Document Anaheim_doc_b12b6900ec

DRAFT CITY OF ANAHEIM HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. #[PHONE REDACTED] prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice Principal, Environmental Services JULY 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT CITY OF ANAHEIM HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. #[PHONE REDACTED] prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 [PHONE REDACTED] Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: [PHONE REDACTED]  Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] E-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Principal, Environmental Services COA-57.0E JULY 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page i 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES 1-3 1.2.1 EIR Format 1-3 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DSEIR 1-5 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION 1-7 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY 1-7 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1-8 1.5.1 No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative 1-8 1.5.2 Corridors Alternative 1-9 1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative 1-9 1.5.4 Conclusion 1-9 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 1-9 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 1-10 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 1-10 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2-1 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY 2-2 2.3 DSEIR SCOPING MEETING 2-4 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DSEIR 2-4 2.4.1 Impacts Unchanged or Considered Less Than Significant 2-4 2.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts 2-5 2.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 2-5 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE 2-5 2.6 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION 2-6 2.7 CEQA FINDINGS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL 2-7 2.8 MITIGATION MONITORING 2-8 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION 3-1 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 3-1 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3-1 3.3.1 Project Background 3-2 3.3.2 Description of the Proposed Project 3-8 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR 3-45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Page ii  The Planning CenterIDC&E July 2013 3.4.1 Subsequent Environmental Review 3-45 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4-1 4.2.1 Regional Location 4-1 4.2.2 Regional Climate 4-1 4.2.3 Regional Planning Considerations 4-2 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4-3 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4-4 4.6 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-19 5.1 AIR QUALITY 5.1-1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting 5.1-1 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.1-12 5.1.3 The 2004 Approved Project 5.1-15 5.1.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project 5.1-16 5.1.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.1-22 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Additional 5.1-23 5.1.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed 5.1-23 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Additional Mitigation 5.1-24 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.2-1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting 5.2-1 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.2-14 5.2.3 The 2004 Approved Project 5.2-15 5.2.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project 5.2-16 5.2.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.2-26 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Additional 5.2-27 5.2.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed 5.2-27 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Additional Mitigation 5.2-28 5.3 NOISE 5.3-1 5.3.1 Environmental Setting 5.3-1 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.3-9 5.3.3 The 2004 Approved Project 5.3-10 5.3.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project 5.3-10 5.3.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.3-20 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Additional 5.3-21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page iii 5.3.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed 5.3-21 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Additional Mitigation 5.3-21 5.4 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.4-1 5.4.1 Environmental Setting 5.4-1 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.4-7 5.4.3 The 2004 Approved Project 5.4-8 5.4.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project 5.4-8 5.4.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.4-28 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Additional 5.4-30 5.4.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed 5.4-30 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.4-31 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6-1 6.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 6-1 6.1.1 Air Quality 6-1 6.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6-2 6.1.3 Noise 6-2 6.1.4 Transportation and Traffic 6-2 7. CEQA MANDATED SECTIONS 7-1 7.1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7-1 7.1.1 No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative 7-1 7.1.2 Corridors Alternative 7-1 7.1.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative 7-2 7.1.4 Conclusion 7-2 7.2 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 7-2 7.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED 7-9 7.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7-10 8. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8-1 9. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS PREPARING THE EIR 9-1 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY 10-1 10.1 REFERENCES 10-1 10.2 WEBSITES 10-5 10.3 MODELS 10-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Page iv  The Planning CenterIDC&E July 2013 APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study B. Notice of Preparation Responses C. SB 226 Provisions D. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data E. Noise Modeling Data F. Traffic Impact Analysis G. Draft Code Amendment H. Revised Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Figures Figure Page Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page v Figure 3-1 Regional Location 3-3 Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity 3-5 Figure 3-3a Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3-17 Figure 3-3b Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3-19 Figure 3-3c Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3-21 Figure 3-3d Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3-23 Figure 3-3e Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3-25 Figure 3-4 City of Anaheim Low VMT Areas 3-31 Figure 3-5 2004 Approved Project: General Plan Land Use Plan 3-35 Figure 4-1 2004 Approved Project Green Plan 4-5 Figure 4-2 2004 Approved Project Generalized Geologic Map 4-13 Figure 5.3-1 Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Exposure Guidelines 5.3-7 Figure 5.4-1 2004 Approved Project LOS E and F 5.4-5 Figure 5.4-2 2004 Approved Project ADT 5.4-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables Table Page Page vi  The Planning CenterIDC&E July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation 1-11 Table 2-1 NOP Written Comment Summary 2-3 Table 3-1 Parcels to Apply Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone 3-9 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone 3-10 Table 3-3 2004 Approved Project Buildout Projections 3-33 Table 3-4 2004 Approved Project Acreages 3-34 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update 3-37 Table 4-1 Buildout Statistical Summary 4-18 Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 5.1-2 Table 5.1-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin 5.1-9 Table 5.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary 5.1-11 Table 5.1-4 Existing City of Anaheim Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory 5.1-12 Table 5.1-5 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds 5.1-13 Table 5.1-6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds 5.1-14 Table 5.1-7 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds 5.1-15 Table 5.1-8 Summary Comparison of the Proposed Project to the 2004 Approved Project 5.1-19 Table 5.1-9 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses 5.1-21 Table 5.2-1 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 5.2-2 Table 5.2-2 Summary of GHG Emission Risks to California 5.2-5 Table 5.2-3 CARB Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions Toward 2020 Target 5.2-8 Table 5.2-4 Existing Anaheim Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 5.2-14 Table 5.2-5 Proposed Project’s 2035 GHG Emissions Inventory Compared to the 2004 Approved Project 5.2-19 Table 5.2-6 Proposed Project Consistency with Existing Statewide Programs that Reduce GHG Emissions 5.2-21 Table 5.2-7 Orange County Subregional SCS Consistency Analysis 5.2-22 Table 5.3-1 Decibel Changes, Loudness and Energy Loss 5.3-2 Table 5.3-2 Typical Noise Levels and Their Subjective Loudness and Effects 5.3-3 Table 5.3-3 Off-Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts 5.3-13 Table 5.3-4 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment 5.3-18 Table 5.4-1 Intersection Level Of Service 5.4-3 Table 5.4-2 Significant Impact Criteria 5.4-4 Table 5.4-3 2004 Approved Project Intersection Performance Summary 5.4-7 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) 5.4-12 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) 5.4-18 Table 5.4-6 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes for the Proposed Project 5.4-25 Table 5.4-7 Proposed Intersection Mitigation 5.4-30 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant 7-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Abbreviations and Acronyms Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page vii AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill ACM Asbestos-Containing Materials ADT Average Daily Traffic AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATAM Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures bgs below ground surface BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geologic Survey CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CLSA California Library Services Act CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CRS Community Rating System CSO Combined Sewer Overflows CUP Conditional Use Permit CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency ---PAGE BREAK--- Abbreviations and Acronyms Page viii  The Planning CenterIDC&E July 2013 CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act FDPA Flood Disaster Protection Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HCM Highway Capacity Manual HMS Hazardous Materials Sites database HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning System HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUDA Industry Urban Development Agency IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan Ldn day-night noise level LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee Leq equivalent continuous noise level LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance Thresholds LUFT Leaking Underground Fuel Tank MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MEP Maximum Extent Practical mgd million gallons per day MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets msl mean sea level MSW Municipal Solid Waste MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether ---PAGE BREAK--- Abbreviations and Acronyms Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page ix NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Habitat Preservation Authority NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NPL National Priorities List O3 ozone OES California Office of Emergency Services Pb lead PCE perchloroethylene PM particulate matter POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PPV Peak Particle Velocity RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Conditions RMP Risk Management Plans RMS root mean square ROG/VOC Reactive Organic Gases/Volatile Organic Gases Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SERC State Emergency Response Commission SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas SIC Standard Industrial Codes SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SOx sulfur oxides ---PAGE BREAK--- Abbreviations and Acronyms Page x  The Planning CenterIDC&E July 2013 SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure SQMP Stormwater Quality Management Plan SRA Source Receptor Area SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TCE trichloroethylene TNM Transportation Noise Model tpd tons per day tpd-6 tons per day (six-day average) TRI Toxic Release Inventory TTCP Traditional Tribal Cultural Places UBC Uniform Building Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT United States Department of Transportation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C volume-to-capacity ratio VdB velocity decibels VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WIP Well Investigation Program WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRP Water Reclamation Plant ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-1 1. Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. In this case the City of Anaheim (“City”), as lead agency, determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the Proposed Project. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public and local and State governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision- making. This document focuses on those impacts determined to be potentially significant as disclosed in the Initial Study completed for the Proposed Project (see Appendix A to this DSEIR). The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements: 1. The City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element. The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each property’s existing General Plan designation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased residential densities beyond those anticipated by the City’s adopted General Plan. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development “by-right” on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are also proposed for rezoning. 2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan. In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. 3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect the 42 General Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-2 July 2013 The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 (“2004 Certified EIR”) as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update. As part of these actions, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 was adopted for the General Plan Update and Ordinance No. 5920 was introduced to amend the Zoning Code in its entirety. On June 8, 2004, the Anaheim City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 5920 for the Zoning Code Update. As part of amending the Zoning Code in its entirety, this ordinance added Chapter 18.32, Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone, to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Together, these actions are referred to as the “2004 Approved Project.” Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have occurred including: 1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted; 2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012; 3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be analyzed in a CEQA document; and 4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects. As a result, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is required to update the 2004 Certified EIR and provide CEQA clearance for the Proposed Project. This DSEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000, et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City's CEQA Procedures. The overall purpose of this DSEIR is to inform the City’s decision makers and the general public whether, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, changes to the Proposed Project or a change in circumstances would result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts of the 2004 Approved Project. The 2004 Approved Project is the “baseline” for the analysis in this DSEIR, and was used in preparing the Initial Study for the Proposed Project, to evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. The City, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including, without limitation, by relying on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Data and other information for this DSEIR was obtained from previous environmental documentation; onsite field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature; and specialized environmental assessments air quality analysis, GHG emissions analysis, noise analysis, and traffic impact analysis). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-3 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This DSEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as associated anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals for the Proposed Project, all as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below: 1. To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities; 2. To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage; 3. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures; 4. To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects; 5. To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects; and 6. To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This DSEIR has been formatted as described below. Table of Contents: The table of contents provides a list of the chapters, sections, figures, and tables included in this DSEIR and the associated page numbers where they can be found. The table of contents also includes a list of defined terms and abbreviations used in this DSEIR. Section 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the Proposed Project, the format of this DSEIR, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project. It also includes a discussion of any critical issues remaining to be resolved and areas of controversy. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-4 July 2013 Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this DSEIR, background on the Proposed Project, the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS), the use of incorporation by reference, Final EIR certification, and mitigation monitoring requirements. Section 3. Project Description: Includes a detailed description of the Proposed Project, the objectives of the Proposed Project, the project location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the Proposed Project, the necessary environmental clearances for the Proposed Project, and the intended uses of this DSEIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: Includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project site as they existed at the time the NOP/IS was published, from both a local and regional perspective. Ordinarily, the existing environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from a development project. However, because this is a Supplemental EIR that supplements the 2004 Certified EIR, the baseline used for the analyses in this DSEIR is the 2004 Approved Project. Section 5. Environmental Analysis: Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the Proposed Project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area. Section 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Proposed Project. Section 7. CEQA Mandated Sections: Describes the various CEQA mandated sections including alternatives to the proposed project, impacts found not to be significant, and growth-inducing impacts. However, since this is a Supplemental EIR, these topics will only be discussed if the prior analysis from the 2004 Certified EIR is determined to be inadequate for the Proposed Project, as revised. Section 8. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this DSEIR for the Proposed Project. Section 9. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR: Lists the people who prepared this DSEIR for the Proposed Project. Section 10. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this DSEIR for the Proposed Project. Appendices. The appendices to this DSEIR (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover) contain the following supporting documents:  Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study  Appendix B: Notice of Preparation Responses  Appendix C: Senate Bill 226 Provisions  Appendix D: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-5  Appendix E: Noise Modeling Data  Appendix F: Traffic Impact Analysis  Appendix G: Draft Code Amendment  Appendix H: Revised Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DSEIR According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to: Inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This DSEIR analyzes the changes to the 2004 Approved Project with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have occurred which require supplemental analysis to update EIR No. 330 including: 1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted; 2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012; 3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be analyzed in a CEQA document; and 4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects. CEQA dictates when a supplemental or subsequent EIR is required for changes being made to a project that was previously analyzed under CEQA. Once a project has been approved based on a CEQA analysis contained in an EIR, or even in a negative declaration, and the EIR or negative declaration is no longer subject to challenge, CEQA Section 21166 provides that "no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency" unless one of three circumstances apply: 1) substantial changes to the approved project will require major revisions to the certified EIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the certified EIR, or 3) new information, that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR for the approved project was certified becomes available (CEQA § 21166). In this case, in-depth review has already occurred and the time for challenging the sufficiency of the 2004 Certified EIR has long since expired (CEQA § 21167, subd. Moreover, as discussed below, no circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. The factors used to evaluate whether a subsequent or a Supplemental EIR should be prepared are set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and relate to whether "major changes" to the EIR are required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 clarifies what constitute major changes to the EIR. According to that Section, major changes to the EIR are those that are required either: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-6 July 2013  "Due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;" (CEQA Guidelines § 15162, subd. see also, id., subd.  Where "[m]itigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or" (id., subd.  Where "[m]itigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative" (Id., subd. This DSEIR does disclose a new significant environmental effect related to GHG emissions, since this issue was not addressed in the 2004 Certified EIR. In addition, the DSEIR does not identify any substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect except for certain increases in air quality, noise and traffic impacts. Although the Proposed Project’s impacts in these areas are increased, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, these are areas in which impacts for the 2004 Approved Project were already previously identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2004 Certified EIR. This DSEIR is a program-level document that supplements the analyses in the 2004 Certified EIR. Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that: The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: 1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and 2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. In accordance with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-7  Incorporates the 2004 Certified EIR by reference, as discussed in Section 3.3.1, Previous Environmental Documentation.  Contains information necessary to make the 2004 Certified EIR adequate for the Proposed Project.  Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the 2004 Approved Project that are a result of changed circumstances and new information.  Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the 2004 Approved Project that are proposed by the Proposed Project, i.e., the proposed overlay zones.  Updates where necessary the discussion of cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts and other required sections of this DSEIR. The Proposed Project is summarized below in Section 1.4, Project Description, and more fully described in Chapter 3 of this DSEIR. The analysis contained in this DSEIR confirms that the 2004 Certified EIR is adequate for the Proposed Project, with the updated information contained herein. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION Located in northeastern Orange County, the City of Anaheim and its Sphere-of-Influence lie approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and seven miles north of Santa Ana. The City is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated Orange County to the south; and, the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land, stretching nearly 20 miles along the Riverside Freeway (State Route [SR] - 91), and includes another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land within its Sphere-of-Influence. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from the City is provided by the Santa Ana (Interstate - Orange (SR-57) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways; the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241); and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at the Anaheim and Anaheim Canyon Stations. 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements: 1. The City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the 2006-2014 Housing Element. The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each property’s existing General Plan designation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased residential densities beyond those anticipated by the City’s adopted General Plan. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development “by-right” on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are also proposed for rezoning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-8 July 2013 2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. 3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004, as shown on Table 3-5. The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. Please refer to Chapter 3, Project Description for additional information regarding the Proposed Project. 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15126.6(a).) As described in Section 8.0 of the 2004 Certified EIR, three project alternatives were identified during the scoping process and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the 2004 Approved Project:  No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative  Corridors Alternative  Reduced Intensity Alternative 1.5.1 No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the No-Project Alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzed the effects of continued implementation of the City’s previous (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan. This alternative assumed the previous General Plan would remain as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City. Development would continue to occur within the City in accordance with the previous General Plan, Zoning Code, and specific plans. Buildout pursuant to the previous General Plan would allow current development patterns to remain. The previous General Plan would not allow for mixed-use developments within The Platinum Triangle, including residential units, as envisioned in the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. In addition, previous policy would allow more residential development within the Hill and Canyon Area, including more development within the Mountain Park Specific Plan (7,966 dwelling units versus 2,500 dwelling units) and the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (1,650 dwelling units versus designated open space). The No-Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Code Update Alternative would provide 2,338 fewer ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-9 dwelling units, increase population by 14,736 fewer persons, and provide 14,082 fewer jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 1.5.2 Corridors Alternative The Corridors Alternative does not represent a drastic change from the 2004 Approved Project in terms of the goals and policies that are defined by the General Plan in the 2004 Approved Project. This Alternative would take advantage of existing and potential transportation linkages throughout the City by assuming that four major transit routes for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would be established to traverse portions of the City. The first, located along the entire length of La Palma Avenue, would connect the Hill and Canyon Area and The Canyon to the North Central Industrial Area and West Anaheim. In addition, this Alternative assumes another major east-west transit route along Katella Avenue, and two north-south routes along Beach Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard. This Alternative would provide an additional 29,052 dwelling units, increase population by 44,261 persons, and provide 67,529 additional jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The additional units, population, and employment are related to the potential for increased mixed use opportunities along transit routes. 1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the remaining growth potential associated with the 2004 Approved Project by 20 percent. The 20 percent reduction was based on the total remaining buildout potential of the 2004 Adopted Project as compared to existing land uses and applied on a City-wide basis. This Alternative would reduce total dwelling units at buildout by 5,474, decrease population at buildout by 13,215 persons, and provide 9,804 fewer jobs at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Land use designations would remain the same, although allowable intensities would be reduced. Other components of the project, including creation of a Mixed Use Overlay Zone for the Platinum Triangle, expansion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and increased open space in the Hill and Canyon Area, would remain the same as the 2004 Adopted Project. 1.5.4 Conclusion The 2004 Certified EIR identified air quality, noise, and traffic and circulation as significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the 2004 Approved Project. These impacts are also significant for the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, and various alternatives to the 2004 Approved Project were already considered as part of the 2004 Certified EIR, no additional alternatives to the Proposed Project are considered necessary as part of this DSEIR. 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to Proposed Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City, as lead agency, related to the following: 1. Whether this DSEIR adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project; 2. Whether the benefits of the Proposed Project override its environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance; ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-10 July 2013 3. Whether the overlay zones proposed by the Proposed Project are compatible with the character of the existing area; 4. Whether the identified mitigation measures should be adopted and/or modified; 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be adopted for the Proposed Project in addition to the mitigation measures recommended in the DSEIR; and 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the Proposed Project that would reduce or avoid any of its significant impacts and achieve most of its basic project objectives. 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DSEIR must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. No areas of controversy concerning the Proposed Project have been identified. This DSEIR has taken into consideration the comments received from the various agencies and jurisdictions in response to the NOP. Written comments received during the NOP period, which extended from October 15, 2012, to November 16, 2012, are contained in Appendix B of this DSEIR. A summary of the NOP comments is provided in Section 2.2, Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, of this DSEIR. Prior to preparation of this DSEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on November 7, 2012, at Anaheim City Hall. The scoping meeting was held to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies, stakeholders, and the community regarding the Proposed Project. No issues were raised by members of the public at the meeting. 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analyses contained in this DSEIR. Table 1-1 includes a summary of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project; mitigation measures that reduce potential significant impacts of the Proposed Project; and the level of significance of each significant impact after implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the 2004 Approved Project, and any additional mitigation necessary for the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-11 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1 AIR QUALITY (As updated by this DSEIR) AQ-2 Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? AQ-3 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? AQ-4 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 5.1-1: Construction emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would, like the 2004 Approved Project, result in a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants that could exceed the Southern California Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The proposed project is expected to generate emissions levels in exceedance of the Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) threshold criteria for carbon dioxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and PM10 in the SCAB, which is classified as a non-attainment area. Goals and Policies are included in the General Plan will facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promotion of energy conservation design and development techniques, encouragement of alternative transportation modes, and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. In addition to these policies, the following mitigation measures will be required to reduce air quality impacts: 5.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement the following measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the pregrade conference.  Use low emission mobile construction equipment.  Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.  Use low sulfur fuel for stationary Although the mitigation measures listed will reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible, associated air quality impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-12 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation construction equipment.  Utilize existing power sources power poles) when feasible.  Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.  Minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.  Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.  Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). AQ-2 Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? AQ-3 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Impact 5.1-2: Long-term operation of the Proposed Project would, like the 2004 Approved Project, exceed SCAQMD’s emissions thresholds and contribute to the O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SCAB. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.2-2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. 5.2-3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity centers, and developers of large new developments to participate in transportation management associations. Although the mitigation measures listed will reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible, associated air quality impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-13 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2-4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non- recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. At the individual development project level, it is recommended that the City apply the following mitigation measures to future development projects: 5.2-5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e. installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) in new developments. 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments. AQ-4 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 5.1-3: As compared to the 2004 Approved Project, operation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of CO at intersections. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-14 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation AQ-4 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 5.1-4: Operation of the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project may result in placement of sensitive land uses proximate to major sources of air pollution. Potentially significant impact. Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 5.2-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer for residential or residential mixed-use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the truck bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week; 2) 1,000 feet of an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants; or 3) 500 feet of Interstate 5 SR-91, SR-57 or SR- 55, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD. The HRA shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits for any future discretionary residential or residential mixed-use project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in 100,000 (1.0E-05), or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PM10 or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 µg/m3, the HRA shall identify the level of high-efficiency Minimum Efficiency Less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-15 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reporting Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to achieve the cancer and/or noncancer and/or ambient air quality threshold. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for units that are installed with MERV filters shall maintain positive pressure within the building’s filtered ventilation system to reduce infiltration of unfiltered outdoor air. The property owner/developer shall be required to install high efficiency MERV filters in the intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit power designed to force air through the MERV filter. To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: a) Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk for affected units. b) For rental units, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-16 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation c) For residential owned units, the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. e) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, air intakes on residential buildings shall be placed as far from the freeway as possible. f) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, the residential buildings should be designed to limit the use of operable windows and/or balconies on portions of the site adjacent to and facing the freeway. 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (As updated by this DSEIR) GHG-1 Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact 5.2-1: The Proposed Project's GHG emissions would be greater than the 2004 Approved Project's GHG emissions. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.2-2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. 5.2-3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity centers, and Although the mitigation measures listed will reduce greenhouse gas emissions impacts to the extent feasible, associated greenhouse gas emissions impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-17 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation developers of large new developments to participate in transportation management associations. 5.2-4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non- recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. At the individual development project level, it is recommended that the City apply the following mitigation measures to future development projects: 5.2-5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e. installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) in new developments. 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments. Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 5.2-8 The City shall evaluate strategies to reduce truck idling during the peak hour period of the roadway network, such as ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-18 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation staggered work/delivery schedules, truck routes, and/or intersection improvements. 5.2-9 The City shall support and promote the use of low- and zero-emission vehicles, by:  Encouraging the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the use of zero- emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently-located alternative fueling stations.  Encouraging new construction to include vehicle access to properly wired outdoor receptacles to accommodate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and/or plug-in electric hybrids (PHEV).  Encouraging transportation fleet standards to achieve the lowest emissions possible, using a mix of alternate fuels, partial ZEV, or newer fleet mixes. 5.2-10 The City shall encourage the performance of energy audits of buildings prior to completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for energy efficiency improvements be presented to the buyer. 5.2-11 The City shall develop protocols for safe storage of renewable and alternative energy products with the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-19 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation potential to leak, ignite, or explode, such as biodiesel, hydrogen, and/or compressed air. 5.2-12 The City shall recognize businesses in the City that reduce GHG emissions reduced energy use) as a means to encourage GHG reductions and recognize success. GHG-2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact 5.2-2: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. 5.3 NOISE (As updated by this DSEIR) N-1 Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? N-3 Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 5.3-1: As compared to the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not substantially elevate traffic noise levels above local noise standards at noise-sensitive receptors. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.10-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project generating over 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior and exterior noise standards. Like the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the Proposed Project, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant noise impacts. Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 and 5.10-2 would reduce operational noise impacts to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of mitigation. N-1 Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact 5.3-2: Like the 2004 Approved Project, stationary sources of noise generated by the Proposed Project would comply with the City’s Noise Element and Municipal Code Standards and would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors proximate to proposed Opportunity Sites. Potentially significant impact. See above for Mitigation Measure 5.10-1. Less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-20 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation N-3 Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? N-2 Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact 5.3-3: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. N-4 Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 5.3-4: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels during construction. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. N-5 For a Project located within an Airport Land Use Plan or, where such a Plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels; for a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? According to the Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, the City contains five heliports, which could impact existing and proposed land uses. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measure from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.10-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, new development project property owner/developers shall use the most current available AELUP as a planning resource for evaluating heliport and airport operations as well as land use compatibility and land use intensity in the proximity of Los Alamitos Joint Training Base and Fullerton Municipal Airport. Less than significant. 5.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (As updated by this DSEIR) T-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian Impact 5.4-1: Traffic volumes associated with buildout of the proposed project would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The following mitigation measures were included in the 2004 Certified EIR. These mitigation measures are proposed for inclusion in the Proposed Project, and additional mitigation measures have been added for the purposes of this DSEIR. This DSEIR proposes to make certain The General Plan Circulation Element includes improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of service in the City at buildout. However, the improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of service at seven intersections could impact adjacent land uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-21 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation and bicycle paths, and mass transit. T-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. modifications to the mitigation measures adopted by the City for the 2004 Approved Project. Modifications to the original mitigation measure are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify additions. 5.15-1 The City shall continue to coordinate with Caltrans (designated as lead agency) and the City of Yorba Linda to implement the planned grade separation at the intersection of Imperial Highway/Orangethorpe Avenue. 5.15-2 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the following improvements will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan:  Intersection of Dale Avenue/Lincoln Avenue; add an additional east bound right turn lane  Intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road; add a 4th As a result, a significant impact would remain if the City chooses not to implement the required improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-22 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation west bound through lane  Intersection of Sportstown Way /Katella Avenue; change north bound lane configuration from 1/1/2 to 1.5/.5/2  Intersection of Tustin Avenue/La Palma Avenue; change south bound lane configuration from 2/3/1 to 2/4/0 (would require triple left turn lanes and add a third left turn lane on the north bound or west bound approach to mitigate to LOS D  Intersection of Tustin Avenue/SR- 91 west bound ramps; add a 2nd north bound left turn lane  Intersection of Imperial Highway/Santa Ana Canyon Road; add a north bound right turn lane (a 4th through lane north bound to mitigate PM peak hour to LOS D)  Intersection of Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 east bound ramps; add a 4th south bound through lane 5.15-3 The City shall pursue all available funding, including Measure M2 funding, necessary to implement the circulation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. Implementation of transportation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2 shall be conducted in coordination with Caltrans, the County ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-23 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and surrounding jurisdictions. To qualify for Measure M funds, the City must comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component requirements and have an established policy framework for the required Growth Management Program through the adoption of a Growth Management Element. The updated Growth Management Element will maintain provisions of the existing Growth Management element which: 1) establishes policy statements that identify acceptable traffic LOS; 2) commits the City to implement a development mitigation program; and 3) commits the City to implement a development phasing and monitoring program. 5.15-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City for all costs associated with updating the applicable Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-24 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS or depending on the location), the property owner/developer shall be responsible for constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. 5.15-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Traffic Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. 5.15-6 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property owner/developer shall ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-25 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of- way as shown in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element adjacent to their property. 5.15-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer of projects anticipated to employ 250 or more employees shall join and participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association. Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 5.15-8 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the improvements identified in Table 5.4-7 will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-26 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections), or incompatible uses farm equipment). Impact 5.4-2: The Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. Impact 5.4-2: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Impact 5.4-3: The Proposed Project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-1 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq., and the City of Anaheim (“City”) CEQA Procedures. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public informational document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of a proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid significant effects, and to describe reasonable alternatives to a project. An EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth-inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, Project Background, of this DSEIR, in May 2004, the Anaheim City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan and certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 (“2004 Certified EIR”) as the environmental documentation for the 2004 Approved Project. The General Plan is a document that represents the City’s view of its future and is a blueprint for a city’s growth and development. The City Council and the Planning Commission use the General Plan to help guide their land use decisions. The 2004 Certified EIR is incorporated by reference in this DSEIR. A summary of the 2004 Certified EIR is provided in Section 3.3.1 of this DSEIR. This Supplemental EIR contains information necessary to make the previously Certified EIR adequate for the proposed Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (the “Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project requires discretionary actions by one or more public agencies. The City is the lead agency for the Proposed Project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” As the lead agency, the City has the responsibility for, among other things, preparing and certifying an SEIR that analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, identifying feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or minimize the Proposed Project’s significant environmental impacts, describing and analyzing feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project, adopting findings with regard each significant effect of the Proposed Project, providing a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for all environmental impacts of the Proposed Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented during the lifetime of the Proposed Project. The overall purpose of this DSEIR is to inform the City’s decision makers and the general public whether the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, would result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified for the 2004 Approved Project. The 2004 Approved Project is the “baseline” for the analysis in this DSEIR, and was used in ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-2 July 2013 preparing the Initial Study for the Proposed Project, to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of the Proposed Project. As stated in Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DSEIR is an "informational document" intended to inform the City, other public agencies with discretionary authority over aspects of the Proposed Project, the general public, the local community, and other organizations, entities and interested persons of the scope of the Proposed Project, the significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, feasible measures to avoid or minimize the significant effects, and a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project that would avoid or minimize the significant effects. The City must consider the information in this DSEIR and make certain findings with respect to each significant effect identified. The City will use the information in the DSEIR, along with other information received and/or developed during the public review process for the DSEIR, to determine whether to approve, modify, or not approve the Proposed Project, or an Alternative to the Proposed Project, and, if approval is granted, to specify applicable and enforceable environmental mitigation measures as part of the Proposed Project approvals. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City and potential project permits and approvals required from other regulatory agencies for the Proposed Project are described in Section 3.3.2, Description of the Proposed Project, and Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the DSEIR, of this DSEIR. This DSEIR, which has been prepared at the direction and under the supervision of the City, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of:  CEQA  State CEQA Guidelines  City of Anaheim CEQA Procedures 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on October 15, 2012 (See Appendix Comments received during the public review period, which extended from October 15, 2012, to November 16, 2012, are contained in Appendix B. The NOP process was used to determine scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in this DSEIR. Based on the NOP and the Initial Study for the Proposed Project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential for significant environmental impacts over and above those found for the 2004 Approved Project. Issues identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study for the Proposed Project are addressed in detail in this DSEIR. Issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact in the Initial Study are summarized in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Significant. Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A to this DSEIR for a discussion of how these initial determinations were made. Table 2-1 summarizes the comments received from the commenting agencies during the NOP process, along with a reference to the section(s) of this DSEIR where the issues are addressed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-3 Table 2-1 NOP Written Comment Summary Commenting Agency / Person Comment Summary Location Issue is Addressed October 15, 2012 NOP Airport Land Use Commission, Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer Potential hazards related to airports and/or heliports. This issue was adequately addressed in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the 2004 Certified EIR. However, a summary of this analysis is provided in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting of this DSEIR. State of California, Department of Transportation, Christopher Herre, Branch Chief Potential traffic impacts to Caltrans facilities. Section 5.4, Transportation and Traffic. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager Potential hazards related to hazardous materials. This issue was adequately addressed in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the 2004 Certified EIR. However, a summary of this analysis is provided in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting of this DSEIR. The Kennedy Commission, Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director The Kennedy Commission supports the City’s efforts to implement the Housing Element. Comment noted. Native American Heritage Commission, Dave Singleton, Program Analyst Potential impacts related to cultural resources and Native American sites. This issue was adequately addressed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources in the 2004 Certified EIR. However, a summary of this analysis is provided in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting of this DSEIR. Orange County Public Works, Michael Balsamo, Manager, OC Community Development 1) Encroachment permits may be required if development of any of the Housing Opportunities Sites affects County right-of-way; 2) Mitigation measures should be incorporated into future development to buffer existing single-family neighborhoods from higher density development; and 3) Infrastructure capacity issues should be addressed in the DSEIR. 1) Comment noted; 2) As described in Section 5.8, Land Use and Relevant Planning in the 2004 Certified EIR, General Plan goals and policies will serve to protect existing residential neighborhoods from future higher density and mixed use developments; and 3) Infrastructure was adequately addressed in Section 5.13, Public Services and Facilities, in the 2004 Certified EIR. However, a summary of this analysis is provided in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting of this DSEIR. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse Letter of transmittal of the Notice of Preparation. Comment noted. Southern California Association of Governments, Jonathan Nadler, Manager, Compliance and Performance Assessment Consistency with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ian MacMillan, Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review Potential impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Section 5.1, Air Quality; Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-4 July 2013 2.3 DSEIR SCOPING MEETING Prior to preparation of this DSEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on November 7, 2012, at Anaheim City Hall. The scoping meeting was held to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies, stakeholders, and the community regarding the Proposed Project. No issues were raised by members of the public at this meeting. 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DSEIR As described in Section 1.2.2, Type and Purpose of This DSEIR, this DSEIR has been prepared as a supplement to the 2004 Certified EIR consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Pursuant to those sections, the DSEIR analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Project as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4, the DSEIR must identify any potentially significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, and recommend mitigation measures that would reduce those impacts to levels of insignificance or eliminate the impacts altogether. The overall scope of this DSEIR was determined based upon the Initial Study completed by the City, comments received in response to the NOP, as noted in Section 2.2, and comments received, if any, at the public scoping meeting conducted by the City, as outlined in Section 2.3. The description of the Proposed Project contained in the Project Description (Chapter 3 of this DSEIR) establishes the basis for analyzing Proposed Project-related environmental impacts as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 2.4.1 Impacts Unchanged or Considered Less Than Significant All of the potential impacts within the following thirteen environmental factors listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines have been identified as not being significantly affected by the Proposed Project as compared to the 2004 Approved Project and therefore are not discussed in detail in this DSEIR. Those environmental factors are:  Aesthetics  Agriculture & Forestry Resources  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology / Soils  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology / Water Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Utilities / Service Systems ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-5 2.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Certain impacts within the following environmental factors could be potentially significant if the Proposed Project is implemented, and therefore those impacts are analyzed in this DSEIR:  Air Quality  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Noise  Transportation and Traffic The Certified EIR analyzed air quality, noise, and transportation and traffic. Greenhouse gas emissions are being analyzed for the first time as part of this DSEIR, in accordance with SB 97 which went into effect January 1, 2010. 2.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The 2004 Certified EIR identified a total of three significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA, relating to air quality, noise, and transportation and traffic. This DSEIR identifies the same three significant and unavoidable adverse impacts for the Proposed Project, which remain unchanged from the 2004 Approved Project, and one additional significant and unavoidable adverse impact for greenhouse gas emissions, which was not analyzed in the 2004 Certified EIR. Therefore, the impacts found in this DSEIR to be significant and unavoidable are:  Air Quality  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Noise  Transportation and Traffic 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE All documents cited or referenced are incorporated into the DSEIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, including but not limited to the following:  City of Anaheim General Plan (as amended).  City of Anaheim Municipal Code (as amended).  City of Anaheim Zoning Ordinance (as amended).  Final EIR No. 330 for the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update, State Clearinghouse Number [PHONE REDACTED], May 2004.  Final Subsequent EIR No. 339 for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, State Clearinghouse Number [PHONE REDACTED], August 2010.  Southern California Association of Governments, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-6 July 2013  South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2012.