distance of 80 ft, 110 ft, 170 ft, and 200 ft, noise levels would be attenuated by 4 dBA, 7 dBA, 11 dBA, and 12 dBA, respectively, due to the distance from the parking lot to the stated land uses. Noise generated from parking lot activities would be reduced to 66 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 4 dBA = 66 dBA), 63 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 7 dBA = 63 dBA), 59 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 11 dBA = 59 dBA), and 58 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 12 dBA = 58 dBA), respectively. Intermittent noise levels generated from parking lot activities would remain below the City's exterior maximum daytime and nighttime noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax and 75 dBA Lmax, respectively, for residences and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Also, intermittent noise levels generated from parking lot activities would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 85 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively, for commercial uses. Therefore, noise generated from proposed parking activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA 1978), with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for Southern California (warm climate) buildings would provide more than 24 dBA in exterior -to -interior noise reduction with windows and doors closed, and 12 dBA or more with windows and doors open 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 23 CNEL (dBA) at Centerline Centerline Centerline CNEL (dBA) 50 ft Distance from Roadway Proposed Roadway Segment to 70 dBA to 65 dBA to 60 dBA from Centerline of Centerline to the Proposed CNEL (ft) CNEL (ft) CNEL (ft) Outermost Lane Police Substation (ft) Police Substation Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place < 50 90 185 66.0 340 58 Arbor Lane < 50 1 < 50 1 < 50 1 57.3 45 58 Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue < 50 < 50 < 50 58.1 50 58 Combined 63 Source: Compiled by LSA (February 2018). ft = foot/feet dBA = A -weighted decibels CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level Long -Term Off -Site Stationary Noise Impacts The off-site sensitive land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary -source noise impacts associated with the project from parking lot activities and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Parking Lot Activity The proposed project would construct a surface parking lot in the short-term and a parking structure in the future. Noise generated from parking activities would include noise generated by vehicles traveling at slow speeds, engine start-up noise, car door slams, car horns, car alarms, and tire squeals. Representative parking activities would generate approximately 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Noise levels generated from parking activities are intermittent in nature. The on-site parking lot is approximately 80 ft from the residences to the west, 110 ft from the residences to the north, 170 ft from the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, and 200 ft from the closest commercial use. At a distance of 80 ft, 110 ft, 170 ft, and 200 ft, noise levels would be attenuated by 4 dBA, 7 dBA, 11 dBA, and 12 dBA, respectively, due to the distance from the parking lot to the stated land uses. Noise generated from parking lot activities would be reduced to 66 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 4 dBA = 66 dBA), 63 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 7 dBA = 63 dBA), 59 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 11 dBA = 59 dBA), and 58 dBA Lmax (70 dBA - 12 dBA = 58 dBA), respectively. Intermittent noise levels generated from parking lot activities would remain below the City's exterior maximum daytime and nighttime noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax and 75 dBA Lmax, respectively, for residences and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Also, intermittent noise levels generated from parking lot activities would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 85 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively, for commercial uses. Therefore, noise generated from proposed parking activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA 1978), with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for Southern California (warm climate) buildings would provide more than 24 dBA in exterior -to -interior noise reduction with windows and doors closed, and 12 dBA or more with windows and doors open 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 23 LSA (the national average is 25 dBA with windows closed and 15 dBA with windows open). With windows and doors open, the interior noise levels at the residences would be 54 dBA Lmax (i.e., 66 dBA - 12 dBA = 54 dBA). With windows and doors closed, interior noise levels would be 42 dBA Lmax (66 dBA - 24 dBA = 42 dBA). Noise levels with windows and doors open would exceed the City's interior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively. With windows and doors closed, noise levels would not exceed the City's interior daytime and nighttime noise standards. Therefore, mechanical ventilation systems such as air conditioning would be required to ensure that windows and doors can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. Because the residences already have air conditioning as a standard feature, no additional mitigation measures are required. The closest off-site commercial area to the on-site surface parking lot is 215 ft from the property line of the project, which would experience noise levels of up to 57 dBA Lmax. Intermittent noise levels from parking activities would not exceed the City's exterior maximum daytime and nighttime noise standard of 85 dBA Lmax and 80 dBA Lmax, respectively, for commercial uses. Therefore, noise generated from proposed parking activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. HVAC Equipment On-site roof top HVAC equipment associated with the police substation would be located southwest of the project site. It is assumed that roof top HVAC equipment would be at the center of the rooftop building and would operate 24 hours a day as a worst-case scenario. Rooftop HVAC equipment would generate noise levels that range from 75 to 82 dBA Leq at 3 ft, based on reference noise measurements (Trane 2002). The on-site HVAC equipment associated with the police substation is approximately 80 ft from the residences to the west, 110 ft from the residences to the north, 170 ft from the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, and 330 ft from the closest commercial use. At a distance of 80 ft, 110 ft, 170 ft, and 330 ft, noise levels would be attenuated by 29 dBA, 31 dBA, 35 dBA, and 41 dBA, respectively. Noise generated from HVAC equipment associated with the police substation would be reduced to 53 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 29 dBA = 53 dBA), 51 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 31 dBA = 51 dBA), 47 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 35 dBA = 47 dBA), and 41 dBA Leq (82 dBA - 41 dBA = 41 dBA), respectively. This noise level would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively, for residences and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Also, this noise level would not exceed the City's exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively, for commercial uses. Additionally, traffic noise levels on Church Street and Arbor Lane would mask noise generated from the HVAC equipment. Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA 1978), with windows and doors open, the interior noise levels at the residences would be 41 dBA Leq (53 dBA -12 dBA = 41 dBA). With windows and doors closed, interior noise levels would be 29 dBA Leq (53 dBA - 24 dBA = 29 dBA). The noise level with windows and doors open and closed would not exceed the City's interior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively. Therefore, noise generated from on-site HVAC equipment associated with the police substation would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 24 LSA MITIGATION MEASURES Construction Noise Impacts The following mitigation measures apply to the project and will help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to noise: Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) and will submit the plan the City for review and approval. The plan shall include, but will not be limited to, the following: The construction contractor shall conform to the City's noise ordinance standards through the use of the following but not limited to smaller construction equipment, equipment operation time restrictions, and/or temporary construction barriers. The City's noise ordinance standards limits construction activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line for residences, school, church or similar type of use. For adjacent commercial or industrial uses, the City's Municipal Code limits construction activity to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays, provided that noise levels do not exceed the noise standard of 70 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.1A in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. o During all project site excavation and grading, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.113 in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. o The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors to the north and west of the project site during all project construction. This mitigation measure is a clarification to Mitigation Measure 4.2.1C in Section 4.2 of the Victoria Gardens Project EIR. o The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site to the north and west of the project boundaries. o The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators. o All residential units located within 500 ft of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the project construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 ft shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, and shall provide a telephone number for the "noise disturbance coordinator." 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 25 LSA A "noise disturbance coordinator' shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. Long -Term Aircraft Noise Impacts No mitigation measures are required. Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts No mitigation measures are required. Long -Term Stationary Noise Impacts No mitigation measures are required. Attachments: A: References B: FHWA Traffic Noise Model Printouts 3/8/18 cP:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx» 26 NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY PROJECT LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `f` ATTACHMENT A REFERENCES Association of Environmental Professionals. 2016. 2016 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2012. Municipal Code. . 2010. Public Health and Safety Chapter of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. May. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FH WA -RD -77-108. .2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. NTIS No. P62006-109012. August. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA -VA -90-1003-06. Office of Planning and Environment. May. Harris, Cyril M., editor. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition. Los Angeles World Airports. 2016. California State Airport Noise Standards Quarterly Report, Noise Contour Map. October. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2018. Traffic Impact Analysis. February. Trane. 2002. Sound Data and Application Guide for the New and Quieter Air -Cooled Series R Chiller. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document, EPA 550/9-79-100. November. P:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx ,03/08/18» NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM NE PARCEL PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY PROJECT LSA A FEBRUARY 2018 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA J `(` ATTACHMENT B FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS P:\FCR1701\Noise\Noise Memo_20180307.docx «03/08/18» TABLE Existing NP -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13060 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.01 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 78.1 159.5 339.4 TABLE Existing NP -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11340 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.40 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 72.0 145.6 309.1 TABLE Existing NP -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens Place and Victoria Gardens Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12900 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.96 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 77.5 158.3 336.7 TABLE Existing NP -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 510 SPEED (MPH): 25 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.80 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing NP -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2700 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 56.32 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.4 TABLE Existing NP -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3310 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 57.20 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.1 TABLE Existing NP -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2310 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 55.64 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 TABLE Existing NP -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Church Street and Gatsby Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3960 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.20 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing NP -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3510 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 50.68 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing NP -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2160 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 49.15 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing NP -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1300 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 9 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 46.64 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing NP -12 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1890 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 5 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 48.68 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing NP -13 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church Street and North Mainstreet NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5660 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 59.96 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 77.6 158.3 TABLE Existing P-01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13870 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.27 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 80.9 165.8 353.2 TABLE Existing P-02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11340 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.40 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 72.0 145.6 309.1 TABLE Existing P-03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens Place and Victoria Gardens Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 15500 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.76 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 86.4 178.2 380.2 TABLE Existing P-04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 510 SPEED (MPH): 25 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.80 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing P-05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3060 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 56.86 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 TABLE Existing P-06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3670 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 57.65 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.1 TABLE Existing P-07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2310 