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 (as amended). In each instance where a document is incorporated by reference for purposes of this DSEIR, the DSEIR shall briefly summarize the incorporated document, or briefly summarize the incorporated data if the document cannot be summarized. In addition, the DSEIR shall explain the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the DSEIR. This DSEIR relies upon previously adopted regional and statewide plans and programs, agency standards, and background studies in its analyses, such as the City’s General Plan, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan, and the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Chapter 10, Bibliography, provides a complete list of references utilized in preparing this DSEIR. All of the documents listed above that are incorporated by reference, are available for review at: City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, California 92805 2.6 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, this DSEIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DSEIR. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review and prepare written responses to each comment as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. A Final SEIR (FSEIR) will then be prepared, incorporating all of the comments received, written responses to the timely-received comments, and the DSEIR, along with any changes to the DSEIR that result from the comments received. The FSEIR will then be presented to the City for potential certification as the environmental document for the Proposed Project. All persons who comment on the DSEIR will be notified of the availability of the FSEIR and of the date of the Anaheim Planning Commission public hearing(s) and City Council public meeting(s) concerning potential certification of the FSEIR. The DSEIR is available to the general public for review at:  Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805  Anaheim Central Branch Library 500 West Broadway Anaheim, CA 92805  City of Anaheim, Planning Department Website www.anaheim.net/planning (click on the link to Planning and Zoning, followed by the link to Environmental Documents) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-7 All comments received from agencies and individuals on the DSEIR will be accepted during the 45-day public review period. All comments on the DSEIR should be sent to: Susan Kim, AICP, LEED AP ND, Senior Planner Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 [EMAIL REDACTED] All agencies that submit comments during the 45-day public review period on the DSEIR will receive written responses to their comments at least 10 days prior to final action on the Proposed Project. If the City Council decides to certify the FSEIR, the City Council will make the necessary findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented in the FSEIR. The FSEIR must be certified by the City prior to making a decision to approve the Proposed Project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings and meetings before the City concerning the Proposed Project. 2.7 CEQA FINDINGS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. In addition, for a Supplemental EIR, CEQA Guideline 15163(e) requires: When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. Concurrent with its final action on the FSEIR, the City Council will issue findings that comply with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15163(e), and with Public Resources Code Section 21081. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-8 July 2013 2.8 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that the lead agency adopt an MMRP for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted following the preparation of an EIR, SEIR, or Negative Declaration. An updated mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be prepared as part of the FSEIR and will be completed prior to consideration of the Proposed Project by the Anaheim City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-1 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION Located in northeastern Orange County, the City of Anaheim (“City”) and its Sphere-of-Influence lie approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and seven miles north of Santa Ana, as shown on Figure 3-1, Regional Location. The City is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated Orange County to the south; and, the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land, stretching nearly 20 miles along the Riverside (State Route [SR] - 91) Freeway, and includes another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land within its Sphere-of- Influence, as shown on Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from Anaheim is provided by the Santa Ana (Interstate - Orange (SR-57) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways; the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241); and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at the Anaheim and Anaheim Canyon Stations. 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”) and will aid decision-makers in their review of the Proposed Project, its associated environmental impacts, and Alternatives:  Provide for the implementation of the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V, to rezone properties identified as Housing Opportunities Sites in the 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element and amend the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, in order to facilitate “by right” housing development at these locations.  Facilitate future use of the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption and Senate Bill (SB) 226 streamlining allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by providing updated community level environmental review.  Provide an update of General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-5: Residential Build-Out Estimates and Table LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS “Project” is defined by CEQA Guidelines1 Section 15378 as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: An…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700.” 1 References to “CEQA” are to Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. References to “CEQA Guidelines” are to Title 14, California Code of Regulations sections 15000 et seq. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-2 July 2013 3.3.1 Project Background On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 (“2004 Certified EIR”) as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update. As part of these actions, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 was adopted for the General Plan Update and Ordinance No. 5920 was introduced to amend the Zoning Code in its entirety. On June 8, 2004, the Anaheim City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 5920 for the Zoning Code Update. As part of amending the Zoning Code in its entirety, this ordinance added Chapter 18.32, Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone, to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Together, these actions are referred to as the “2004 Approved Project.” The General Plan is divided into various topical sections, or Elements, that address a wide range of subjects and provide goals and policies that will guide future development in the City. The General Plan is organized in the following manner: Introduction: The Introduction describes the background, features and structure of the General Plan. Land Use Element: The Land Use Element is a guide, or “blueprint,” for the City’s future development. It designates the distribution and general location of land uses, such as residential, retail, industrial, open space, recreation, and public uses. The Land Use Element also addresses the permitted density and intensity of the various land use designations. Circulation Element: The Circulation Element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major transportation facilities, including major roadways, passenger and freight rail, transit systems and bikeways. The Circulation Element also identifies and provides policy direction for scenic highways, pedestrians and parking. Green Element: The Green Element combines the General Plan’s Conservation; Open Space; and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Elements into a single, comprehensive plan to add more green areas throughout the City and protect and enhance its natural and recreational resources. This includes vital natural resources such as water, energy, air, and wildlife. The Green Element also includes goals and policies related to public landscaping, community identity and enhancing the aesthetics of the City’s corridors. Public Services and Facilities Element: The Public Services and Facilities Element serves to ensure that the provision of various public services and facilities such as fire protection, law enforcement, parks, schools, water, sewer, and storm drain systems are analyzed and addressed in the context of anticipated growth. Growth Management Element: The Growth Management Element is intended to ensure that capital a facility planning keeps pace with future demand resulting from planning activities. It fulfills the mandates of Measure M – the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance passed by a Countywide initiative in 1990, and renewed in November 2006 – which allocates sales tax revenue to local jurisdictions and Orange County for transportation improvements. It sets forth goals and a policy related to growth management, and provides implementation and monitoring provisions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Regional Location Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-1 3. Project Description 0 Scale (Miles) 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-4 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Local Vicinity Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-2 3. Project Description 0 Scale (Miles) 4 La Habra Cerritos La Mirada Fullerton Brea Placentia Yorba Linda 5 Anaheim Buena Park 5 Garden Grove Stanton Huntington Beach Westminster Fountain Valley Santa Ana Irvine Tustin Villa Park Orange 405 22 55 261 241 57 Costa Mesa Chino Hills La Habra Heights Whittier Cypress Chino Corona 73 Diamond Bar SNA County of Riverside County of San Bernardino County of Orange County of Los Angeles County of Orange County of Los Angeles 241 241 133 Anaheim 405 91 91 City of Anaheim Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-6 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-7 Safety Element: The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with potential seismic, geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards. The Safety Element assesses natural and man-made hazards present in the community and includes policies to address those hazards. Noise Element: The Noise Element identifies and appraises potential noise sources and includes policies to protect the City from excessive noise. Economic Development Element: The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to guide the City in expanding the local economy, which provides jobs, attracts and retains businesses, supports diverse and vibrant commercial areas, and brings in sufficient revenue to support various local programs and services. To achieve a balanced and healthy economy, the Economic Development Element sets forth the goals and policies necessary to ensure a prosperous economic future. Community Design Element: The Community Design Element contains policies aimed at strengthening community appearance and identity. Community design is addressed on the citywide level, the district level and neighborhood level, covering a broad range of topics including: arterial street design, historic preservation, signage, mixed-use development, activity centers, and neighborhood commercial centers. Housing Element: The Housing Element assesses current and projected housing needs, and sets out policies and proposals for the improvement of housing and the provision of adequate sites for housing to meet the needs of all economic segments of the City. This Element is a stand-alone document that was prepared prior to and separately from the rest of the General Plan Elements. It is important to note that the other General Plan Elements were prepared consistently with the goals and policies of the Housing Element. Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have occurred including: 1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted; 2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012; 3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be analyzed in a CEQA document; and 4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects. As a result, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is required to update the 2004 Certified EIR and provide CEQA clearance for the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-8 July 2013 3.3.2 Description of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements: 1. Implementation of Housing Element, Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites, 2. Facilitation use of the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption, and 3. An Update of the General Plan Land Use Build-Out Tables The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. Implementation of Housing Element, Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites This strategy outlines the policy goal of rezoning parcels in order to better accommodate the production of units affordable for moderate and lower income households. This strategy reads as follows: Appendix B-3: Opportunity Sites, identifies properties that are designated for residential land uses by the General Plan and have strong development or redevelopment potential to accommodate housing affordable to moderate and lower income households. However, the underlying zoning designation of these properties varies and many are not properly zoned to accommodate residential development at this time. For example, some sites are zoned for, and occupied by, commercial or industrial land uses although they are designated for future residential use by the General Plan. The goal of this Strategy is to develop an approach allowing “by-right” residential development of these sites in a manner that is consistent with the density allowed by their current General Plan designation. Properties that are City-owned, including those owned by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency or Anaheim Housing Authority, can simply be reclassified to a zone that will allow “by–right” development at a density consistent with the General Plan designation. This approach is appropriate for sites in which residential development is imminent and there is no desire to retain existing commercial or industrial uses on the site. For all other sites, an overlay zone will be applied that will provide the opportunity to develop “by right” housing consistent with the density permitted by the property’s General Plan designation. The City has successfully utilized overlay zones to promote residential development in areas such as South Anaheim Boulevard and The Platinum Triangle. (2006-2014 Housing Element) To implement this strategy, the City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the Housing Element. The locations of the Opportunity Sites were chosen using a variety of factors and include the following kinds of properties:  Vacant, residentially-zoned sites;  Vacant, non-residentially-zoned sites; ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-9  Underutilized, residentially-zoned sites which are capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and  Developed, non-residentially-zoned sites, which could be reclassified to a residential zone and developed with housing. The overlay zone proposed to be added to the subject properties would be consistent with the properties’ General Plan designation. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 and are shown on Figures 3-3a through 3- 3e. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are also proposed for rezoning. In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development “by-right” on designated Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Table 3-1 Parcels to Apply Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 33 03702123 0.6 36 Mixed-Use C-G*, Appliance Store 42 03702301 0.2 12 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary 43 03702302 0.2 12 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary 44 03702303 0.2 12 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary 45 03702304 0.4 24 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary *C-G = Commercial General = Industrial ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-10 July 2013 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 1 03517303 0.3 5 Low Medium I Contractor's Yard 2 03517304 0.2 3 Low Medium I Contractor's Yard 3 03517306 0.2 3 Low Medium I Auto Parts Salvage 4 03517307 0.2 3 Low Medium I Auto Parts Salvage 5 03517308 0.3 5 Low Medium I Auto Parts Salvage 7 03517313 0.2 3 Low Medium I Contractor's Yard 8 03517315 0.2 3 Low Medium I Vacant 9 03517602 0.2 3 Low Medium RS-3* Small Industrial Firms 10 03517606 0.2 3 Low Medium RS-3 Small Industrial Firms 11 03517610 1.3 23 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 12 03517614 0.2 3 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 12a 03517603 0.1 1 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 13 03517615 0.2 3 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 14 03527022 1.1 19 Low Medium C-G Glass Shop 15 03527023 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 16 03527025 0.5 9 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 17 03527026 0.8 14 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 18 03527028 1.0 18 Low Medium C-G 9-unit Apartment Complex 19 03527029 0.9 16 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 23 03620309 0.1 3 Medium C-G (SABC)** Small Market 24 03620608 0.2 7 Medium (SABC) Vacant 26 03620627 0.2 7 Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 28 03621015 0.6 10 Low Medium I (SABC) Vacant 30 03702114 0.1 3 Medium I (SABC) Single Family Home 32 03702119 0.1 3 Medium I (SABC) Storage 34 03702201 0.6 21 Medium I (SABC) Small Industrial Firms 35 03702202 0.3 10 Medium I (SABC) Auto Body Shop 36 03702203 0.3 10 Medium I (SABC) Auto Body Shop ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-11 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 40 03702212 1.1 39 Medium I (SABC) Small Industrial Firms 52 03702411 1.0 18 Low Medium I (SABC) Contractor Yard 53 03708101 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Liquor Store 57 03709105 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Single Family Home 61 03709109 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 62 03709125 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 63 03709127 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 64 03711129 0.7 12 Low Medium I Contractor Yard 65 03711130 0.3 5 Low Medium I Contractor Yard 66 03711425 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 67 03711428 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 68 03711435 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 69 03711437 0.2 7 Medium I Industrial Firm 70 03711438 1.5 54 Medium I Industrial Firm 71 03711439 0.9 32 Medium I Industrial Firm 90 03713015 2.7 48 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 91 03713015 0.7 25 Medium I Industrial Firm 92 03713017 1.0 18 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 93 03713021 1.8 32 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 94 03713025 0.3 5 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 95 03713026 0.4 7 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 96 03713027 0.5 9 Low Medium I Service Station 97 03713028 0.8 14 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 98 03713028 1.2 43 Medium I Small Industrial Firms 99 03713029 4.2 75 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 100 03713029 6.0 216 Medium I Industrial Firm 102 03716110 0.6 21 Medium I Industrial Firm 102a 03716109 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 103 03716111 0.6 21 Medium I Industrial Firm 104 03716112 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 105 03716114 0.3 10 Medium I Industrial Firm 106 03716116 0.6 21 Medium I Industrial Firm ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-12 July 2013 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 107 03716117 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 108 03723002 4.2 151 Medium I Industrial Firm 109 03727108 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 110 03727111 0.2 7 Medium I Industrial Firm 111 03727117 0.3 5 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 112 03727123 0.9 16 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 113 03727124 3.4 61 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 114 03727124 7.1 252 Medium I Industrial Firm 115 03727125 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 116 03727127 0.6 10 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 117 03727222 0.4 7 Low Medium I Auto Repair/ Market 118 03727223 0.4 7 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 119 03727225 0.5 18 Medium I Small Industrial Firms 120 03727225 0.1 1 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 121 03727226 0.6 21 Medium I Small Industrial Firms 122 03727227 0.4 7 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 123 03727230 0.8 14 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 125 07016106 0.5 9 Low Medium C-G Small Shops 126 07016107 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Restaurant 127 07016111 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Small Shops 128 07016112 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Small Shops 129 07016113 0.9 16 Low Medium C-G Thrift Store 130 07259125 1.3 23 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 131 07259101 2.1 37 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 132 07259126 1.3 23 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 133 07259134 2.4 43 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 135 07261101 14.1 253 Low Medium I Offices 136 08217049 0.6 22 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 137 08218501 0.1 3 Medium I (SABC) Offices 138 08218526 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 139 08218527 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-13 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 140 08218528 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 141 08218529 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 142 08218530 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 143 08218531 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 143a 08218535 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 144 08218539 0.1 3 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 145 08218540 0.1 3 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 146 08218541 0.1 3 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 147 08218547 0.3 10 Medium T (SABC) Vacant 148 08218549 0.4 14 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 149 08218551 0.4 14 Medium T RV Park 150 08218552 0.2 7 Medium I (SABC) Vacant 151 08218553 1.2 43 Medium I (SABC) Vacant 152 08218558 4.2 151 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 154 08373116 0.8 28 Medium C-G Office Building 155 08373117 3.1 111 Medium C-G Office Building 158 12602217 0.2 7 Medium T Nursery 159 12602218 1.1 39 Medium T Nursery 160 12603226 1.8 64 Medium C-G Motel 161 12631010 1.8 64 Medium T Nursery 162 12660204 1.8 32 Low Medium C-G Vacant 163 12723134 1.4 25 Low Medium C-G Mixed retail/office uses 164 12723135 1.6 28 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Motel 165 12723156 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Parking Lot 166 12723159 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Bank 167 12723160 1.1 19 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Small Shops 168 12723161 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Parking Lot 169 12723162 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Small Shops 170 12724132 1.7 30 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Motel 171 12724167 1.3 23 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Motel 172 12724170 0.5 9 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Vacant 173 12807103 0.8 14 Low Medium T Restaurant 174 12807105 0.9 16 Low Medium T Motel 175 12807138 1.0 18 Low Medium T Motel 176 12807142 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G Restaurant ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-14 July 2013 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 177 12834116 0.2 3 Low Medium Offices 178 12834152 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Restaurant 179 12834161 6.6 118 Low Medium I, O-L (BCC) Small Industrial Firm 180 13532130 3.3 118 Medium C-G Motel 181 13533118 2.8 100 Medium C-G Self-Storage Facility 184 23414102 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Single Family Home 185 23414109 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Mixed retail/office uses 186 23414110 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Mixed retail/office uses 187 25107123 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 188 25107124 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Plumbing Contractors 189 25108102 0.7 12 Low Medium I (SABC) Gas Station 191 25108122 2.0 36 Low Medium I (SABC) Small Industrial Firms 192 25108123 0.2 3 Low Medium I (SABC) Vacant 193 25108126 2.6 46 Low Medium I (SABC) Contractor Yard 197 25109213 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 198 25109214 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 199 25109215 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 200 25109216 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Offices 201 25109217 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Offices 202 25109219 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Single Family Home 203 25109220 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Used Car Dealership 204 25110103 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 205 25110104 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 206 25110105 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 207 25110106 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 208 25110107 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 209 25110108 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Auto Repair 210 25110109 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 211 25110125 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 217 34335160 2.6 46 Low-Medium T Nursery 218 26833106 1.8 64 Medium T Plant Nursery 218a 26833102 0.8 28 Medium T Plant Nursery ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-15 Table 3-2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 219 13745122 1.0 36 Medium C-G Small Industrial Firm 220 13745124 0.5 18 Medium C-G Vacant Building 221 13745125 0.6 21 Medium C-G Small Industrial Firm *RS-3 = Residential Suburban **SABC = South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay = Transitory ****BCC = Brookhurst Commercial Corridor = Low Intensity Office Use ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-16 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3. Project Description Source: City of Anaheim 2012 Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-3a 0 Scale (Feet) 1,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-18 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3. Project Description The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-3b 0 Scale (Feet) 700 Source: City of Anaheim 2012 Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-20 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3. Project Description Source: City of Anaheim 2012 Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-3c 0 Scale (Feet) 1,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-22 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3. Project Description Source: City of Anaheim 2012 Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-3d 0 Scale (Feet) 1,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-24 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Location of Housing Opportunity Sites 3. Project Description Source: City of Anaheim 2012 Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-3e 0 Scale (Feet) 1,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-26 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-27 Statutory Infill Housing Exemption The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan. In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. Pursuant to Section 21159.21 of the Public Resources Code, a housing project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA pursuant to Sections 21159.22, 21159.23, or 21159.24 if it meets the criteria in the applicable section and all of the following criteria: The project is consistent with any applicable general plan, specific plan, and local coastal program, including any mitigation measures required by a plan or program, as that plan or program existed on the date that the application was deemed complete and with any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed on the date that the application was deemed complete, except that a project shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the zoning designation for the site if that zoning designation is inconsistent with the general plan only because the project site has not been rezoned to conform with a more recently adopted general plan. Community-level environmental review has been adopted or certified. The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-lieu or development fees. The site of the project does not contain wetlands, does not have any value as a wildlife habitat, and the project does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) or by the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), and the project does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the application for the project was deemed complete. For the purposes of this subdivision, "wetlands" has the same meaning as in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations and "wildlife habitat" means the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection. The site of the project is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The site of the project is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed, or any significant effects of the release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-28 July 2013 If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1. The project site is not subject to any of the following: A wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. An unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby properties. Risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2622, or a seismic hazard zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2696, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake fault or seismic hazard zone. Landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction zone, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a landslide or flood. The project site is not located on developed open space. For the purposes of this subdivision, "developed open space" means land that meets all of the following criteria: Is publicly owned, or financed in whole or in part by public funds. Is generally open to, and available for use by, the public. Is predominantly lacking in structural development other than structures associated with open spaces, including, but not limited to, playgrounds, swimming pools, ballfields, enclosed child play areas, and picnic facilities. For the purposes of this subdivision, "developed open space" includes land that has been designated for acquisition by a public agency for developed open space, but does not include lands acquired by public funds dedicated to the acquisition of land for housing purposes. The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. The City will utilize the Statutory Infill Housing Exemptions for future development applications pursuant to Sections 21159.21, 21159.22, 21159.23, or 21159.24 of the Public Resources Code, as appropriate. SB 226, which went in to effect on January 1, 2013, authorizes limited CEQA review for qualifying urban infill projects after implementation guidelines are adopted that address statewide priorities for infill ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-29 projects. SB 226 was adopted as part of the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15183.3. The complete text of Section 15183.3, including Appendix M and N to the CEQA Guidelines, is included in Appendix C of this DSEIR. Only projects that meet the SB 226 definition of "infill project" are eligible for the limited CEQA review process created by the bill. To be eligible for the streamlining procedures prescribed in Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, an infill project must: Be located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least seventy-five percent of the site's perimeter. For the purpose of this subdivision "adjoin" means the infill project is immediately adjacent to qualified urban uses, or is only separated from such uses by an improved public right-of-way; Satisfy the performance standards provided in Appendix M; and Be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, except as provided in subdivisions or below. Only where an infill project is proposed within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization for which a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy will be, but is not yet, in effect, a residential infill project must have a density of at least 20 units per acre, and a retail or commercial infill project must have a floor area ratio of at least 0.75. Where an infill project is proposed outside of the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization, the infill project must meet the definition of a small walkable community project in subdivision To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a residential project must satisfy one of the following: 1. Projects achieving below average regional per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A residential project is eligible if it is located in a "low vehicle travel area" within the region. Low vehicle travel areas within the City of Anaheim are shown on Figure 3-4. 2. Projects located within ¼ mile of an Existing Major Transit Stop or High Quality Transit Corridor. A residential project is eligible if it is located within 1/4 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. 3. Low-Income Housing. A residential or mixed-use project consisting of 300 or fewer residential units all of which are affordable to low income households is eligible if the developer of the development project provides sufficient legal commitments to the lead agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Under SB 226, CEQA would not apply to the effects of an eligible infill project under two circumstances. First, if an effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project even when ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-30 July 2013 that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR. Second, an effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect. Depending on the effects addressed in the prior EIR and the availability of uniformly applicable development policies or standards that apply to the eligible infill project, streamlining under this section will range from a complete exemption to an obligation to prepare a narrowed, project-specific environmental document. A prior EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later infill projects if it deals with the effects of infill development as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of such development, the effects of many infill projects could be found to have been addressed in the prior EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Low VMT Areas 3. Project Description Source: Southern California Association of Governments 2012 Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-4 City of Anaheim Boundary 0 Scale (Miles) 4 LEGEND City of Anaheim <=Regional Avg (16.4) =>Regional Avg 2012 VMT per Capita 2012 City of Anaheim VMT per Capita (by TAZ) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-32 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-33 An Update of the General Plan Land Use Buildout Tables The Land Use Plan, illustrated in Figure 3-5, was approved as part of the 2004 Approved Project and is included in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Plan represents the graphic guide for the future development of the community and is a key component of the adopted General Plan. The land use patterns identified are intended to provide the basis for more detailed zoning districts, building intensities, requirements and standards established in the Zoning Code. The buildout projections associated with the 2004 Approved Project are shown on Table 3-3. Table 3-4 provides a summary of acreages by land use designation for the 2004 Approved Project. It also provides the percentage of total area for each land use designation. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and Table LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004, as shown on Table 3-5. Table 3-3 2004 Approved Project Buildout Projections 2002 Existing Land Use 2004 Adopted General Plan Remaining Buildout Potential Single Family Dwelling Units 45,807 55,463 9,656 Multi Family Dwelling Units 55,979 73,697 17,718 Total Dwelling Units 101,786 129,159 27,373 Population 337,700 403,773 66,073 Commercial Square Footage 9,029,400 14,885,342 5,855,942 Office Square Footage 7,775,167 15,021,049 7,245,882 Industrial SF 44,467,380 30,614,730 -13,852,650 Total SF 61,271,947 60,521,121 -750,826 Commercial Employment 25,829 95,453 69,624 Office Employment 25,569 58,793 33,226 Industrial Employment 121,189 63,292 -57,897 Other Employment 29,793 33,858 4,065 Total Employment 202,378 251,397 49,018 Notes: The figures contained herein are based on GIS mapping data prepared as part of the General Plan and Zoning Code Update. 2002 existing dwelling unit data and non-residential square footage provided by the City of Anaheim. Dwelling unit projections assumes 50-50 split of single family (SF) and multifamily (MF) dwelling units in the Low Medium Density, Hillside Low Medium Density, and Hillside Medium Density categories for the Existing General Plan. Dwelling unit projections assumes 50-50 split of SF and MF dwelling units in the Low Medium Density and Hillside Low Medium Density categories for the Recommended General Plan and Reduced Intensity Alternative. 2002 population source: California Department of Finance (January 2002) Population projections assume average household size of 3.3 for non-mixed-use designations and 1.5 for mixed-use designation. 2002 employment data provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Employment is based on existing square footage of employment generating land uses and traffic trips. Hotel rooms are included in the Commercial square footage. Open space acreage is not shown. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-34 July 2013 Table 3-4 2004 Approved Project Acreages Category Total Acres Percentage Residential Estate Density 1,270 3.7% Low Density 10,219 29.4% Low-Medium Density Hillside 863 2.5% Low-Medium Density 1,985 5.7% Medium Density 1,926 5.5% Corridor Residential 187 0.5% Subtotal 16,448 47.4% Commercial Neighborhood Center 230 0.7% Regional Commercial 230 0.7% General Commercial 689 2.0% Commercial Recreation 924 2.7% Office-Low 526 1.5% Office-High 104 0.3% Subtotal 2,702 7.8% Industrial Industrial 2,677 7.7% Subtotal 2,677 7.7% Mixed-Use Mixed-Use 614 1.8% Subtotal 614 1.8% Open Space / Recreation Parks / Open Space 6,439 18.6% Water Uses 1,226 3.5% Subtotal 7,665 22.1% Institutional Institutional 238 0.7% Subtotal 238 0.7% Schools Schools 1,014 2.9% Subtotal 1,014 2.9% Other Railroad 138 0.4% Rights-of-Way (Arterials) (Highways) 3,206 9.2% Subtotal 3,345 9.6% Totals 34,703 100.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- 2004 Approved Project: General Plan Land Use Map 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 3-5 0 Scale (Miles) 2 City of Anaheim Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-36 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-37 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 1 2004-00422 2005-019 3/15/05 Previously- Certified EIR 330 Citywide Amended the Circulation and Noise Elements 2 2004-00421 2005-026 4/1/05 Negative Declaration 1.2 acres on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Ana Street (502 S. Harbor Blvd) Amended land use designation: Low-Medium Density Residential to Low-Density Residential 3 2005-00423 2005-056 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.2 acres adjacent to the south side of Broadway and 225 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Amended land use designation: Corridor Residential to Medium Density Residential 4 2005-00424 2005-057 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.4 acres at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball Road County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Corridor Residential 5 2005-00425 2005-058 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 0.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball Road County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential 6 2005-00426 2005-059 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 acres adjacent to the south side of Ball Road and 177 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential 7 2005-00427 2005-060 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.5 acres adjacent to the east side of Gilbert Street, 276 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-38 July 2013 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 8 2005-00428 2005-061 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.7 acres generally bounded by Pacific Avenue to the north, 122 feet to the centerline of Magnolia Avenue to the west, the Southern California Edison easement to the south and 1,324 feet to the centerline of Gilbert Street to the east County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Designated property for Low Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) 9 2005-00429 2005-062 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 acres generally bounded by Pacific Place to the north, Gilbert Street to the east, Katella Avenue to the south and 156 feet to the centerline of Markev Street to the west County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Designated property for Low Medium-Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation); and amended Table LU-4 and Figure LU-5 10 2005-00430 2005-063 5/26/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration 0.3 acres at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Berry Avenue County Annexation (annexation was not approved); Designated property for Low-Medium Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) 11 2004-00416 2005-097 7/7/05 EIR 329 32.3 acres located approximately 1,400 feet south of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road, between Festival Drive to the east and Eucalyptus Drive to the west Amended land use designation: Estate Density Residential to Low Density Residential and amended Green Element 12 2005-00436 2005-176 9/23/05 EIR 331 Citywide Amended Safety Element ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-39 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 13 2005-00435 2005-187 10/13/05 Previously- Certified EIR 330 and Mitigated Negative Declaration Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of commercial development permitted in The Platinum Triangle 14 2004-00420 2005-207 11/25/05 SEIR 332 Platinum Triangle Amended land use designation: Office High to Mixed Use (Fire Training Site); Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of residential and commercial development permitted in the Platinum Triangle; Amended the Circulation Element 15 2005-00434 2005-211 11/25/05 SEIR 332 and Addendum Platinum Triangle Amended land use designation: Office High to Mixed Use (Lennar A-Town) 16 2005-00440 2006-061 5/11/06 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue (Anaheim GardenWalk) Amended the Land Use Element to modify the permitted density of development for the Garden Walk Overlay 17 2006-00441 2006-088 6/9/06 EIR 331, SEIR 1278, SEIR 1716 A 1.45-mile planned segment of Jamboree Road, west of and parallel to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR- 241) between Weir Canyon Road and the southern City limits. Amended Circulation Element to remove Jamboree Road from the Planned Roadway Network ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-40 July 2013 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 18 2005-00431 2006-189 9/8/06 Previously- Certified EIR 330 Citywide Amended Land Use, Circulation, Green and Growth Management Elements (minor modifications/revisions) 19 2006-00442 2006-206 9/22/06 Mitigated Negative Declaration Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended Land Use Element to allow residential units in conjunction with a minimum 300-room full- service hotel in the Commercial Recreation designation 20 2006-00448 2007-053 5/24/07 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended Land Use Element to allow wholly-residential uses in the Commercial Recreation designation Repealed 11/27/2007 by City Council Resolution No. 2007-226 21 2006-00451 2007-063 6/7/07 Negative Declaration 1126 West Lincoln Avenue and 1221 West Center Street Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Mixed Use 22 2006-00449 2007-080 7/5/07 SEIR 332 and Addendum Platinum Triangle Amended Land Use Element to increase the amount of residential development permitted in the Platinum Triangle 23 2007-00459 2007-134 8/30/07 Negative Declaration 2000 South State College Boulevard - Angel Stadium parking lot (0.7 acres) and 2337 South Manchester Avenue – Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (394 square feet) Amended land use designation: Open Space to Mixed Use and designated property for Medium Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) 24 2006-00445 2007-171 9/20/07 SEIR 332 and Addendum Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of commercial and office development permitted in the Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-41 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 25 2006-00446 2007-168 9/20/07 EIR 335 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the number of dwelling units allowed in the Platinum Triangle 26 2007-00455 2007-211 12/6/07 Negative Declaration 0.78-acres, having a frontage of 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and located 170 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street Amended land use designation: General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 27 2007-00454 2007-235 1/10/08 SEIR 334 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of development allowed and change land use designations in the Platinum Triangle; Made related amendments to the Circulation, Green, and Public Services and Facilities Elements Repealed 10/14/2008 by City Council Resolution No. 2008-178 28 2007-00457 2007-233 1/10/08 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.85-acres located on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) right-of- way with a frontage of 682 feet along the Riverside Freeway, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Solomon Drive and 1,357 feet east of the centerline of Via Cortez Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to General Commercial ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-42 July 2013 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 29 2007-00456 2007-250 1/17/08 Negative Declaration Portion A: 1.35-acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue (2800 - 2816 West Lincoln Avenue) Portion B: 0.82-acres having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and located 310 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue (121 and 131 South Dale Avenue) Portion C: 0.82-acres, having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and located 460 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue (125-137 South Dale Avenue) Amended land use designation: Corridor Residential to Medium Density Residential 30 2008-00466 Ord 6098 4/3/08 N/A - Initiative does not require CEQA The Anaheim Resort SOAR Initiative – Amended the Introduction and the Land Use Element to generally prohibit residential development within The Anaheim Resort unless environmental and economic analyses is prepared and the request receives both City Council and City voter approval ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-43 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 31 2008-00464 2008-131 8/14/08 Negative Declaration 0.57-acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and East Street, having a frontage of 150 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 230 feet on the east side of East Street Amended land use designation: Low-Medium Residential to General Commercial 32 2008-00470 2009-053 4/30/09 Mitigated Negative Declaration Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended the Land Use Element to add a new density designation to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 33 2008-00467 2009-141 9/10/09 Mitigated Negative Declaration Citywide Amended the Housing Element in its entirety 34 2009-00475 2010-048 6/3/10 Mitigated Negative Declaration 401 West Carl Karcher Way and 1325 North Anaheim Boulevard (Karcher Site) Amended land use designation: Office Low and Industrial to General Commercial 35 2010-00478 2010-126 8/26/10 Negative Declaration 407-425 South Anaheim Boulevard Amended land use designation: Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential 36 2010-00479 2010-130 8/26/10 Negative Declaration 518-538 South Anaheim Boulevard Amended land use designation: Low Medium Density Residential to Medium Density Residential 37 2010-00480 2010-162 10/28/10 EIR 343 Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue Amended Circulation Element Figure C-1 "Planned Roadway Network" to add Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, as a Secondary Arterial ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-44 July 2013 Table 3-5 General Plan Amendments Approved after the May 2004 General Plan Update # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Environmental Documentation Location Description 38 2008-00471 2010-187 11/25/10 EIR 339 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of development allowed and change land use designations in the Platinum Triangle; Made related amendments to the Circulation, Green, and Public Services and Facilities Elements 39 2010-00481 2011-119 8/15/11 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue (Anaheim Garden Walk) Amended the Land Use Element to modify the square feet of specialty retail, restaurants and entertainment uses permitted in the Anaheim Garden Walk Overlay 40 2012-00485 2012-060 11/8/12 Previously- Certified EIR 339 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use, Circulation and Green Elements to revise the public park locations for the LNR Project 41 2012-00486 2012-096 1/17/13 Previously- Certified EIR 339 and Addenda 1 & 2 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial development allowed within the Mixed Use land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and amended the Land Use, Circulation and Green Elements to include the addition of a public park. 42 2010-00482 2012-081 1/17/13 EIR 340 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended the Land Use Element to add permitted development intensities for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Public Recreational (PR) District (Development Area ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-45 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This DSEIR examines the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, including the various actions by the City and other agencies that are necessary to implement the Proposed Project. It is the intent of this DSEIR to enable the City, responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for the Proposed Project are as follows: Lead Agency Action City of Anaheim  Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 346 (SCH#[PHONE REDACTED]) and adopt Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122a.  Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00488  Approve Zoning Reclassification No. 2013-00255  Approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 2013-00110 Responsible Agencies Action South Coast Air Quality Management District  Issue necessary air quality permits to implement the project. Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region)  Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for subsequent development pursuant to the project. 3.4.1 Subsequent Environmental Review In addition to the discretionary actions listed above, subsequent approvals by the City that may rely on this DSEIR include:  Adoption of the 2014-2021 Housing Element;  Approval of tentative tract maps;  Approval of conditional use permits; and  Approval of grading and building permits. As described above, the City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-46  The Planning CenterIDC&E July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-1 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective.” The environmental setting provides a set of baseline physical conditions from which the City, as lead agency, will determine the significance of environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Because this is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the baseline used for the analyses in this Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) is the 2004 Approved Project, as described in Chapter 2 of this DSEIR. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.1 Regional Location The project site lies in northern Orange County, in the City of Anaheim (“City”) and Sphere-of-Influence (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map). A “Sphere of Influence” is defined as a planning boundary outside of an agency’s legal boundary (such as the city limit line) that designates the agency’s probable future boundary and service area. As such, it is included within the project boundary. Orange County is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Los Angeles County to the north and northwest, San Bernardino County to the northeast, Riverside County to the east, and San Diego County to the southeast. Orange County is comprised of approximately 798 square miles, stretching approximately 40 miles along the coast and extending inland approximately 20 miles. The natural setting of Orange County provides a combination of mountains, hills, flatlands, and shorelines. Orange County lies predominantly on an alluvial plain, which is generally less than 300 feet in elevation in the west and central section. The western portion of the County is made up of a series of broad sloping plains (Downey and Tustin Plains) formed from alluvium transported from the mountains by the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, and other local streams. Several low-lying mesas interrupt the plain along the northern coast. Orange County is semi-enclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to the north, the San Joaquin Hills to the south, and the Santiago Foothills and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. The Puente and Chino Hills, which identify the northern limit of the plain, extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 7,780 feet. To the east and southeast of the plain are the Santa Ana Mountains, which have a peak height of 5,691 feet. 4.2.2 Regional Climate The climate of Orange County is generally temperate. The average high temperatures range from about 52° Fahrenheit in the coastal areas in January to 86°F in the inland areas of the coastal plain in August. The average annual rainfall across the County is 14 inches, with most rain typically occurring in the winter months. Rainfall also exhibits characteristically wide variations annually, from a low of 3.6 inches in 1961 to a high of 32.1 inches in 1940. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-2 July 2013 4.2.3 Regional Planning Considerations Air Quality Management Plan An air basin generally has similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout. California is geographically divided into 15 air basins, and the City is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). This air basin contains the largest urban area in the western United States. It is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes all of the non-desert portions of San Bernardino, Los Angeles (non–Antelope Valley portion), and Riverside Counties, and all of Orange County. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for SCAB, a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for emissions from stationary and area sources, as well as from on-road and off-road mobile sources. Every three years since 1979, SCAQMD has prepared a new AQMP, with updates to the previous plan and a 20-year horizon. The most recent AQMP iteration was adopted by SCAQMD on December 7, 2012 (“2012 AQMP”). The 2012 AQMP incorporated the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) / Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2012 AQMP included the new and changing federal requirements, implementation of new technology measures, and the continued development of economically sound, flexible compliance approaches. The AQMP acts as local guidance related to California’s State Implementation Plan, which provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas; areas that do not meet these standards are in nonattainment. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and standards of the 2012 AQMP is analyzed in detail in Section 5.1, Air Quality, of this DSEIR. Southern California Association of Governments Orange County and the City are at the western edge of a six-county metropolitan region composed of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the Southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with SCAQMD, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. Orange County and its jurisdictions constitute the Orange County Subregion of the SCAG region. The Orange County Subregion is governed by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG). SCAG has developed a variety of plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the Proposed Project are discussed below. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-3 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 RTP/SCS to help coordinate development of the region’s transportation improvements. The RTP/SCS is a long-range transportation plan that is developed and updated by SCAG every four years. The RTP/SCS provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using growth forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20-year period, the RTP/SCS considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address our mobility needs. The 2012 RTP/SCS integrates the Orange County SCS, which was adopted separately by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in 2011. The 2012 RTP/SCS sets forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The Orange County SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the Orange County SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the Orange County SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable 2012 RTP/SCS policies is analyzed in detail in Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this DSEIR. 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Location and Land Use Located in northeastern Orange County, the City and its Sphere-of-Influence lies approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and seven miles north of Santa Ana. The City is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated Orange County to the south; and, the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land, stretching nearly 20 miles along the State Route (SR) -91 Freeway, and includes another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land within its Sphere-of-Influence. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from Anaheim is provided by the Interstate SR-57 and SR-55 Freeways; the SR-241; and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at Angel Stadium and Anaheim Canyon Stations. Anaheim is currently home to over 336,000 people, approximately 16,000 businesses, and over 4,600 acres of parks and open space. Over the next 20 years, the population is expected to grow to over 400,000. The City includes approximately 49.7 square miles. The City boundaries generally form an elongated irregularly shaped area, which extends approximately 16 miles east to west. Major freeways traversing the City include the I-5 Freeway, which travels generally northwest to southeast; the SR-57 Freeway, which travels north and south through the central portion of the City; the SR-55 Freeway, which abuts the southern edge of the City at the western edge of the Hill and Canyon Area; the SR-91 Freeway, which travels east and west along the northern portion of the City; and, the SR- 241, which travels north and south near the eastern edge of the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-4 July 2013 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Aesthetics The City is already largely built-out. It contains nearly 1,500 acres of parks and open space (about five percent of its total land area) and another 11 percent in vacant land. The City’s major open space features are located in the eastern part of the City within the Hill and Canyon Area. These include the Deer Canyon Preserve, the undeveloped Mountain Park Specific Plan area, and State-owned land adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park and the Cleveland National Forest, on the eastern edge of the City that provides a potential gateway and link for wildlife corridors, trails, and recreation uses. The other major open space resource is the Santa Ana River; the centerpiece of a 2,650-square mile watershed that involves major portions of three counties including Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. The resource includes the Santa Ana River Trail, a designated national recreation trail that, when completed, will incorporate 110 miles of trail system from Big Bear Lake, high in the San Bernardino Mountains, to the mouth of the Santa Ana River, at the Pacific Ocean. It provides trails, bikeways, scenic views and other open space and recreational opportunities along its course. Aesthetic resources within the City are protected through implementation of the Green Element and Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan. The purpose of the Green Element is to combine all of the City’s open space, conservation, recreation and landscaping resources into one comprehensive, integrated document. Rather than separate these components, the Green Element recognizes their interrelationship and builds upon it with the inclusion of a Green Plan as seen in Figure 4-1. The objectives of the Green Element are to:  Expand public parks and open space amenities;  Improve the City’s trail and bicycle network for local and regional connections;  Beautify arterial corridors with landscape plans, edge treatments and gateways; and  Use existing opportunities, such as easements, vacant land, and the Santa Ana River to expand accessible open space and recreation opportunities. The Green Element uses a variety of open space opportunities and resources to create a unified vision for a more beautiful, healthy city. The Green Element considers not only existing parks and open space, but also potential recreational opportunities, such as schools, utility easements, water uses, and vacant land. It also identifies opportunities to enhance the appearance of existing areas through enhanced landscaping of Anaheim’s corridors, community edges, and City The emphasis of the Green Element is not only to make spatial connections throughout the City through parks, trails, open space, and landscaping but also to create policy connections to help the City conserve its natural and cultural resources such as water, energy and historic districts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2004 Approved Project Green Plan 5. Environmental Analysis Source: City of Anaheim Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 4-1 0 Scale (Miles) 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-6 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-7 The Community Design Element is not a required Element of the General Plan, but the City has long recognized the importance of community appearance and identity to its vitality, economic health and overall quality of life. Combined with the “Green Element” – which combines parks and recreation, open space, conservation, and public landscaping into a comprehensive plan to beautify the City - the Community Design Element provides policy guidance for the built environment. It supports the Land Use Element by providing design policies that complement the City’s diverse land uses, the Circulation Element by providing guidance for aesthetically enhancing arterial corridors, and the Economic Development Element by recognizing the relationship between quality design and economic viability, stability and growth. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pollutants originating in Orange County are transported by the daytime onshore air flow, where they react to form ozone some distance from where the primary pollutants are emitted. The SCAB is a “nonattainment” area for ozone (O3) and particulate matters (PM10 and PM2.5) under both the federal and California ambient air quality standards (AAQS). In addition, the SCAB was proposed in 2010 to be designated as nonattainment for nitrogen oxides (NOx) (entire Basin) under the new California AAQS and lead (Pb) (Los Angeles County only) under the new federal AAQS. Nonattainment refers to the fact that the region exceeds the federal and State AAQS. (SCAQMD, 2007) An air quality analysis was performed for the Proposed Project and the results are discussed in Section 5.1, Air Quality, of this DSEIR. California is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and is the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world (CEC 2005). However, because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006). In 2004, California produced 492 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent ("CO2e”) GHG emissions, of which 81 percent were CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, 2.8 percent were from other sources of CO2, 5.7 percent were from methane, and 6.8 percent were from nitrous oxide (N2O) (CEC 2006). The remaining 2.9 percent of GHG emissions were from High Global Warming Potential gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF4) (CEC 2006). CO2 emissions from human activities make up 84 percent of the total GHG emissions (CEC 2006). California’s transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.7 percent of the state’s total emissions (CEC 2006). Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.2 percent. While out-of-state electricity generation comprises 22 to 32 percent of California’s total electricity supply, it contributes 39 to 57 percent of the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption in the state (CEC 2006). Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 20.5 percent of state’s total emission (CEC 2006). Other major sources of GHG emissions include mineral production, waste combustion and land use, and forestry changes. Agriculture, forestry, commercial, and residential activities comprise the balance of California’s GHG emissions (CEC 2006). A description of the Proposed Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts as compared to the 2004 Approved Project is included in Section 5.1, Air Quality, and Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this DSEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-8 July 2013 Biological Resources The 2004 Certified EIR described the biological resources that exist within the City. The City is largely urbanized and is generally surrounded by other developed cities. In this portion of Orange County, there are few remaining areas of natural habitat. The developed areas of the City contain non-native species of plants and animals while the Hill and Canyon Area, located in the eastern portion of the City and Sphere- of-Influence, contains the majority of the City’s remaining significant biological resources. The State of California purchased approximately 1,400 acres within Coal Canyon to provide a wildlife corridor between the Cleveland National Forest and the Chino Hills State Park. This land will be maintained in perpetuity as an open space wildlife corridor. The General Plan and Zoning Code reflect this use by designating this area for open space purposes. The other significant biological resource located in the City is the Santa Ana River. The Hill and Canyon Area is topographically complex with steep, wooded and forested canyons and intervening scrub and chaparral-covered ridges. Several blue line streams occur in this area of the City and Sphere-of-Influence. Significant portions of the Hill and Canyon Area are relatively undisturbed. The Hill and Canyon Area supports several habitat types considered sensitive by resource agencies, namely the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), due to their scarcity and their ability to support a number of State and Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and rare vascular plants, as well as several sensitive bird and reptile species. Sensitive plant communities found within this area of the City and Sphere-of-Influence include coastal sage scrub communities, coast live oak communities (oak savannah and oak woodland), Tecate Cypress communities, nolina chaparral, needlegrass grassland, and riparian communities, as described below. The Santa Ana River Watershed is the largest in Orange County, covering 153.2 square miles. The River begins almost 75 miles away in the San Bernardino Mountains, crossing central Orange County before emptying into the Pacific Ocean. The Orange County portion of the watershed includes portions of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Huntington Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. The River serves as the main tributary to the watershed with Santiago Creek being the largest tributary within Orange County. Portions of the River provide wetland and riparian habitat. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that biological resources impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Historic Resources –City of Anaheim Historic resources are defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts of significance in history, archaeology, architecture and culture. These resources are preserved because they provide a link to a region’s past as well as a frame of reference for a community. Often these sites are a source of pride for a City. National Register The National Register recognizes resources of local, State, and national significance. The National Register lists eight properties within the City:  Carnegie Library - 241 S. Anaheim Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-9  Kraemer, Samuel Building (American Savings Bank/First National Bank) - 76 S. Claudina Street  Kroger: Melrose District - roughly bounded by Lincoln Avenue, S. Kroger Street, W. Broadway, and S. Philadelphia Street  Melrose-Backs Neighborhood Houses - 226 and 228 E. Adele Street and 303, 317, 317, and 321 N. Philadelphia Street  Stanton, Philip Achley House - 2200 W. Sequoia Avenue  Truxaw-Gervais House - 887 S. Anaheim Boulevard The following buildings formerly on the National Register have been destroyed or demolished:  Old Backs House - 215 N. Claudina Street  Pickwick Hotel - 225 S. Anaheim Boulevard California Register of Historic Places The State Historic Resources Commission has designed this program for use by State and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify, evaluate, register and protect California’s historical resources. The California Register is the authoritative guide to the State’s significant historical and archaeological resources. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for State and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for State historic preservation grant funding, and affords certain protections under CEQA. Eight properties (those listed above on the National Register) are also registered on the California Register of Historic Places. State Historical Landmarks Historical landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. The specific standards now in use were first applied in the designations of Landmark number 770. State historical landmarks are recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission to the Director of California State Parks for official designation. The nine-member commission is appointed by the governor and also reviews nominations for listing on the National Register of Historical Places. If a site is primarily of local interest, it may meet the criteria for the California Point of Historical Interest Program. The California Points of Historical Interest Program recognizes resources of local or countywide importance. Two California historical landmarks listed with the Office of Historic Preservation currently exist within the City:  No. 112 – North Gate of the City of Anaheim  No. 201 – Pioneer House of the Mother Colony The Anaheim Cemetery, located at 1400 E. Sycamore Street, is the oldest public cemetery in Orange County. Established in 1866 by the original Anaheim settlers, it is also the location of the first public ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-10 July 2013 mausoleum on the West Coast. The cemetery became Orange County Historic Site No. 49 in 2002, as designated by the Orange County Historical Commission in cooperation with the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Anaheim Colony The Anaheim Colony Historic District was established on October 21, 1997 by Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 97R-194. More than 1,100 buildings are on the Qualified Historic Structures List and are deemed “contributors” to the District. These buildings were chosen either for their historic architectural character of a specific time period or for the histories of the people who once lived in them. The boundaries of the Anaheim Colony Historic District are North Street, South Street, East Street, and West Street. In 1999, area residents published the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan to promote the preservation and restoration of historic homes in the area. The Plan provides illustrations and guidelines to guide preservation and rehabilitation efforts that are compatible with the scale, style, and character of the historic homes and neighborhoods within the District. In May, 2010, the City of Anaheim adopted the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan, as a supplement to the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan. The new Plan took 18 months to compile and looks at preserving significant structures not just in the established historic districts, but all throughout the City. Archaeological Resources Archaeological sites are locations that contain significant evidence of human activity. Generally a site is defined by a significant accumulation or presence of one or more of the following: food remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones, modification of rock surfaces, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or human skeletal remains. Archaeological sites are often located along creek areas, ridgelines, and vistas. Many of these types of landforms are located within the Hill and Canyon Area of the City and its Sphere-of-Influence, and one major cultural resource site (CA-Ora-303) has been identified and registered. This site was first recorded in 1970 and listed a series of small north-facing rockshelters adjacent to SR-91. The artifact assemblage was comprised of manos, hammerstones, choppers, lithic flakes, and some faunal bone. Paleontological Resources Paleontological sites are those areas that show evidence of pre-human activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. While the sites are important indications, it is the geologic formations that are the most important since they may contain important fossils. Maps for paleontology often show sensitive areas based on the underlying geologic formation. Because most of the City is built-out, there are very few areas containing rock croppings. The Hill and Canyon Area contains sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Late Cretaceous to Middle Miocene. The oldest sedimentary rocks belong to the upper Cretaceous Holz Shale and the Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation. These strata are confined to the southeastern corner of the Hill and Canyon Area and no fossils have been reported. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-11 The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that cultural and paleontological resource impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Geology and Soils Figure 4-2, Generalized Geologic Map, illustrates landslides from referenced geologic maps, review of aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. In areas of existing land development, the mapped landslides may have been removed, mitigated, or altered during the grading for land development. The City is situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of a northwest-southeast oriented complex of blocks separated by similarly trending faults. The basement bedrock complex includes Jurassic age metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous age igneous rocks of the Southern California batholith. The City extends from the southerly portion of the Los Angeles Basin easterly into the northern portions of the Santa Ana Mountains. The western portions of the City are located within the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin (Norris and Webb, 1990). The Central Block is characterized by thick layers of alluvium overlying predominantly sedimentary rock of Pleistocene through Cretaceous age. The depths to basement rocks are known from petroleum well logs and geophysical data. The total thickness of the sedimentary section is roughly 13,000 feet near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin. The eastern portions of the City and its Sphere-of-Influence extend along the Santa Ana River and the northern portions of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Santa Ana Mountains form a dominant feature of the northern Peninsular Ranges. The general cross section of the Santa Ana Mountains consists of an anticlinal fold across the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone. (Schoelhamer, et al., 1981) The crest of the fold parallels the mountain’s ridgeline with a gently dipping southwestern flank and a steep, down-faulted northeastern limb. Additional intermediate folding has been superimposed on the major anticlinal feature. The Santa Ana River generally follows the axis of a that plunges westerly. The southern flanks of the form the Peralta Hills, which merge with the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. Tertiary through Cretaceous age sedimentary rock units are exposed in the hillside areas south of the river. The distribution of sedimentary rocks in the hillside areas of the City reflects the geologic structure of the as well as numerous discontinuous faults. In general, younger rock units are exposed in the western and northwestern portions of the hillside areas becoming progressively older to the east and southeast. The Cretaceous age rock units are generally limited to the eastern portions of the City and its Sphere-of-Influence. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that geology and soils impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-12 July 2013 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste is generated by a multitude of uses, including manufacturing and service industries, small businesses, agriculture, hospitals, schools and households. A material is hazardous when it exhibits corrosive, poisonous, flammable and/or reactive properties and has the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous materials are generally used to produce products that enable our society to enjoy a higher standard of living. Hazardous materials are used in products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products television sets, newspapers, plastic products and computers). Hazardous wastes are the chemical remains of hazardous materials that have no further intended use and which need treatment and/or disposal. Storage, transport and disposal of these materials require careful and sound management practices. There are many regulatory requirements governing hazardous waste management, and they are constantly changing. Federal and State statutes as well as local ordinances and plans control the future course of hazardous waste management. Airport/Heliport Hazards Heliports Five heliports within the City of Anaheim are utilized for helicopter take-off and landing. According to the Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, the City contains five heliports. They are the two Anaheim Police Department (police use), Boeing Anaheim B/250 (corporate use), Northrop Anaheim Heliport (CN22) (corporate use), and North Net Fire Training Center (fire department use). Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos The Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), Los Alamitos, houses units of the California National Guard and Army Reserve. This base is located outside of the City limits, approximately one mile to the southwest. However, JFTB’s Airport Land Use Plan extends into the City’s corporate boundary. In addition, the base houses the Southern California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The base contains two runways, ten taxiways and approximately 1,000,000 square feet of ramp space. The runways measure 8,000 and 5,900 feet in length and, along with an inactive north-south runway, comprise the primary operations area for transport of crews, supplies, equipment, and medical operations during emergency operations. JFTB is the only remaining military airfield in the Los Angeles and Orange County region. Each year, JFTB supports 14,000 air-lifters, jets and other types of fixed wing aircraft flights and handles 4,800 radar helicopter approaches. Flight services include a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) control tower, all-weather flight operations, fueling maintenance, crew briefing areas, weather information, flight safety, security and 24-hour crash rescue. The base serves an alternate site in the event of an emergency at Los Angeles International Airport. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2004 Approved Project Generalized Geologic Map 5. Environmental Analysis Source: City of Anaheim Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 4-2 0 Scale (Miles) 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-14 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-15 Fullerton Municipal Airport Fullerton Municipal Airport is a general aviation airport. The airport is located on the western edge of the City of Fullerton and borders on the City of Buena Park, approximately two miles north of Anaheim. It is bound by existing development on all sides, thus restricting the potential expansion of the airport. The field encompasses approximately 86 acres of land and includes one runway, several taxiways and large areas of paved aprons. The airport only serves general aviation aircraft capable of operating on a runway of less than 3,000 feet in length and having a strength capacity of 9,000 pounds (aircraft weight). Although this airport is located outside of the City limits, its Airport Land Use Plan extends into the City’s corporate boundary. Each year the airport handles about 175,000 aircraft take-offs and landings. The normal flight pattern includes an area approximately one mile north and parallel to the runway. Under moderate weekend conditions it would extend about 2.5 miles east of the airport, and on busier days the area is extended about three miles east of the airport. The airport currently provides approximately 600 based aircraft spaces and about 35 spaces for visiting aircraft, general aviation jet aircraft, and helicopters based at the airfield. Airport operations are expected to remain at current levels, with minor variations in effect depending on weather conditions. Although internal improvements are planned, these are not expected to increase overall operations. There are no plans to expand visitor parking spaces or the airport itself. Other Nearby Airports John Wayne Airport and Long Beach Airport are located approximately 20 miles from the City. The John Wayne Airport is home base for approximately 575 general aviation aircraft. General aviation activity accounts for approximately 80 percent of the total number of operations (takeoffs and landings). John Wayne Airport's general aviation facilities serve small private aircraft, corporate aircraft, and fixed base operations that provide fuel services, aircraft maintenance, flying lessons and other services. Owned and operated by the City of Long Beach, the Long Beach Airport is situated halfway between the major business and tourism areas of both Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Long Beach Airport covers 1,166 acres and has five runways, the longest being 10,000 feet. It is a hub of corporate activity as well as being one of the world's busiest airports in terms of general aviation activity. Scheduled airlines also provide passenger and cargo service. These airports have flight paths that fly over parts of the City. Whether the flights are in transit to another location, or are in approach for landing, they have the potential to create a hazard within the City should an accident occur. Fire Hazards Fire hazards threaten lives, property, and natural resources, and impact vegetation and wildlife habitats. The Hill and Canyon Area can be divided into two sections, developed and undeveloped, with each section maintaining its own fire hazard classification. The developed areas are generally classified as a “Special Protection Area” by the City of Anaheim Fire Department; the undeveloped areas are classified as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.” The majority of the areas designated as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” are located east of SR-241. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-16 July 2013 The current structural fire risk (the risk of a fire occurring within a structure) in the Hill and Canyon Area (developed portion) is estimated to be a low probability/moderate consequence event. Relatively few fires occur in well-maintained, upscale communities with mostly owner occupied homes having relatively few occupants compared to the size of the structure. When a fire does occur, it is usually confined to one room and does not spread beyond the structure of origin. A structure fire occurs approximately every five days. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Hydrology and Water Quality The City lies within Region 8 (Santa Ana) of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction. Region 8 covers approximately 2,800 square miles and includes portions of Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The State Water Resources Control Board (the State Water Board) was created by the Legislature in 1967. The mission of the Water Board is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the Water Board to provide comprehensive protection for California's waters. The Santa Ana River is the main surface watercourse within the City. The Santa Ana River is the largest river within Region 8, at approximately 75 miles in length, and provides roughly 70 percent of the total groundwater recharge for the Santa Ana River basin. Water flow within the river is regulated by the Prado Dam, Seven Oaks Dam, and other flood-control facilities in the River and tributary area. The Santa Ana River is also Orange County’s main river system. The portion of the system within the City includes the area from just west of Imperial Highway to Ball Road. The river’s unlined channel bottom along this stretch consists of permeable sandy material and is directly connected to previous alluvial materials that allow for the transfer of water into the underlying aquifers. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that hydrology and water quality impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Mineral Resources Sand and gravel deposits in the City are a result of the Santa Ana River, which carries alluvial material derived from a large drainage basin that encompasses parts of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. Much of the material has been funneled through Santa Ana Canyon and deposited in the Orange County Basin. Prado Dam now prevents alluvium from being transported through the Santa Ana Canyon. The coarser alluvial material that lies in Santa Ana Canyon and within a few miles of its mouth forms a sand and gravel deposit of economic significance. According to the Mineral Resources and Mineral Hazards Mapping Program, parts of East Anaheim, The Canyon, and the Hill and Canyon Area are identified as being within a Mineral Resource Zone, Class 2 (MRZ-2). In addition, the City has three sites identified as containing mineral resources of regional significance within the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek/Arroyo Trabuco/San Juan Creek/Temescal Valley areas of the Orange County-Temescal Valley Region, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-17 The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that mineral resources impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Noise Like all highly urbanized areas, the City is subject to noise from a myriad of sources. The major source of noise is from mobile sources and most specifically, traffic traveling through the City on its various roadways and freeways. Aircraft also contribute to this noise. The City is not located within the 65 A- weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours for any commercial or private airports, and fixed-wing aircraft are typically too high to add measurably to local noise. However, local helicopter air traffic is commonplace throughout the City and was noted in many instances during the field survey preformed in drafting the General Plan Noise Element. In addition, both freight and commuter rail-traffic pass through the City and noise generated along these rail lines can be substantially higher than in areas that are located away from the tracks. Noise from trains and their associated horns and whistles are a particular concern to those residents that live along these railroad corridors. The City also includes a variety of stationary noise sources. These are primarily associated with industrial land uses and for the most part are restricted to the appropriate areas. However, in some areas along Orangethorpe Avenue and in central portions of the City) residential land uses abut industrial land uses and the sound of industrial processes is readily audible at exterior residential locations. Other sources of “stationary” noise are associated with the fireworks displays put on at Disneyland on a regular basis and special events at Angels Stadium. While the latter sources of noise are readily audible at proximate residential locations, they represent the existing setting. Furthermore, this noise is of short duration and as such, does not add substantially to the existing CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time- weighted average. A discussion of existing noise conditions in the City and an analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts on noise in the local environment as compared to the 2004 Approved Project are included in Section 5.3, Noise of this DSEIR. Population and Housing The Proposed Project involves the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the land use designations identified for these sites in the 2004 Approved Project. The Buildout Statistical Summary for the 2004 Approved Project is shown in Table 4-1. The 2004 Approved Project provided additional housing opportunities within The Platinum Triangle and The Colony and Downtown Areas, which are high employment and activity centers. From a regional perspective, Orange County and the City have exhibited similar historic growth trends, with both County and City housing growth lagging population and employment growth. The 2004 Approved Project provided opportunities for more housing units to be developed within one of the State's largest employment concentrations. The close proximity of the future housing units and employment opportunities responds directly to the City's jobs/housing balance policies. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-18 July 2013 Table 4-1 Buildout Statistical Summary SCAG 2035 Projections 2004 Approved Project Dwelling Units 124,700 126,570 Population 405,800 398,745 Employment 224,200 260,335 Jobs to Housing Ratio 1.80 2.06 Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, City of Anaheim, 2012 The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that the population and housing impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Public Services and Utilities The City is largely urbanized and is generally surrounded by other developed cities. All public services are currently available to serve existing residents and plans have been adopted to maintain adequate levels of service at buildout. Law enforcement is provided by the Anaheim Police Department. The Anaheim Police Department currently employs over 400 sworn officers and upwards of 170 civilian support staff. The Anaheim Fire Department operates 11 fire stations and employs a total of 278 safety and full-time personnel. The Anaheim City School District (ACSD), Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD), Orange Unified School District (OUSD), Centralia School District, Magnolia School District, Savanna School District, Fullerton School District, Fullerton Joint Union School District, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Buena Park School District provide educational services to the City. Water , electrical and sewer service is also provided by the City. Potential impacts to public services and utilities related to the 2004 Approved Project were addressed in Section 5.11, Police and Fire and Section 5.13, Public Services and Facilities in the 2004 Certified EIR. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that the public services and utilities impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. Transportation and Traffic The primary circulation system in the City is the network of freeways and arterial highways and surface streets that serve the City. The network serves two distinct and equally important functions: mobility of persons and goods in and through the City, and access to adjacent areas. The design and operation of each street or arterial highway depends upon its designated role in the safe delivery of each of these functions. For example, the arterial highways are designed to carry large volumes of vehicles. Accordingly, they are designed for mobility, have more lanes, higher speed limits and fewer driveways. In contrast, residential street have fewer lanes, lower speed limits, and more driveways to provide access to fronting properties. A classification system is used to identify each roadway in the City. The system provides a logical framework for the design and operation of the roadway system. Since some major thoroughfares in the City are part of a countywide arterial network, they must be coordinated with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The functional classification system allows residents and elected officials to identify preferred characteristics of each street. If characteristics of any street change from the functional classification, then actions can be taken to return the street to its originally intended use or change the designated classification in response to new development. The City also has an ordinance requiring the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-19 dedication of land and construction to complete the ultimate street right-of-way per the functional classification system. A description of the existing traffic conditions and the Proposed Project’s impacts on the traffic and circulation system as compared to the 2004 Approved Project is set forth in Section 5.4, Transportation and Traffic, of this DSEIR. Land Use and Planning City of Anaheim General Plan In May 2004, the Anaheim City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan and certified EIR No. 330 as the environmental documentation for the 2004 Approved Project. The General Plan is a document that represents the City’s view of its future and is a blueprint for a city’s growth and development. The City Council and the Planning Commission use the General Plan to help guide their land use decisions. The General Plan is divided into various topical sections, or Elements, that address a wide range of subjects and provide goals and policies that will guide future development in the City. There are no land use, goal or policy changes to the General Plan being made as part of the Proposed Project. Please refer to Section 3.3.1, Project Background, for a complete description of the City’s adopted General Plan. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of this DSEIR discusses why it was concluded that the land use and planning impacts of the Proposed Project did not need to be analyzed in detail in this DSEIR. 4.6 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when a project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the proposed project alone. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects in the vicinity. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two methods, either: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The cumulative impact analysis contained in this DSEIR uses method B, as described above. Consistent with Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, this DSEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of development in accordance with the City’s adopted General Plan and associated Land Use Plan. As a result, this DSEIR addresses the cumulative impacts of development within the City and the larger ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-20 July 2013 Orange County region surrounding it, as appropriate. In most cases, the potential for cumulative impacts is contiguous with the City boundary, since the City is the service provider for various City services and public utilities. Potential cumulative impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions, which have the potential for impacts beyond the City boundary, have been addressed through use of a traffic model. The City utilizes a traffic model for purposes of forecasting cumulative growth within the City and regionally. Regional growth outside of the City has accounted for traffic, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas impacts through use of this model, which is a socioeconomic traffic model that uses regional growth projections to calculate future traffic volumes. The growth projections adopted by the City and surrounding area are used for the cumulative impact analyses of this DSEIR. Please refer to Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this DSEIR for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth within the City and region. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-1 5.1 AIR QUALITY This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) evaluates the potential air quality impacts of the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunity Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”) as compared to the air quality impacts of the 2004 Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update (“2004 Approved Project”). The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the Proposed Project; vehicle miles traveled (VMT), provided by the traffic consultant, Iteris, as modeled using the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) for trips (origin-destination method) (see Appendix F to this DSEIR); electricity use provided by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department, natural gas use provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), waste generation identified for the City of Anaheim (“City”) by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and water use for the City based on the Anaheim Public Utilities Department 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The air quality model output sheets are included in Appendix C of this DSEIR. 5.1.1 Environmental Setting 5.1.1.1 Regulatory Setting Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at State and Federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the State and Federal government regulate the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The City is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as the California AAQS adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and National AAQS adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Federal and State Laws Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the United States Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 CAA amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS based on even greater health and welfare concerns. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-2 July 2013 Both California and the Federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 5.1-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean * 0.030 ppm2 Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm1 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppm2 Respirable Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3, 3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3 3-Month Average * 0.15 µg/m3 Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-3 Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hours ExCo =0.23/km visibility of 10≥ miles1 No Federal Standard Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal Standard Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur- containing organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal Standard Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source: CARB 2012. ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter 1 When relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 2 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. 3 On December 14, 2012, EPA lowered the federal primary PM2.5 annual standard from 15.0 µg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The new annual standard will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA made no changes to the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard or to the secondary PM2.5 standards. * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. CO, volatile organic compounds (VOC), NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that AAQS have been established for them. VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are air pollutant ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-4 July 2013 precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. O3 and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic- congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005; EPA 2012). The SCAB is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels (CARB 2013). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) / Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of VOCs. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols (SCAQMD 2005). There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the SCAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground- level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and is more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including people with asthma asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory in people with asthma. Also, studies show a connection between breathing elevated short-term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (SCAQMD 2005, EPA 2012). The SoCAB is designated as an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and a nonattainment area under the California AAQS (CARB 2013). Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from five minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma These effects are particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-5 while exercising or playing.) At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics (SCAQMD 2005, EPA 2011). The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for SO2 under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2013). Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart of lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, increased respiratory irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified by the CARB as a carcinogen. Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment1, environmental damage2, and aesthetic damage3 (SCAQMD 2005; EPA 2012). The SCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 and PM10 under California and National AAQS (CARB 2013).4 Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOx, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3 also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. In particular, O3 harms sensitive vegetation, including forest trees and plants during the growing season (SCAQMD 2005; EPA 2011). The SCAB is designated as an extreme nonattainment area under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour) and National AAQS (8-hour) (CARB 2013). 1 PM2.5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. 2 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include: making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. 3 Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments. 4 CARB approved the SCAQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PM10 standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-6 July 2013 Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of Pb emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the EPA's regulatory efforts to remove lead from on-road motor vehicle gasoline, emissions of Pb from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of Pb in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of Pb in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of Pb emissions to the air today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. Once taken into the body, Pb distributes throughout in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, l Pb can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Pb exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The Pb effects most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects high blood pressure and heart disease) in adults. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of Pb, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (SCAMQD 2005; EPA 2012). However, in 2008, the EPA and CARB adopted stricter lead standards. Based on these stricter standards, very localized violations were recorded at special monitoring sites immediately downwind of Pb sources5. As a result of these localized violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB was designated in 2010 as a nonattainment area for Pb under the California and National AAQS (SCAQMD 2010). Because emissions of Pb are found only in projects that are permitted by SCAQMD, Pb is not an air quality pollutant of concern for the Proposed Project. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are classified as the public’s exposure to air pollutants and they are considered to be a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA (42 United States Code § 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution 5 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 identified that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQMD 2010). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-7 control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines. In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 2000, SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air toxics risk. In 2008, SCAQMD conducted its third update to its study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in one million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the air toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008). In the vicinity of the City, excess cancer risk ranges from 334 on the eastern City boundary to 1,233 in a million in the eastern portion of the City near the convergence of SR-91 and I-5 Freeways (SCAQMD 2012). South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD is the agency responsible for assuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained in the SCAB. SCAQMD is responsible for:  Adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources;  Issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants;  Inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants;  Responding to citizen complaints;  Monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions;  Awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions;  Conducting public education campaigns; and  Air Quality Management Planning SCAQMD, with assistance from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is the agencies responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. 2012 AQMP On December 7, 2012, SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up-to-date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources, and area sources. It also ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-8 July 2013 addresses several state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new meteorological air quality models. The 2012 AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 AQMP for attainment of Federal PM and O3 standards and highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to engage in interagency coordinated planning to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria air pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under the CAA. The 2012 AQMP demonstrates attainment of Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 and the Federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2023. It includes an update to the revised EPA 8-hour ozone control plan with new commitments for short-term NOx and VOC reductions. The plan also identifies emerging issues of ultrafine (PM1.0) particulate matter and near-roadway exposure, and an analysis of energy supply and demand. Nonattainment Areas The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the State and Federal AAQS through the SIP. Areas are classified attainment or nonattainment for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet AAQS. Severity classifications for O3 nonattainment range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Transportation conformity for nonattainment and maintenance areas is required under the federal CAA to ensure federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. In March 2012, the EPA approved California’s SIP revisions for attainment of the 1997 8-hour O3 National AAQS for the SCAB. Findings for the new 8-hour O3 emissions budgets for the SCAB and consistency with the recently adopted 2012 RTP/SCS were submitted to the EPA for approval. In 2008, the EPA designated the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB as a nonattainment are under the Federal Pb classification due to the addition of source-specific monitoring under the new Federal regulation. This designation was based on two source-specific monitors in Vernon and the City of Industry, which exceeded the new standard. The remainder of the SCAB, outside the Los Angeles County nonattainment area, remains in attainment of the new standard. On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Federal Pb standard, which the EPA revised in 2008. Pb concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the Federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to EPA for approval in June 2012. The attainment status for the SCAB is shown in Table 5.1-2. The SCAB is designated in attainment of the California AAQS for sulfates. The SCAB will have to meet the new Federal 8-hour O3 standard by 2023, and the Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 (with the possibility of up to a five-year extension to 2019, if needed). SCAQMD has recently designated the SCAB in nonattainment for NO2 (entire basin) and Pb (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-9 Table 5.1-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal O3 – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard O3 – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment1 PM10 Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment2 PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance SO2 Attainment Attainment Pb Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)3 Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only )3 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2013. Notes: 1 SCAQMD may petition for Extreme Nonattainment designation. 2 Annual standard revoked September 2006. CARB approved the SCAQMD’s request to redesignate the SCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SCAB has not violated Federal 24-hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. 3 The Los Angeles portion of the SCAB was designated nonattainment for Pb under the new Federal and existing State AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SCAB are in attainment. 5.1.1.2 Existing Setting South Coast Air Basin The project site lies within the SCAB, which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high- pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD 2005). Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. Based on climatological data recorded at the Anaheim Monitoring Station (ID 040192),the average low temperature is reported at 46.9°F in December while the average high temperature is 87.1°F in August (WRCC 2012). In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages 14.09 inches per year in the City (WRCC 2012). Humidity Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-10 July 2013 into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB (SCAQMD 2005). Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region of the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005). Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the City (SCAQMD 2005). Existing Ambient Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the City are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The City lies primarily within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17, Inland Orange County (Central Orange County).6 The Anaheim Monitoring Station lies within the City. However, this station does not monitor SO2. Consequently, data was obtained from the Riverside Monitoring Station for this criteria pollutant. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 5.1-3. The data show that the area regularly exceeds the State and Federal 1-hour and 8-hour O3 standards and regularly exceeds the state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the project vicinity. 6 A small portion of the City is within SRA 16, Metropolitan (North Orange County) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-11 Table 5.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Pollutant/Standard Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ozone (O3)1 State 1-Hour  0.09 ppm State 8-hour  0.07 ppm Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2 10 5 0.105 0.086 0 2 1 0.093 0.077 1 1 1 0.104 0.088 0 1 0 0.088 0.073 0 0 0 0.079 0.068 Carbon Monoxide (CO)1 State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm Federal 8-Hour  9.0 ppm Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 3.44 0 0 2.73 0 0 1.98 0 0 2.08 0 0 2.34 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1 State 1-Hour  0.18 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.093 0 0.068 0 0.073 0 0.074 0 0.059 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)2 State 1-Hour  0.04 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.005 0 0.001 0 0.001 Coarse Particulates (PM10)1 State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 3 0 111.5 1 0 97.4 0 0 43.0 2 0 53.0 0 0 48.0 Fine Particulates (PM2.5)1 Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 5 67.8 5 64.5 0 31.7 2 39.2 4 50.1 Source: CARB 2012. ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter. 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Monitoring Station. 2 Data obtained from the Riverside Monitoring Station. Existing Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory An existing emissions inventory of the City was conducted based on the existing land uses and is shown in Table 5.1-4. The existing criteria air pollutant emissions were calculated using OFFROAD2007, EMFAC2011, and emission factors identified in CalEEMod. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-12 July 2013 Table 5.1-4 Existing City of Anaheim Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory Sector Existing, 2012, Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Transportation1 5,363 10,535 50,572 82 1,031 508 Residential Natural Gas2 111 950 404 6 77 77 Non-Residential Natural Gas2 154 1,398 1,174 8 106 106 Area – Landscaping3 1,775 1,297 28,075 3 149 147 Area – Construction3 283 1,947 1,698 2 121 119 Existing Land Uses Total 7,686 16,126 81,923 102 1,484 957 Notes: 1 EMFAC2011 based on daily VMT provided by Iteris using 2012 emission rates. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for external-internal trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT x 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008). 2 Based on a two-year average (2010–2011) provided by SoCal Gas. Nonresidential includes direct access customers, county facilities, and other district facilities within the City boundaries. 3 OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City as a percentage of Orange County. Estimated based on housing permit data for Orange and the City from the United States Census. Daily offroad construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites and wood-burning fireplaces. Various industrial and commercial processes manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Proposed Project would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be included in the table because they would be speculative. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups, referred to as sensitive receptors, include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, since the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-13 AQ-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A (also included in Chapter 7, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant), substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: AQ-1 and AQ-5. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds The analysis of the proposed project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQMD’s website. CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project’s cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB. Table 5.1-5 lists SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Table 5.1-5 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Fine particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Lead (Pb)1 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Source: SCAQMD 2011 1 Lead is typically generated by industrial project and is not a pollutant of concern for the 2004 Approved Project or the Proposed Project. Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD developed LSTs to determine if emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at a project site (offsite mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants. LSTs represent the maximum emissions at ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-14 July 2013 a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent Federal or State AAQS and are shown in Table 5.1-6. Table 5.1-6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Standard (Relevant AAQS) Concentration 1-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm 8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm 1-Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3 ppm – parts per million µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter 1 Threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Since the SCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the threshold is established as an “allowable change” in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant. To assist lead agencies, SCAQMD developed screening-level LSTs to back-calculate the mass amount (pounds per day) of emissions generated onsite that would trigger the levels shown in Table 5.1-6. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for each SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Screening-level LST analyses are the localized significance thresholds for all projects of five acres and less; however, they can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required to compare concentrations of air pollutants generated by the project to the localized concentrations in Table 5.1-6. CO Hot Spot Thresholds Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse without improvements (Caltrans 1997). Health Risk Analysis Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401, placed on CARB’s air toxics list pursuant to AB 1807, Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (1983), or placed on the EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health risk assessment (HRA) is required by the SCAQMD. Table 5.1-7 lists the SCAQMD’s TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project. Residential, commercial, and office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs, and these thresholds are typically applied for new industrial projects. It ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-15 should be noted that these thresholds do not gauge the compatibility of a project with adjacent sources of air pollutants. Table 5.1-7 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Maximum Individual Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden ≥ 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Hazard Index (project increment) ≥ 1.0 Source: SCAQMD 2011 5.1.3 The 2004 Approved Project Air quality related impacts of the 2004 Approved Project were analyzed in the 2004 Certified EIR using SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook methodologies and thresholds. Modeling of operational phase emissions were conducted using the URBEMIS2002 computer model. The 2004 Certified EIR identified the following conclusions regarding the air quality emissions:  Construction-Related Regional Air Quality Impact: Significant and unavoidable. The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that, even after mitigation, construction air emissions could exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds as a result of the amount of development activity that is anticipated in the City.  Operational Phase Regional Air Quality Impact: Significant and unavoidable. The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that the operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be significant after mitigation.  AQMP Consistency: Less than significant impact. The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s AQMP.  Localized Air Quality Impact: Less than significant impact. The 2004 Certified EIR demonstrated that there would be no CO exceedances caused by vehicular emissions when idling at intersections, therefore localized CO hot spot impacts of the 2004 Approved Project would be less than significant.  Air Quality Compatibility: Less than significant impact. The 2004 Certified EIR identified that while no CO exceedance would be caused by the project, the City could place sensitive land uses proximate to areas with elevated CO concentrations However, implementation of General Plan goals and policies would ensure that mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.  Odors: Less than significant impact. The 2004 Certified EIR identified that odors generated within the City would not affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-16 July 2013 5.1.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Modeling Methodology This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the existing current General Plan. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Handbook that is intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts, which were used in this analysis. Because substantial revisions in modeling methodology, modeling tools, and emissions factors for sectors analyzed have been updated by CARB since the 2004 Certified EIR, criteria air pollutant emissions modeling has been updated for the 2004 Approved Project in order to compare emissions of the 2004 Approved Project to the emissions generated by the Proposed Project. The City’s criteria air pollutant emissions inventory includes the following sectors: Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2011. Model runs were based on daily per capita VMT data provided by ITERIS using the ATAM regional transportation demand model and year 2035 emission rates. The VMT provided in the model includes the full trip length for land uses in the City (origin-destination approach) and does not include a 50 percent reduction in VMT for external-internal/internal-external trips. Natural Gas: Natural gas use for residential and non-residential land uses in the City were modeled using data provided by SoCalGas. Natural gas use is based on a two-year average (2011 and 2010) to account for fluctuation in annual use as a result of natural variations in climate. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City. Area Sources: OFFROAD2007 was used to estimate GHG emissions from landscaping equipment, light commercial equipment, and construction equipment in the City. OFFROAD2007 is a database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by CARB. Annual emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2007 for Orange County for the year 2012. In order to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the City, landscaping and light commercial equipment is estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City as a percentage of Orange County, while construction equipment use is estimated based on building permit data for the City and Orange County from data compiled by the United States Census. Daily off-road construction emissions are multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces (fugitive particulate matter) and consumer products (VOCs) in the City. Impact Threshold Analysis The following impact analysis addresses impacts that the Initial Study for the Proposed Project disclosed as potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The applicable potential impacts are identified in brackets after the impact statement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-17 IMPACT 5.1-1: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD, LIKE THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS THAT COULD EXCEED SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE OZONE (O3), NITROGEN DIXOXIDE (NO2), AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10 AND PM2.5) NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. [THRESHOLD AQ-2, AQ-3, AND AQ-4] Impact Analysis: Construction activities associated with development of the Proposed Project would cause short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The primary source of NOx, CO, and SOx emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary source of VOC emissions is the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving. A discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities is included under “Air Pollutants of Concern” in Section 5.1-1, Environmental Setting. Information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. As with the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the Proposed Project, emissions would likely exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and therefore, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCAB. The SCAB is currently designated nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Emissions of VOC and NOx are precursors to the formation of O3. In addition, NOx is a precursor to the formation of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Therefore, the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the existing nonattainment designations of the SCAB for O3, NO2, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Air quality emissions related to construction activities must be addressed on a project-by-project basis. For this broad-based Project, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would result in the exceedance of SCAQMD's short-term regional or localized construction emissions thresholds. An estimate of construction emissions is included in the operational phase regional criteria air pollutant emissions inventory in Impact 5.1-2 below. In addition to regulatory measures SCAQMD Regulation XIII for new source review; Regulation II, which includes Rule 201 for a permit to construct and Rule 203 for a permit to operate; Regulation IV, which includes Rules 403 for fugitive dust control, and CARB’s airborne toxic control measures), mitigation may include extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment. Nevertheless, because of the likely scale and extent of construction activities pursuant to the future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, at least some projects would likely continue to exceed the relevant SCAQMD thresholds. Consequently, construction-related air quality impacts associated with development in accordance with the Proposed Project are deemed significant. With the approval of the Proposed Project, the construction criteria pollutant emissions and resulting impacts would be the similar to the 2004 Approved Project's construction criteria pollutant emissions and resulting impacts reported in the 2004 Certified EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-18 July 2013 IMPACT 5.1-2: LONG-TERM OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD, LIKE THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, EXCEED SCAQMD’S EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE OZONE (O3), NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2), AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10 AND PM2.5) NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. [THRESHOLD AQ-2 AND AQ-3] Impact Analysis: The General Plan guides growth and development within the City. The Proposed Project would facilitate new development that would increase air pollutant emissions in the City and contribute to the overall emissions inventory in the SCAB. A discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by operational activities is included in the “Air Pollutants of Concern” discussion in Section 5.1-1, Environmental Setting. The 2004 Approved Project permits the development of land uses throughout the City that would generate various industrial and commercial processes manufacturing) that could release toxic air contaminants. Under the Proposed Project, the Mixed Use Overlay Zone could still potentially result in the development of land uses dry cleaners, restaurants with charbroilers) that could release toxic air contaminants. These emissions are controlled by SCAQMD through their permit process and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits. Because the nature of these emissions cannot be determined at this time, and are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be addressed further in this analysis. Criteria air pollutants associated with the Proposed Project are compared to emissions associated with the 2004 Approved Project and are shown in Table 5.1-8. As shown in the table, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, the anticipated operational phase emissions for the Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for all criteria air pollutants. Table 5.1-8 also shows that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in emissions compared to the 2004 Approved Project’s emissions for these same criteria air pollutants. The City has considered whether there are additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Proposed Project’s increased emissions as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, but has concluded that all feasible mitigation measures have already been adopted in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the 2004 Approved Project. Therefore, like the 2004 Approved Project, the operational phase emissions of the Proposed Project are considered to be significant and unavoidable under the SCAQMD thresholds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-19 Table 5.1-8 Summary Comparison of the Proposed Project to the 2004 Approved Project Summary Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2004 Approved Project Transportation1 4,003 6,469 31,185 159 1,782 803 Residential Natural Gas2 111 950 404 6 77 77 Non-Residential Natural Gas2 154 1,398 1,174 8 106 106 Area – Landscaping3 1,775 1,297 28,075 3 149 147 Area – Construction3 283 1,947 1,698 2 [PHONE REDACTED] Certified EIR (URBEMIS2002) 6,326 12,060 62,536 178 2,234 1,253 Exceeds SCAQMD Threshold? YES YES YES YES YES YES SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Proposed Project Transportation1 4,978 8,045 38,785 197 2,216 999 Residential Natural Gas2 152 1,302 554 8 105 105 Non-Residential Natural Gas2 196 1,780 1,495 11 135 135 Area – Landscaping3 2,433 1,778 38,491 4 204 202 Area – Construction3 377 2,590 2,260 3 161 159 Proposed Project Total 8,137 15,496 81,585 223 2,821 1,600 Exceeds SCAQMD Threshold? YES YES YES YES YES YES SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Comparison of the Proposed Project to the 2004 Approved Project Net Change compared to 2004 Approved Project 1,565 2,929 16,032 41 528 302 Substantial Increase from 2004 Approved Project? YES YES YES NO YES YES SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Notes: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 1 EMFAC2011 based on daily VMT provided by Iteris using year 2035 emission rates. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for external-internal trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT multiplied by 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008). 2 Based on a two-year average (2010–2011) provided by SoCalGas. Nonresidential includes direct access customers, county facilities, and other district facilities within the City boundaries. 3 OFFROAD2007. Forecast in emissions is based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City as a percentage of Orange County using housing permit data for the City from the United States Census. Assumes no included in wood-burning fireplaces. Various industrial and commercial processes manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Proposed Project would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be included in the table because they would be speculative. Bold = Exceeds SCAQMD threshold ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-20 July 2013 IMPACT 5.1-3: AS COMPARED TO THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS OF CO AT INTERSECTIONS. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under California and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SCAB and in the State have steadily declined. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the California and National AAQS. As identified within SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (“1992 CO Plan”), peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. A CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles7 at the peak morning and afternoon time periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). Even the most congested intersections in the City would not have a volume of 44,000 vehicles per hour and therefore would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. Based on the above, the Proposed Project, like the 2004 Approved Project, would not have a significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of CO at intersections. IMPACT 5.1-4: OPERATION OF THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN PLACEMENT OF SENSITIVE LAND USES PROXIMATE TO MAJOR SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: The 2004 Certified EIR identified that sensitive land uses could be sited near major freeways and expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of CO but concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Since completion of the 2004 Certified EIR, air pollution studies have shown an association between proximity to major air pollution sources and a variety of health effects. Because sensitive land uses are outside CARB jurisdiction, CARB established the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in May 2005 to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed as a tool for assessing compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations, as shown in Table 5.1-9. This guidance document and the recommended buffer distances were not available at the time of the 2004 Certified EIR. 7 The four intersections were Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day and LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-21 Table 5.1-9 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations Freeways and High-Traffic Roads  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Distribution Centers  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).  Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. Rail Yards  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.  Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches. Ports  Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks. Refineries  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation. Chrome Platers  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district.  Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations. Gasoline Dispensing Facilities  Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. Source: CARB 2005. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were developed from a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that close proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects relative to the existing background concentrations in the air basin. However, the impact of air pollution from these sources is on a gradient that at some point becomes indistinguishable from the regional air pollution problem. There are several high-volume roadways that generate 100,000 average vehicle trips or more per day, as identified by Caltrans: Interstate 5 State Route (SR) -91, SR-57, and SR-55. In addition, several industrial land uses that may generate stationary or mobile sources of TACs truck idling) are within the City. New residential land uses could be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs from mobile or stationary sources. Consequently, under this new criterion, air quality compatibility impacts for new sensitive land uses are potentially significant for the Proposed Project and for the 2004 Approved Project. The 2004 Certified EIR did not identify this as a potentially significant impact because criterion to evaluate land use compatibility was not yet established. The City has identified a feasible mitigation measure that would reduce the Proposed Project’s impacts. With adherence to the mitigation measure below, air quality land use compatibility impacts would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-22 July 2013 5.1.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The following mitigation measures were adopted for the 2004 Approved Project. These mitigation measures apply to the Proposed Project. Impact 5.1-1 MM 5.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement the following measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the pregrade conference.  Use low emission mobile construction equipment.  Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.  Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.  Utilize existing power sources power poles) when feasible.  Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.  Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.  Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.  Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). Impact 5.1-2 MM 5.2-2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. MM 5.2-3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity centers, and developers of large new developments to participate in transportation management associations. MM 5.2-4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. MM 5.2-5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e. installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) in new developments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-23 MM 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments. 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Additional Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, policies and actions within the General Plan, and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant for the Proposed Project: Impact 5.1-3. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, policies and actions within the General Plan, and standard conditions of approval, and the above-listed mitigation measures adopted in the MMRP for the 2004 Approved Project, the following impact would be a potentially significant: Impact 5.1-4. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, policies and actions within the General Plan, and standard conditions of approval, and the above-listed mitigation measures adopted in the MMRP for the 2004 Approved Project, the following impacts would be significant (as they were for the 2004 Approved Project): Impact 5.1-1, 5.1-2. 5.1.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project The following additional feasible mitigation measure has been incorporated to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Impact 5.1-4 MM 5.2-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer for residential or residential mixed-use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the truck bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week; 2) 1,000 feet of an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants; or 3) 500 feet of Interstate 5 State Route 91 (SR-91), State Route 57 (SR-57) or State Route 55 (SR-55), shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The HRA shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits for any future residential or residential mixed-use project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PM10 or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 µg/m3, the HRA shall identify the level of high-efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to achieve the cancer and/or noncancer and/or ambient air quality threshold. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for units that are installed with MERV filters shall maintain positive pressure within the building’s filtered ventilation system to reduce infiltration of unfiltered outdoor air. The property owner/developer shall be required to install high efficiency MERV filters in the intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit power designed to force air through the MERV ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-24 July 2013 filter. To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: a) Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk for affected units. b) For rental units, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. c) For residential owned units, the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. e) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, air intakes on residential buildings shall be placed as far from the freeway as possible. f) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, the residential buildings should be designed to limit the use of operable windows and/or balconies on portions of the site adjacent to and facing the freeway. 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Additional Mitigation Impact 5.1-1 Like the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the Proposed Project, emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCAB. Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 would reduce construction emissions to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.1-1 would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. Impact 5.1-2 Like the 2004 Approved Project, criteria air pollutants generated by the Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for all criteria air pollutants, except SO2. Due to the increase in development intensity associated with the Proposed Project, the magnitude of the increase in criteria air pollutants compared to the 2004 Certified EIR would be significant. Mitigation Measures 5.2-2 through 5.2-6 would reduce operational phase air quality impacts to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.1-2 would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Impact 5.1-4 The 2004 Certified EIR did not identify air quality land use compatibility from siting new sensitive receptors proximate to major mobile source and stationary sources of emissions as a potentially significant impact because criterion to evaluate land use compatibility was not yet established by CARB. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-25 Under CARB’s new siting criterion, air quality compatibility impacts for new sensitive land uses are potentially significant for the Proposed Project and for the 2004 Approved Project. New Mitigation Measure 5.2-7 would ensure that future residential projects are designed to reduce indoor concentrations of air pollutants to meet the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and would reduce the Proposed Project’s impacts to less than significant. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 5.2-7, air quality land use compatibility impacts would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-26 July 2013 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Page 5.2-1 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) evaluates the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunity Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”) to the impacts of the 2004 Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update (“2004 Approved Project”). The 2004 Certified EIR did not evaluate GHG emissions impacts because this was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City of Anaheim (“City”) did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation. In the interest of carrying out CEQA’s mandate to promote informed decision-making, this DSEIR will provide the most current scientific data on GHG emission. The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the Proposed Project; vehicle miles traveled (VMT), provided by the traffic consultant, Iteris, as modeled using the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) for trips (origin-destination method) (see Appendix F to this DSEIR); electricity use provided by the Anaheim Utilities Department, natural gas use provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), waste generation identified for the City by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and water use for the City based on the Anaheim Utilities Department 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The GHG model output sheets are included in Appendix C of this DSEIR. 5.2.1 Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), chlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001). The major GHGs are briefly described below. Table 5.2-1 lists the GHGs applicable to the proposed project and their relative global warming potentials (GWP) compared to CO2. Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest contributor to GHG as it has the highest contribution to the greenhouse effect and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant. Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-2 July 2013 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and soluble in water. SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator. Fluorinated gases are strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes substituted for O3-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to as high- GWP gases. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone- depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to O3-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential. Table 5.2-1 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 GHG Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1 Methane (CH4)2 12 21 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 11,700 HFC-32 5.6 650 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 7,000 C6F14 3,200 7,400 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: IPCC 2001. 1 Based on 100 year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant relative to CO2. 2 The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-3 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs (IPCC 2001; IPCC 2007; EPA 2012). California’s Greenhouse Gas Sources and Relative Contribution California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and the 10th largest GHG emitter in the world. However, California also has over 12 million more people than the state of Texas. Due to more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001, California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (IPCC 2007). CARB’s latest update to the statewide GHG emissions inventory was conducted in 2012 for year 2009 emissions.1 In 2009, California produced 457 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions. California’s transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 37.9 percent of the state’s total emissions. Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.7 percent. Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 17.8 percent of the state’s total emissions. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential, recycling and waste, high global warming potential GHGs, agriculture, and forestry (CARB 2012).2 Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. IPCC’s 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate-change scenarios, will range from 1.4°C to 5.8°C (2.5°F to 10.4°F). In the past, gradual changes 1 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under AB 32 (2006). 2 CO2e is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-4 July 2013 in the Earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic timeframe but within a human lifetime (IPCC 2007). Potential Climate Change Impacts for California Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) an advance snowmelt of five to 30 days earlier in the springs, and 5) a similar shift (five to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.2-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 5.2-2 and include public health impacts, water resources impacts, agricultural impacts, coastal sea level impacts, forest and biological resource impacts, and energy impacts. Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand. Regulatory Setting Federal Laws and Regulations On December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the U.S. and around the world (the first three are applicable to the Proposed Project). In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report their emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual report. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-5 Table 5.2-2 Summary of GHG Emission Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk Public Health Poor air quality made worse More severe heat Water Resources Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack Challenges in securing adequate water supply Potential reduction in hydropower Loss of winter recreation Agricultural Increasing temperature Increasing threats from pests and pathogens Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds Declining productivity Irregular blooms and harvests Coastal Sea Level Accelerated sea level rise Increasing coastal floods Shrinking beaches Worsened impacts on infrastructure Forest and Biological Resource Increased risk and severity of wildfires Lengthening of the wildfire season Movement of forest areas Conversion of forest to grassland Declining forest productivity Increasing threats from pest and pathogens Shifting vegetation and species distribution Altered timing of migration and mating habits Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species Energy Demand Potential reduction in hydropower Increased energy demand Sources: CEC 2006, CEC 2008. State Regulations Current State guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05, AB 32, and Senate Bill (SB) 375, along with numerous other policy documents listed below. Executive Order S-03-05 Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG emissions reduction targets for the state:  Reduce GHG emissions totals to year 2000 levels by year 2010;  Reduce GHG emissions totals to year 1990 levels by year 2020; and  Reduce GHG emissions totals to 80 percent below year 1990 levels by year 2050. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-6 July 2013 Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Current State guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the State legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the State on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05. AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan by CARB, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 million metric tons CO2e (MMTCO2e). In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the State. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e) (CARB 2008).3 In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MT of CO2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. Senate Bill 375 In 2008, SB 375 was adopted and was intended to represent the implementation mechanism necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reductions targets established in CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan (described below) for the transportation sector as it relates to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino County, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG's targets are an eight percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by year 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by year 2035. The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The proposed targets would result in three MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 3 CARB defines BAU in its 2008 Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-7 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010). SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan (RTP). For the SCAG region, the 2012 RTP/SCS was adopted in April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The 2012 RTP/SCS integrates the Orange County SCS, which was adopted separately by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in 2011 (“Orange County SCS”). The SCS sets forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The Orange County SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the Orange County SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the Orange County SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. CARB 2008 Scoping Plan The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan include:  Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards (adopted and cycle updates in progress).  Achieving a mix of 33 percent for energy generation from renewable sources (anticipated by 2020).  A California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources (adopted 2011).  Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout the State, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several Sustainable Communities Strategies have been adopted).  Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards (amendments to the Pavley Standards adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (adopted 2009).  Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation (in progress). While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services result in a reduction of five MMTCO2e, which is approximately three percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments play in the successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today’s levels by year 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the state’s reduction target. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-8 July 2013 Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low-impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VMT (CARB 2008). A list of the measures included in the 2008 Scoping Plan and the emissions reductions estimates are included in Table 5.2-3. Table 5.2-3 CARB Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions Toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMT CO2e Percentage of Statewide 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted Towards 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted Towards 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB 2008. Notes: The percentages in the right-hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTCO2e and the 2008 Scoping Plan identifies 174 MMTCO2e of emissions reductions strategies. MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2e 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately two percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of two MMTCO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the 2008 Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-9 Assembly Bill 1493 California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley Pavley I is a clean- car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I Standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. Executive Order S-01-07 On January 18, 2007, the State set a new LCFS for transportation fuels sold within the state. Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in C02e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the fuel cycle using the most economically feasible methods. Senate Bills 1078 and 107, and Executive Order S-14-08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) established under SB 1078 (Sher) and SB 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least one percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008, which expands the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In 2011, the State legislature adopted this higher standard in SB X1-2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. California Building Code Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and updated triannually (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which go into effect on January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11, of the CCR). CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-10 July 2013 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both Federally regulated appliances and nonfederally regulated appliances. City of Anaheim Goals and Policies The City’s General Plan includes the following policies related to reducing communitywide GHG emissions:  Support the efforts of regional, State and Federal agencies to provide additional local and express bus service in the City. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 1)  Support transit supportive land uses and in new development. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 3)  Intensify land uses in close proximity to future bus BRT stop(s) where appropriate. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy  Improve pedestrian access to transit facilities. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 6)  Continue inter-departmental coordination of water use and conservation policies to improve City- facility water use. (Green Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 2)  Specify and install water-conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings in public facilities such as parks, community centers, and government buildings. (Green Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 3)  Continue and expand Anaheim’s water rebate program. (Green Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 4)  Reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements, such as traffic signal Intelligent Transportation Systems, the Scoot Adaptive Traffic Control System, and related capital improvements. (Green Element, Goal 8.1, Policy 1)  Encourage alternative work schedules for public and private sector workers. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 1)  Encourage development of new commercial and industrial projects that provide on-site amenities that help to lessen vehicle trips such as on-site day care facilities, cafeterias, automated teller machines and bicycle storage facilities. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 2)  Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project design process. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 3)  Encourage the development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate mixed-use and multiple use settings. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-11  Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City’s trail and bikeway master plan and by providing convenient links between the trail system and desired destinations. (Green Element, Goal 9.21, Policy 4)  Continue to expand the convenience and quality of local transit service. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 1)  Provide convenient connections and shuttle services from commuter rail stations to employment centers and entertainment venues. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 2)  Work with public transit providers to ensure that transit stops are safe, comfortable and convenient. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 3)  Continue multi-faceted efforts to inform the public about transit opportunities, scheduling and benefits. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 4)  Encourage land use planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian amenities, and transit-oriented development (Green Element Goal 11.1).  Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance with the Land Use Element. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 1)  Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy  Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle trips. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 3)  Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and transit stops. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 4)  Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one-stop shopping. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 5)  Locate new public facilities with access to mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrian use. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 6)  Continue and expand the program to convert City vehicle fleets to alternative fuel and/or electric power. (Green Element, Goal 12.1, Policy 1)  Continue the City’s program of providing a clean -fuel Resort Transit Fleet. (Green Element, Goal 12.1, Policy 2)  Continue to work with Anaheim businesses to assist with fleet conversion to alternative fuels. (Green Element, Goal 12.1, Policy 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-12 July 2013  Work with the U.S. Department of Energy to achieve a Clean City designation for the City of Anaheim. (Green Element, Goal 12.1, Policy 4)  Continue to update and improve the City’s transit programs and informational resources – both web-based and print media. (Green Element, Goal 13.1, Policy  Disseminate air quality educational materials to residents, businesses, and schools. (Green Element, Goal 13.1, Policy  Continue to maintain and update energy conservation programs and information provided on the City’s website. (Green Element, Goal 15.1, Policy 1)  Encourage the increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping and landscape structures to shade buildings). (Green Element, Goal 15.2, Policy 1)  Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City. (Green Element, Goal 15.2, Policy 2)  Continue educational outreach programs for Anaheim’s households, businesses, and schools on the need for recycling solid waste. (Green Element, Goal 16.1, Policy 1)  Provide adequate solid waste collection and recycling for commercial areas and construction activities. (Green Element, Goal16.1, Policy 2)  Encourage the development and use of renewable energy resources. (Public Services and Facilities Element, Goal 3.1, Policy 3)  Examine and utilize the use of alternative water supplies, such as grey water and reclaimed water, where appropriate and feasible. (Public Services and Facilities Element, Goal 4.1, Policy 3)  Continue to sponsor and provide water conservation and education programs. (Public Services and Facilities Element, Goal 4.1, Policy 4)  Reduce the volume of material sent to solid waste sites in accordance with State law by continuing source reduction and recycling programs and by ensuring the participation of all residents and businesses. (Public Services and Facilities Element, Goal 7.1, Policy 2) City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 In 2006, the Anaheim City Council adopted a Resolution, which sets out the following environmental and sustainability goals for the City:  The Anaheim Public Utilities will increase purchases of eligible renewable energy resources. The Anaheim Public Utilities will take into consideration market conditions and renewable project availability, as well as utilize similar rate protections as provided to the investor-owned utilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-13 The Anaheim Public Utilities will strive to achieve its target of increasing its purchases of eligible renewable energy resources to 10 percent by 2010 and 20 percent by 2015.  The Anaheim Public Utilities will register its power plant and fleet emissions and develop a plan to reduce those emissions in conjunction with Cal/EPA mandates.  All future City-owned projects over 10,000 square feet in building area that enter the design and construction phase shall meet U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership for Energy Efficiency and Design (LEEDTM) registration and certification, provided that the project is cost-effective over the life of the building.  Developers and builders in the City shall be encouraged to receive LEED™ registration and certification.  The Anaheim Public Utilities shall first acquire all cost effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction resources before procuring other energy resources.  An overall citywide goal of 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use are to be achieved by 2015, taking into consideration savings achieved since public benefit programs and water best management practices were implemented.  The Anaheim Public Utilities shall accelerate the average rate of fleet vehicle replacement to 6 Alternative Fuel Vehicles per year so that 90 percent of the Utilities' light and medium vehicles are Alternative Fuel Vehicles by 2020, provided the appropriate technology is both available as well as appropriately meets business requirements.  The City shall replace 10 percent of its light, non-emergency vehicles with preferred low emission technologies as the vehicles are scheduled for normal replacement.  The Anaheim Public Utilities shall provide community leadership as well as education in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability to increase community awareness, responsibility and participation. Existing Setting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory An existing GHG emissions inventory of the City was conducted based on the existing land uses and is shown in Table 5.2-4. The existing GHG emissions were calculated using OFFROAD2007, EMFAC2011, and emission factors identified in CalEEMod. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-14 July 2013 Table 5.2-4 Existing Anaheim Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Sector Existing GHG Emissions MTCO2e/year Percent of Total Transportation1 2,432,336 50% Energy – Residential2 606,037 12% Energy – Nonresidential2 1,513,031 31% Waste3 80,149 2% Water/Wastewater4 184,813 4% Other – Off-road Equipment5 62,267 1% Existing Community-wide Emissions Total 4,878,634 100% MTCO2e/Service Population (SP)6 8.1 NA Industrial 35,980 NA Notes: 1 EMFAC2011 based on daily VMT provided by Iteris using 2012 emission rates. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for external-internal trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT multiplied by 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008). 2 Natural gas and electricity use were modeled using data provided by Anaheim Utilities and SoCalGas. 3 WARM model, version 12, based on waste disposal (municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover) and waste characterization data from CalRecycle (CalRecycle 2013). Modeling assumes a 75 percent reduction in fugitive GHG emissions from the landfill's gas capture system. 4 LGOP, version 1.1, based on the Anaheim’s 2010 UWMP. 5 OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for Anaheim as a percentage of Orange County. Estimated based on housing permit data for Orange County and the City from the US Census. Daily offroad construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites and wood-burning fireplaces. Various industrial and commercial processes manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Proposed Project would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be included in the table because they would be speculative. 6 Based on a service population of existing: 604,081 people (354,383 residents and 249,698 employees). 7 Industrial Sector are "point" sources that are permitted by SCAQMD. Because the reductions associated with the Industrial sector are regulated separately by SCAQMD and CARB through the CAP and trade program and industry-specific sector reductions) and are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, these emissions are shown for informational purposes only. In addition, given that these sources are for energy generation, it is likely that associated emissions would be double-counted because indirect GHG emissions from electricity use are included in the residential and non-residential sectors. 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. South Coast Air Quality Management District To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-15 Tier 1 If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 2 If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening-level threshold of 3,000 MT annually for all land use types or the following land-use-specific thresholds: 1,400 MTs for commercial projects, 3,500 MT for residential projects, or 3,000 MT for mixed-use projects. These screening-level thresholds, also referred to as bright-line thresholds, are based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line thresholds would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions. Tier 3 If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 4 If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted. SCAQMD is proposing to adopt an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MT per year per service population (MT/year/SP) for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT/year/SP for plan level projects program-level projects such as general plans).4 Based on the long-term GHG reduction target for year 2050 extrapolated from Executive Order S-03-05, the year 2035 target would be four MTCO2e per service population for the City. For the purpose of this project, SCAQMD’s plan-level threshold extrapolated for year 2035 are used because the Proposed Project is a community wide inventory for the General Plan with a horizon year of 2035. In addition, because the DSEIR evaluates the change in emissions compared to the 2004 Approved project, the change in GHG emissions is also compared to the draft bright-line threshold. If projects exceed these targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. 5.2.3 The 2004 Approved Project As identified above, the 2004 Certified EIR did not evaluate GHG emissions impacts because, prior to SB 97 which went into effect January 1, 2010, this was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation. 4 It should be noted that the Working Group also considered efficiency targets for 2035 for the first time in this Working Group meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-16 July 2013 5.2.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Modeling Methodology This GHG evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant GHG impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Handbook that is intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts, which were used in this analysis. Because substantial revisions in modeling methodology, modeling tools, and emissions factors for sectors analyzed have been updated by CARB since the 2004 Certified EIR, criteria air pollutant emissions modeling has been updated for the 2004 Approved Project in order to compare emissions of the 2004 Approved Project to the emissions generated by the Proposed Project. The City’s GHG emissions inventory includes the following sectors: Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2011. Model runs were based on daily per capita VMT data provided by ITERIS using the ATAM and year 2035 emission rates. The VMT provided in the model includes the full trip length for land uses in the City (origin-destination approach) and does not include a 50 percent reduction in VMT for external- internal/internal-external trips. Modeling includes implementation of the Pavley Standards and CARB’s LCFS. Energy: Natural gas use and electricity use for residential and non-residential land uses in the City were modeled using data provided by SoCalGas and Anaheim Utility Services, respectively. Natural gas use is based on a two-year average (2011 and 2010) and electricity use is based on a three-year average (2012, 2011, and 2010) to account for fluctuation in annual natural use as a result of natural variations in climate. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population (residential), employment (nonresidential) and employment plus population (City) in Anaheim. The carbon intensity of Anaheim’s purchased electricity is based on information provided by Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Modeling of electricity use includes a reduction in carbon intensity of Anaheim’s energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS and SB X1-2 (CEC 2012). Waste: Modeling of landfilled waste disposed of by residents and employees in the City is based on the waste commitment method using the EPA’s WARM model, version 12, based on waste disposal (municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover) and waste characterization data from CalRecycle (CalRecycle 2013). Landfills in California have gas capture systems, but because the landfill gas captured is not under the jurisdiction of the City, the landfill gas emissions from the capture system are not included in the City's inventory. Only fugitive sources of GHG emissions from landfill are included. Modeling assumes a 75 percent reduction in fugitive GHG emissions from the landfill's gas capture system. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City. Water/Wastewater: GHG emissions from water and wastewater include indirect GHG emissions from the embodied energy of water and wastewater. Total water generation in the City is based on Anaheim’s 2010 UWMP. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment and are based on the target ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-17 per capita SBx7-7.5 Energy use from water use and wastewater treatment is estimated using energy rates identified by the CEC (CEC 2006) and carbon intensity of energy identified by the Anaheim Public Utilities with reductions from 33 percent RPS and SB X1-2 (see Energy identified above). In addition to the indirect emissions associated with the embodied energy of water use and wastewater treatment, wastewater treatment also results in fugitive GHG emissions from wastewater processing. Fugitive emissions from wastewater treatment in the City were calculated using the emission factors in CARB’s LGOP, Version 1.1. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City. Other Sources: OFFROAD2007 was used to estimate GHG emissions from landscaping equipment, light commercial equipment, and construction equipment in the City. OFFROAD2007 is a database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by CARB. Annual emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2007 for Orange County for the year 2012. In order to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the City, landscaping and light commercial equipment is estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City as a percentage of Orange County, while construction equipment use is estimated based on building permit data for the City and County of Orange from data compiled by the U.S. Census. Daily off-road construction emissions are multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces (fugitive particulate matter) and consumer products (VOCs) in the City. Modeling includes implementation of CARB’s LCFS. Lifecycle: Life cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore life cycle GHG emissions would be speculative. Impact Threshold Analysis The following analysis compares the potential GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Proposed Project to the GHG emissions associated with implementation of the 2004 Approved Project, and assesses the significance of the Proposed Project's emissions. 5 SBx7-7 requires all water suppliers to reduce per capita urban water use by 20 percent by 2020, with incremental progress towards this goal (10 percent by 2015). Effective 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by SBx7-7 are not eligible for state water grants or loans ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-18 July 2013 IMPACT 5.2-1: THE 2012 PROPOSED PROJECT'S GHG EMISSIONS WOULD BE GREATER THAN THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT'S GHG EMISSIONS. [THRESHOLD GHG-1] Impact Analysis: In accordance with the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, emissions inventories were compiled to project GHG emissions generated by the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project's GHG emissions were compared to the 2004 Approved Project's emissions, which constitute the CEQA baseline. In addition, the significance of the Proposed Project's emissions was assessed using the 2035 target efficiency of 4.0 MTCO2e per service population per year for 2035 and a bright-line threshold for the relative increase in emissions, as discussed above. Proposed Project’s 2035 GHG Emissions Inventory Compared to the 2004 Approved Project The GHG emissions inventory for the Proposed Project compared to the 2004 Approved Project is included in Table 5.2-5. The inventory includes reductions from federal and state measures identified in CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan, including the Pavley Standards, LCFS for fuel use (transportation and off- road), and a reduction in carbon intensity from electricity use (see the discussion of the inventory methodology). As shown in the table, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would exceed the proposed SCAQMD's efficiency threshold. Table 5.2-5 also shows that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to the 2004 Approved Project’s GHG emissions based on SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold. The City has considered whether there are additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Proposed Project’s increased GHG emissions as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project. At this time, there is no plan past the year 2020 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. CARB is currently updating the 2008 Scoping Plan to identify additional measures to achieve the long-term GHG reduction targets. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies that would reduce GHG emissions. However, as identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the State cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology (CCST 2012). Because no statewide long-term strategy to reduce emissions beyond year 2020 are available that would reduce impacts below SCAQMD’s proposed efficiency metric in 2035, GHG emissions of the Proposed Project are considered to be significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-19 Table 5.2-5 Proposed Project’s 2035 GHG Emissions Inventory Compared to the 2004 Approved Project Pollutant 2035 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) 2004 Approved Project Proposed Project Increase Substantial? Transportation1 1,776,187 2,178,821 402,634 Energy – Residential2 597,031 718,416 121,385 Energy – Nonresidential2 1,272,027 1,608,027 335,999 Waste3 86,928 106,633 19,705 Water/Wastewater4 139,692 171,136 31,444 Other – Off-road Equipment5 57,458 64,115 6,657 2035 Community-wide Emissions Total 3,929,322 4,847,147 917,825 MTCO2e/Service Population (SP)6 6.0 6.0 NA Draft 2035 Thresholds 4.0 MTCO2e/SP 4.0 MTCO2e/SP 3,000 MTCO2e Exceeds Threshold? YES YES YES Notes: Emissions forecast based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy), or service population (City energy, waste, water/wastewater, transportation). The inventory includes reductions identified in the Scoping Plan associated with Transportation (Pavley+LCFS), Energy & Water/Wastewater (33% RPS), and Other (LCFS). The current inventory does not account for reductions in building energy use from Title 24 cycle updates. Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 1 EMFAC2011 based on daily VMT provided by Iteris using 2035 emission rates. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for external-internal trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT multiplied by 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008). 2 Natural gas and electricity use were modeled using data provided by Anaheim Utilities and SoCalGas. 3 WARM model, version 12, based on waste disposal (municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover) and waste characterization data from CalRecycle (CalRecycle 2013). Modeling assumes a 75 percent reduction in fugitive GHG emissions from the landfill's gas capture system. 4 LGOP, version 1.1, based on the Anaheim’s 2010 UWMP. 5 OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for Anaheim as a percentage of Orange County. Estimated based on housing permit data for Orange and Anaheim from the US Census. Daily offroad construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites and wood-burning fireplaces. Various industrial and commercial processes manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Proposed Project would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be included in the table because they would be speculative. 6 Based on a service population of: 2004 Approved Project = 655,170 people (403,773 residents and 251,397 employees). Proposed Project = 803,687 people (485,866 residents and 317,821 employees). 7 Industrial Sector are "point" sources that are permitted by SCAQMD. Because the reductions associated with the Industrial sector are regulated separately by SCAQMD and CARB through the CAP and trade program and industry-specific sector reductions) and are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, these emissions are shown for informational purposes only. In addition, given that these sources are for energy generation, it is likely that associated emissions would be double-counted because indirect GHG emissions from electricity use are included in the residential and non-residential sectors.). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-20 July 2013 IMPACT 5.2-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS. [THRESHOLD GHG-2] Impact Analysis: The City has not adopted a GHG reduction plan that qualifies under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. However, CARB adopted the 2008 Scoping Plan to identify statewide strategies to achieve the GHG reduction targets of AB 32, and SCAG adopted the 2012 RTP/SCS to achieve the local passenger vehicle per capita GHG reduction targets of SB 375. CARB’s Scoping Plan In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level GHG emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the State as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without Pavley and the 33 percent RPS or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline with Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012). Table 5.2-6 includes a consistency analysis with existing statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Compliance with State and local regulations would ensure that the Proposed Project would not conflict with the 2008 Scoping Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-21 Table 5.2-6 Proposed Project Consistency with Existing Statewide Programs that Reduce GHG Emissions Program Description California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) New construction in the City must adhere to CALGreen. CALGreen sets minimum standards for all new buildings. Among the new requirements under CALGreen, every new building in California will have to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, and install low VOC materials. Separate indoor and outdoor water meters for nonresidential buildings and moisture-sensing irrigation systems for large landscape projects will be required. Pursuant to AB 1881, new landscaping installed would be required to adhere to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which incorporates these CALGreen requirements. CALGreen also contains requirements related to bike parking and clean vehicle parking for new nonresidential buildings. New building in the City would be required to be constructed to meet these standards. Pursuant to CALGreen, residential construction (under Section 4.408.1 of CALGreen), with limited exceptions, in the City would require construction contractors to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. Non-residential construction (under Section 5.408 of CALGreen) is also required to prepare a waste management plan for the diverted materials. As the City does not have a construction and demolition waste management ordinance, CALGreen requires that a construction waste management plan be submitted for approval to the City that: 1) identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project or salvage for future use or sale; 2) specifies if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility; 3) identifies the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken; 4) identifies construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated; and 5) specifies that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both. New construction would be required to prepare a construction waste management plan to reduce construction debris disposed of in landfills. Building and Energy Efficiency Standards New structures within the City would be required to meet the current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 15 percent higher energy efficiency than the 2005 Standards. Beginning on January 1, 2014, new buildings would need to meet the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2013 Standards are 25 percent more energy efficient that the 2008 Standards for residential buildings and 30 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards for non-residential buildings. Title 24 Code Cycles Title 24 Code Cycles identify a goal of reaching zero net energy in residential construction by year 2020 and in commercial construction by year 2030. Achieving this goal will require increased stringency in each code cycle of California’s Energy Code (Title 24). Title 24 codes are updated on a tri-annual basis. Consequently, it is likely that additional reductions in building energy use for new construction would occur within the City. 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) According to the Anaheim Utilities Services Department, the Utility is on track to achieve the statewide target of achieving a renewable portfolio mix of 33 percent by year 2020. Energy purchased by residential and nonresidential customers in the City would have a lower carbon intensity and associated GHG emissions as a result of compliance with the statewide mandate. CARB Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) CARB’s LCFS requires California’s transportation fuels to reduce their carbon intensity by at least 10 percent by year 2020. Fuels used by construction equipment and fuel with on-road transportation sources would comply with the LCFS. Pavley I and California’s Advanced Clean Car Program Pavley I reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent by year 2016. In 2012, Cal/EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. California’s Pavley I and Advanced Clean Car Standards are expected to reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles in the City as vehicle fleets turn over. Waste Reduction: AB 939 mandates local jurisdictions meet a solid waste diversion goal of 25 percent by year 1995 and 50 percent by year 2000. The City meets the State’s AB 939 waste diversion goals. AB 341 sets a target for jurisdictions to achieve a 75 percent waste diversion goal by year 2020. AB 341 also mandates recycling at commercial and multi-family land uses. Compliance with these existing regulations would encourage recycling and further reduce GHG emissions from waste disposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-22 July 2013 SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per capita GHG emissions reduction from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2012 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in the cities’ and counties’ general plans. The projected regional development pattern, including location of land uses and residential densities included in local general plans, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the 2012 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and achieve the subregional GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. Overall, land use designations between the existing current General Plan and the 2004 Approved Project are similar. However, the existing current General Plan allows for more intense residential and non- residential residential land uses within the City than currently forecast in the Orange County SCS; and therefore, the 2012 RTP/SCS. While the existing current General Plan would result in a higher population, employment, and number of housing units compared to the 2004 Approved Project, increasing density in urban areas of the SCAG region is one of the primary goals of the 2012 RTP/SCS. In 2007, the CEC published The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals (CEC 2007). In this publication, the CEC acknowledged that California’s land use patterns shape energy use and the production of GHG. Transportation contributes a large percentage of the State’s GHG emissions, and research shows that increasing a community or development’s density and accessibility to job centers are the two most significant factors for reducing VMT through design (CEC 2007). Consequently, these land use strategies identified under the existing current General Plan are compatible with the overall goals of the 2012 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Proposed Project, which would not change any of the existing current General Plan policies or land use designations, is consistent with the growth strategies of the 2012 RTP/SCS. Table 5.2-7, provides an assessment of the proposed project’s relationship to applicable goals included in the Orange County SCS prepared by OCTA, which were integrated in SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS. The Proposed Project, like the 2004 Approved Project, would be consistent with the applicable Orange County SCS goals, which have been incorporated into SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS. Table 5.2-7 Orange County Subregional SCS Consistency Analysis Sustainability Strategies Project Consistency Support transit-oriented development. Consistent: The Anaheim General Plan includes policies that would directly or indirectly support transit-oriented development. Applicable General Plan policies include:  Support transit supportive land uses and in new development. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 3)  Intensify land uses in close proximity to future bus BRT stop(s) where appropriate. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 5)  Encourage development of new commercial and industrial projects that provide on-site amenities that help to lessen vehicle trips such as on-site day care facilities, cafeterias, automated teller machines and bicycle storage facilities. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 2)  Policies related to encouraging land use planning and urban ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-23 Table 5.2-7 Orange County Subregional SCS Consistency Analysis Sustainability Strategies Project Consistency design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian amenities, and transit- oriented development. (Green Element, Goals 9.1 and 11.1)  Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and transit stops. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 4) Support infill housing development and redevelopment. Consistent: The Anaheim General Plan includes policies that would support the development of infill housing. Goal 4.1 of the General Plan Land Use Element states, “Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.” Applicable General Plan policies include:  Encourage mixed-use and commercial development that provides: o Safe places for pedestrians to walk; o Attractive surroundings; o Opportunities for social interaction; o Comfortable places to sit and relax; and o Interplay between the interior uses of buildings and outdoor uses, such as sidewalk cafes. (Land Use Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 1)  Facilitate the development of residential land uses in mixed-use areas to provide a consumer and employment base for commercial and office uses. (Land Use Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 2)  Mixed-use and commercial centers should be physically linked with residential neighborhoods. (Land Use Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 3)  Promote development that is efficient, pedestrian-friendly, and served by a variety of transportation options. (Land Use Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 4)  Support mixed-use development and thereby improve walkability of communities. Consistent: The 2004 Approved Project includes policies that would support mixed-use development and improve walkability. The Proposed Project would not hinder the City’s ability to implement the transportation and land use policies in the City’s General Plan that support these similar regional goals. Applicable General Plan policies include:  Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 2)  Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City’s trail and bikeway master plan and by providing convenient links between the trail system and desired destinations. (Green Element, Goal 9.21, Policy 4)  Improve pedestrian access to transit facilities. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 6)  Improve jobs-to-house ratio. Consistent: The Proposed Project involves the rezoning of the Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 Approved Project. The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-24 July 2013 Table 5.2-7 Orange County Subregional SCS Consistency Analysis Sustainability Strategies Project Consistency and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing. Because the 2004 Certified EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts to population and housing resulting from the Proposed Project would be consistent with goals to improve the jobs-housing balance in this regard. Promote land use patterns that encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant automobile use. Consistent: The 2004 Approved Project includes policies that directly or indirectly encourage alternatives to single-occupant automobile use. The Proposed Project would not modify these policies. Applicable General Plan policies include:  Encourage the development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate mixed-use and multiple use settings. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 5)  Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle trips. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 3)  Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one-stop shopping. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 5)  Locate new public facilities with access to mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrian use. (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 6)  Support retention and/or development of affordable housing. Consistent: The Anaheim General Plan includes policies that would support the development of affordable housing. General Plan Land Use Element Goal 2.1 states, “Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs.” The Proposed Project would specifically implement Housing Production Strategy IV of the Housing Element. Support natural land restoration and conservation and/or protection offering significant carbon mitigation potential via both sequestration and avoidance of increased emissions due to land conversion. Consistent: The Proposed Project involves the rezoning of the Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with land use designations currently identified for those sites in the Anaheim General Plan and would not affect conservation efforts in the City. Applicable General Plan policy includes:  Support efforts to preserve natural habitat through continued participation in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan. (Green Element, Goal 14.1, Policy 1)  Eliminate bottlenecks and reduce delay on freeways, toll roads, and arterials. Consistent: The 2004 Approved Project includes mitigation measures to reduce congestion at intersections within the City. Iteris evaluated traffic conductions for the Proposed Project. As described in Section 5.2-4, Transportation and Traffic, the DSEIR includes revisions to these measures to reduce congestion associated with the Proposed Project and as a result of changes in environmental conditions that have occurred since the 2004 Certified EIR. Applicable General Plan policy includes:  Reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements, ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-25 Table 5.2-7 Orange County Subregional SCS Consistency Analysis Sustainability Strategies Project Consistency such as traffic signal Intelligent Transportation Systems, the Scoot Adaptive Traffic Control System, and related capital improvements. (Green Element, Goal 89.1, Policy 1) Apply Transportation System Management and Complete Street practices to arterials and freeways to maximize efficiency. Consistent: The Anaheim General Plan includes policies for transportation system management. The 2004 Approved Project includes mitigation measures to reduce congestion at intersections within the City. Iteris evaluated traffic conductions for the Proposed Project. As described in Section 5.2-4, Transportation and Traffic, the DSEIR includes revisions to these measures to reduce congestion associated with the Proposed Project and as a result of changes in environmental conditions that have occurred since the 2004 Certified EIR. Applicable General Plan policy includes:  Reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements, such as traffic signal Intelligent Transportation Systems, the Scoot Adaptive Traffic Control System, and related capital improvements. (Green Element, Goal 89.1, Policy 1) Improve modes through enhanced service, frequency, convenience, and choices. Consistent: The Anaheim General Plan includes policies for increasing the use of alternative modes of transportation. Applicable General Plan policies include:  Support the efforts of regional, State and Federal agencies to provide additional local and express bus service in the City. (Circulation Element, Goal 5.1, Policy 1)  Continue to expand the convenience and quality of local transit service. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 1)  Provide convenient connections and shuttle services from commuter rail stations to employment centers and entertainment venues. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 2)  Work with public transit providers to ensure that transit stops are safe, comfortable and convenient. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 3)  Continue multi-faceted efforts to inform the public about transit opportunities, scheduling and benefits. (Green Element, Goal 10.1, Policy 4)  Continue to update and improve the City’s transit programs and informational resources – both web-based and print media. (Green Element, Goal 13.1, Policy 1)  Disseminate air quality educational materials to residents, businesses, and schools. (Green Element, Goal 13.1, Policy 2) Expand and enhance Transportation Demand Management practices to reduce barriers to alternative travel modes and attract commuters away from single occupant vehicle travel. Consistent: The Anaheim General Plan includes policies to reduce barriers to alternative travel modes. Applicable General Plan Policies include:  Encourage alternative work schedules for public and private sector workers. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 1)  Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project design process. (Green Element, Goal 9.12, Policy 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-26 July 2013 Table 5.2-7 Orange County Subregional SCS Consistency Analysis Sustainability Strategies Project Consistency Continue existing, and explore expansion of, highway pricing strategies. Not Applicable: The City does not have jurisdictional control over the pricing strategies for roadways on the State Highway System. Implement near-term (Transportation Improvement Program and Measure M2 Early Capital Action Plan) and long-term (LRTP 2035 Preferred Plan) transportation improvements to provide mobility choices and sustainable transportation options. Consistent: The 2004 Approved Project includes mitigation measures to reduce congestion at intersections within the City. Iteris evaluated traffic conductions for the Proposed Project. As described in Section 5.4, Transportation and Traffic, the DSEIR includes revisions to these measures to reduce congestion associated with the Proposed Project and as a result of changes in environmental conditions that have occurred since the 2004 Certified EIR. Applicable General Plan Policy includes:  Reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements, such as traffic signal Intelligent Transportation Systems, the Scoot Adaptive Traffic Control System, and related capital improvements. (Green Element, Goal 89.1, Policy 1) Acknowledge current sustainability strategies practiced by Orange County jurisdictions and continue to implement strategies that will result in or support the reduction of GHG emissions. Consistent: The City has adopted a Green Building Program and offers a robust incentive program for residents and business to help build greener. Commercial project incentives to build to LEED, California Green Build, Build It Green, or other certified rating program standards range from $15,000 to $30,000. The City’s Utility also offers rebates for solar energy projects and maintains a mapping program that assesses the solar potential of residential and non-residential structures in the City. The Orange County SCS highlights the Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort Transit as examples of current sustainability strategies. Please also refer to the General Plan policies listed in the analysis for Impact 5.2-1. Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, Orange County SCS. 5.2.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The 2004 Certified EIR did not evaluate GHG emissions impacts because this was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation. However, the 2004 Certified EIR included several mitigation measures for air quality that are reproduced below because of their ability to reduce GHG emissions impacts of the Proposed Project: MM 5.2-2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. MM 5.2-3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity centers, and developers of large new developments to participate in transportation management associations. MM 5.2-4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-27 MM 5.2-5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e. installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) in new developments. MM 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments. 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Additional Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant for the Proposed Project: 5.2-2 Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be significant for the Proposed Project: 5.2-1 5.2.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project The following additional feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Impact 5.2-1 MM 5.2-8 The City shall evaluate strategies to reduce truck idling during the peak hour period of the roadway network, such as staggered work/delivery schedules, truck routes, and/or intersection improvements. MM 5.2-9 The City shall support and promote the use of low- and zero-emission vehicles, by:  Encouraging the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the use of zero- emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently-located alternative fueling stations.  Encouraging new construction to include vehicle access to properly wired outdoor receptacles to accommodate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and/or plug-in electric hybrids (PHEV).  Encouraging transportation fleet standards to achieve the lowest emissions possible, using a mix of alternate fuels, partial ZEV, or newer fleet mixes. MM 5.2-10 The City shall encourage the performance of energy audits of buildings prior to completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for energy efficiency improvements be presented to the buyer. MM 5.2-11 The City shall develop protocols for safe storage of renewable and alternative energy products with the potential to leak, ignite, or explode, such as biodiesel, hydrogen, and/or compressed air. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-28 July 2013 MM 5.2-12 The City shall recognize businesses in the City that reduce GHG emissions reduced energy use) as a means to encourage GHG reductions and recognize success. 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Additional Mitigation Impact 5.2-1 As identified in Impact 5.2-1, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would exceed the proposed SCAQMD's efficiency threshold. Table 5.2-5 also shows that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to the Approved Project’s GHG emissions based on SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold. Due to the increase in development intensity associated with the Proposed Project, the magnitude of the increase in criteria air pollutants compared to the 2004 Certified EIR would be significant. Existing Mitigation Measures 5.2-2 through 5.2-6 and new Mitigation Measures 5.2-8 through 5.2-14 would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.2-2 associated with the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to the 2004 Approved Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-1 5.3 NOISE This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) evaluates the potential noise impacts of the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunity Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”) to the noise impacts of the 2004 Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update (“2004 Approved Project”). The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the Proposed Project; average daily traffic volumes (ADTs), provided by the traffic engineer for this project (Iteris, Inc.) as modeled using the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) (see Appendix F to this DSEIR). The traffic noise model output sheets are included in Appendix E of this DSEIR. 5.3.1 Environmental Setting Terminology/Noise Descriptors Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:  Sound is a disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.  Noise is sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB) is a unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) Is an overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.  Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq) is the mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level.  Day-Night Level (Ldn) is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-2 July 2013 Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate this human, frequency-dependent response, the A-weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, dB are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and of noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 5.3-1 presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 5.3-1 Decibel Changes, Loudness and Energy Loss Sound Level Change Reletive Loundness Acoustic Energy Loss 0 dBA Reference 0% -3 dBA Barely Perceptible Change 50% -5 dBA Readily Perceptible Change 67% -10 dBA Half as Loud 90% -20 dBA 1/4 as Loud 99% -30 dBA 1/8 as Loud 99.9% Source: Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, June 1995. Sound levels are generated from a source and their dB level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as spreading loss. Generally, sound levels from a point source will decrease by 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance. Sound levels for a highway line source vary differently with distance because sound pressure waves propagate along the line and overlap at the point of measurement. A closely spaced, continuous line of vehicles along a roadway becomes a line source and produces a 3.0 dBA decrease in sound level for each doubling of distance. However, experimental evidence has shown that where sound from a highway propagates close to "soft" ground plowed farmland, grass, crops, etc.), a more suitable drop-off rate to use is not 3.0 dBA, but rather 4.5 dBA per distance doubling (FHWA 2010). When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The Leq is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The Leq metric is a single-number noise descriptor that represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L50 noise level is the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. This level is also the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, L08 and L25 values are the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or one, five, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet-time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the CNEL or Ldn. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-3 Effects of Noise Exposure Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most comment issue regarding community noise. Physical damage to human hearing can occur with prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. High ambient or background noise levels are widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in less developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Table 5.3-2 shows the typical noise levels emitted by common noise sources. Table 5.3-2 Typical Noise Levels and Their Subjective Loudness and Effects Common Outdoor Activities Common Indoor Activities A-Weighted Noise Level (dBA) Subjective Loudness Effects of Noise Threshold of Pain 140 Intolerable or deafening Hearing Loss Near Jet Engine 130 120 Jet Flyover at 1,000 Feet Rock Band 110 Loud Auto Horn 100 Very Noisy Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 Feet at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 Feet 80 Speech Interference Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet 70 Loud Heavy Traffic at 300 Feet Normal Speech at 3 Feet 60 Quiet Urban Daytime Large Business Office 50 Moderate Quiet Urban Nighttime Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) 40 Sleep Disturbance Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Faint No Effect Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Very Faint Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Source: Technical Noise Supplement by Caltrans, 2009. Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-4 July 2013 the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction of a development project, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may experience annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. This type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P-waves, and shear or S-waves.  Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical).  Compression or P-waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push-pull motion. P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves.  Shear or S-waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P-waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage. The units for PPV velocity is normally inches per second (in/sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in in/sec and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from the source of the vibration. Human- made vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-5 Existing Noise Environment Like all highly urbanized areas, the City of Anaheim (“City”) is subject to noise from a myriad of sources. The major source of noise is from mobile sources and most specifically, traffic traveling through the City on its various roadways and freeways. Aircraft also contribute to this noise. The City is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contours for any commercial or private airports, and fixed-wing aircraft are typically too high to add measurably to local noise. However, local helicopter air traffic is commonplace throughout the City and was noted in many instances during the field survey preformed in drafting the General Plan Noise Element. In addition, both freight and commuter rail-traffic pass through the City and noise generated along these rail lines can be substantially higher than in areas that are located away from the tracks. Noise from trains and their associated horns and whistles are a particular concern to those residents that live along these railroad corridors. The City also includes a variety of stationary noise sources. These are primarily associated with industrial land uses and for the most part are restricted to the appropriate areas. However, in some areas along Orangethorpe Avenue and in central portions of the City) residential land uses abut industrial land uses and the sound of industrial processes is readily audible at exterior residential locations. Other sources of “stationary” noise are associated with the fireworks displays put on at Disneyland on a regular basis and special events at Angel Stadium of Anaheim. While the latter sources of noise are readily audible at proximate residential locations, they represent the existing setting. Furthermore, this noise is of short duration and as such, does not add substantially to the existing CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time- weighted average. Regulatory Setting To limit population exposure to physically and/or damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the Federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The City regulates noise through the Anaheim Municipal Code. Potential noise impacts were evaluated based on the Anaheim Municipal Code and City’s General Plan, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) methodology, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology to determine whether a significant adverse noise impact would result from the Proposed Project as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. State of California Noise Requirements The State regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise insulation standards and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to “limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.” In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts. Under CEQA, a project has a significant impact if the project exposes people to noise levels in excess of thresholds, which can include standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-6 July 2013 State of California Building Code The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in the State for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise- sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. City of Anaheim The 2004 Approved Project is subject to the General Plan Noise Element and the Anaheim Municipal Code. The City has adopted, as part of the Noise Element, the State Noise Compatibility Guidelines, as included in Figure 5.3-1. Furthermore, according to Goal 1.1, Policy 6 the Noise Element, the siting sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation shall be discouraged. Stationary sources of noise are governed under Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Section 6.70.010 states that “No person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property in excess of [60 dB] (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response.” The section goes on to state “Traffic sounds, sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00 [AM] and 7:00 Sound Attenuation for Residential Development is regulated by Section 18.40.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which applies to residential developments involving the construction of two or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two or more parcels, and located within six hundred feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A noise level analysis is required for any new residential development or subdivision that meets these criteria to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study must include mitigation measures that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards. Minor deviations from the City’s noise standards may be approved for the following reasons: 1) the deviation from prescribed levels does not pertain to interior noise levels; 2) the deviation does not exceed five dB CNEL above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and, 3) the measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Compatability Noise Exposure Guidelines Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 5.3-1 5. Environmental Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-8 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-9 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in: N-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N-3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A (also included in Chapter 7, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant), concluded that thresholds N-5 and N-6 would not be significant for the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The City determined that those impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the 2004 Certified EIR and that implementation of the changes proposed by the Proposed Project would not change the conclusions of the 2004 Certified EIR with respect to those impacts. Therefore, Thresholds N-5 and N-6 will not be addressed further in this section. Noise Impact Thresholds The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the noise standards set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Mobile sources of noise, such as aircraft, truck deliveries, railroad and aircraft operations, are exempt from local ordinance but are still subject to CEQA and would be significant if the project generates a volume of traffic that would result in a substantial increase in mobile source-generated noise or sites sensitive land uses in incompatible noise areas. The effects of changes in the noise environment to humans can be broken down into three categories. The first is “audible” increases, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily audible to most people in an exterior environment. The second category, “potentially audible,” refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically “inaudible” to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise level are considered potentially significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-10 July 2013 Mobile-source noise vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation, but is still subject to CEQA. Here, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant impact if their resultant noise level were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan 65 dBA CNEL at a residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant level were to meet or exceed the objectives of the General Plan. It should also be noted that an impact is only potentially significant if it affects a noise-sensitive receptor. The 2004 Certified EIR utilized these criteria, which have been used for the noise analysis in this section. 5.3.3 The 2004 Approved Project Noise impacts of the 2004 Approved Project were analyzed in the 2004 Certified EIR using the thresholds described above. Traffic noise modeling was conducted according to traffic volume forecasts provided by the Anaheim Circulation Report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., dated September 3, 2003. The traffic volume forecasts were obtained from a version of the ATAM for a year 2025 year scenario. The 2004 Certified EIR identified the following conclusions regarding noise:  Significant and Unavoidable Traffic Noise Impacts: The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that noise sensitive uses along several roadways would experience a substantial noise increase in excess of 65 CNEL. Mitigation measures were recommended to reduce potential noise impacts. Implementation of the proposed General Plan goals and policies, existing codes and regulations, and mitigation measures would reduce all potential short-term and long-term noise impacts to the extent feasible. However, even with implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan goals and policies, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant noise impacts. As a result, in locations where these roadways are adjacent to existing sensitive land uses, the impacts related to traffic noise were anticipated to remain significant.  Less Than Significant Noise Impacts: The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that short-term construction noise as well as other long-term operational noise sources such as events, railroad and aircraft activity would not result in significant noise and vibration impacts. 5.3.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project Methodology The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future off-site noise environment and potential impacts of the Proposed Project. FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model The off-site traffic noise prediction model inputs are used to calculate the reference CNEL dBA noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline for the study area roadway segments. Noise level contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway. Noise level contours do not take into account the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography. The roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were projected using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108 ("FHWA Model"). The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification collector, secondary, major or arterial); the roadway active width the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway); the total average daily traffic (ADT); the travel speed; the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-11 traffic volume; the roadway grade; the angle of view whether the roadway view is blocked); the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping); and the percentage of total ADT that flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. The FHWA Model roadway parameters used in the noise analysis of the Proposed Project and calculations are included in Appendix E of this DSEIR. The City’s General Plan Buildout 2035 ADT volumes were used for the off-site traffic-noise prediction model. The volumes were provided by the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ITERIS for the Proposed Project (see Appendix F of this DSEIR). Traffic forecasts were obtained from the new ATAM model for year 2035 conditions. To calculate the noise increases from the 2004 Approved Project with the Proposed Project, traffic forecasts for the approved project (for year 2025 conditions) were incorporated into the new traffic noise model to provide a comparison using up-to-date noise modeling methodologies. Noise contours for the Proposed Project were based on updated traffic volumes forecasts from the new ATAM model for the 2035 General Plan Buildout year. The new ATAM model includes changes to land use forecasts related to the General Plan amendments completed since 2004, the Proposed Project, as well as other changes to future land use assumptions (Iteris 2013). IMPACT 5.3-1 SIMILAR TO THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ELEVATE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ABOVE LOCAL NOISE STANDARDS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS. [THRESHOLDS N-1 AND N-3] Impact Analysis: To assess the off-site traffic-related exterior noise level impacts associated with the Proposed Project, the CNEL levels at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway segments included in the traffic study area were developed for the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project. Off-site Traffic-Related Noise Contours To quantify the Proposed Project’s traffic noise impact on the surrounding off-site areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on the study area roadway segments were determined based on the anticipated changes in the ADT volumes compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The purpose of the off-site noise contours is to assess the Proposed Project's incremental off-site traffic- related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways. Noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 60, 65 and 70 dBA noise levels. The traffic noise model calculations that include the distance from the centerline of the roadway to the CNEL noise level contours are included in Appendix E. The off-site traffic noise contours do not take into account the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. In addition, they do not include the noise contribution from commercial and industrial activities within proximity to receptors along each roadway segment. Off-site Proposed Project Traffic-Related Noise Level Contributions Based on the significance criteria presented earlier in Section 5.8-2, Thresholds of Significance, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant impact if their resultant noise level were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan 65 dBA CNEL at a residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-12 July 2013 level were to meet or exceed the objectives of the General Plan. Table 5.3-3 presents an off-site traffic noise level comparison of the 2004 Approved Project (the baseline) to the Proposed Project. As demonstrated in Table 5.3-3, the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, would result in a change to the off-site traffic noise levels of between -9.4 and 4.2 dBA CNEL on the roadway segments analyzed. Based on the criteria to deterine potential significant impacts outlined above, only the uses adjacent to the segment of Disney Way between Clementine Street to Interstate-5 (I-5) Freeway would experience a significant noise increase. Land uses along this roadway segment consist of hotels and commercial uses. The Noise Compatibility Guidelines included in the Noise Element shows that, for transient lodging-motels and hotels, an ambient noise level of up to 65 dBA CNEL is normally acceptable, an ambient noise level from 60 to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable, and an ambient noise level from 70 to 80 dBA CNEL is normally unacceptable. Under normally acceptable conditions, the noise level exposure for the specified land use is satisfactory and no special noise insulation would be required. Under conditionally acceptable conditions, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Under normally unacceptable conditions, new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed insulation features must be included in the design. The anticipated noise level environment would remain under conditionally acceptable levels for the development of commercial uses. The two affected hotel sites, currently developed as a Motel 6 and a Residence Inn, do not have exterior living areas such as swimming pools facing Disney Way/Freedman Way. The affected hotels would continue to be exposed to noise levels that are conditionally acceptable for hotel uses. The outdoor use areas would not be affected as they are surrounded by two- and three-story buildings which provide substantial noise reduction greater than 20 dBA. Existing outdoor activity areas such as pools, playgrounds and dining patios would not be exposed to noise levels greater than the clearly acceptable 65 dBA CNEL noise level. New hotel and commercial uses would be designed for the future noise environment and would have to comply with City’s noise standards. Because the noise at the existing outdoor use areas would not be substantially affected, and because the land uses adjacent to that segment would remain under the conditionally acceptable category as it relates to the development of hotel and commercial uses to the noise environment, noise impacts to uses along the affected segment would be less than significant. Therefore, off-site traffic-related noise impacts are considered less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-13 Table 5.3-3 Off-Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 50 Feet (dBA) Substantial Increase? 2004 Approved Project1 Proposed Project1 Proposed Project Contribution Anaheim Boulevard North of Cerritos Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 72.8 75.7 2.9 No Ball Road SR-57 (West Side) to SR-57 (East Side) 78.8 79.1 0.3 No Ball Road SR-57 (East Side) to West of Main Street 78.2 79.5 1.4 No Ball Road West of Main Street to Main Street 78.2 79.5 1.3 No Cerritos Avenue Euclid Street to Ninth Street 69.1 69.2 0.1 No Cerritos Avenue Ninth Street to West of Walnut Street 69.1 69.2 0.1 No Cerritos Avenue West of Walnut Street to Walnut Street 69.1 69.2 0.1 No Cerritos Avenue State College Blvd to West of Sunkist Street 69.5 68.3 -1.2 No Cerritos Avenue West of Sunkist Street to Sunkist Street 69.5 68.3 -1.2 No Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street to Douglass Road 68.3 69.1 0.8 No Disney Way/Freedman Way Harbor Blvd to Clementine Street 72.6 73.0 0.4 No Disney Way/Freedman Way Clementine Street to I-5 (West Side) 72.6 76.8 4.2 Yes Harbor Boulevard SR-91 to SR-91 (South Side) 87.7 78.3 -9.4 No Harbor Boulevard South Street to Ball Road 78.9 77.8 -1.1 No Haster Street/Anaheim Boulevard Manchester Avenue to North of Gene Autry Way 78.5 77.1 -1.4 No Haster Street/Anaheim Boulevard North of Gene Autry Way to Gene Autry Way 78.5 77.1 -1.4 No Imperial Highway E La Palma Avenue to North of SR-91 81.1 79.3 -1.8 No Katella Avenue West of Walnut Street to Walnut Street 78.6 78.0 -0.6 No Katella Avenue Walnut Street to West Street 78.6 78.0 -0.6 No Katella Avenue West Street to West of Harbor Blvd 87.0 87.4 0.4 No Katella Avenue West of Harbor Blvd to Harbor Blvd 87.0 87.4 0.4 No Katella Avenue Harbor Blvd to Clementine Street 87.4 86.8 -0.6 No Katella Avenue Clementine Street to West of Haster Street 87.4 87.1 -0.3 No Katella Avenue West of Haster Street to Haster Street 87.4 87.1 -0.3 No Katella Avenue Haster Street to I-5 (East Side) 88.0 87.8 -0.2 No Katella Avenue I-5 (East Side) to Anaheim 88.2 88.7 0.5 No ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-14 July 2013 Table 5.3-3 Off-Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 50 Feet (dBA) Substantial Increase? 2004 Approved Project1 Proposed Project1 Proposed Project Contribution Blvd Katella Avenue Anaheim Blvd to Lewis Street 88.2 88.7 0.5 No Katella Avenue Lewis Street to East of Lewis Street 87.7 88.1 0.4 No Katella Avenue East of Lewis Street to West of State College Blvd 87.7 88.1 0.4 No Katella Avenue West of State College Blvd to State College Blvd 87.7 88.1 0.4 No Katella Avenue State College Blvd to SR-57 (West Side) 87.4 88.0 0.6 No Katella Avenue SR-57 (West Side) to Douglass Road 87.4 88.0 0.6 No La Palma Avenue Euclid Street to West of West Street 72.4 72.3 -0.1 No La Palma Avenue West of West Street to West Street 72.4 72.3 -0.1 No La Palma Avenue West Street to Citron Drive 72.4 72.4 0.0 No La Palma Avenue Kraemer Blvd to West of Miller Street 78.7 76.1 -2.6 No La Palma Avenue West of Tustin Avenue to Tustin Avenue 77.9 76.5 -1.4 No La Palma Avenue Imperial Highway to East of Imperial Highway 76.8 74.7 -2.1 No Lincoln Avenue Lemon Street to Anaheim Blvd 77.5 76.5 -1.0 No Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road to East of Nohl Ranch Road 70.2 67.7 -2.5 No Nohl Ranch Road East of Nohl Ranch Road to West of Meats Avenue 70.2 67.7 -2.5 No Nohl Ranch Road Imperial Highway to East of Imperial Highway 73.4 70.7 -2.7 No Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road to Canyon Rim Road 71.1 71.1 0.0 No Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue to West of Weir Canyon Road 66.0 67.1 1.1 No Oak Canyon Drive West of Weir Canyon Road to Weir Canyon Road 66.0 67.1 1.1 No Orangewood Avenue I-5 (East Side) to West of State College Blvd 77.1 77.9 0.8 No Orangewood Avenue West of State College Blvd to State College Blvd 77.1 77.9 0.8 No Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road to East of Nohl Ranch Road 69.9 69.2 -0.7 No Serrano Avenue East of Nohl Ranch Road to East of Nohl Ranch Road 69.9 69.2 -0.7 No Serrano Avenue East of Nohl Ranch Road to West of Canyon Rim Road 71.0 68.9 -2.1 No ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-15 Table 5.3-3 Off-Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 50 Feet (dBA) Substantial Increase? 2004 Approved Project1 Proposed Project1 Proposed Project Contribution Serrano Avenue West of Canyon Rim Road to Canyon Rim Road 71.0 68.9 -2.1 No Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road to East of Canyon Rim Road 71.4 70.3 -1.1 No Serrano Avenue East of Canyon Rim Road to West of Oak Canyon Drive 71.4 70.3 -1.1 No Serrano Avenue West of Oak Canyon Drive to Oak Canyon Drive 71.4 70.3 -1.1 No Serrano Avenue Oak Canyon Drive to West of Weir Canyon Road 72.2 70.9 -1.3 No Serrano Avenue West of Weir Canyon Road to Weir Canyon Road 72.2 70.9 -1.3 No State College Boulevard Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 86.9 86.8 -0.1 No State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue to North of I-5 86.6 86.1 -0.5 No Sunkist Street Ball Road to North of Cerritos Avenue 69.6 67.0 -2.6 No Note: Traffic noise model outputs included in Appendix E. Bold indicates a substantial increase between the noise impacts related to the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-16 July 2013 IMPACT 5.3-2 SIMILAR TO THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, STATIONARY SOURCES OF NOISE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT AND ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS AND WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS PROXIMATE TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES. [IMPACTS N-1 AND N- 3] Impact Analysis: Project-related stationary source noise impacts would include activities associated with development of the 221 Housing Opportunity Sites to be developed as residential land uses, as presented in Tables 3-3, Parcels to Apply Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone, and Table 3-4, Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone. Of the 221 Housing Opportunity Sites, five are zoned for mixed use and the remaining are zoned residential. The stationary sources related to residential land uses generally include air conditioners, yard care equipment, trash trucks, delivery vehicles, street sweepers, and outdoor neighborhood recreation activities. The mixed-use sites are currently utilized for commercial uses. The stationary-source noise impacts expected from the Proposed Project are consistent with existing sources and/or those identified in the 2004 Certified EIR, as residential and mixed-use uses are not major sources of noise; rather they typically generate noise levels compatible with noise-sensitive uses. The development of residential projects at each of the 221 Housing Opportunity Sites would be required to be designed to meet City’s noise standards. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer would be required to demonstrate that project’s noise levels would be less than 65 dBA CNEL for future proposed outdoor use areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s impacts concerning stationary noise and noise-sensitive receptors would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.3-3 SIMILAR TO THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS. [IMPACT N-2] Impact Analysis: Buildout of the 2004 Approved Project or the Proposed Project could potentially cause vibration impacts during construction of individual projects on the 221 Housing Opportunity Sites. Excessive groundborne vibration is typically caused by activities such as blasting, or the use of pile drivers during construction. Construction under the 2004 Approved Project may require blasting activities in the Hill and Canyon Area of the City, and pile driving could occur which would produce vibration that could be felt at nearby land uses. These vibrations pose not only a nuisance, but also a risk to proximate structures. However, these impacts would be assessed at the time specific development applications are submitted. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, an impact pile driver, which would generate greater vibrations, is assumed. While the City has no vibration standards, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) sets the criterion level for pile driving at between 0.2 and 2 inches per second. A reasonable worst-case scenario assumes the use of the 0.2 inch per second criterion. Caltrans presents the vibration produced by a 50,000 foot-pound force with distance for both clayey and sandy/silt soils as a function of distance. Caltrans indicates that the distance to the 0.2 inch per second minimum criterion falls at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Still, like construction, pile driving carries a high nuisance factor and vibration related to pile-driving activities is considered as potentially significant if these activities are performed within 200 feet of any permanent structures. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-17 IMPACT 5.3-4 SIMILAR TO THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION. [IMPACT N-4] Impact Analysis: The City recognizes that construction noise is difficult to control and restricts allowable hours for this intrusion. Section 6.70.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code states that the sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of the chapter between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and, as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Still, construction, even when restricted to within these hours, presents a nuisance value when conducted in proximity to sensitive receptors and the impact is considered as potentially significant. Short-term noise impacts would be impacts associated with demolition, site preparation, grading and construction of residential development on the Housing Opportunities Sites. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from a project site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated at a project site during demolition, site preparation, grading and/or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. However, 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 5.3-4 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments as based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Composite construction noise is best characterized by Bolt, Beranek and Newman (EPA December 31, 1971). In their study, construction noise for commercial and industrial development is presented as 89 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. Residential development is quieter with a composite noise level of about 88 dBA Leq, again when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. These values take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of the heavy equipment used in the construction effort. In later phases during building assembly, noise levels are typically reduced from these values and the physical structures further break up line-of-sight noise propagation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-18 July 2013 Table 5.3-4 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Range of Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow1 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front-End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants,” Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1987. 1 Pile drivers can be classified by striking energy per blow, which is a measure of power. Based on the noise levels generated by typical construction equipment listed above, construction activities would have the potential to cause substantial noise increases at noise-sensitive uses surrounding a construction suite when compared to a typical urban environment of 50 to 70 dBA. As most construction equipment would have the potential to cause noise increases over 5 dBA, which is a noise increase considered clearly perceptible. Without mitigation, construction activities could cause significant noise impacts at noise sensitive uses adjacent to construction sites. Mitigation of these impacts to a level that is less than significant would be conducted both at the project level through the enforcement of the Anaheim Municipal Code and in a broader sense through the policies of the General Plan Noise Element. With implementation of MM 5.10-1 and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies included in the 2004 Approved Project, these impacts would be less than significant. Relevant Goals and Policies The General Plan policies relating to operational noise include:  Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent with health and quality of life goals and employ effective techniques of noise abatement through such means as a noise ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and zoning regulations. (Noise Element, Goal 1, Policy 2)  Discourage the siting of sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. (Noise Element, Goal 1, Policy 6) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-19  Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant utilizing acceptable methodologies while reviewing the development of sensitive land uses or development that has the potential to impact sensitive land uses. (Noise Element, Goal 1, Policy 7)  Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from exceeding stationary- source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses, as appropriate. (Noise Element, Goal 3, Policy 1)  Prohibit new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential stationary-source noise standards at the most proximate land uses, as appropriate. (Industrial noise may spill over to proximate industrial uses so long as the combined noise does not exceed the appropriate industrial standards.) (Noise Element, Goal 3, Policy 2)  Expand and enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these operations could disturb the classroom environment. (Noise Element, Goal 3, Policy 3) The General Plan policies relating to railroad noise include:  Encourage the construction of noise barriers by the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Union Pacific, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe and Amtrak where residences exist next to the track. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 6)  Encourage the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Union Pacific, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe and Amtrak to minimize the level of noise produced by train movements and whistle noise within the City by reducing speeds, reducing the number of nighttime operations, improving vehicle system technology and developing improved sound mitigation where residences exist next to the track. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 7)  Encourage the use of sound-deadening matting (as opposed to wood) leading to, from and between the rails where public roads cross tracks in residential areas. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 8) The General Plan policies relating to construction noise include:  Continue to enforce the noise standards of the State Motor Vehicle Code and other State and Federal legislation pertaining to motor vehicle noise. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 1)  Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing highway segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 2)  Maintain roadways so that the paving is in good condition to reduce noise generating cracks, bumps, and potholes. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-20 July 2013  Require sound walls, berms and landscaping along existing and future highways and railroad right-of-ways to beautify the landscape and reduce noise, where appropriate. (Noise Element, Goal 2, Policy 5) The General Plan policies relating to reducing noise impacts to sensitive receptors include:  Discourage the siting of sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. (Noise Element, Goal 1.1, Policy 6)  Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant for the development of sensitive land uses utilizing acceptable methodologies while reviewing the development of sensitive land uses or development that has the potential to impact sensitive land uses. (Noise Element, Goal 1.1, Policy 7) The General Plan policies relating to reducing noise impacts from industrial land use include:  Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from exceeding stationary- source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses, as appropriate. (Noise Element, Goal 3, Policy 1)  Prohibit new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential stationary-source noise standards at the most proximate land uses, as appropriate (Industrial noise may spill over to proximate industrial uses so long as the combined noise does not exceed the appropriate industrial standards.). (Noise Element, Goal 3, Policy 2) Existing Codes and Policies The City shall restrict noise intensive construction activities to the hours specified under Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM). These hours shall also apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. In addition, construction shall be restricted to weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays or Federally recognized holidays. 5.3.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR All of the mitigation measures related to noise that were specified in the 2004 Certified EIR and adopted in the MMRP for the 2004 Approved Project are set forth below. These mitigation measures will also be incorporated into the Proposed Project. MM 5.10-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project generating over 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developer shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior and exterior noise standards. MM 5.10-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project property owner/developer shall use the most current available Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for evaluating heliport and airport operations as well as land use compatibility and land use ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-21 intensity in the proximity of Los Alamitos Joint Training Base and Fullerton Municipal Airport. 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Additional Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, relevent goals and policies, and the mitigation measures adopted in the MMRP for the 2004 Approved Project, as listed above, Impacts 5.3-2, and 5.3-3 would be less than significant for the Proposed Project and the 2004 Approved Project. For Impact 5.3-1, even with implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan goals and policies, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant noise impacts. As a result, in locations where these roadways are adjacent to existing sensitive land uses, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, the impacts are anticipated to remain significant for the Proposed Project. 5.3.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project No additional mitigation measures are required because there is no substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. The mitigation measures identified in the 2004 Certified EIR and adopted in the MMRP for the 2004 Approved Project would reduce noise impacts of the Proposed Project to the extent practicable. 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Additional Mitigation Impact 5.1-1 Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, with the Proposed Project, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant noise impacts. Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 and 5.10-2 would reduce operational noise impacts to the extent feasible. Additionally, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable for the Proposed Project even after the incorporation of mitigation. Impacts 5.3-2, 5.3-3, and 5.3-4 With implementation of the existing regulations and mitigation measures outlined above from the 2004 Certified EIR, potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with noise would be reduced to a level that is less than significant for Impact 5.3-2, Impact 5.3-3 and 5.3-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.3-22 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-1 5.4 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”) to result in transportation and traffic impacts as compared to the 2004 Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update (“2004 Approved Project”). The analysis in this section is based in part on the data and analysis set forth in the following technical report:  City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR No. 346 Technical Traffic Study, Iteris, July 2013 (the "Traffic Study"). A complete copy of this study is included as Appendix F in this DSEIR. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting 5.4.1.1 Methodology City-Wide Traffic Model The Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) has been developed as a tool to help the City of Anaheim (“City”) forecast future traffic volumes and estimate the traffic effects of changes in land use and roadway facilities. A prior version of ATAM (ATAM 2000) was used for the 2004 Approved Project while this analysis uses the new updated version of ATAM (ATAM 2012). ATAM 2012 has been developed in accordance with the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (December 2010) published by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to ensure consistency between local models and the Countywide model. The ATAM 2012 city-wide traffic model was developed using the TRANPLAN transportation modeling software. TRANPLAN is a commercially available modeling software package platform that enables four-step travel demand modeling. The model's network and zone system were developed to provide an appropriate level of detail for local circulation system planning, while incorporating the influences of regional through traffic on the City arterial system; this was accomplished by developing a focused model. The model produces separate assignments of total daily traffic, morning peak period traffic, and afternoon peak period traffic, reflecting traffic volumes on an average day in the City. Forecasts were developed for the existing and updated General Plan build-out scenario. The following section provides a brief overview of the modeling process. ATAM (2000) Model and 2012 Update ATAM 2012 has been developed in accordance with the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (December 2010) published by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to ensure compatibility between local models and the countywide model, Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) version 3.3. ATAM 2012 uses the existing conditions base year of OCTAM 3.3. All elements of the OCTAM regional model were carefully reviewed and updated for purposes of developing a refined citywide model. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) were finely disaggregated to enable more precise traffic forecasting for major event centers, schools, and other uses throughout the City. ATAM 2000 was a tiered subarea model consistent with OCTAM 3.1 and it included 493 TAZs within the City. ATAM 2012 includes a total of 1,268 TAZs within the City to allow for more refined consideration of alternative modes and mixed use trip interactions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-2 July 2013 Like most local models, ATAM 2012 uses land use as the basis for generating trips. To achieve consistency with OCTAM, ATAM 2012 converts land uses into socioeconomic data (dwelling units and employment) prior to calculating trip generation. ATAM 2012 uses the trip generation rates recommended in the subarea modeling guidelines. ATAM 2012 includes a post-processing function to improve the usefulness of its forecasts, providing peak hour turning movement forecasts and level of service calculations at signalized intersections throughout the City. The post processor applies the model’s estimate of future growth to the existing traffic counts to forecast future intersection peak hour turning volumes. As noted, the model was updated in 2012 and has been used to reassess the 2035 traffic conditions at study intersections. The ATAM 2012 model includes changes to land use forecasts related to the general plan amendments completed since 2004 as well as other changes to future land use assumptions. ATAM 2000 had a horizon year of 2025 rather than 2035. The updated network for ATAM 2012 differs from the existing General Plan system in a few key areas. The changes noted below have been analyzed in various technical studies since the adoption of the 2004 General Plan Update. These changes include:  Deletion of Jamboree Road south of Weir Canyon Road  Downgrade of Weir Canyon Road to Primary Arterial south of Oak Canyon Road  Grade separations and connector roads parallel to Orangethorpe Avenue at Tustin Avenue, Lakeview Avenue, and Imperial Highway  Upgrade of Tustin Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard to an 8-lane Major Arterial between La Palma Avenue and SR-91  Extension of Fairmont Blvd from La Palma Avenue to SR-91 with a new interchange at SR-91. No connection is made to Santa Ana Canyon Road  Upgrade of Katella Avenue to an 8-lane Stadium between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way  Upgrade of Lewis Street to Primary Arterial between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue  Upgrade of Douglass Road to Primary Arterial between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue  Upgrade of Cerritos Avenue to Primary Arterial between State College Boulevard and Douglass Road Comparison of the ATAM (2000) and the ATAM (2012) Model A comparison was performed of the study intersections from the two versions of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model - ATAM 2000 and ATAM 2012. The purpose of the comparison was to identify the locations of the intersections and roadway segments for which the forecasted Level of Service (LOS) significantly improved or worsened based on the comparison of the two models and their associated future land use forecasts. The ATAM 2000 model included 250 study intersections whereas the ATAM 2012 model now includes 431 study intersections within the City plus some other locations in the cities of Orange, Fullerton, Garden Grove and Placentia. Note the locations outside of the City are not the focus of the analysis covered by this report; they are included in the model as these locations are frequently requested for analysis by neighboring jurisdictions. After comparing the common study intersections in both models, LOS analysis was also performed for the additional intersections with the ATAM 2012 model. Out of the additional study intersections from the ATAM 2012 model, two intersections were found to be performing at a LOS E or F during the 2035 AM period and six intersections were found to be performing at LOS E or F during the 2035 PM period. A comparison of the common locations is described in the following section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim H Intersec The City’ of 1.00, o intersectio requires a methodolo moves to 0.05, and through a thresholds Furthermo resulting v meet crite future V/ approved/ included i feasible, a Leve Ser A B C D E F Source: Cit Housing Oppor ction Analy s Criteria for or LOS E as t ons, and 0.90 all study area ogy. This me available inte lane capaciti and turn lanes s utilized in th ore, within th volume-to-ca eria outlined i /C ratio at a /related proje in the Certifie are identified el of vice T ap re m R an so St m re E to pe cl R ac w si R cr un ar by ty of Anaheim rtunities Sites R ysis r Preparation the lowest acc 0, or LOS D, a intersection ethodology co ersection cap es of 1,700 v s was used fo his traffic stud he City, an i apacity (V/C) in Table 5.4-2 an intersectio ects, and the ed EIR. Mitig in Section 5.4 Int There are no cycl pproach phase is ed indication. Ty movements are ea Represents stable nd a substantial omewhat restrict table operation c more frequent. Oc ed signal intersec Encompasses a zo o approaching ve eriod, but enoug learance of deve Represents the mo ccommodate. At waiting upstream ignal cycles). Represents jamm ross street may r nder considerati re highly variabl y outside conditi Rezoning Proje of Traffic Imp ceptable LOS , as the lowe s LOS be ev ompares fore acity based o ehicles per ho or the ICU ca dy. intersection im compared to 2. For purpos on, consideri Proposed Pro gation measur 4.7, Addition Ta ntersection In les that are fully s fully utilized by ypically, the appr asily made, and n e operation. An o number are appr ted within platoo continues. Full s ccasional drivers ction, and backu one of increasing ehicles may be s gh cycles with lo eloping queues, t ost vehicles that t capacity (V/C = of the intersecti ed conditions. B restrict or preven on; hence, volum le because full u ions. ect Draft Suppl pact Studies g S at designate est acceptable valuated using ecast peak ho on actual conf our of green t alculations. Ta mpact is con the “No Proj ses of this cal ing traffic fr oject, but wit res to bring th nal Mitigation able 5.4-1 n Level Of nterpretation loaded, and few y traffic and no v roach appears qu nearly all driver occasional appro roaching full use ons of vehicles. signal cycle load s may have to w ups may develop g restriction app ubstantial during ower demand occ thus preventing e t any particular in = 1.00), there ma ion and delays m Backups from loc nt movement of v mes carried are n tilization of the 5. Envi lemental EIR guidelines req ed Congestion e LOS for a g the intersec our traffic vo figuration. A time how Table 5.4-1 pr nsidered sign ject” V/C sho lculation, the from existing thout any add he LOS to a le n Measures fo f Service w are close to loa vehicle waits lon uite open, turnin rs find freedom o oach phase is full e. Many drivers ding is still interm wait through mor p behind turning proaching instabi g short peaks wi cur to permit per excessive backu ntersection appr ay be long queue may be great (up cations vehicles out of t not predictable. V approach may b ironment TRANSPORTA City of A quire a volum n Managemen all other inter ction capacity lumes by dir minimum cl w long the lig resents the IC nificant if the ows the projec “Final V/C R g conditions, ditional mitig ess than signi or the Propose aded. No nger than one ng of operation. ly utilized begin to feel mittent, but e than one vehicles. ility. Delays ith the peak riodic ups. roach can es of vehicles to several eam or on the the approach V/C values be prevented tal Analy ATION AND TR naheim  Page me-to-capacity nt Program (C rsections. The y utilization rection and c earance interv ght stays gree CU level of se e Proposed P ct related incr Ratio” includ ambient gr gation beyon ificant level, w ed Project. Volume t Capacity (V Ratio < 0.60 0.61 – 0.70 0.71 – 0.80 0.81 – 0.90 0.91 – 1.00 > 1.00 ysis RAFFIC e 5.4-3 y ratio CMP) e City (ICU) ritical val of en) for ervice Project reases es the rowth, d that where to V/C) 0 0 0 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-4 July 2013 Table 5.4-2 Significant Impact Criteria LOS Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C >0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.050 D >0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.030 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.010 Source: City of Anaheim 5.4.1.2 2004 Approved Project/California Environmental Quality Act Baseline The ATAM model was used to forecast traffic volumes associated with buildout of the 2004 Approved Project. This scenario represented the future conditions, including all elements of the updated General Plan network. For the purposes of this analysis, the 2004 Approved Project is considered to be the baseline per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Future (Year 2025) Peak Hour Conditions for the 2004 Approved Project The distribution of LOS grades for AM and PM peak hour for the 2004 Approved Project can be seen in Table 5.4-3. 20 of the 250 study intersections were projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) during at least one of the peak periods, as seen in Figure 5.4-1. Four of the following intersections (indicated in bold) operate at unacceptable levels in both the AM and PM peak hours. The 20 intersections in the City found to be operating at an unacceptable LOS are:  Tustin Avenue / La Palma Avenue  Imperial Highway / SR-91 East Bound Ramps  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue  Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road (AM and PM)  Imperial Highway / Santa Ana Canyon Road (AM and PM)  Manchester I-5 South Bound / Katella Avenue (AM and PM)  Tustin Avenue / SR-91 East Bound Ramps (AM and PM)  Kraemer Boulevard / La Palma Avenue  Harbor Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  Weir Canyon Road / Santa Ana Canyon Road  Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue  Dale Street / Lincoln Avenue  Imperial Highway / Nohl Ranch Road  Imperial Highway / La Palma Avenue  Imperial Highway / Orangethorpe Avenue  East Street / Lincoln Avenue  Beach Boulevard / Lincoln Avenue  East Street / Orangethorpe Avenue  Weir Canyon Road / SR-91 East Bound Ramps  Euclid Street / Katella Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- 2004 Approved Project LOS E and F 5. Environmental Analysis Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 5.4-1 0 Scale (Miles) 2 City of Anaheim Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-6 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-7 Table 5.4-3 2004 Approved Project Intersection Performance Summary AM PM # of Intersections LOS # of Intersections LOS 3 F 3 F 3 E 15 E 15 D 21 D 26 C 52 C 51 B 58 B 152 A 101 A Future Daily Traffic Volumes with 2004 Approved Project The portion of the I-5 Freeway that runs through the City was projected to carry less than 300,000 two- way daily volumes north of Euclid Street, an increase of 28 percent over year 2004 volumes. SR-91 Freeway volumes, at State College Boulevard, are forecast to carry around 252,000, and increase of 13 percent from year 2004 levels. The increase rises to a 20 percent increase on SR-91 Freeway east of Imperial Highway. Volumes on the SR-55 Freeway are expected to increase around 26 percent near Lincoln Avenue. Several arterials within the City were projected to experience a significant amount of growth in daily traffic. Future ADT for the 2004 Approved Project can be seen in Figure 5.4-2. 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: T-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. T-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T-3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment). T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-8 July 2013 T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A (also included in Section 7.2, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant), substantiates that impacts associated with Impact T-3 would be less than significant. Accordingly, this impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.4.3 The 2004 Approved Project The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that the Circulation Element included as part of the 2004 Approved Project included improvements necessary to maintain adequate LOS in the City at General Plan buildout. However, the improvements necessary to maintain adequate LOS at the Harbor Boulevard /Ball Road intersection could impact adjacent land uses. As a result, a significant impact would remain if the City chooses not to implement the required improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2004 Approved Project ADT 5. Environmental Analysis Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR The Planning CenterIDC&E • Figure 5.4-2 0 Scale (Miles) 2 City of Anaheim Boundary 5 55 57 241 91 91 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-10 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-11 5.4.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project The following analysis compares the impacts of the 2004 Approved Project identified in the 2004 Certified EIR with the impacts of the Proposed Project using the City’s 2012 updated ATAM model. The methodology used for this analysis is described above. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.4-1: TRAFFIC VOLUMES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD IMPACT LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM, AS COMPARED TO THE APPROVED PROJECT. [THRESHOLDS T-1 AND T-2] Impact Analysis: Intersection-Level LOS Summary As shown in Tables 5.4-4 and 5.4-5, the following locations are forecast to operate at LOS E or F for either the AM peak hour, the PM peak hour or both AM and PM peak hours in the year 2035 with the Proposed Project:  Euclid Street / Lincoln Avenue (AM)  Euclid Street / Cerritos Avenue (AM and PM)  Euclid Street / Katella Avenue (PM)  Disneyland Drive / Ball Road (PM)  Disneyland Drive / Katella Avenue (PM)  Harbor Boulevard / La Palma Avenue (PM)  Harbor Boulevard / Lincoln Avenue (AM)  Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road (AM and PM)  Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue (AM)  East Street / Lincoln Avenue (PM)  Lewis Street / Ball Road (PM)  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue (PM)  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (PM)  Sunkist Street / Miraloma Avenue / La Palma Avenue (PM)  SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Avenue (PM)  Rio Vista Street / Lincoln Avenue (AM)  Tustin Avenue / SR-91 WB Ramps (AM)  Fairmont Boulevard / La Palma Avenue (PM) The number of intersections that are performing at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour worsened from six to seven with implementation of the Proposed Project using the ATAM (2012) model. However, the number of intersections that are performing at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour improved from 18 to 13 with implementation of the Proposed Project using the ATAM (2012) model. Boxes indicates in red and yellow in Tables 5.4-4 and 5.4-5 depict those intersections with either LOS E or LOS F. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-12 July 2013 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 1 Knott Ave / Lincoln Ave B 0.66 D 0.90 2 Knott Ave / Orange Ave B 0.64 C 0.79 3 Knott Ave / Ball Rd A 0.53 D 0.84 4 Western Ave / Lincoln Ave B 0.62 D 0.83 5 Western Ave / Orange Ave B 0.64 B 0.62 6 Western Ave / Ball Rd B 0.67 C 0.79 7 Beach Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.82 D 0.81 8 Beach Blvd / Orange Ave D 0.82 D 0.82 9 Beach Blvd / Ball Rd C 0.78 C 0.74 10 Beach Blvd / Cerritos Ave D 0.86 C 0.79 11 Dale Ave / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 C 0.71 12 Dale Ave / Broadway A 0.31 A 0.53 13 Dale Ave / Orange Ave A 0.49 C 0.72 14 Dale Ave / Ball Rd A 0.54 B 0.63 15 Dale Ave / Cerritos Ave A 0.53 A 0.50 16 Magnolia St / La Palma Ave A 0.53 C 0.76 17 Magnolia St / Crescent Ave A 0.50 B 0.66 18 Magnolia St / Lincoln Ave A 0.52 C 0.78 19 Magnolia St / Broadway A 0.53 B 0.64 20 Magnolia St / Orange Ave A 0.52 C 0.77 21 Magnolia St / Ball Rd A 0.54 B 0.69 22 Magnolia St / Cerritos Ave B 0.69 A 0.48 23 Gilbert St / La Palma Ave A 0.42 B 0.63 24 Gilbert St / Crescent Ave A 0.31 A 0.51 25 Gilbert St / Lincoln Ave A 0.43 A 0.59 26 Gilbert St / Broadway A 0.38 A 0.42 27 Gilbert St / Orange Ave A 0.44 A 0.36 28 Gilbert St / Ball Rd A 0.42 B 0.63 29 Gilbert St / Cerritos Ave A 0.53 A 0.42 30 Brookhurst St / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.64 C 0.77 31 Brookhurst St / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.69 D 0.81 32 Brookhurst St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 C 0.78 33 Brookhurst St / I-5 SB Ramps B 0.64 C 0.71 34 Brookhurst St / Crescent Ave C 0.73 C 0.71 35 Brookhurst St / Lincoln Ave B 0.65 C 0.78 36 Brookhurst St / Broadway A 0.60 B 0.66 37 Brookhurst St / Orange Ave A 0.56 A 0.49 38 Brookhurst St / Ball Rd A 0.60 B 0.66 39 Brookhurst St / Cerritos Ave A 0.59 D 0.84 40 Brookhurst St / Katella Ave D 0.88 D 0.87 41 Nutwood St / Ball Rd A 0.37 A 0.55 42 Nutwood St / Cerritos Ave A 0.47 B 0.61 43 Nutwood St / Katella Ave C 0.76 C 0.71 44 Crescent Way / Lincoln Ave A 0.53 B 0.65 45 Euclid St / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.62 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-13 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 46 Euclid St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.79 B 0.65 47 Euclid St / Romneya Dr A 0.53 C 0.74 48 Euclid St / La Palma Ave B 0.67 B 0.67 49 Euclid St / Crescent Ave B 0.69 C 0.80 50 Euclid St / Anaheim Shopping Center A 0.54 B 0.66 51 Euclid St / I-5 NB and SB Ramps A 0.51 C 0.74 52 Euclid St / Lincoln Ave B 0.66 E 0.91 53 Euclid St / Broadway C 0.72 D 0.83 54 Euclid St / Orange Ave A 0.41 A 0.55 55 Euclid St / Ball Rd A 0.45 C 0.75 56 Euclid St / Cerritos Ave B 0.71 E 0.92 57 Euclid St / Katella Ave B 0.71 D 0.87 58 Loara St / Crescent Ave A 0.29 B 0.61 59 Loara St / Lincoln Ave A 0.49 D 0.90 60 Loara St / Broadway A 0.43 B 0.62 61 Walnut St / Ball Rd A 0.41 D 0.88 62 Walnut St / Cerritos Ave A 0.46 C 0.72 63 Walnut St / Katella Ave D 0.90 C 0.77 64 I-5 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.37 B 0.61 65 I-5 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.26 C 0.72 66 Manchester Ave / Broadway A 0.60 B 0.65 67 West St / La Palma Ave A 0.41 A 0.49 68 West St / Lincoln Ave A 0.56 B 0.62 69 West St / Broadway A 0.54 A 0.53 70 Manchester / I-5 SB Ramps A 0.36 0 0 71 Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd C 0.76 D 0.87 72 Disneyland Dr / Magic Way A 0.47 A 0.45 73 Disneyland Dr / Paradise A 0.29 A 0.30 74 Disneyland Dr / Simba A 0.40 A 0.52 75 Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave A 0.59 D 0.86 76 West St / Convention Way A 0.17 A 0.37 77 Ox Rd / Ball Rd B 0.64 B 0.68 78 Convention Center / Katella Ave A 0.55 A 0.55 79 Citron St / La Palma Ave A 0.41 A 0.48 80 Citron St / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 A 0.48 81 Citron St / Broadway A 0.42 A 0.42 82 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.54 A 0.56 83 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps A 0.58 A 0.58 84 Harbor Blvd / Romneya Dr B 0.61 C 0.74 85 Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave B 0.61 D 0.83 86 Harbor Blvd / North St A 0.50 C 0.76 87 Harbor Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.49 C 0.75 88 Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.84 E 0.92 89 Harbor Blvd / Broadway B 0.65 D 0.84 90 Harbor Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.51 D 0.89 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-14 July 2013 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 91 Harbor Blvd / South St A 0.60 B 0.70 92 Harbor Blvd / Vermont Ave A 0.60 C 0.78 93 Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd E 0.97 F 1.10 94 Harbor Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps A 0.56 D 0.87 95 Harbor Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps C 0.71 A 0.59 96 Harbor Blvd / Manchester Ave A 0.38 D 0.90 97 Harbor Blvd / East Shuttle Area A 0.55 A 0.43 98 Harbor Blvd / Disney Way A 0.43 A 0.40 99 Harbor Blvd / Katella Ave C 0.78 C 0.80 100 Harbor Blvd / Convention Way A 0.59 C 0.74 101 Harbor Blvd / Orangewood Ave D 0.82 C 0.73 102 Harbor Blvd / Chapman Ave A 0.53 B 0.63 103 Anaheim Blvd / Lemon St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 B 0.66 104 Lemon St / Lincoln Ave A 0.36 A 0.40 105 Lemon St / Ball Rd A 0.42 A 0.51 106 Clementine St / Disney Way A 0.22 A 0.57 107 Clementine St / Katella Ave A 0.59 B 0.65 108 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way A 0.26 A 0.47 109 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.60 C 0.71 110 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.66 B 0.62 111 Anaheim Blvd / La Palma Ave A 0.37 C 0.71 112 Anaheim Blvd / North St A 0.38 A 0.59 113 Anaheim Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.51 A 0.54 114 Anaheim Blvd / Lincoln Ave B 0.61 B 0.69 115 Anaheim Blvd / Broadway B 0.64 C 0.77 116 Anaheim Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.46 B 0.66 117 Anaheim Blvd / South St A 0.57 C 0.79 118 Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave B 0.65 F 1.04 119 Anaheim Blvd / Ball Rd A 0.59 C 0.74 120 Anaheim Blvd / Cerritos Ave A 0.50 C 0.74 121 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps A 0.52 A 0.50 122 Anaheim Blvd / Disney Way A 0.36 0 0 123 Anaheim Blvd / Katella Ave C 0.78 D 0.90 124 Haster St / Orangewood Ave A 0.43 C 0.79 125 Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps / Katella Ave F 1.06 D 0.83 126 Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps / Katella Ave A 0.58 D 0.90 127 Olive St / La Palma Ave A 0.31 A 0.51 128 Olive St / Lincoln Ave A 0.39 A 0.50 129 Raymond Ave / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.74 B 0.68 130 East St/Raymond Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.65 B 0.67 131 East St / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.64 B 0.68 132 East St / Romneya Dr A 0.36 A 0.45 133 East St / La Palma Ave A 0.57 D 0.82 134 East St / Sycamore St A 0.55 B 0.69 135 East St / Lincoln Ave B 0.66 D 0.84 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-15 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 136 East St / Broadway A 0.51 D 0.87 137 East St / Santa Ana St A 0.42 A 0.60 138 East St / South St A 0.54 C 0.78 139 East St / Vermont Ave B 0.66 C 0.79 140 East St / Ball Rd B 0.68 D 0.81 141 Lewis St / Ball Rd A 0.46 C 0.72 142 Lewis St / Cerritos Ave A 0.42 D 0.88 143 Lewis St / Katella Ave A 0.49 D 0.81 144 Manchester Ave / Orangewood Ave D 0.83 D 0.89 145 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Ave A 0.15 A 0.50 146 Acacia St / La Palma Ave A 0.28 C 0.77 147 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.75 C 0.75 148 State College Blvd / Via Burton St A 0.59 A 0.59 149 State College Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.53 A 0.59 150 State College Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.65 A 0.54 151 State College Blvd / Romneya Dr B 0.66 B 0.61 152 State College Blvd / La Palma Ave B 0.63 B 0.70 153 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave C 0.78 C 0.80 154 State College Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.52 A 0.41 155 State College Blvd / South St A 0.55 C 0.71 156 State College Blvd / Vermont Ave A 0.58 B 0.65 157 State College Blvd / Ball Rd B 0.64 D 0.87 158 State College Blvd / Winston Rd A 0.59 A 0.57 159 State College Blvd / Cerritos Ave B 0.69 C 0.74 160 State College Blvd / Katella Ave D 0.82 D 0.89 161 State College / Sportstown A 0.58 0 0 162 State College Blvd / Gene Autry Way C 0.77 B 0.70 163 State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave D 0.86 D 0.82 164 Peregrine St / Lincoln Ave A 0.52 A 0.57 165 Sunkist St / Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave A 0.57 C 0.80 166 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave B 0.61 D 0.85 167 Sunkist St / South St B 0.69 C 0.72 168 Sunkist St / Ball Rd C 0.73 D 0.89 169 Sunkist St / Cerritos Ave B 0.64 D 0.83 170 Howell Ave / Katella Ave B 0.62 D 0.86 171 Sportstown / Katella Ave A 0.48 D 0.82 172 Rampart St / Orangewood Ave A 0.51 B 0.69 173 SR-57 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave B 0.64 B 0.69 174 SR-57 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 A 0.55 175 SR-57 SB Ramps / Ball Rd B 0.62 D 0.82 176 SR-57 NB Ramps / Ball Rd B 0.66 C 0.76 177 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Ave A 0.47 D 0.85 178 SR-57 NB Ramps / Katella Ave A 0.48 B 0.69 179 SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave A 0.56 D 0.87 180 SR-57 NB Ramps / Orangewood Ave A 0.44 B 0.64 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-16 July 2013 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 181 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 E 0.94 182 Phoenix Club Dr / Ball Rd A 0.58 D 0.83 183 Douglass Rd / Katella Ave D 0.90 D 0.82 184 Blue Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.45 A 0.43 185 Blue Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.45 A 0.60 186 Red Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.18 A 0.26 187 Red Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.34 A 0.38 188 Kraemer Blvd / Crowther Ave A 0.58 D 0.84 189 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.79 D 0.85 190 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave A 0.52 D 0.81 191 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave D 0.82 D 0.81 192 Kraemer Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.62 B 0.66 193 Kraemer Blvd / Frontera St B 0.65 D 0.82 194 Miller St / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.42 A 0.41 195 Miller St / Miraloma St A 0.40 B 0.61 196 Miller St / La Palma Ave A 0.39 B 0.64 197 Orangethorpe Ave / Tustin Connector D 0.89 B 0.64 198 Tustin Ave / Miraloma Ave C 0.74 D 0.83 199 Tustin Ave / La Palma Ave F 1.01 D 0.87 200 Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.79 E 0.96 201 Tustin Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps F 1.22 D 0.81 202 Tustin Ave / Riverdale Ave C 0.76 C 0.71 203 Van Buren St / La Palma Ave A 0.46 A 0.53 204 Orangethorpe Ave / Lakeview Connector A 0.49 A 0.52 205 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave A 0.50 B 0.66 206 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave B 0.64 B 0.66 207 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.67 C 0.73 208 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.80 D 0.84 209 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 EB Off Ramp A 0.50 A 0.58 210 Meats Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.60 A 0.54 211 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.56 B 0.66 212 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.46 C 0.77 213 Kellogg Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.46 A 0.59 214 Royal Oak Rd/Pinney Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.46 B 0.69 215 Royal Oak Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd B 0.64 A 0.50 216 Corporate Cont / La Palma A 0.34 0 0 217 Cinema City / La Palma Ave A 0.42 A 0.40 218 Avenida Margarita / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.36 A 0.46 219 Imperial Hwy / Orangethorpe Connector B 0.63 A 0.54 220 Imperial Hwy / La Palma Ave D 0.88 D 0.83 221 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.73 B 0.62 222 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 EB Ramps E 0.93 C 0.76 223 Imperial Hwy / Santa Ana Canyon Rd E 0.91 D 0.85 224 Imperial Hwy / Ave Bernardo N A 0.60 C 0.71 225 Imperial Hwy / Nohl Ranch Rd D 0.86 D 0.83 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-17 Table 5.4-4 AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 226 Imperial Hwy / Big Sky Ln/River Valley Trail A 0.58 B 0.64 227 Chrisden St / La Palma Ave A 0.42 A 0.40 228 Via Cortez / Santa Ana Canyon Rd B 0.62 B 0.64 229 Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave A 0.52 C 0.76 230 Anaheim Hills Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.58 D 0.84 231 Anaheim Hills Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd C 0.71 B 0.63 232 Canyon Rim Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.52 A 0.50 233 Fairmont Blvd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.43 B 0.62 234 Mohler Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.41 A 0.58 235 Festival Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.33 A 0.29 236 Roosevelt Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.32 A 0.38 237 Weir Canyon Rd / La Palma Ave C 0.79 C 0.75 238 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.68 239 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.66 C 0.73 240 Weir Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.76 C 0.78 241 Weir Canyon Rd / Monte Vista Rd A 0.57 A 0.51 242 Weir Canyon Rd / Serrano Ave C 0.72 C 0.74 243 Weir Canyon Rd / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.28 A 0.28 244 Serrano Ave / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.46 A 0.48 245 Serrano Ave / Canyon Rim Rd A 0.40 A 0.50 246 Serrano Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.40 A 0.48 247 Placentia Ave / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.51 A 0.57 248 Romneya Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.32 A 0.50 249 Loara St/ Ball Rd A 0.45 C 0.71 250 Ninth St / Katella Ave A 0.56 C 0.78 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-18 July 2013 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 1 Knott Ave / Lincoln Ave D 0.83 D 0.87 2 Knott Ave / Orange Ave C 0.78 C 0.73 3 Knott Ave / Ball Rd C 0.73 D 0.87 4 Western Ave / Lincoln Ave C 0.71 D 0.82 5 Western Ave / Orange Ave B 0.69 A 0.59 6 Western Ave / Ball Rd B 0.70 C 0.80 7 Beach Blvd / Lincoln Ave E 0.93 D 0.89 8 Beach Blvd / Orange Ave D 0.84 C 0.75 9 Beach Blvd / Ball Rd C 0.75 D 0.82 10 Beach Blvd / Cerritos Ave C 0.79 C 0.78 11 Dale Ave / Lincoln Ave E 0.95 D 0.81 12 Dale Ave / Broadway A 0.49 A 0.59 13 Dale Ave / Orange Ave A 0.55 A 0.59 14 Dale Ave / Ball Rd B 0.63 C 0.72 15 Dale Ave / Cerritos Ave B 0.61 A 0.53 16 Magnolia St / La Palma Ave C 0.75 C 0.77 17 Magnolia St / Crescent Ave B 0.63 D 0.87 18 Magnolia St / Lincoln Ave C 0.73 C 0.77 19 Magnolia St / Broadway A 0.60 B 0.62 20 Magnolia St / Orange Ave B 0.63 D 0.90 21 Magnolia St / Ball Rd C 0.73 C 0.74 22 Magnolia St / Cerritos Ave C 0.78 A 0.60 23 Gilbert St / La Palma Ave A 0.47 A 0.58 24 Gilbert St / Crescent Ave A 0.33 A 0.43 25 Gilbert St / Lincoln Ave B 0.63 B 0.66 26 Gilbert St / Broadway A 0.52 A 0.53 27 Gilbert St / Orange Ave B 0.61 A 0.46 28 Gilbert St / Ball Rd A 0.56 B 0.68 29 Gilbert St / Cerritos Ave A 0.56 A 0.44 30 Brookhurst St / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.66 B 0.68 31 Brookhurst St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.78 C 0.77 32 Brookhurst St / La Palma Ave B 0.68 D 0.81 33 Brookhurst St / I-5 SB Ramps C 0.71 D 0.84 34 Brookhurst St / Crescent Ave C 0.72 C 0.76 35 Brookhurst St / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 D 0.81 36 Brookhurst St / Broadway B 0.67 C 0.76 37 Brookhurst St / Orange Ave B 0.66 A 0.58 38 Brookhurst St / Ball Rd C 0.73 D 0.81 39 Brookhurst St / Cerritos Ave B 0.63 D 0.83 40 Brookhurst St / Katella Ave D 0.85 D 0.89 41 Nutwood St / Ball Rd A 0.46 A 0.60 42 Nutwood St / Cerritos Ave A 0.49 A 0.54 43 Nutwood St / Katella Ave C 0.76 B 0.70 44 Crescent Way / Lincoln Ave A 0.56 B 0.65 45 Euclid St / SR-91 WB Ramps D 0.84 D 0.85 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-19 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 46 Euclid St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.71 B 0.65 47 Euclid St / Romneya Dr A 0.59 C 0.73 48 Euclid St / La Palma Ave D 0.87 C 0.79 49 Euclid St / Crescent Ave D 0.83 D 0.87 50 Euclid St / Anaheim Shopping Center B 0.68 B 0.69 51 Euclid St / I-5 NB and SB Ramps C 0.76 D 0.85 52 Euclid St / Lincoln Ave C 0.78 D 0.87 53 Euclid St / Broadway C 0.78 D 0.84 54 Euclid St / Orange Ave A 0.49 A 0.51 55 Euclid St / Ball Rd B 0.63 C 0.79 56 Euclid St / Cerritos Ave C 0.73 E 0.96 57 Euclid St / Katella Ave E 0.91 E 0.91 58 Loara St / Crescent Ave B 0.65 B 0.69 59 Loara St / Lincoln Ave A 0.54 B 0.65 60 Loara St / Broadway A 0.49 B 0.65 61 Walnut St / Ball Rd A 0.45 D 0.82 62 Walnut St / Cerritos Ave A 0.47 C 0.78 63 Walnut St / Katella Ave B 0.61 C 0.77 64 I-5 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 D 0.82 65 I-5 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.44 D 0.88 66 Manchester Ave / Broadway A 0.57 B 0.65 67 West St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 A 0.52 68 West St / Lincoln Ave B 0.68 B 0.66 69 West St / Broadway A 0.52 A 0.54 70 Manchester / I-5 SB Ramps A 0.31 0 0 71 Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd B 0.68 E 0.92 72 Disneyland Dr / Magic Way A 0.59 A 0.55 73 Disneyland Dr / Paradise A 0.38 A 0.37 74 Disneyland Dr / Simba A 0.33 B 0.70 75 Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave C 0.79 E 0.95 76 West St / Convention Way A 0.30 A 0.35 77 Ox Rd / Ball Rd C 0.74 C 0.76 78 Convention Center / Katella Ave A 0.57 B 0.65 79 Citron St / La Palma Ave A 0.38 A 0.50 80 Citron St / Lincoln Ave A 0.52 A 0.51 81 Citron St / Broadway A 0.49 A 0.46 82 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.71 C 0.77 83 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.64 84 Harbor Blvd / Romneya Dr C 0.71 B 0.67 85 Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave C 0.77 E 0.96 86 Harbor Blvd / North St A 0.49 B 0.66 87 Harbor Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.38 B 0.68 88 Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.90 D 0.88 89 Harbor Blvd / Broadway B 0.67 D 0.86 90 Harbor Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.58 C 0.77 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-20 July 2013 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 91 Harbor Blvd / South St A 0.56 C 0.72 92 Harbor Blvd / Vermont Ave B 0.65 B 0.70 93 Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd F 1.12 F 1.11 94 Harbor Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps C 0.74 D 0.85 95 Harbor Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps B 0.63 A 0.42 96 Harbor Blvd / Manchester Ave A 0.57 A 0.59 97 Harbor Blvd / East Shuttle Area A 0.56 A 0.37 98 Harbor Blvd / Disney Way A 0.56 A 0.43 99 Harbor Blvd / Katella Ave E 0.96 D 0.89 100 Harbor Blvd / Convention Way D 0.82 C 0.73 101 Harbor Blvd / Orangewood Ave E 0.96 D 0.85 102 Harbor Blvd / Chapman Ave B 0.69 C 0.75 103 Anaheim Blvd / Lemon St / La Palma Ave A 0.48 C 0.78 104 Lemon St / Lincoln Ave A 0.47 A 0.45 105 Lemon St / Ball Rd A 0.39 A 0.47 106 Clementine St / Disney Way A 0.27 A 0.57 107 Clementine St / Katella Ave B 0.63 D 0.82 108 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way A 0.25 A 0.44 109 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.62 C 0.77 110 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.73 C 0.71 111 Anaheim Blvd / La Palma Ave B 0.68 D 0.85 112 Anaheim Blvd / North St A 0.46 B 0.67 113 Anaheim Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.52 B 0.65 114 Anaheim Blvd / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 C 0.77 115 Anaheim Blvd / Broadway C 0.79 D 0.83 116 Anaheim Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.58 C 0.77 117 Anaheim Blvd / South St C 0.79 D 0.81 118 Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave B 0.63 D 0.85 119 Anaheim Blvd / Ball Rd D 0.81 D 0.89 120 Anaheim Blvd / Cerritos Ave C 0.73 D 0.89 121 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps C 0.76 D 0.83 122 Anaheim Blvd / Disney Way A 0.48 0 0 123 Anaheim Blvd / Katella Ave D 0.87 D 0.89 124 Haster St / Orangewood Ave C 0.74 C 0.75 125 Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps / Katella Ave E 0.98 C 0.73 126 Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps / Katella Ave B 0.68 D 0.86 127 Olive St / La Palma Ave A 0.40 A 0.48 128 Olive St / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 A 0.50 129 Raymond Ave / Orangethorpe Ave E 0.93 D 0.86 130 East St/Raymond Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.80 C 0.71 131 East St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.76 C 0.80 132 East St / Romneya Dr A 0.43 B 0.62 133 East St / La Palma Ave B 0.69 D 0.81 134 East St / Sycamore St A 0.57 B 0.65 135 East St / Lincoln Ave E 0.94 E 0.91 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-21 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 136 East St / Broadway A 0.50 C 0.74 137 East St / Santa Ana St A 0.42 A 0.59 138 East St / South St A 0.41 C 0.71 139 East St / Vermont Ave A 0.49 C 0.79 140 East St / Ball Rd B 0.66 C 0.79 141 Lewis St / Ball Rd B 0.68 E 0.97 142 Lewis St / Cerritos Ave A 0.54 C 0.78 143 Lewis St / Katella Ave B 0.64 D 0.81 144 Manchester Ave / Orangewood Ave B 0.61 C 0.80 145 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Ave A 0.34 B 0.68 146 Acacia St / La Palma Ave A 0.37 A 0.56 147 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.78 C 0.74 148 State College Blvd / Via Burton St C 0.79 B 0.65 149 State College Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.68 C 0.73 150 State College Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.62 151 State College Blvd / Romneya Dr D 0.86 C 0.74 152 State College Blvd / La Palma Ave C 0.76 D 0.81 153 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.82 C 0.80 154 State College Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.56 A 0.46 155 State College Blvd / South St A 0.52 B 0.67 156 State College Blvd / Vermont Ave A 0.57 A 0.50 157 State College Blvd / Ball Rd C 0.77 D 0.84 158 State College Blvd / Winston Rd B 0.66 B 0.61 159 State College Blvd / Cerritos Ave B 0.61 C 0.71 160 State College Blvd / Katella Ave D 0.90 E 0.95 161 State College / Sportstown A 0.55 0 0 162 State College Blvd / Gene Autry Way A 0.41 D 0.86 163 State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave C 0.73 F 1.05 164 Peregrine St / Lincoln Ave B 0.62 A 0.58 165 Sunkist St / Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave C 0.75 E 0.91 166 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave C 0.76 D 0.82 167 Sunkist St / South St A 0.56 B 0.67 168 Sunkist St / Ball Rd D 0.84 D 0.85 169 Sunkist St / Cerritos Ave B 0.66 D 0.88 170 Howell Ave / Katella Ave D 0.87 D 0.83 171 Sportstown / Katella Ave C 0.74 D 0.90 172 Rampart St / Orangewood Ave A 0.60 D 0.85 173 SR-57 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.58 B 0.63 174 SR-57 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave B 0.67 B 0.69 175 SR-57 SB Ramps / Ball Rd B 0.62 B 0.64 176 SR-57 NB Ramps / Ball Rd C 0.77 C 0.80 177 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Ave B 0.69 C 0.75 178 SR-57 NB Ramps / Katella Ave B 0.69 B 0.70 179 SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave C 0.76 E 0.91 180 SR-57 NB Ramps / Orangewood Ave A 0.47 B 0.69 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-22 July 2013 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 181 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave D 0.87 D 0.86 182 Phoenix Club Dr / Ball Rd B 0.68 D 0.88 183 Douglass Rd / Katella Ave F 1.12 C 0.78 184 Blue Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.48 B 0.62 185 Blue Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.58 C 0.79 186 Red Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.24 A 0.30 187 Red Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.42 A 0.53 188 Kraemer Blvd / Crowther Ave B 0.65 B 0.68 189 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave D 0.84 C 0.80 190 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave B 0.68 D 0.89 191 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave E 0.97 D 0.84 192 Kraemer Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.58 B 0.70 193 Kraemer Blvd / Frontera St B 0.67 B 0.69 194 Miller St / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.48 A 0.50 195 Miller St / Miraloma St A 0.29 A 0.56 196 Miller St / La Palma Ave A 0.50 C 0.73 197 Orangethorpe Ave / Tustin Connector C 0.80 B 0.62 198 Tustin Ave / Miraloma Ave B 0.67 D 0.87 199 Tustin Ave / La Palma Ave C 0.77 D 0.88 200 Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps D 0.85 D 0.90 201 Tustin Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps E 0.98 D 0.81 202 Tustin Ave / Riverdale Ave D 0.88 D 0.81 203 Van Buren St / La Palma Ave A 0.56 A 0.60 204 Orangethorpe Ave / Lakeview Connector B 0.67 A 0.47 205 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave A 0.55 D 0.82 206 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave D 0.84 D 0.83 207 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.66 A 0.57 208 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.71 C 0.77 209 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 EB Off Ramp A 0.58 A 0.45 210 Meats Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.29 A 0.32 211 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.58 C 0.72 212 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave B 0.67 B 0.69 213 Kellogg Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.50 B 0.62 214 Royal Oak Rd/Pinney Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.60 A 0.49 215 Royal Oak Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.36 A 0.31 216 Corporate Cont / La Palma A 0.37 0 0 217 Cinema City / La Palma Ave A 0.57 A 0.47 218 Avenida Margarita / Santa Ana Canyon Rd B 0.63 A 0.54 219 Imperial Hwy / Orangethorpe Connector E 0.94 A 0.50 220 Imperial Hwy / La Palma Ave E 0.95 D 0.82 221 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.72 B 0.67 222 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.76 C 0.79 223 Imperial Hwy / Santa Ana Canyon Rd F 1.01 D 0.85 224 Imperial Hwy / Ave Bernardo N A 0.49 A 0.55 225 Imperial Hwy / Nohl Ranch Rd E 0.95 C 0.79 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-23 Table 5.4-5 PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project Buildout (2000 Model) Proposed Project Buildout (2012 Model) LOS ICU LOS ICU 226 Imperial Hwy / Big Sky Ln/River Valley Trail A 0.49 A 0.49 227 Chrisden St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 B 0.61 228 Via Cortez / Santa Ana Canyon Rd B 0.67 D 0.84 229 Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave A 0.58 E 0.99 230 Anaheim Hills Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.76 D 0.86 231 Anaheim Hills Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd B 0.66 A 0.57 232 Canyon Rim Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.56 A 0.54 233 Fairmont Blvd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.57 B 0.69 234 Mohler Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.51 A 0.60 235 Festival Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.43 A 0.42 236 Roosevelt Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.53 C 0.71 237 Weir Canyon Rd / La Palma Ave D 0.84 D 0.85 238 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.78 B 0.70 239 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 EB Ramps E 0.92 D 0.89 240 Weir Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd E 0.96 C 0.79 241 Weir Canyon Rd / Monte Vista Rd C 0.75 C 0.76 242 Weir Canyon Rd / Serrano Ave C 0.73 A 0.48 243 Weir Canyon Rd / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.36 A 0.26 244 Serrano Ave / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.58 A 0.37 245 Serrano Ave / Canyon Rim Rd A 0.45 A 0.37 246 Serrano Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.33 A 0.30 247 Placentia Ave / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.51 A 0.57 248 Romneya Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.32 A 0.50 249 Loara St/ Ball Rd A 0.45 C 0.71 250 Ninth St / Katella Ave A 0.56 C 0.78 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts The 2004 Certified EIR included General Plan Update ADT for the year 2035. Daily traffic forecasts are used for noise and air quality analysis, among other purposes. Those daily traffic forecasts were based on the traffic model used at that time. Because there is a new traffic model with a new set of input data and assumptions including the Proposed Project, there are updated year 2035 ADT forecasts based on the new model results. Table 5.4-6 shows the ADT volumes for the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-24 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-25 Page 5.4-25 July 2013 Table 5.4-6 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes for the Proposed Project Street From Location To Location 2004 Approved Project at Buildout Year 2025 ADT (ATAM 2000) Proposed Project at Buildout Year 2035 ADT (ATAM 2012) ADT Mid-Block Lanes ADT Mid-Block Lanes Anaheim Blvd Sycamore St North St 23,000 4D 25,700 4D Ball Rd Nutwood St Euclid St 29,000 4D 30,900 4D Ball Rd Harbor Blvd Anaheim Blvd 43,000 6D 50,700 6D Ball Rd State College Blvd Sunkist St 47,000 6D 53,300 6D Beach Blvd Ball Rd Orange Ave 57,000 8D 61,400 8D Broadway Manchester Ave Harbor Blvd 18,000 4U 17,100 4U Brookhurst St Katella Ave Cerritos Ave 36,000 6D 36,600 6D Brookhurst St Orange Ave Broadway 37,000 6D 35,900 6D Brookhurst St La Palma Ave Riverside Fwy 43,000 6D 50,700 6D Canyon Rim Rd Fairmont Blvd Serrano Ave 8,000 4D 8,000 4D Cerritos Ave Nutwood St Euclid St 8,000 4U 24,000 4U Euclid St Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 36,000 6D 34,000 6D Euclid St La Palma Ave Romneya Dr 50,000 6D 52,400 6D Gilbert St Broadway Lincoln Ave 5,000 2U 10,800 2U Harbor Blvd Chapman Ave Wilken Way 42,000 6D 43,400 6D Harbor Blvd La Palma Ave Romneya Dr 34,000 6D 46,300 6D Haster St Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 28,000 6D 33,100 6D Imperial Hwy South City Limits Nohl Ranch Rd 30,000 6D 27,700 6D Imperial Hwy La Palma Ave Orangethorpe Ave 57,000 8D 56,300 8D Katella Ave Nutwood St Euclid St 38,000 6D 51,300 6D Katella Ave Harbor Blvd Clementine St 47,000 8D 62,500 8D Katella Ave Lewis St State College Blvd 63,000 8D 84,500 8D Knott Ave Orange Ave Lincoln Ave 34,000 6D 32,700 6D Kraemer Blvd La Palma Ave Coronado St 34,000 6D 34,700 6D La Palma Ave Dale Ave Magnolia Ave 23,000 4D 30,300 4D La Palma Ave Anaheim Shores Dr Euclid St 21,000 4D 21,800 4D La Palma Ave Kellogg Dr Imperial Hwy 32,000 6D 20,900 6D Lakeview Ave La Palma Ave Orangethorpe Ave 23,000 4D 20,000 4D Lewis St Cerritos Ave Ball Rd 10,000 4D 15,800 4D Lincoln Ave Gilbert St Brookhurst St 32,000 6D 34,400 6D Lincoln Ave Olive St East St 27,000 6D 25,500 6D ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-26 Page 5.4-26 July 2013 Table 5.4-6 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes for the Proposed Project Street From Location To Location 2004 Approved Project at Buildout Year 2025 ADT (ATAM 2000) Proposed Project at Buildout Year 2035 ADT (ATAM 2012) ADT Mid-Block Lanes ADT Mid-Block Lanes Lincoln Ave Orange Fwy Rio Vista St 33,000 6D 49,500 6D Magnolia Ave Katella Ave Cerritos Ave 25,000 4D 24,500 4D Magnolia Ave La Palma Ave I-5 44,000 6D 45,600 6D Miraloma Ave Miller St Tustin Ave 13,000 4D 12,400 4D Nohl Ranch Rd Imperial Hwy Anaheim Hills Rd 22,000 4U 17,300 4U Orangethorpe Ave Lemon St Raymond Ave 36,000 6D 28,000 6D Orangethorpe Ave Kraemer Blvd Miller St 14,000 6D 15,600 6D Orangethorpe Ave Lakeview Ave Kellogg Dr 17,000 6D 16,100 6D Orangewood Ave Harbor Blvd Haster St 24,000 4U 21,600 4U Orangewood Ave State College Blvd Rampart St 35,000 6D 60,000 6D Riverdale Ave Tustin Ave Lakeview Ave 8,000 4U 8,800 4U Santa Ana Cyn Rd Nohl Ranch Rd Lakeview Ave 10,000 4D 11,500 4D Santa Ana Cyn Rd Royal Oak Rd Imperial Hwy 17,000 6D 18,000 6D Santa Ana Cyn Rd Fairmont Blvd Eucalyptus Dr 29,000 4D 22,300 4D Santa Ana St Manchester Ave Harbor Blvd 2,000 2U 10,600 2U Serrano Ave Canyon Rim Rd Oak Canyon Dr 19,000 4D 15,600 4D State College Blvd Cerritos Ave Ball Rd 35,000 6D 36,800 6D State College Blvd Lincoln Ave La Palma Ave 46,000 6D 33,300 6D Sunkist St South St Lincoln Ave 17,000 4U 15,200 4U Tustin Ave Jefferson St Miraloma Ave 38,000 6D 38,300 6D Weir Cyn Rd La Palma Ave Shwy 91 47,000 6D 50,300 6D Weir Cyn Rd Serrano Ave Oak Canyon Dr 12,000 6D 10,400 6D ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-27 IMPACT 5.4-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A DESIGN FEATURE OR INCOMPATIBLE USES. [IMPACT T-4] Impact Analysis: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in changes to the circulation network, but would not increase hazards due to a design feature. The City has roadway design standards which would preclude the construction of any unsafe design features. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. IMPACT 5.4-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS. [IMPACT T-5] Impact Analysis: With regards to emergency access, the adopted Circulation Element has been designed to provide and maintain a comprehensive circulation system within the City at buildout. Adequate levels of service are maintained with the exception of seven intersections after mitigation. As a result, like the 2004 Approved Project, no significant impacts to emergency access are associated with the Proposed Project. IMPACT 5.4-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ADOPTED POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION. [IMPACT T-6] Impact Analysis: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project includes goals and policies to promote alternative modes of transportation, as described below. In addition, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Orange County Subregional Sustainable Communities Strategy, which includes measures to reduce dependence on the automobile (see Table 5.2-7). Therefore, no impact is anticipated. Relevant Goals and Policies General Plan policies related to maintaining a safe circulation system include:  Promote the principle that streets have multiple uses and users, and protect the safety of all users. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 1)  Discourage high speed, through traffic on local streets with appropriate traffic calming measures traffic enforcement, bulb-outs, speed humps, chokers, etc.). (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 2)  Design access onto major arterial streets in an orderly and controlled manner. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 3)  Promote common driveways and reduce curb cuts along arterial highways to minimize impacts to traffic flows. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 4)  Utilize shared driveways in common areas to minimize disruptions to traffic and pedestrian/bicycle flow. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 5)  Implement street design features such as the use of medians, bus turnouts and consolidated driveways to minimize mid-block traffic congestion. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 6) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-28 July 2013  Implement street design features that discourage through traffic intrusion on residential streets. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 7)  Support freeway improvements that remove through traffic from local streets. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 8)  Provide bus turnouts along heavily traveled arterials to minimize traffic conflicts. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 9)  Provide adequate sight distances for safe vehicular movement on roadways and at intersections. (Circulation Element Goal 2.2, Policy 10) 5.4.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The following mitigation measures were included in the 2004 Certified EIR. These mitigation measures are proposed for inclusion in the Proposed Project, and additional mitigation measures have been added for the purposes of this DSEIR. This DSEIR proposes to make certain modifications to the mitigation measures adopted by the City for the 2004 Approved Project. Modifications to the original mitigation measure are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify additions. 5.15-1 The City shall continue to coordinate with Caltrans (designated as lead agency) and the City of Yorba Linda to implement the planned grade separation at the intersection of Imperial Highway/Orangethorpe Avenue. MM 5.15-2 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the following improvements will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan:  Intersection of Dale Avenue/Lincoln Avenue; add an additional east bound right turn lane  Intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road; add a 4th west bound through lane  Intersection of Sportstown Way/Katella Avenue; change north bound lane configuration from 1/1/2 to 1.5/.5/2  Intersection of Tustin Avenue/La Palma Avenue; change south bound lane configuration from 2/3/1 to 2/4/0 (would require triple left turn lanes, and add a third left turn lane on the north bound or west bound approach to mitigate to LOS D  Intersection of Tustin Avenue/SR-91 west bound ramps; add a second north bound left turn lane  Intersection of Imperial Highway/Santa Ana Canyon Road; add a north bound right turn lane (a 4th through lane north bound to mitigate PM peak hour to LOS D) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-29  Intersection of Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 east bound ramps; add a 4th south bound through lane MM 5.15-3 The City shall pursue all available funding, including Measure M2 funding, necessary to implement the circulation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. Implementation of transportation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2 shall be conducted in coordination with Caltrans, the County of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and surrounding jurisdictions. To qualify for Measure M2 funds, the City of Anaheim must comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component requirements and have an established policy framework for the required Growth Management Program through the adoption of a Growth Management Element. The updated Growth Management Element will maintain provisions of the existing Growth Management element which: 1) establishes policy statements that identify acceptable traffic levels of service (LOS); 2) commits the City to implement a development mitigation program; and 3) commits the City to implement a development phasing and monitoring program. MM 5.15-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all costs associated with updating the applicable Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS or depending on the location), the property owner/developer shall be responsible for constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. MM 5.15-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and TrafficTransportation Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. MM 5.15-6 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property. MM 5.15-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer of projects anticipated to employ 250 or more employees shall join and participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-30 July 2013 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Additional Mitigation The preceding analysis shows that 20 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F in 2035 with the Proposed Project without additional mitigation. Without mitigation, the following impact would be significant:  Impact 5.12-1 Traffic volumes associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would have a greater impact on LOS for the existing area roadway system, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 5.4.7 Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project According to the results of the ATAM 2012 model, 20 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F in 2035 with the Proposed Project. For these intersections, a preliminary set of additional mitigation measures have been identified. With implementation of these measures, the significant project related or cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be fully mitigated. Table 5.4-7 describes the mitigation measures for those locations. Table 5.4-7 Proposed Intersection Mitigation Intersection Add Right Turn Lane Add Thru Lane Add Left Turn Lane Override Impacts Comments Euclid St / Lincoln Ave EB Euclid St / Cerritos Ave SB Euclid St / Katella Ave WB YES Restripe WBR to WBT. Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd WB YES Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave WB YES Restripe WBR to WBT. Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave SB Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave EB Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd EB SB NB YES Lemon St / Orangethorpe Ave NB & SB Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave EB Haster St / Gene Autry Way EB East St / Lincoln Ave NB Lewis St / Ball Rd NB & EB YES Consider realignment of Lewis St to East St State College Blvd / Katella Ave EB YES State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave NB WB YES Sunkist St/Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave NB SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave EB 2.5 EBT, 1.5 EBR Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave NB & SB Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps SB Restripe to 3.5 SBT, 1.5 SBR Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave NB & WB ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-31 MM 5.15-8 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the improvements identified in Table 5.4-7 will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan. 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that with the 2004 Approved Project all intersections and roadway segments would operate at acceptable levels of service with the existing or planned improvements with the exception of the Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road intersection. Although every effort was made to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high project costs, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be proposed. The following intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Euclid Street / Katella Avenue—Restripe westbound right turn lane to westbound through lane The improvement at Euclid Street and Katella Avenue is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing and newly constructed businesses, which support economic development for the City of Anaheim. The potential right-of-way required for receiving lane on the northwest corner of the intersection would significantly impact businesses and parking on the north side of Katella Avenue. Disneyland Drive / Ball Road—Add westbound right turn lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. In order to accommodate the proposed improvement, the intersection would likely need to be expanded. The City has invested heavily in supporting The Anaheim Resort and altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue— Restripe westbound right turn lane to westbound through lane and add 4th westbound lane to the Simba parking lot entrance The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. This access to the Disneyland Resort has been significantly reconfigured in recent years to accommodate new development at the parks and adjacent parking areas. The addition of lane capacity at this intersection would require substantial right-of-way and negatively affect the attractive gateway that the Disneyland Resort has created through extensive landscaping. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.4-32 July 2013 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road—Add northbound left turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn lane The improvements are infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be substantially expanded impacting the right-of-way of several hotel buildings including the Days Inn Suites and Hotel Menage. Altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. Lewis Street / Ball Road—Add northbound right turn lane, eastbound right turn lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent existing structures, including several industrial and high-density office buildings within close proximity to the public right of way. The additional right-of-way necessary for these improvements would increase the cost of the proposed railroad grade separation on Ball Road immediately west of this intersection, potentially making this railroad safety improvement infeasible. Also, having a northbound dual-right turn lane in close proximity to East Street, a signalized intersection less than 600 feet to the east, would negate much of the operational improvements typically expected from dual right turn lanes. It should be noted that a realignment of Lewis Street eastward to line up with East Street is an improvement that should be considered and studied. Since East Street is clear of the grade separation elevation changes, the cost to realign the street may be significantly less than the cost to implement the identified improvements. State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue—Add eastbound left turn lane The addition of a third eastbound left turn lane will significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. This widening will also make Katella Avenue difficult for pedestrians to cross, as with this improvement, pedestrian traffic would have to cross 12 lanes, which is not consistent with the goals of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue—Add northbound right turn lane and westbound through lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent structures, including several high-density office buildings within close proximity to the public right of way. These types of higher density buildings are consistent with the goals of the Platinum Triangle of internal trip capture and promotion of transit use. Additionally, State College Boulevard is a designated BRT corridor. Improvements to the circulation system in this area should be consistent with the goals of promoting transit use and limiting increased auto trips to this area. All of these intersections have a project related impact under the 2035 General Plan Buildout. As set forth above, there are numerous physical constraints associated with the proposed improvements, including private properties, extensive circulation landscaping and mature trees, and a variety of hotels and other businesses that would likely be impacted. These physical constraints limit the ability to ensure that the improvements necessary to mitigate the project impacts at these locations can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Consequently, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.12-1 related to the Proposed Project is considered significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 6-1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Executive Summary, discusses the Proposed Project and contains a summary of its impacts; mitigation measures; and levels of significance before and after mitigation is applied. While mitigation measures would reduce the significance of most of the Proposed Project's impacts to less than significant, the following adverse impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even after feasible mitigation measures are applied: 6.1.1 Air Quality IMPACT 5.1-1: Construction emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, result in a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants that could exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. [Thresholds AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4] Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the Proposed Project, emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Southern California Air Basin (SCAB). Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 would reduce construction emissions to the extent feasible. However, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.1-1 for the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. IMPACT 5.1-2: Long-term operation of the Proposed Project would, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. [Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3] Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, criteria air pollutants generated by the Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for all criteria air pollutants, except sulfur dioxide (SO2). Due to the increase in development intensity associated with the Proposed Project, the magnitude of the increase in criteria air pollutants compared to the 2004 Approved Project would be significant. Mitigation Measures 5.2-2 through 5.2-6 would reduce operational phase air quality impacts to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.1-2 for the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to the 2004 Approved Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-2 July 2013 6.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions IMPACT 5.2-1: The Proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be greater than the 2004 Approved Project's GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG-1] The 2004 Certified EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because this was not included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City did not have adopted GHG thresholds at the time of preparation. In accordance with the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, inventories were compiled to forecast GHG emissions generated by the 2004 Approved Project as well as the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project's GHG emissions were compared to the 2004 Approved Project's GHG emissions, which constitute the CEQA baseline. As identified in Impact 5.2-1, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD's proposed GHG efficiency threshold. Table 5.2-5 in Chapter 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, shows that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to the 2004 Approved Project’s GHG emissions based on SCAQMD’s bright- line threshold. Due to the increase in development intensity associated with the Proposed Project, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions compared to the GHG emissions of the 2004 Approved Project would be significant. Mitigation Measures 5.2-2 through 5.2-6 would reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. New proposed Mitigation Measures 5.2-8 through 5.2-12 would further reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.2-2 of the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 6.1.3 Noise IMPACT 5.3-1 Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not substantially elevate traffic noise levels above local noise standards at noise- sensitive receptors. [Thresholds N-1 and N-3] Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the Proposed Project, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant noise impacts. Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 and 5.10-2 would reduce operational noise impacts to the extent feasible. Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.3-1 of the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. 6.1.4 Transportation and Traffic IMPACT 5.4-1: Traffic volumes associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would impact levels of service to a greater degree for the existing roadway system, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. [Thresholds T-1 and T-2] The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that, under the 2004 Approved Project, all intersections and roadway segments would operate at acceptable levels of service after the implementation of existing or planned improvements, with the exception of the Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 6-3 As shown in Table 5.4-7, recommended improvements at the following intersections may not be feasible due to impacts to adjacent land uses:  Euclid Street / Katella Avenue (PM)  Disneyland Drive / Ball Road (PM)  Disneyland Drive / Katella Avenue (PM)  Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road (AM and PM)  Lewis Street / Ball Road (PM)  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue (PM)  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (PM) Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.12-1 of the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to the 2004 Approved Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-4 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 7-1 7. CEQA Mandated Sections The following section describes the various CEQA mandated sections including alternatives to the proposed project, impacts found not to be significant, and growth-inducing impacts. However, since this is a Supplemental EIR, these topics will only be discussed if the prior analysis from the 2004 certified EIR is determined to be inadequate for the Proposed Project, as revised. 7.1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15126.6(a).) As described in Section 8.0 of the 2004 Certified EIR, three project alternatives were identified during the scoping process and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the 2004 Approved Project:  No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative  Corridors Alternative  Reduced Intensity Alternative 7.1.1 No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the No Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzed the effects of continued implementation of the City’s previous (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan and Zoning Code. This alternative assumed the previous General Plan would remain as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City. Development would continue to occur within the City in accordance with the previous General Plan, Zoning Code, and specific plans. Buildout pursuant to the previous General Plan would allow current development patterns to remain. The previous General Plan would not allow for mixed-use developments within The Platinum Triangle, including residential units, as envisioned in the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. In addition, previous policy would allow more residential development within the Hill and Canyon Area, including more development within the Mountain Park Specific Plan (7,966 dwelling units versus 2,500 dwelling units) and the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (1,650 dwelling units versus designated open space). The No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative would provide 2,338 fewer dwelling units, increase population by 14,736 persons, and provide 14,082 fewer jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 7.1.2 Corridors Alternative The Corridors Alternative does not represent a drastic change from the 2004 Approved Project in terms of the goals and policies that would be defined through the General Plan and Zoning Code Update. This Alternative would take advantage of existing and potential transportation linkages throughout the City by ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Page 7-2 July 2013 assuming that four major transit routes for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would be established to traverse portions of the City. The first, located along the entire length of La Palma Avenue, would connect the Hill and Canyon Area and The Canyon to the North Central Industrial Area and West Anaheim. In addition, this Alternative assumes another major east-west transit route along Katella Avenue, and two north-south routes along Beach Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard. This Alternative would provide an additional 29,052 dwelling units, increase population by 44,261 persons, and provide 67,529 additional jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The additional units, population, and employment are related to the potential for increased mixed use opportunities along transit routes. 7.1.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the remaining growth potential associated with the 2004 Approved Project by 20%. The 20% reduction was based on the total remaining buildout potential of the 2004 Approved Project as compared to existing land uses and applied on a City-wide basis. This Alternative would reduce total dwelling units at buildout by 5,474, decrease population at buildout by 13,215 persons, and provide 9,804 fewer jobs at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Land use designations would remain the same, although allowable intensities would be reduced. Other components of the project, including creation of a Mixed Use Overlay Zone for the Platinum Triangle, expansion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and increased open space in the Hill and Canyon Area, would remain the same as the Approved 2004 Project. 7.1.4 Conclusion The Proposed Project proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element (“Housing Element”). The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each property’s General Plan designation. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in previous Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are proposed for rezoning. The 2004 Certified EIR identified air quality, noise, and traffic and circulation as significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the 2004 Approved Project. These impacts are also significant for the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, and various alternatives to the 2004 Approved Project were already considered as part of the 2004 Certified EIR, no additional alternatives to the Proposed Project are considered necessary as part of this SEIR. 7.2 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT California Public Resources Code Section 21003 states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), which states that “[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project,” and Section 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.” The CEQA Guidelines ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 7-3 allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[a], Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement that briefly indicates the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. The discussion in this chapter is provided pursuant to those requirements. As described in Section 1.2.2, Type and Purpose of This DSEIR, this DSEIR has been prepared as a supplement to the 2004 Certified EIR consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Pursuant to those sections, the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, would not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified for the 2004 Approved Project for the impacts listed below. Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 timberland (as defined by the Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Page 7-4 July 2013 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 7-5 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Be located on expansive soil, as described by Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Page 7-6 July 2013 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR i) Include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects increased vectors and noxious odors)? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 7-7 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR n) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Page 7-8 July 2013 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (wastewater) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 26 of the Environmental/ Project Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 7-9 Table 7-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact//No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR 7.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that this DSEIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Proposed Project should it be implemented. Implementation of the 2004 Approved Project would allow for additional residential, commercial, and office development consistent with the adopted Land Use Element. Future development will require the commitment of vacant parcels of land or redevelopment of existing developed land within the City of Anaheim. Future development will involve construction activities that will entail the commitment of non- renewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water. An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services police, fire, schools, libraries and sewer and water services) will also be required. The energy and social service commitments will be long-term obligations in view of the fact that it is impossible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. CEQA Mandated Sections Page 7-10 July 2013 Both the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, the associated irreversible environmental changes are very similar between the two Projects. 7.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter is provided to examine ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assessment of other projects that would foster other activities that could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. Overall, while the Proposed Project does propose various zone changes to allow additional residential and mixed-use development, it would not result in growth significantly greater than that contemplated for the 2004 Approved Project because the zone changes are consistent with the adopted General Plan. Therefore, no new growth-inducing impacts are anticipated for the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 8-1 8. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF ANAHEIM (Lead Agency) Planning Department Sheri Vander Dussen Planning Director CJ Amstrup Planning Services Manager Jonathan Borrego Principal Planner Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner Public Works Department Natalie Meeks, P.E. Director of Public Works Taher Jalai Principal Traffic Engineer David Kennedy, P.E. Associate Transportation Planner Public Utilities Brian Beelner, CPA Financial Planning Manager Southern California Gas Company Paulo Morais Energy Programs Supervisor Jennifer Vaughn Public Affairs Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Organizations and Persons Consulted Page 8-2 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 9-1 9. Qualifications of Persons Preparing the EIR THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E William Halligan, Esq. Principal, Environmental Services  BA, University of California, Irvine, Social Ecology, 1988  JD, Chapman University School of Law, 1999 Nicole Vermilion Associate Principal  BA, Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2002  Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine, 2005 Fernando Sotelo Senior Planner, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics  MS, Civil Engineering, University of Southern California  BS, Naval Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Ryan Potter Assistant Planner  BS, City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2006  Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine, 2011 Cary Nakama Graphic Designer  BA, Business Administration: Data Processing and Marketing, California State University, Long Beach  AA, Computer Graphic Design, Platt College of Computer Graphic Design ---PAGE BREAK--- 9. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Page 9-2 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 10-1 10. Bibliography 10.1 REFERENCES Anaheim, City of. 2011, May (amended). City of Anaheim Municipal Code. 2004a, May 25 (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan Update. 2004b, August 17 (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 2010, October. Revised Platinum Triangle Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Auffhammer, Maximilian and Carson, Richard T. 2008, May. Forecasting the path of China’s CO2 emissions using province-level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 229-247. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Updated May. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. Berger, Elliott, Rick Neitzel, and A. Kladden. 2006, February. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with over 1,700 Measurement Values. Version 1.0. E-A-R 88-34/HP. Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Spon Press. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA). 2010, August. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2008, June. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. 2000, October. California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009, June. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Volume I, Initial Statement of Reasons. 2008a, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Page 10-2 July 2013 2008b January. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions under CAFE Standards and ARB Regulations Adopted Pursuant to AB1493. 2008c February. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under US CAFÉ Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations. 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Important Farmland. Map. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02-01-R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 1997, December. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD-ITS-RR- 97-21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025. Sacramento, California. 2006, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF. 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC-600-2007-008-SD. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC-600-2007-008-SD. 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF. 2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. California Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission Staff Paper, Sacramento, California, Report CEC-500-2006-077. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 10-3 2005a, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025. Sacramento, California. 2005b, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008. Enstrom, James. 2005, December 15. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly Californians, 1973 2002. Inhalation Toxicology. 17(14):803 16. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997, June. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 2007, Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet. http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/environment/planning_environment_2233.html Holland, David. 2007, December. Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and its Implications. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7+8, Pg. 954. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. International Energy Agency. 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2010, October. OCSD Capital Improvement Plan – Fiscal Year 2009-10 Update. Public Economics, Inc. 2006, June 5. Addendum to March 17, 2004 Fee Justification Study. Rymer, Bruce and Donavan, Paul. 2005, November. California Tests Show Pavement Selection Influences Noise Levels. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology (HMAT) Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 6, Pg. 25-33. November/December 2005. Singer, S. Fred. 2008, March. Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, The Heartland Institute. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Page 10-4 July 2013 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1995. Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, October. Regional Comprehensive Plan. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, May. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making the Connections. Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2007, January 26. SCCRA Strategic Assessment. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide. 2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III). 2013, February. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. 2006, October. Final Methodology to Calculate PM2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds. 2003, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 1993, April. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Adopted December 30, 2007, effective March 18, 2010. State Water Resources Control Board 2010, February. Final 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Economist. 2008, June 5. Melting Asia. The Economist. The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330. 2010, October. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 339. The Planning CenterIDC&E. 2013, June. Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study. 2013, June. Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Noise Technical Study. Tol, Richard S. 2007, December. Biased Policy Advice From The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7-8, Pg. 933. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 10-5 U.S. Senate Minority Report. 2008, December. More than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man- Made Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus. 10.2 WEBSITES Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Update & Affordable Housing Commission. City of Anaheim, Live and Archived Media Resource, Workshop Meeting Videos, August 21, 2007. http://anaheim.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2. Accessed on September 7, 2007. Airnav, LLC. 2007. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports. Amtrak. 2011, July 15. Timetables. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1237405732505/1237405732505. Anaheim Regional Transit (ART). 2011. Route 15 Schedule. http://www.rideart.org/schedules/route-15/ BBK News. 2007, December. US sets terms for climate talks. BBK News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7145608.stm. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Anaheim. Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Profile: California Waste Stream Profiles. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim Accessed on January 26, 2006. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. Solid Waste Landfilling Data: 2005 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Landfills/Tonnage. Accessed on January 26, 2007. California Department of Education. Education al Demographics Unit. DataQuest Graph. Time Series – Public School Enrollment. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SearchName.asp?rbTimeFrame= oneyear&rYear=2006-07&cName=anaheim&Topic=Enrollment&Level=School. Accessed on March 14, 2007. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html 2010, August. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. 2010, March. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, January. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Page 10-6 July 2013 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007, July. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, March. 2010 State Area Designations. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/2010statedesig.htm. California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle). Revised 2008. Contractor's Report to the Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1346 California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Clean Power Estimator. http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimator.php Delingpole, James. 2009, November 20. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of “Anthropogenic Global Warming? Telegraph.co.uk. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the- coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/. Environment Canada. 2010, May. A Summary of Trends: 1990-2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges- ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=0590640B-1. Gotickets.com. 2011, September 22. Arco Arena Tickets. http://www.gotickets.com/venues/ca/arco_arena.php. Gray, Louise. 2010, April 14. Hockey stick” graph was exaggerated. Telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was- exaggerated.html. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010, January 20. IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement- 20january2010.pdf. Kestenbaum. 2007, October 1. Japan Wrestles with Kyoto Accord Promises. National Public Radio (NPR). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14087783. Leake, Jonathan. 2010, February 7. Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece. Malcolm Pirnie. 2011, June. City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/10_UWMP.pdf. Metrolink. 2011, July 5. Schedules: Orange County Line. http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/html.php?id=1111. Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. Prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments. http://www.scag.ca.gov/pdfs/Employment_Density_Study.pdf. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 10-7 Office of the California Attorney General (AG). 2008, May. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2011, June 12. Route 50 Schedule. http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/feb2011/route050.pdf. 2011b, June 12. Route 153 Schedule. http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/june2011/route153.pdf. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008, December. Economy-Wide Cap & Trade Proposals in the 110th Congress. http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/analysis/congress/110/cap-trade-bills. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules. California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III) Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. Accessed 2011. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2007. 2% Strategy Opportunity Area Maps. Compass Blueprint, Strategic Opportunity Areas Maps. http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/orange-county.pdf. 2011. 2012 RTP Development Timeline. http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2012/index.htm. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2011. Renewable Energy. http://www.sce.com/powerandenvironment/renewables/default.htm The Times of India. 2009, December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-emissions-could-double-by-2020- Experts/articleshow/5321352.cms. US Census Bureau. Fact Sheet. 2000. Anaheim city, California. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id= 16000US0602000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0602000&_street=&_ county=anaheim&_cityTown=anaheim&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Active AFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=&_keyword=&_industry=. Data Profile: Anaheim city, California. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005 American Community Survey http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_s treet=&_county=anaheim&_cityTown=anaheim&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=o ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Bibliography Page 10-8 July 2013 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html. 2010, June. US Climate Policy and Actions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes. Non CO2 Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html 2008. Criteria Pollutants. Watts, Jonathan. 2007, June 4. China unveils climate change plan. Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts. Webster, Ben. 2010, February 4. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacial error, The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Santa Ana Monitoring Station (ID No. ID 049087). Accessed June 2011. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Anaheim Monitoring Station (ID No. 040192). Accessed 2009. 10.3 MODELS California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006, November 1. EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA-RD77-108. Rimpo and Associates, Inc. 2007. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.4. Sonoma Technology, Inc. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, August. Waste Reduction Model (WARM). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Initial Study for the CITY OF ANAHEIM HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT City of Anaheim, California DEV2012-00118 EIR2012-00346 Lead Agency: City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: The Planning CenterIDC&E 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 (714) 966-9220 October 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Introduction 1 Project Background 2 City of Anaheim Environmental/Project Information Form 3 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 23 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 23 Determination 23 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 27 I. Aesthetics 27 II. Agricultural Resources 27 III. Air Quality 28 IV. Biological Resources 29 V. Cultural Resources 30 VI. Geology and Soils 31 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 32 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 32 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality 33 X. Land Use and Planning 35 XI. Mineral Resources 35 XII. Noise 36 XIII. Population and Housing 37 XIV. Public Services 37 XV. Recreation 38 XVI. Transportation/Traffic 39 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems 40 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance 41 FISH AND GAME DETERMINATION 43 REFERENCES CITED 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Regional Location 5 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Parcels to Apply Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone 7 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone 7 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) 15 APPENDICES Appendix A Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction The City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project is proposed to provide the following:  Implementation of the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V to rezone properties identified as Housing Opportunities Sites in the 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element, in order to facilitate “by right” housing development at these locations.  Facilitation of future use of the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption and SB 226 streamlining allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by providing updated community level environmental review.  An update of General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Build-Out Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan Amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004. These proposed actions are described in greater detail on the Environmental/Project Information Form. The City of Anaheim, as lead agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended, to determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an initial study is prepared primarily to provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the proposed project. Since the proposed zone changes are consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan, the City has determined that a supplement to the certified 2004 General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR would be the appropriate environmental review for the proposed project, consistent with Section 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. Together with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the Environmental Checklist Form, this Initial Study has been distributed to all responsible agencies as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A notice has also been sent to responsible agencies and interested parties indicating that these documents are available for a 30-day public review at the Planning Department within Anaheim City Hall at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard in the City of Anaheim or on the Planning Department’s website (www.anaheim.net/planning, click on the link to “Planning and Zoning” followed by the link to “Current Environmental Documents”). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 2 Project Background On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update. As part of these actions, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 was adopted for the General Plan Update and Ordinance No. 5920 was introduced to amend the Zoning Code in its entirety. Since this update, thirty-nine General Plan Amendments have been approved and four General Plan Amendments are pending. On June 8, 2004, the Anaheim City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 5920 for the Zoning Code update. As part of amending the Zoning Code in its entirety, this ordinance added Chapter 18.32 Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to the Anaheim Municipal Code. In September 2006, the state legislature adopted AB 32, establishing a goal of achieving 1990 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels for the state by 2020. In August 2007, the state legislature adopted SB 97, which requires that CEQA address impacts related to GHG emissions. Since EIR No. 330 was certified in May 2004, potential impacts related to GHG were not addressed in that document. On August 11, 2009, the Anaheim City Council approved the 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element (General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00467). A mitigated negative declaration was prepared as the environmental documentation for this project. The Housing Element documents the City’s capacity to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals, as required by State law. To meet this requirement, the Housing Element includes Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. On October 11, 2011 the Anaheim City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6224, adding Chapter 18.34 Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone to the Anaheim Municipal Code. The City Council determined that this action was exempt from CEQA under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. In March 2012, the current version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for use as a local traffic model. ATAM is required to be updated every eight years to stay consistent with regional socioeconomic databases. With the previous version expiring September, 2010, the current version of ATAM reflects the most recent regional socioeconomic database. The previous version was used for the analysis in EIR No. 330. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 3 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL/PROJECT INFORMATION FORM 1. Project title: City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 3. Contact person and phone number: Susan Kim, [PHONE REDACTED] 4. Project Location: 160 parcels located within the City of Anaheim, CA, as described in Tables 1 and 2 and shown in Appendix A. 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 6. General plan designation and zoning: See Tables 1 and 2 7. Description of the project: The Proposed Project is comprised of three elements: 1. The City of Anaheim (“City”) proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element (“Housing Element”). The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with the properties’ General Plan designation. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix A. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are proposed for rezoning. 2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that go into effect January 1, 2013. 3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan Amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004, as shown on Table 3. The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 4 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: Located in northeastern Orange County, the City of Anaheim and its Sphere-of-Influence lie approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 7 miles north of Santa Ana, as shown on Figure 1. The City is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated Orange County to the south; and, the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land, stretching nearly 20 miles along the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, and includes another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land within its Sphere-of-Influence. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from Anaheim is provided by the Santa Ana Orange (SR-57) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways; the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241); and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at Angel Stadium and Anaheim Canyon Stations. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): No approvals from other agencies are anticipated to be necessary to implement the proposed project. I hereby certify that the statements and information furnished above and in the attached exhibits, photos, etc., are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Name of Preparer: The Planning CenterIDC&E Relationship: Consultant Address: 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Phone No.: (714) 966-9220 Preparer’s signature: Date: 10-11-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 0 Scale (Miles) 4 City of Anaheim La Habra Cerritos La Mirada Fullerton Brea Placentia Yorba Linda 5 Anaheim Buena Park 5 Garden Grove Stanton Huntington Beach Westminster Fountain Valley Santa Ana Irvine Tustin Villa Park Orange 405 22 55 261 241 57 Costa Mesa Chino Hills La Habra Heights Whittier Cypress Chino Corona 73 Diamond Bar SNA County of Riverside County of San Bernardino County of Orange County of Los Angeles County of Orange County of Los Angeles 241 241 133 Anaheim 405 Figure 1 Regional Location 5 91 91 City of Anaheim Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 6 This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 7 Table 1 Parcels to Apply Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 33 03702123 0.6 36 Mixed-Use C-G , I Appliance Store 42 03702301 0.2 12 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary 43 03702302 0.2 12 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary 44 03702303 0.2 12 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary 45 03702304 0.4 24 Mixed-Use C-G Mortuary Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 1 03517303 0.3 5 Low Medium I Contractor's Yard 2 03517304 0.2 3 Low Medium I Contractor's Yard 3 03517306 0.2 3 Low Medium I Auto Parts Salvage 4 03517307 0.2 3 Low Medium I Auto Parts Salvage 5 03517308 0.3 5 Low Medium I Auto Parts Salvage 7 03517313 0.2 3 Low Medium I Contractor's Yard 8 03517315 0.2 3 Low Medium I Vacant 9 03517602 0.2 3 Low Medium RS-3 Small Industrial Firms 10 03517606 0.2 3 Low Medium RS-3 Small Industrial Firms 11 03517610 1.3 23 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 12 03517614 0.2 3 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 12a 03517603 0.1 1 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 13 03517615 0.2 3 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 8 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 14 03527022 1.1 19 Low Medium C-G Glass Shop 15 03527023 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 16 03527025 0.5 9 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 17 03527026 0.8 14 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 18 03527028 1.0 18 Low Medium C-G 9-unit Apartment Complex 19 03527029 0.9 16 Low Medium C-G Yellow Cab Co 23 03620309 0.1 3 Medium C-G (SABC) Small Market 24 03620608 0.2 7 Medium T (SABC) Vacant 26 03620627 0.2 7 Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 28 03621015 0.6 10 Low Medium I (SABC) Vacant 30 03702114 0.1 3 Medium I (SABC) Single Family Home 32 03702119 0.1 3 Medium I (SABC) Storage 34 03702201 0.6 21 Medium I (SABC) Small Industrial Firms 35 03702202 0.3 10 Medium I (SABC) Auto Body Shop 36 03702203 0.3 10 Medium I (SABC) Auto Body Shop 40 03702212 1.1 39 Medium I (SABC) Small Industrial Firms 52 03702411 1.0 18 Low Medium I (SABC) Contractor Yard 53 03708101 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Liquor Store 57 03709105 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Single Family Home 61 03709109 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 62 03709125 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 63 03709127 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 64 03711129 0.7 12 Low Medium I Contractor ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 9 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use Yard 65 03711130 0.3 5 Low Medium I Contractor Yard 66 03711425 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 67 03711428 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 68 03711435 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm 69 03711437 0.2 7 Medium I Industrial Firm 70 03711438 1.5 54 Medium I Industrial Firm 71 03711439 0.9 32 Medium I Industrial Firm 90 03713015 2.7 48 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 91 03713015 0.7 25 Medium I Industrial Firm 92 03713017 1.0 18 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 93 03713021 1.8 32 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 94 03713025 0.3 5 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 95 03713026 0.4 7 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 96 03713027 0.5 9 Low Medium I Service Station 97 03713028 0.8 14 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 98 03713028 1.2 43 Medium I Small Industrial Firms 99 03713029 4.2 75 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 100 03713029 6.0 216 Medium I Industrial Firm 102 03716110 0.6 21 Medium I Industrial Firm 102a 03716109 0.1 3 Medium I Industrial Firm ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 10 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 103 03716111 0.6 21 Medium I Industrial Firm 104 03716112 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 105 03716114 0.3 10 Medium I Industrial Firm 106 03716116 0.6 21 Medium I Industrial Firm 107 03716117 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 108 03723002 4.2 151 Medium I Industrial Firm 109 03727108 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 110 03727111 0.2 7 Medium I Industrial Firm 111 03727117 0.3 5 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 112 03727123 0.9 16 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 113 03727124 3.4 61 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 114 03727124 7.1 252 Medium I Industrial Firm 115 03727125 0.4 14 Medium I Industrial Firm 116 03727127 0.6 10 Low Medium I Industrial Firm 117 03727222 0.4 7 Low Medium I Auto Repair/ Market 118 03727223 0.4 7 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 119 03727225 0.5 18 Medium I Small Industrial Firms 120 03727225 0.1 1 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 121 03727226 0.6 21 Medium I Small Industrial Firms 122 03727227 0.4 7 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 11 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 123 03727230 0.8 14 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 125 07016106 0.5 9 Low Medium C-G Small Shops 126 07016107 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Restaurant 127 07016111 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Small Shops 128 07016112 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G Small Shops 129 07016113 0.9 16 Low Medium C-G Thrift Store 130 07259125 1.3 23 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 131 07259101 2.1 37 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 132 07259126 1.3 23 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 133 07259134 2.4 43 Low Medium I Small Industrial Firms 135 07261101 14.1 253 Low Medium I Offices 136 08217049 0.6 22 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 137 08218501 0.1 3 Medium I (SABC) Offices 138 08218526 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 139 08218527 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 140 08218528 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 141 08218529 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 142 08218530 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 143 08218531 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 143a 08218535 0.1 3 Medium T RV Park 144 08218539 0.1 3 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 145 08218540 0.1 3 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 146 08218541 0.1 3 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 147 08218547 0.3 10 Medium T (SABC) Vacant 148 08218549 0.4 14 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 149 08218551 0.4 14 Medium T RV Park 150 08218552 0.2 7 Medium I (SABC) Vacant 151 08218553 1.2 43 Medium I (SABC) Vacant 152 08218558 4.2 151 Medium T (SABC) RV Park 154 08373116 0.8 28 Medium C-G Office Building 155 08373117 3.1 111 Medium C-G Office Building ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 12 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 158 12602217 0.2 7 Medium T Nursery 159 12602218 1.1 39 Medium T Nursery 160 12603226 1.8 64 Medium C-G Motel 161 12631010 1.8 64 Medium T Nursery 162 12660204 1.8 32 Low Medium C-G Vacant 163 12723134 1.4 25 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Mixed retail/office uses 164 12723135 1.6 28 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Motel 165 12723156 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Parking Lot 166 12723159 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Bank 167 12723160 1.1 19 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Small Shops 168 12723161 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Parking Lot 169 12723162 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Small Shops 170 12724132 1.7 30 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Motel 171 12724167 1.3 23 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Motel 172 12724170 0.5 9 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Vacant 173 12807103 0.8 14 Low Medium T Restaurant 174 12807105 0.9 16 Low Medium T Motel 175 12807138 1.0 18 Low Medium T Motel 176 12807142 0.6 10 Low Medium C-G Restaurant 177 12834116 0.2 3 Low Medium O-L Offices 178 12834152 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (BCC) Restaurant 179 12834161 6.6 118 Low Medium I, O-L (BCC) Small Industrial Firm 180 13532130 3.3 118 Medium C-G Motel 181 13533118 2.8 100 Medium C-G Self Storage Facility 184 23414102 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Single Family Home 185 23414109 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Mixed retail/office uses ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 13 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 186 23414110 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Mixed retail/office uses 187 25107123 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 188 25107124 0.4 7 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Plumbing Contractors 189 25108102 0.7 12 Low Medium I (SABC) Gas Station 191 25108122 2.0 36 Low Medium I (SABC) Small Industrial Firms 192 25108123 0.2 3 Low Medium I (SABC) Vacant 193 25108126 2.6 46 Low Medium I (SABC) Contractor Yard 197 25109213 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 198 25109214 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 199 25109215 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 200 25109216 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Offices 201 25109217 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Offices 202 25109219 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Single Family Home 203 25109220 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Used Car Dealership 204 25110103 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 205 25110104 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 206 25110105 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 207 25110106 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 208 25110107 0.3 5 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Vacant 209 25110108 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Auto Repair 210 25110109 0.1 1 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Small Shops 211 25110125 0.2 3 Low Medium C-G (SABC) Contractor Yard 217 34335160 2.6 46 Low-Medium T Nursery ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 14 Table 2 Parcels to Apply Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone Opportunity Site # APN Size (Acres) Potential Residential Units Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Existing Use 218 26833106 1.8 64 Medium T Plant Nursery 218a 26833102 0.8 28 Medium T Plant Nursery 219 13745122 1.0 36 Medium C-G Small Industrial Firm 220 13745124 0.5 18 Medium C-G Vacant Building 221 13745125 0.6 21 Medium C-G Small Industrial Firm ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 15 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 1 2004-00422 2005-019 3/15/05 Yes Previously- Certified EIR 330 Citywide Amended the Circulation and Noise Elements 2 2004-00421 2005-026 4/1/05 Yes Negative Declaration 1.2 acres on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Ana Street (502 S. Harbor Blvd) Amended land use designation: Low-Medium Density Residential to Low-Density Residential 3 2005-00423 2005-056 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.2 acres adjacent to the south side of Broadway and 225 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Amended land use designation: Corridor Residential to Medium Density Residential 4 2005-00424 2005-057 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.4 acres at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball Road County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Corridor Residential 5 2005-00425 2005-058 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 0.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball Road County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential 6 2005-00426 2005-059 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 acres adjacent to the south side of Ball Road and 177 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential 7 2005-00427 2005-060 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.5 acres adjacent to the east side of Gilbert Street, 276 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 16 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 8 2005-00428 2005-061 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.7 acres generally bounded by Pacific Avenue to the north, 122 feet to the centerline of Magnolia Avenue to the west, the Southern California Edison easement to the south and 1,324 feet to the centerline of Gilbert Street to the east County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Designated property for Low Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) 9 2005-00429 2005-062 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 acres generally bounded by Pacific Place to the north, Gilbert Street to the east, Katella Avenue to the south and 156 feet to the centerline of Markev Street to the west County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Designated property for Low Medium-Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) and amended Table LU-4 and Figure LU-5 10 2005-00430 2005-063 5/26/05 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 0.3 acres at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Berry Avenue County Annexation (annexation was not approved) Designated property for Low-Medium Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) 11 2004-00416 2005-097 7/7/05 Yes EIR 329 32.3 acres located approximately 1,400 feet south of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road, between Festival Drive to the east and Eucalyptus Drive to the west Amended land use designation: Estate Density Residential to Low Density Residential and amended Green Element 12 2005-00436 2005-176 9/23/05 Yes EIR 331 Citywide Amended Safety Element ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 17 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 13 2005-00435 2005-187 10/13/05 Yes Previously- Certified EIR 330 and Mitigated Negative Declaration Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of commercial development permitted in the Platinum Triangle 14 2004-00420 2005-207 11/25/05 Yes SEIR 332 Platinum Triangle Amended land use designation: Office High to Mixed Use (Fire Training Site), amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of residential and commercial development permitted in the Platinum Triangle and amended the Circulation Element 15 2005-00434 2005-211 11/25/05 Yes SEIR 332 and Addendum Platinum Triangle Amended land use designation: Office High to Mixed Use (Lennar A-Town) 16 2005-00440 2006-061 5/11/06 Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue (Anaheim GardenWalk) Amended the Land Use Element to modify the permitted density of development for the GardenWalk Overlay 17 2006-00441 2006-088 6/9/06 Yes EIR 331, SEIR 1278, SEIR 1716 A 1.45-mile planned segment of Jamboree Road, west of and parallel to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241) between Weir Canyon Road and the southern City limits. Amended Circulation Element to remove Jamboree Road from the Planned Roadway Network ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 18 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 18 2005-00431 2006-189 9/8/06 Yes Previously- Certified EIR 330 Citywide Amended Land Use, Circulation, Green and Growth Management Elements (minor modifications/revisions) 19 2006-00442 2006-206 9/22/06 No Mitigated Negative Declaration Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended Land Use Element to allow residential units in conjunction with a minimum 300- room full-service hotel in the Commercial Recreation designation 20 2006-00448 2007-053 5/24/07 N/A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended Land Use Element to allow wholly-residential uses in the Commercial Recreation designation Repealed 11/27/2007 by City Council Resolution No. 2007-226 21 2006-00451 2007-063 6/7/07 No Negative Declaration 1126 West Lincoln Avenue and 1221 West Center Street Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to Mixed Use 22 2006-00449 2007-080 7/5/07 No SEIR 332 and Addendum Platinum Triangle Amended Land Use Element to increase the amount of residential development permitted in the Platinum Triangle 23 2007-00459 2007-134 8/30/07 No Negative Declaration 2000 South State College Boulevard - Angel Stadium parking lot (0.7 acres) and 2337 South Manchester Avenue – Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (394 square feet) Amended land use designation: Open Space to Mixed Use and designated property for Medium Density Residential land use (no previous General Plan designation) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 19 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 24 2006-00445 2007-171 9/20/07 No SEIR 332 and Addendum Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of commercial and office development permitted in the Platinum Triangle 25 2006-00446 2007-168 9/20/07 No EIR 335 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the number of dwelling units allowed in the Platinum Triangle 26 2007-00455 2007-211 12/6/07 No Negative Declaration 0.78-acres, having a frontage of 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and located 170 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street Amended land use designation: General Commercial to Medium Density Residential 27 2007-00454 2007-235 1/10/08 N/A SEIR 334 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of development allowed and change land use designations in the Platinum Triangle and made related amendments to the Circulation, Green and Public Services and Facilities Elements Repealed 10/14/2008 by City Council Resolution No. 2008-178 28 2007-00457 2007-233 1/10/08 No Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.85-acres located on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) right-of- way with a frontage of 682 feet along the Riverside Freeway, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Solomon Drive and 1,357 feet east of the centerline of Via Cortez Amended land use designation: Low Density Residential to General Commercial ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 20 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 29 2007-00456 2007-250 1/17/08 No Negative Declaration Portion A: 1.35-acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue (2800 - 2816 West Lincoln Avenue) Portion B: 0.82-acres having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and located 310 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue (121 and 131 South Dale Avenue) Portion C: 0.82-acres, having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and located 460 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue (125-137 South Dale Avenue) Amended land use designation: Corridor Residential to Medium Density Residential 30 2008-00466 Ord 6098 4/3/08 N/A N/A - Initiative does not require CEQA The Anaheim Resort SOAR Initiative – Amended the Introduction and the Land Use Element to generally prohibit residential development within The Anaheim Resort unless environmental and economic analyses is prepared and the request receives both City Council and City voter approval ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 21 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 31 2008-00464 2008-131 8/14/08 No Negative Declaration 0.57-acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and East Street, having a frontage of 150 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 230 feet on the east side of East Street Amended land use designation: Low-Medium Residential to General Commercial 32 2008-00470 2009-053 4/30/09 No Mitigated Negative Declaration Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amended the Land Use Element to add a new density designation to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 33 2008-00467 2009-141 9/10/09 N/A Mitigated Negative Declaration Citywide Amended the Housing Element in its entirety 34 2009-00475 2010-048 6/3/10 No Mitigated Negative Declaration 401 West Carl Karcher Way and 1325 North Anaheim Boulevard Amended land use designation: Office Low and Industrial to General Commercial (Karcher Site) 35 2010-00478 2010-126 8/26/10 No Negative Declaration 407-425 South Anaheim Boulevard Amended land use designation: Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential 36 2010-00479 2010-130 8/26/10 No Negative Declaration 518-538 South Anaheim Boulevard Amended land use designation: Low Medium Density Residential to Medium Density Residential 37 2010-00480 2010-162 10/28/10 N/A EIR 343 Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue Amended Circulation Element Figure C-1 "Planned roadway Network" to add Douglass Rd, south of Katella Avenue as a Secondary Arterial ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 22 Table 3 General Plan Amendments Approved after the General Plan Update (May 25, 2004) # General Plan Amendment Case Number City Council Resolution Number Effective Date Did the Project Update Tables LU5&6? Environmental Documentation Location Description 38 2008-00471 2010-187 11/25/10 No EIR 339 Platinum Triangle Amended the Land Use Element to increase the amount of development allowed and change land use designations in the Platinum Triangle and made related amendments to the Circulation, Green and Public Services and Facilities Elements 39 2010-00481 2011-119 8/15/11 No Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue (Anaheim GardenWalk) Amended the Land Use Element to modify the square feet of specialty retail, restaurants and entertainment uses permitted in the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 24 The County of Orange requires that the City notify the County of certain zoning actions. The following checklist will determine the need for notification. The County will be notified of any “yes” responses to questions 1 through 4: 1. Does this zoning action involve adoption or amendment to either the Anaheim General Plan, a Specific Plan, or a Reclassification? Yes  No IF YES, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 2. Does this zoning action involve land located east of the alignment of Weir Canyon Road? Yes No  3. Does this zoning action involve a residential project over 99 acres or 99 units in size? Yes  No 4. Does this zoning action involve a non-residential project over 29 acres or a non-residential project with more than 99 employees? Yes No  EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions applies when substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. When a checklist question receives this response, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. b) Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions applies where substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. When a checklist question receives this response, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. c) New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects applies where new information, including regulatory changes, results in a potentially significant new impact or a potential increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. When a checklist question receives this response, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. d) Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. No additional environmental analysis is required beyond that provided in the certified EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 25 e) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 4) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 5) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 26 This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 27 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?      b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?      c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?      d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?      Narrative Summary: Questions a through d – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites listed in Tables 1 and 2 to be consistent with existing General Plan land use designations and analyzed in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts to aesthetics were discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to aesthetics. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated buildout of the housing opportunity sites consistent with the General Plan, aesthetic impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?      b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 28 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?      d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?      e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location of nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?      Narrative Summary: Questions a, c through e – No Impact. A review of the Department of Conservation Farmland Maps for Orange County indicated that there are areas designated as Prime and Unique Farmland by the California Resources Agency within the City. However, these areas are not currently designated for agricultural use by the City’s General Plan. Because the proposed zone changes would not result in the redesignation of any of these agricultural areas, no impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. In addition, none of the sites proposed for rezoning contain any forestry resources. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed in the SEIR. Question b – No Impact. There is no land currently under a Williamson Act contract in the City and the actions associated with this project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts to agriculture or forestry resources would occur as a result of the proposed project and this issue will not be discussed in the sEIR. III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?      b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?      c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?      d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?      e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 29 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Narrative Summary: Question a. Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed zone changes are consistent with the adopted General Plan and have been assumed in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMDs) adopted 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the proposed 2012 AQMP. As a result, no additional environmental analysis related to consistency with the AQMP is necessary. Question b through d. New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects. In March 2012, the current version of ATAM was approved by the OCTA for use as a local traffic model. ATAM is required to be updated every eight years to stay consistent with regional socioeconomic databases. With the previous version expiring September, 2010, the current version of ATAM reflects the most recent regional socioeconomic database. The previous version was used for the analysis in EIR No. 330, including air quality analysis. As part of the SEIR, a new air quality analysis will be performed to determine if the potential mobile and stationary air emissions associated with the proposed project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. If any potential violation is identified, further evaluation in the SEIR is required to identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, if feasible. Question e – Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The opportunity sites are currently planned for residential uses by the adopted General Plan. Residential land uses would not involve handling of large amounts of solid waste, chemicals associated with heavy industry, or other uses that may generate objectionable odors. The proposed rezoning project generally proposes the same types of land uses assumed for these sites as the 2004 General Plan, none of which would generate offensive odors affecting substantial numbers of people. No new impacts relating to odors would be associated with rezoning of the Housing Opportunity Sites. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?      b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?      c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?      d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 30 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?      f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?      Narrative Summary: Questions a through d – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts to biological resources were discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to biological resources. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites, impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)?      b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?      c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?      d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?      