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 55.64 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 TABLE Existing P-08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Church Street and Gatsby Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 4770 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 52.01 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing P-09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3510 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 50.68 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing P-10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2200 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 49.23 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing P-11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1300 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 9 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 46.64 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing P-12 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 4460 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 5 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 52.41 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Existing P-13 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church Street and North Mainstreet NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Existing P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5660 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 59.96 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 77.6 158.3 TABLE Opening Year NP -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 19340 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.72 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 98.8 205.9 440.4 TABLE Opening Year NP -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 16460 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.02 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 89.6 185.4 395.7 TABLE Opening Year NP -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens Place and Victoria Gardens Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 18200 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.45 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 95.2 197.9 423.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 570 SPEED (MPH): 25 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 48.28 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3020 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 56.80 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.1 TABLE Opening Year NP -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3690 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 57.67 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.5 TABLE Opening Year NP -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2590 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 56.14 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.4 TABLE Opening Year NP -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Church Street and Gatsby Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 4440 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.70 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3930 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.17 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2420 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 49.64 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1450 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 9 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.12 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -12 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2110 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 5 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 49.16 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year NP -13 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church Street and North Mainstreet NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year NP * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6350 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 60.46 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 83.0 170.5 TABLE Opening Year P-01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20150 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.89 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 101.3 211.5 452.5 TABLE Opening Year P-02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Arbor Lane and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 16460 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.02 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 89.6 185.4 395.7 TABLE Opening Year P-03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Church Street Between Pavilion Gardens Place and Victoria Gardens Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20800 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.03 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 103.3 216.0 462.2 TABLE Opening Year P-04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Gatsby Drive West of Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 570 SPEED (MPH): 25 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 48.28 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year P-05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Day Creek Boulevard and Arbor Lane NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3380 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 57.29 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.3 TABLE Opening Year P-06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Arbor Lane and Kew Avenue NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 4050 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 58.08 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.3 TABLE Opening Year P-07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Cultural Center Drive Between Kew Avenue and Pavilion Gardens Place NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2590 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 56.14 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.4 TABLE Opening Year P-08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Church Street and Gatsby Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5250 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 52.43 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year P-09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Arbor Lane Between Gatsby Drive and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3930 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 12 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.17 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year P-10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Kew Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2460 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 49.72 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year P-11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Eden Avenue South of Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1450 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 9 9.34 0.19 111KIN SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.12 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year P-12 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pavilion Gardens Drive Between Church Street and Cultural Center Drive NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 4680 SPEED (MPH): 15 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 5 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 52.62 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE Opening Year P-13 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/16/2018 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Victoria Gardens Lane Between Church Street and North Mainstreet NOTES: Victoria Gardens Parking Facility - Opening Year P * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6350 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 28 9.34 0.19 1 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 60.46 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 83.0 170.5