Narrative Summary: Question a through d – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts to cultural resources were discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements, General Plan goals and policies, and mitigation measures outlined in the 2004 GP EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to cultural resources. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated buildout of the housing opportunity sites, impacts to cultural resources resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 31 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.      ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?      iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?      iv) Landslides?      b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?      c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?      d) Be located on expansive soil, as described by Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property?      e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?      Question a through e – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to geology and soils were discussed in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts related to geology and soils resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?      b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?      Questions a and b – New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of a project. These changes became effective on March 18, 2010. At the time of the 2004 GP EIR’s writing and adoption, GHG emissions were not a topic of environmental concern for CEQA. However, passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, in 2006 brought climate action planning to the forefront of planning and CEQA. Currently, the City of Anaheim does not have a comprehensive climate plan. However, the adopted General Plan has number of polices that serve to reduce GHG emissions. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and methodology proposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the SEIR will quantify project-related GHG emissions from area sources, transportation, electricity, and waste disposal. The GHG analysis will also discuss potential global climate change impacts, the effects of GHG emissions, and a history of GHG emissions regulation in California. Project consistency with statewide GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures taken by the City to reduce GHG in the adopted General Plan will also be reviewed. Implementation of the proposed project would allow land uses that would increase the number of people living and working in the City of Anaheim. These additional residents and workers would generate additional vehicle trips. Construction of projects built pursuant to the proposed project would also generate additional vehicle trips. All of these activities have the potential to generate short-term and long-term GHG emissions that could affect local and regional air quality. An air quality analysis will be prepared as part of the SEIR to determine the project’s potential GHG impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?      b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?      c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter- mile of an existing or proposed school?      d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 33 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?      f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?      g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?      h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?      i) Include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects increased vectors and noxious odors)?      Narrative Summary: Question a through i – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were discussed in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?      b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 34 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site?      d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- site or off-site?      e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff?      f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?      g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?      h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?      i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?      j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow?      k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?      l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters?      m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?      n) Potentially impact stormwater from post construction activities?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 35 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?      p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?      Narrative Summary: Question a through p – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Hydrology and water quality impacts were discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?      b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?      c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?      Narrative Summary: Question a through c – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Land use and planning impacts were discussed in Section 5.8, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to land use and planning. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, land use and planning impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?      b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 36 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts to mineral resources were discussed in Section 5.9, Mineral Resources, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to mineral resources. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites, impacts to mineral resources resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?      b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?      c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?      d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?      e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?      f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 37 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions a through d – New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Impacts. In March 2012, the current version of ATAM was approved by the OCTA for use as a local traffic model. ATAM is required to be updated every eight years to stay consistent with regional socioeconomic databases. With the previous version expiring September, 2010, the current version of ATAM reflects the most recent regional socioeconomic database. The previous version was used for the analysis in EIR No. 330, including the Noise Study. As part of the SEIR, a new Noise Study will be conducted to determine if the proposed project would result in substantial changes in noise levels. An evaluation in the SEIR is required to determine the level of significance of any impacts and to identify mitigation measures to reduce any identified significant impacts to below a level of significance, if feasible. Question e and f – Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the 2004 GP EIR, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located two miles from Anaheim. However, the 65 CNEL Noise Contour for Fullerton Airport does not extend into the City of Anaheim and no significant impacts related to airport noise are anticipated. There are no private airstrips in Anaheim. As discussed in the 2004 GP EIR, there are five heliports in the City that are utilized for helicopter take-off and landing. The 2004 GP EIR found that the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.10-2, which requires developers to consult the most current available Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource, would result in impacts related to airport and heliport noise that are less than significant. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, no additional discussion of this issue in the SEIR is necessary. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)?      b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?      c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?      Narrative Summary: Questions a through c – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to population and housing were discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts to population and housing resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 38 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact b) Police protection?      c) Schools?      d) Parks?      e) Other public facilities?      Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to police and fire services were discussed in Section 5.11, Police and Fire, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements, General Plan goals and policies, and mitigation measures outlined in the 2004 GP EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to police and fire services. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts to police and fire services resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. Questions c and e – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to schools and libraries were discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services and Facilities, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to schools or libraries. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts to schools and libraries resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. Questions d – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to parks were discussed in Section 5.14, Recreation, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to parks. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts to parks resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. XV. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?      b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?      Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to parks were discussed in Section 5.14, Recreation, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 39 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to recreational facilities. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts related to recreational facilities resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?      b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?      c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks?      d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?      e) Result in inadequate emergency access?      f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 40 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions a, b, d, e, and f – New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Impacts. In March 2012, the current version of ATAM was approved by OCTA for use as a local traffic model. ATAM is required to be updated every eight years to stay consistent with regional socioeconomic databases. With the previous version expiring September, 2010, the current version of ATAM reflects the most recent regional socioeconomic database. The previous version was used for the analysis in EIR No. 330. A new comprehensive traffic impact study will be conducted as part of the SEIR to evaluate the traffic generation and distribution associated with the Proposed Project to determine where significant congestion is likely to occur. An evaluation of the Proposed Project in the SEIR is required to determine if the Proposed Project will create any impacts as compared to the 2004 adopted General Plan, and, if so, to identify mitigation measures to reduce any identified significant impacts to below a level of significance, if feasible. Question c – Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the 2004 GP EIR, the Fullerton Municipal Airport is located two miles from Anaheim. There are no private airstrips in Anaheim. As discussed in the 2004 GP EIR, there are five heliports in the City that are utilized for helicopter take-off and landing. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, no additional discussion of this issue in the SEIR is necessary. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?      b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (wastewater) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?      c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?      d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 26 of the Environmental/ Project Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?      e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?      f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 41 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?      h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?      i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas?      j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?      k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception?      Narrative Summary: Questions a through k – No changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The proposed project involves the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites to be consistent with land use designations identified for those sites in the 2004 GP EIR. Impacts related to utilities and service systems were discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services and Facilities, of the 2004 GP EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to public services and facilities. Because the 2004 GP EIR contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, impacts related to public services and facilities resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis in the SEIR is warranted. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?      b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)      c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?      ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 42 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required No Additional Environmental Analysis Required Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Narrative Summary: Question a – Less than Significant Impact. For the reasons stated above, the Proposed Project would not create any new or more severe impacts related to biological resources and cultural resources as compared to the 2004 General Plan Project, and, therefore, the 2004 Certified EIR adequately addressed potential impacts related to biological resources and cultural resources. Therefore, no impacts to biological or cultural resources would occur with the Proposed Project as compared to the 2004 General Plan. Questions b and c – New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects. As discussed above, the Proposed Project could result in potentially new or increased significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation/traffic. The project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts and affect the human environment. Because of this potential for significant adverse effects, all of these issues will be analyzed in the SEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 43 Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the proposed project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption) No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study 44 REFERENCES CITED Anaheim, City of. 2004, May (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan. Anaheim, City of. 2004, May (amended). Anaheim Municipal Code. California Department of Conservation. 2002 California Important Farmland Map. The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (2004 GP EIR). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study Appendix A Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Initial Study This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 180-181 162 161 160 158-159 125-129 W BALL RD W LINCOLN AVE W ORANGE AVE S DALE AVE S KNOTT AVE S WESTERN AVE S MAGNOLIA AVE W BROADWAY S BEACH BLVD N DALE AVE KNOTT AVE N BEACH BLVD N WESTERN AVE W LINCOLN AVE W LINCOLN AVE S BEACH BLVD LOLA AVE S WEBSTER AVE W ROME AVE W FAIRCREST DR W YALE AVE W ACADEMY AVE W DEL MONTE DR S BAKER ST S VICKI LN S VELARE ST S BEL AIR ST S HALLIDAY ST W POLK AVE S SHERRILL ST S SH IE LDS DR S DELANO ST W TYLER AVE W ORANGE AVE S GAIN ST S BRODER ST S DOYLE DR W DE VOY DR S HAYWARD ST S SYLVAN ST S VERONA ST S LOMA LINDA DR W ELMLAWN DR W GLEN HOLLY DR W KEYS LN S BRONWYN DR W VALLEJO DR S KENMORE ST W LINDACITA LN W HEFFRON DR S BIRCHLEAF DR W LYNROSE DR S WESTCHESTER DR S LAXORE ST N BE L A IR S T W OLINDA LN S MONUMENT ST S GRAND AVE S DANBROOK DR S OAKHAVEN DR W ONEIDA AVE S FERN AVE W RAVENSWOOD DR S EAST GATES ST N GRAND AVE S BENWOOD DR S TOPANGA DR S MAC DUFF ST S CANOGA ST S COURTRIGHT ST W SAVANNA ST W GRACIOSA LN W CABOT DR S HARDING AVE W MUNGALL DR S M AS TE R S LN S STINSON ST S PARKVIEW ST W ARIEL PL W TOLA AVE W PASO ROBLES DR W WE S T H A VE N DR W DANBROOK A VE W BRIDGEPORT AVE S HAMPTON ST W TERANIMAR DR S KOURI LN W CONLEY AVE S YANA DR W ROWLAND AVE W AIDA LN S GAYMONT ST W SKYWOOD CIR W ROWLAND CIR S SHARON CIR W LORENA DR W RUNYON PL S TEXELLA CT HARDING CIR S WASCO RD S SCOTT LN W ROVEN AVE S BEACHY PL W STONYBROOK DR S COURSON DR W TROJAN PL W CHAIN AVE S WESTVALE DR W FLOYD AVE W SERENO PL W MERLE PL N SYRACUSE ST S NEWCASTLE DR S IRA CT W CLEARBROOK LN W CANOGA PL N LA REINA CIR S RAMBLEWOOD DR W LANEROSE DR S OAKCREST PL S ROME PL W DEERWOOD DR S OAKWILDE DR S SHELLI DR W WESTHAVEN DR S KENMORE ST W ROME AVE S COURSON DR W WESTHAVEN DR S DANBROOK DR W KE Y S L N W TERANIMAR DR W STONYBROOK DR W BRIDGEPORT AVE S GRAND AVE S VICKI LN W BRIDGEPORT AVE W SKYWOOD CIR W ROME AVE W LYNROSE DR W LANEROSE DR W OLINDA LN W ST O NYBROOK DR W DE VOY DR W LYNROSE DR S BRODER ST S VERONA ST S SHERRILL ST LOLA AVE S SYLVAN ST S GAYMONT ST W GLEN H O L L Y D R W DEL MONTE DR S SHIELDS DR S GAIN ST W KEYS LN S OAKHAVEN DR S SYLVAN ST S WESTCHESTER DR W P OLK AVE S S LASSEN CT W W CH E R YLLY N L N W OCEAN VIA W G R E ENTREE CI R N RICHMONT DR W EUREKA DR S MARIN CT W MEADO WVI E W LN N RIDGEWAY ST S NEVEEN LN S ARON PL W HAY W ARD ST W BELLA CT W GLEN IVY LN N LAUREN WAY S VILLA SOMOA LN S CABERNET CIR 3303 Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels Map Location ° 0 500 1,000 Feet City of Anaheim Planning Technology August 2, 2012 Housing Opportunity Sites from 2006-2014 Housing Element Map 1 of 5 Key to Features Residential Opportunity Mixed Use ---PAGE BREAK--- 177-179 130-133, 135 174 173, 175, 176 163-172 W BALL RD W BROADWAY S BROOKHURST ST N BROOKHURST ST W LINCOLN AVE W CRESCENT AVE W LINCOLN AVE W CRESCENT AVE W ORANGE AVE S VALLEY ST W VICTORIA AVE S NUTWOOD ST S TRIDENT ST N MULLER ST W RANDOM DR S ARCHER ST N CRESCENT WAY W EMBASSY AVE S FANN ST W TEDMAR AVE W ALAMEDA AVE S EMPIRE ST W ELM AVE W WILLOW AVE W CRONE AVE N CAROL DR W SIVA AVE S ECHO ST N DAHLIA DR N ALADDIN DR S T H I S T L E RD N DR S BROADVIEW ST S FALCON ST S ROSEBAY ST S AGATE ST N BERNIECE DR W COLCHESTER DR W W ES T MONT DR W CATALINA AVE S CAMELLIA ST W HIAWATHA AVE W STONYBROOK DR N MONTEREY ST N LINDSAY ST N BIRCHER ST W NIOBE AVE S NEPTUNE ST W BIENVILLE AVE N SIESTA ST S PRIMROSE ST S HACIENDA ST W DIANE WAY W BEACON AVE N RANCHITO ST N MANOR ST W CHATEAU AVE S E M ERALD ST N VALLEY ST S F L O RE T TE S T W PENHALL WAY W JUNO AVE W BROWNWOOD AVE W VANCOUVER DR S CLARA ST N FAIRHAVEN ST W JUNO PL N VENTURA ST N PARKWOOD ST S GR E ENWICH ST W SUNSET AVE S RAMONA ST N ALADDIN ST W ELM PL W MINERVA AVE W LODI PL S KINGS COURT DR S BARNSDA L E ST S ANTHONY ST N E UCL I D W AY W BOWLING ST W CLEARBROOK LN W ALOMAR AVE S P AR K C IR W WOODLEY AVE S FANN PL S BRENTWOOD PL W SUNRISE AVE S NINA PL S GREENWICH LN W CORPORATE WAY W BAYPORT CIR S RAMONA CT W HILBERS RD W LINDSAY RD N MARIPOSA PL W NUTWOOD PL W VALLEY PL W LAUREL PL S ECHO PL W JUNO AVE S NUTWOOD ST W CLEARBROOK LN S NUTWOOD ST S PRIMROSE ST W CHATEAU AVE W MINERVA AVE S HACIENDA ST W CHATEAU AVE S AGATE ST S CAMELLIA ST S ARCHER ST W CRONE AVE W CHATEAU AVE S AGATE ST S PRIMROSE ST S ECHO ST S BROADVIEW ST S EMPIRE ST W ELM AVE W BEACON AVE S GREENWICH ST S FALCON ST S EMPIRE ST S CAMELLIA ST W NIOBE AVE W BEACON AVE S FLORETTE ST S FALCON ST W BEACON AVE S AGATE ST S EMERALD ST N ROB WAY S C ORNWALL D R W DOVECOTE LN S COVENTRY DR W HASTINGS WAY W LAFAYETTE DR S LINHAVE N C IR ROCKET S HEARTWOOD WAY N DARTMOUTH WAY W C HERRYWOO D LN N WAKE FOREST DR W LIVERPOOL LN S MARBEYA PL S MILLS END W HARTFORD PL W ESSEX CIR ROB WAY W BANBURY CIR W CHURCHILL CIR S CAMPBELL DR CHERRYWOOD LN W AVON CIR N ROB WAY 3303 Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels Map Location ° 0 420 840 Feet Residential Opportunity Mixed Use City of Anaheim Planning Technology August 2, 2012 Housing Opportunity Sites from 2006-2014 Housing Element Map 2 of 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- I 57 90-91 99-100 108 14-19 40 52 92-98 64-65 154-155 189-193 34-36 28 102-107 1-5, 7, 8 53 117-123 187-188 9-13 24, 26 61-62 184-186 204-211 23 57, 63 66-71 32 197-201 30 202-203 109-116 33 42-45 E LINCOLN AVE S EAST ST S SUNKIST ST E SOUTH ST S STATE COLLEGE BLVD E BROADWAY E WAGNER AVE W BROADWAY W LINCOLN AVE N HARBOR BLVD N EAST ST N ANAHEIM BLVD S HARBOR BLVD S ANAHEIM BLVD S HARBOR BLVD S HARBOR BLVD E BROADWAY S ANAHEIM BLVD S OLIVE ST E SOUTH ST E SANTA ANA ST S LEMON ST S CITRON ST W SOUTH ST W WATER ST S KROEGER ST S MELROSE ST E CENTER ST S HILDA ST S OHIO ST W SANTA ANA ST W CYPRESS ST W VERMONT AVE E SYCAMORE ST W ELM ST N LEMON ST S RESH ST E TURIN AVE S BOND ST N OLIVE ST S JANSS ST S ELDER ST E WILLOW ST W SYCAMORE ST E ELM ST S DICKEL ST E ALDEN AVE S RESEDA ST W ALBERTA ST S LIME ST N EMILY ST W WILHELMINA ST N CLAUDINA ST S DA KO T A S T N RESH ST W OAK ST S GROVE AVE E WESTPORT DR S WAYSIDE ST E N Y ON AVE S COLT ST E BE T HEL D R E CEDAR ST E WARD TER E VIKING AVE S PINE ST E ADELE ST E CHELSEA DR E ALBERTA ST N LARCH ST N PINE ST N VINE ST S HELENA ST S ROSE ST S VERDE ST E BASSETT WAY N ZEYN ST E ARLEE PL N ROSE ST S DORCHESTER ST E PARADISE RD N BUSH ST S BARNETT ST E LIZBETH AVE S LARAMIE ST N JANSS ST S REVERE ST S NORDICA ST E VER M ONT AVE S PRISCILLA ST E CYPRESS ST E VALENCIA AVE S DAWN ST S AVOCADO ST E VIRGINIA A V E S MANCOS PL E AMES AVE S HAVEN DR E OSHKOSH AVE S DOVER ST S INDIANA ST E OAK ST E FLORIDA PL S ASH ST E SEVILLE AVE S CLEMENTINE ST E ARIZONA PL E JAMISON ST E NARDA ST N LA PLAZA N PHILADELPHIA ST S PHILADELPHIA ST W BELLEVUE DR W IRVING PL E LACY AVE S CLAUDINA ST E MAVERICK AVE E PALADIN AVE S PEREGRINE ST E FRONTAGE RD S ROSE PL S ATCHISON ST S MCCLOUD ST S OAKSTO NE WAY S CL IF F R OSE ST E ELSIENA WAY S DATE ST E STANDISH AVE N PINE W A Y E CHARLESTOWN DR E WATER ST E ALCOVE WAY E CALIFORNIA PL E SUSANNE ST W CHARTRES ST N EVERGREEN ST S 42ND ST E HUKEE AVE W PROVENTIAL DR E SAVOY AVE S TORRY PL E DIANA AVE E HAVEN DR S JAMBOLAYA ST E OPAL AVE S SHERWOOD DR E TRYON AVE E NORMAN AVE S CHAUCER ST W CHESTNUT ST E CHARLOTTE AVE E CHESTNUT ST N VINTAGE LN E TOPAZ AVE E HILDA PL E PURITAN LN E CORTNEY WAY S WAYSIDE PL E VERDE PL S PLYMOUTH PL E NORM PL S CLAY ST S DUSTIN PL S TOWER CT E VALENCIA ST E DIANA DR S ANNIKA ST E GELID AVE S MANCOS AVE E TYROL AVE S LONDON CT E STRONG PL E HAMP S H I RE AVE S NORDICA LN S LIVE OAK DR S OLYMPIA CT S NEW AVE E AMES CIR W HAMPSHIRE AVE E PURITAN CIR E PAT PL E GELID CT S MAYWOOD ST E DIANA PL E NORMAN PL E ALPHA LN S NORMANDY CT S OLANA WAY E NAPA PL E CORTNEY PL E NURA PL E NYON PL W LEONORA ST E GARY PL E WESTPORT CIR E MAUERHAN PL S CENPLA WAY E LAMBDA LN S CONIFER ST E CYPRIEN WAY S DOVE PL N PINE PL E VERMONT AVE S BARNETT ST S MELROSE ST E TURIN AVE E TURIN AVE S ELDER ST E CYPRESS ST S ROSE ST E VIRGINIA AVE S C LE M EN TINE ST S WAYSIDE ST E ADELE ST E LIZBETH AVE E STANDISH AVE S HILDA ST S ASH ST S HELENA ST E VERMONT AVE S DICK EL ST E DIANA AVE E ALDEN AVE S MANCOS PL E CYPRESS ST S PLYMOUTH PL E WARD TER W BELLE V U E DR N ROSE ST E CENTER ST E WATER ST E CENTER ST E WESTPORT D R E WILLOW ST E ELM ST S DAWN ST E VERMONT AVE S MCCLOUD ST S WAYSIDE ST S MANCOS PL N VINE ST S BARNETT ST E OAK ST S SARAH WAY PRIVATE ST S MI C H AEL WAY S BUSH ST E CHARTRES ST S VINE ST S SENE C A CIR S ROSE ST E CITY CT E JASON D R N PAULINE ST S CEDARWOOD LN S E SUGARWOOD LN S CAMPHOR ST S PAULA LN E FIGWOOD LN PRIVATE ST PRIVATE ST 3303 Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels Map Location ° 0 550 1,100 Feet City of Anaheim Planning Technology October 3, 2012 Housing Opportunity Sites from 2006-2014 Housing Element Map 3 of 5 Key to Features Residential Opportunity Mixed Use ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 I 57 219-221 136-152 E KATELLA AVE E CERRITOS AVE S HARBOR BLVD S LEWIS ST S WEST ST W KATELLA AVE E ORANGEWOOD AVE S HASTER ST S MANCHESTER AVE S STATE COLLEGE BLVD W ORANGEWOOD AVE S ANAHEIM B LV D S SU N KIST S T S DISNEYLAND DR E GENE AUTRY WAY S CLEMENTINE ST W D I S NEY WAY E HOWELL AVE W MANCHESTER AVE S MANCHESTER AVE S LEWIS ST S CLEMENTINE ST W DISNEY WAY S ANAHEIM WAY W WILKEN WAY S SINCLAIR ST E SIMMONS AVE S SPINNAKER ST ANAHEIM WAY W MIDWAY DR S OERTLEY DR S SANTA CRUZ ST S VERN ST W CLIFFWOOD AVE S ALLEC ST S RAMPAR T S T E LEATRICE LN S CLAUDINA WAY S ANCHOR ST S MALLUL DR S VERNON ST M A R KET ST W BLUEBELL AVE E WAKEFIELD AVE S U N IO N ST S ZEYN ST E HOWELL AVE S PAGE CT E PEARS ON A V E W RICKY AVE S JETTY DR S DANA ST S DUPONT DR S MARKET ST E WILKEN WAY W MAGIC WAY S ACAMA ST S KATHY LN S BRODEN ST S CAMINO ST W SIMMONS AVE E ARTISAN CT S MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE S P A RK L N W YUCCA AVE W CERR I T OS AVE S SPRAGUE LN S EUGENE ST S MORGAN LN S NAUTICAL ST S AUBURN WAY S CAMPTON AVE W DE W EY DR S HARRIS CT S MADRID ST E TRIAD ST S TROY ST S GRANVILLE DR S JUNE ST S TOWN E CENTRE PL S KIM WAY E CLIFFWOOD AVE S METRO DR W ELEANOR DR S JEWEL LN S LEOTA LN S DARYL LN E HOWELL A VE S NAUTICAL ST S JETTY DR S KATHY LN W SIMMONS AVE W CLIFFWOOD AVE S EUGENE ST W SIMMONS AVE S S HOTEL WAY S ROCKET THOR VIA KONA CITRUS DR W CONVENTION WAY RIGNEY WAY PRIVA T E ST E RIVERA LN ATTLAS DR W TRANSIT PLAZA HUDSON PL E LEATRICE LN E PONDE ROS A L N STADI U M CROS S I N G S NIKE DR S CLEMENTINE ST W L A MARK L N E JUPITER RD E WAKEFIELD AVE S STADIUM CROSSING VIA TAHITI E TANGERINE LN VIA HILO DR W CONVENTION WAY 3303 Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels Map Location ° 0 550 1,100 Feet City of Anaheim Planning Technology September 24, 2012 Housing Opportunity Sites from 2006-2014 Housing Element Map 4 of 5 Key to Features Residential Opportunity Mixed Use ---PAGE BREAK--- I 91 217 218/218a E LA PALMA AVE E MIRALOMA AVE N TUSTIN AVE E RIVERDALE AVE N KRAEMER BLVD N MILLER ST E ORANGETHORPE AVE N JEFFERSON ST N LAKEVIEW AVE S RICHFIELD RD E SANTA ANA CANY O N RD N GLASSELL ST N RICHFIELD RD E ORANGETHORPE AVE N LAKEVIEW AVE E FRONTERA ST N RED GUM ST E ADDI N GTO N DR E LA JOLLA ST N FEE ANA ST E JACKSON AVE FEE ANA ST N KRAEMER PL E A L DERD AL E AVE N VAN BUREN ST E WHITE STAR AVE N GROVE ST OAK ST N REDROCK ST N DEERFIELD ST N RICHFIELD RD VINCENT E A V E E RIVERVIEW AVE E CORONADO ST N KODIAK ST N GAYLE ST N OCEAN CIR N BLUEROCK ST E EAGLE DR N PAGEANT ST N SWEETWATER ST N KENT ST N ARMANDO ST N PARTRIDGE ST E BAINBRIDGE AVE E BLUE STAR ST N FOUNTAIN WAY E LA CRESTA AVE ATWOOD AVE PETRA LN N PARK VISTA ST N PHEASANT ST N SANTA LUCIA ST E CERRO V ISTA DR LA PALOMA AVE N STAR F I R E ST N SANTA CECILIA ST E AUTONETICS WAY SIERRA VISTA AVE N FINCH ST N SUNSET ST N SHEPARD ST S VAN BUREN ST N RAM ONA ST NANCITA CIR E LANI AVE N LANDFAIR ST N ST N HUN D LEY ST N RUTHE R F ORD ST N LANCE LN N COSBY WAY E BLUEWATER CIR N MEADOWLARK LN SIERRA MADRE CIR E ROGUE DR N STARLING WAY E LA MESA ST N SIMON CIR E RICKER WAY E RADCLIFFE AVE N TORRENS ST N VAL L E Y FORGE DR N LA L O MA CIR E CEENA CT N VAN HORNE WAY N ALICE WAY N DYNAMICS ST N TORRENS ST E CORONADO ST E ALDERDALE AVE E CORONADO ST N ARMANDO ST N GROVE ST PARK RD CLUB LN N COMMUNITY DR E ENTERPRISE DR S LEOLA WAY N PACIFICE N TER DR W VIA FERRARI PEACH ST OAK ST N BARSTEN WAY N JEFFERSON FRONTAGE RD E KENSINGTON AVE N VIA PISA N VIA NAPOLI 3303 Residential Opportunity and Mixed Use Overlay Zone Parcels Map Location ° 0 630 1,260 Feet City of Anaheim Planning Technology August 6, 2012 Housing Opportunity Sites from 2006-2014 Housing Element Map 5 of 5 Key to Features Residential Opportunity Mixed Use ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix B Notice of Preparation Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 1(213)236-1800 f (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov Officers President Glen Becerra, Simi Valley First Vice President Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Second Vice President Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura Immediate Past President Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Executive/Administration Committee Chair Glen Becerra, Simi Valley Policy Committee Chairs Community, Economic and Human Development Paula Lantz, Pomona Energy & Environment Cheryl Viegas-Walker, El Centre Transportation Keith Millhouse, Ventura County Transportation Commission November 14, 2012 Ms. Susan Kim Senior Planner City of Anaheim, MS 162 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 [EMAIL REDACTED] RE: SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project [120120240] Dear Ms. Kim: Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review (IGR) of programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372. Additionally, SCAG reviews the Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency under state law, and as such is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) component pursuant to SB 375. As the clearinghouse for regionally significant projects per Executive Order 12372, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of the regional goals and policies in the RTP/SCS. SCAG staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Housing opportunities Site Rezoning Project and determined that this proposed project is regionally significant per CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15125 and 15206. The proposed project aims to implement the City of Anaheim's Housing Element's Housing Production Strategy 1V by rezoning properties identified as Housing Opportunities Sites to facilitate "by-right" residential development within the City of Anaheim, California. When available, please send environmental documentation to SCAG's main office in Los Angeles providing, at a minimum, the full comment period for review. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Pamela Lee at (213) 236- 1895 or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Thank you. Sincerely, ^1 / ; " ^Vl4 Df— Jonathan Nadler Manager, Compliance and Performance Assessment 1 SB 375 amends CEQA to add Chapter 4.2 Implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, which allows for certain CEQA streamlining for projects consistent with the RTP/SCS. Lead agencies (including local jurisdictions) maintain the discretion and will be solely responsible for determining "consistency" of any future project with the SCS. Any "consistency" finding by SCAG pursuant to the IGR process should not be construed as a finding of consistency under SB 375 for purposes of CEQA streamlining. The Regional Council is comprised of 84 elected officials representing 191 cities, six counties, six County Transportation Commissions and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 2012.05.07 ---PAGE BREAK--- November 14, 2012 Ms. Kim SCAG No. 120120240 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT [SCAG NO. 120120240] CONSISTENCY WITH RTP/SCS SCAG reviews environmental documents for regionally significant projects for their consistency with the adopted RTP/SCS. Regional Growth Forecasts The Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project should reflect the most recently adopted SCAG forecasts (see http://scag.ca.qov/forecast/index.htm), which are the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS population, household and employment forecasts. The forecasts for the region and applicable jurisdictions are below. SCAG forecasts are provided at both the city and county level. Forecast Population Households Employment Adopted SCAG Region Wide Forecasts Year 2020 19,663,000 6,458,000 8,414,000 Year 2035 22,091,000 7,325,000 9,441,000 Adopted City of Anaheim Forecasts Year 2020 369,100 107,600 1 93,700 Year 2035 405,800 124,700 224,200 RTP/SCS GOALS The 2012-20135 RTP/SCS links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations (see The goals included in the 2012 RTP/SCS may be pertinent to the proposed project. These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of regional goals and policies. Among the relevant goals of the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS are the following: SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS GOALS RTP/SCS G1: Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and compe titiveness RTP/SCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region RTP/SCS G3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region RTP/SCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system RTP/SCS G5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system RTP/SCS G6: Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking) RTP/SCS G7: Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible RTP/SCS G8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation RTP/SCS G9: Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- November 14, 2012 Ms. Kim SCAG No. 120120240 For ease of review, we encourage the use of a side-by-side comparison of SCAG goals with discussions of the consistency, non-consistency or non-applicability of the policy and supportive analysis in a table format. Suggested format is as follows: SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Goals Goal RTP/SCS G1: RTP/SCS G2: RTP/SCS G3: etc. Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. etc. Analysis Consistent: Statement as to why Not-Consistent: Statement as to why or Not Applicable: Statement as to why DEIR page number reference Consistent: Statement as to why Not-Consistent: Statement as to why or Not Applicable: Statement as to why DEIR page number reference Consistent: Statement as to why Not-Consistent: Statement as to why or Not Applicable: Statement as to why DEIR page number reference etc. MITIGATION SCAG staff recommends that you review the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Final Program EIR List of Mitigation Measures Appendix for additional guidance, as appropriate. The SCAG List of Mitigation Measures may be found here: 2012.pdf PageS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix C Senate Bill 226 Provisions ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- State CEQA Guideline Section 15183.3. Streamlining for lnfill Projects Purpose. The purpose of this section is to streamline the environmental review process for eligible infill projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies. Eligibility. To be eligible for the streamlining procedures prescribed in this section, an infill project must: Be located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least seventy-five percent of the site's perimeter. For the purpose of this subdivision "adjoin" means the infill project is immediately adjacent to qualified urban uses, or is only separated from such uses by an improved public right-of-way; Satisfy the performance standards provided in Appendix M; and Be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, except as provided in subdivisions or below. Only where an infill project is proposed within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization for which a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy will be, but is not yet, in effect, a residential infill project must have a density of at least 20 units per acre, and a retail or commercial infill project must have a floor area ratio of at least 0.75. Where an infill project is proposed outside of the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization, the infill project must meet the definition of a small walkable community project in subdivision below. Streamlined Review. CEQA does not apply to the effects of an eligible infill project under two circumstances. First, if an effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project even when that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR. Second, an effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect. Depending on the effects addressed in the prior EIR and the availability of uniformly applicable development policies or standards that apply to the eligible infill project, streamlining under this section will range from a complete exemption to an obligation to prepare a narrowed, project-specific environmental document. A prior EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later infill projects if it deals with the effects of infill development as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of such development, the effects of many infill projects could be found to have been addressed in the prior EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. Procedure. Following preliminary review of an infill project pursuant to Section 15060, the lead agency must examine an eligible infill project in light of the prior EIR to determine whether ---PAGE BREAK--- the infill project will cause any effects that require additional review under CEQA. Determinations pursuant to this section are questions of fact to be resolved by the lead agency. Such determinations must be supported with enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (See Section 15384.)(1) Evaluation of the lnfill Project. A lead agency should prepare a written checklist or similar device to document the infill project's eligibility for streamlining and to assist in making the determinations required by this section. The sample written checklist provided in Appendix N may be used for this purpose. A written checklist prepared pursuant to this section should do all of the following: Document whether the infill project satisfies the applicable performance standards in Appendix M. Explain whether the effects of the infill project were analyzed in a prior EIR. The written checklist should cite the specific portions of the prior EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the infill project's significant effects. The written checklist should also indicate whether the infill project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the prior EIR. Explain whether the infill project will cause new specific effects. For the purposes of this section, a new specific effect is an effect that was not addressed in the prior EIR and that is specific to the infill project or the infill project site. A new specific effect may result if, for example, the prior EIR stated that sufficient site-specific information was not available to analyze the significance of that effect. Substantial changes in circumstances following certification of a prior EIR may also result in a new specific effect. Explain whether substantial new information shows that the adverse environmental effects of the infill project are more significant than described in the prior EIR. For the purpose of this section, "more significant" means an effect will be substantially more severe than described in the prior EIR. More significant effects include those that result from changes in circumstances or changes in the development assumptions underlying the prior EIR's analysis. An effect is also more significant if substantial new information shows that: mitigation measures that were previously rejected as infeasible are in fact feasible, and such measures are not included in the project; feasible mitigation measures considerably different than those previously analyzed could substantially reduce a significant effect described in the prior EIR, but such measures are not included in the project; or an applicable mitigation measure was adopted in connection with a planning level decision, but the lead agency determines that it is not feasible for the infill project to implement that measure. If the infill project will cause new specific effects or more significant effects, the written checklist should indicate whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards will substantially mitigate those effects. For the purpose of this section, "substantially mitigate" means that the policy or standard will substantially lessen the effect, but not necessarily below the level of significance. The written checklist should specifically identify the uniformly applicable development policy or standard and explain how it will substantially mitigate the effects of the infill project. The explanation in the written checklist may be used to support the finding required in subdivision below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Document. After examining the effects of the infill project in light of the analysis in a n y prior EIR and uniformly applicable development policies or standards, the lead agency shall determine what type of environmental document shall be prepared for the infill project. No Further Review. No additional environmental review is required if the infill project would not cause any new specific effects or more significant effects, or if uniformly applicable development policies or standards would substantially mitigate such effects. Where the lead agency determines that no additional environmental review of the effects of the infill project is required, the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination as provided in Section 15094. Where the lead agency finds that uniformly applicable development policies substantially mitigate a significant effect of an infill project, the lead agency shall make the finding described in subdivision Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. If the infill project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects shall be subject to CEQA. If a new specific effect is less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a negative declaration. If new specific effects or more significant effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level through project changes agreed to prior to circulation of the written checklist, the lead agency may prepare a mitigated negative declaration. In these circumstances, the lead agency shall follow the procedure set forth in Sections 15072 to 15075. Alternatively, if the infill project is a transit priority project, the lead agency may follow the procedures in Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code. In either instance, the written checklist should clearly state which effects are new or more significant, and are subject to CEQA, and which effects have been previously analyzed and are not subject to further environmental review. Where the lead agency finds that uniformly applicable development policies or standards substantially mitigate a significant effect of an infill project, the lead agency shall make the finding described in subdivision lnfill EIR. If the infill project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency shall prepare an infill EIR if the written checklist shows that the effects of the infill project would be potentially significant. In this circumstance, the lead agency shall prepare an infill EIR as provided in subdivision and, except as otherwise provided in this section, shall follow the procedures in Article 7. Where the lead agency finds that uniformly applicable development policies or standards substantially mitigate a significant effect of an infill project, the lead agency shall make the finding described in subdivision Findings. Any findings or statement of overriding considerations required by Sections 15091 or 15093 shall be limited to those effects analyzed in an infill EIR. Findings for such effects should incorporate by reference any such findings made in connection with a planning level decision. Where uniformly applicable development policies or standards substantially mitigate the significant effects of an infill project, the lead agency shall also make a written finding, supported with substantial evidence, providing a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. lnfill EIR Contents. An infill EIR shall analyze only those significant effects that uniformly ---PAGE BREAK--- applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, and that are either new specific effects or are more significant than a prior EIR analyzed. All other effects of the infill project should be described in the written checklist as provided in subdivision and that written checklist should be circulated for public review along with the infill EIR. The written checklist should clearly set forth those effects that are new specific effects, and are subject to CEQA, and those effects which have been previously analyzed and are not subject to further environmental review. The analysis of alternatives in an infill EIR need not address alternative locations, densities, or building intensities. An infill EIR need not analyze growth inducing impacts. Except as provided in this subdivision, an infill EIR shall contain all elements described in Article 9. Terminology. The following definitions apply to this section: "lnfill project" includes the whole of an action consisting of residential, commercial, retail, transit station, school, or public office building uses, or any combination of such uses that meet the eligibility requirements set forth in subdivision For retail and commercial projects, no more than one half of the project area may be used for parking. "Transit station" means a rail or light-rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, bus transfer station, or bus stop, and includes all streetscape improvements constructed in the public right-of-way within one-quarter mile of such facility to improve multi-modal access to the facility, such as pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements and traffic-calming design changes that support pedestrian and bicycle access. "Planning level decision" means the enactment or amendment of a general plan or any general plan element, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. "Prior EIR" means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents. "Qualified urban use" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21072. "Small walkable community project" means a project that is all of the following: In an incorporated city that is not within the boundary of metropolitan planning organization; Within an area of approximately one-quarter mile diameter of contiguous land that includes a residential area adjacent to a retail downtown area and that is designated by the city for infill development consisting of residential and commercial uses. A city may designate such an area within its general plan, zoning code, or by any legislative act creating such a designation, and may make such designation concurrently with project approval; and Either a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both. The terms "sustainable communities strategy" and "alternative planning strategy" refer to a strategy for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph of paragraph of subdivision of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning ---PAGE BREAK--- organization's determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. "Uniformly applicable development policies or standards" are policies or standards adopted or enacted by a city or county, or by a lead agency, that reduce one or more adverse environmental effects. Examples of uniformly applicable development policies or standards include, but are not limited to: Regulations governing construction activities, including noise regulations, dust control, provisions for discovery of archeological and paleontological resources, stormwater runoff treatment and containment, protection against the release of hazardous materials, recycling of construction and demolition waste, temporary street closure and traffic rerouting, and similar regulations. Requirements in locally adopted building, grading and stormwater codes. Design guidelines. Requirements for protecting residents from sources of air pollution including high volume roadways and stationary sources. Impact fee programs to provide public improvements, police, fire, parks and other open space, libraries and other public services and infrastructure, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming devices. Traffic impact fees. Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations. Ordinances addressing protection of urban trees and historic resources. "Urban area" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21094.5(e)(5). Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5 Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix M: Performance Standards for lnfill Projects Eligible for Streamlined Review I. Introduction Section 15183.3 provides a streamlined review process for infill projects that satisfy specified performance standards. This appendix contains those performance standards. The lead agency's determination that the project satisfies the performance standards shall be supported with substantial evidence, which should be documented on the lnfill Checklist in Appendix N. Section II defines terms used in this Appendix. Performance standards that apply to all project types are set forth in Section Ill. Section IV contains performance standards that apply to particular project types residential, commercial/retail, office building, transit stations, and schools). II. Definitions The following definitions apply to the terms used in this Appendix. "High-quality transit corridor" means an existing corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. For the purposes of this Appendix, an "existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor" may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program. Unless more specifically defined by an air district, city or county, "high-volume roadway" means freeways, highways, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. "Low vehicle travel area" means a traffic analysis zone that exhibits a below average existing level of travel as determined using a regional travel demand model. For residential projects, travel refers to either home-based or household vehicle miles traveled per capita. For commercial and retail projects, travel refers to non-work attraction trip length; however, where such data are not available, commercial projects reference either home-based or household vehicle miles traveled per capita. For office projects, travel refers to commute attraction vehicle miles traveled per employee; however, where such data are not available, office projects reference either home-based or household vehicle miles traveled per capita. "Major Transit Stop" means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with frequencies of service intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. For the purposes of this Appendix, an "existing major transit stop" may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program. "Office building" generally refers to centers for governmental or professional services; however, the lead agency shall have discretion in determining whether a project is "commercial" or "office building" for the purposes of this Appendix based on local zoning codes. "Significant sources of air pollution" include airports, marine ports, rail yards and dist ibution centers that receive more than 100 heavy-duty truck visits per day, as well as stationary sources that are designated major by the Clean Air Act. ---PAGE BREAK--- A "Traffic Analysis Zone" is an analytical unit used by a travel demand model to estimate vehicle travel within a region. Ill. Performance Standards Related to Project Design To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must implement all of the following: Renewable Energy. All non-residential projects shall include on-site renewable power generation, such as solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind power generation, or clean back- up power supplies, where feasible. Residential projects are also encouraged to include such on-site renewable power generation. Soil and Water Remediation. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, the project shall document how it has remediated the site, if remediation is completed. Alternatively, the project shall implement the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that identifies remediation appropriate for the site. Residential Units Near High-Volume Roadways and Stationary Sources. If a project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or other distance determined to be appropriate by the local agency or air district based on local conditions, of a high volume roadway or other significant sources of air pollution, the project shall comply with any policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plan, zoning code or community risk reduction plan for the protection of public health from such sources of air pollution. If the local government has not adopted such plans or policies, the project shall include measures, such as enhanced air filtration and project design, that the lead agency finds, based on substantial evidence, will promote the protection of public health from sources of air pollution. Those measure may include, among others, the recommendations of the California Air Resources Board, air districts, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. IV. Additional Performance Standards by Project Type In addition to the project features described above in Section Ill, specific eligibility requirements are provided below by project type. Several of the performance standards below refer to "low vehicle travel areas". Such areas can be illustrated on maps based on data developed by the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) using its regional travel demand model. Several of the performance standards below refer to distance to transit. Distance should be calculated so that at least 75 percent of the surface area of the project site is within the specified distance. A. Residential To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must satisfy one of the following: · ---PAGE BREAK--- Projects achieving below average regional per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A residential project is eligible if it is located in a "low vehicle travel area" within the region. Projects located within % mile of an Existing Major Transit Stop or High Quality Transit Corridor. A residential project is eligible if it is located within Yz mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. Low-Income Housing. A residential or mixed-use project consisting of 300 or fewer residential units all of which are affordable to low income households is eligible if the developer of the development project provides sufficient legal commitments to the lead agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. B. Commercial/Retail To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must satisfy one of the following: Regional Location. A commercial project with no single-building floor-plate greater than 50,000 square feet is eligible if it locates in a "low vehicle travel area." Proximity to Households. A project with no single-building floor-plate greater than 50,000 square feet located within one-half mile of 1800 households is eligible. C. Office Building To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must satisfy one of the following: Regional Location. Office buildings, both commercial and public, are eligible if they. locate in a low vehicle travel area. Proximity to a Major Transit Stop. Office buildings, both commercial and public, within % mile of an existing major transit stop, or X mile of an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor, are eligible. D. Transit Transit stations, as defined in Section 15183.3(e)(1), are eligible. E. Schools Elementary schools within one mile of fifty percent of the projected student population are eligible. Middle schools and high schools within two miles of fifty percent of the projected student population are eligible. Alternatively, any school within % mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor is eligible. Additionally, in order to be eligible, all schools shall provide parking and storage for bicycles and scooters and shall comply with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code. F. Small Walkable Community Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- Small walkable community projects, as defined in Section 15183.3, subdivision that implement the project features described in Section Ill above are eligible. G. Mixed-Use Projects Where a project includes some combination of residential, commercial and retail, office building, transit station, and/or schools, the performance standards in this Section that apply to the predominant use shall govern the entire project. Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5 Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Appendix N: Infill Environmental Checklist form NOTE: This sample form is intended to assist lead agencies in assessing infill projects according to the procedures provided in Section 21094.5 of the Public Resources Code. Lead agencies may customize this form as appropriate, provided that the content satisfies the requirements in Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including State Clearinghouse Number if 9. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project: 10. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off- site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings, including any prior uses of the project site, or, if vacant, describe the urban uses that exist on at least 75% of the project’s perimeter: 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) SATISFACTION OF APPENDIX M PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Provide the information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the performance standards in Appendix M below. For mixed-use projects, the predominant use will determine which performance standards apply to the entire project. 1. Does the non-residential infill project include a renewable energy feature? If so, describe below. If not, explain below why it is not feasible to do so. 2. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation of remediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that will be implemented as part of the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection of public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site specific analysis, below. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 4. For residential projects, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.) Consists of 300 or fewer units that are each affordable to low income households. (Attach evidence of legal commitment to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.) 5. For commercial projects with a single building floor-plate below 50,000 square feet, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) The project is within one-half mile of 1800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.) 6. For office building projects, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or within ¼ of a stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.) 7. For school projects, the project does all of the following: The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code. The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.) The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters. 8. For small walkable community projects, the project must be a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The infill project could potentially result in one or more of the following environmental effects. ---PAGE BREAK--- Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed infill project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed. I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA. Signature Date EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INFILL PROJECTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) For the purposes of this checklist, “prior EIR” means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents. “Planning level decision” means the enactment or amendment of a general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. (Section 15183.3(e).) 4) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a result of an infill project, then the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the infill project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this determination should include page and section references to the portions of the prior EIR containing the analysis of that effect. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether the prior EIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and whether those measures have been incorporated into the infill project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5) If the infill project would cause a significant adverse effect that either is specific to the project or project site and was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is more significant than what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards that have been adopted by the lead agency, or city or county, would substantially mitigate that effect. If so, the checklist shall explain how the infill project’s implementation of the uniformly applicable development policies will substantially mitigate that effect. That effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect. 6) If all effects of an infill project were either analyzed in a prior EIR or are substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards, CEQA does not apply to the project, and the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination. 7) Effects of an infill project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. If there are one or more " Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an infill EIR is required. The infill EIR should be limited to analysis of those effects determined to be significant. (Sections 15128, 15183.3(d).) 8) "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce an effect of an infill project that is subject to CEQA from " Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. If the effects of an infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration. 9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to an infill project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 10) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTIONS Issues: Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ---PAGE BREAK--- Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5 Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANHEIM - GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY Forecasting SCAQMD's GHG Target 6.6 1.3 4.0 2020 2050 2035 AB 32 S-03-05 Interpolated * 1990 Levels 80% Below 1990 Levels 40% Below 1990 Levels MTCO2e Business as Usual Forecasts MTCO2e Adjusted BAU SECTORS 2012 Percent of Total 2020 Percent of Total Project Percent of Total Current GP Percent of Total 2020 Percent of Total Project Percent of Total Current GP Percent of Total Transportation 2,432,336 50% 2,557,437 49% 3,131,382 50% 2,552,719 50% 1,950,072 46% 2,178,821 45% 1,776,187 45% Residential (Natural Gas and Electricity) 606,037 12% 684,246 13% 830,889 13% 690,500 14% 591,624 14% 718,416 15% 597,031 15% Nonresidential* (Natural Gas and Electricity) 1,513,031 31% 1,656,656 32% 1,925,953 31% 1,523,508 30% 1,383,172 33% 1,608,027 33% 1,272,027 32% Waste 80,149 2% 89,361 2% 106,633 2% 86,928 2% 89,361 2% 106,633 2% 86,928 2% Water/Wastewater 184,813 4% 178,745 3% 213,539 3% 174,303 3% 143,250 3% 171,136 4% 139,692 4% Other - Offroad Equipment 62,267 1% 65,388 1% 71,239 1% 63,842 1% 58,849 1% 64,115 1% 57,458 1% Total Community Emissions 4,878,634 100% 5,231,834 100% 6,279,635 100% 5,091,800 100% 4,216,328 100% 4,847,148 100% 3,929,322 100% Service Population 604,081 673,509 803,687 655,170 673,509 803,687 655,170 MTCO2e/SP 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.3 6.0 6.0 Industrial 35,980 SCAQMD GHG GP Threshold (PROGRAM LEVEL) NA 6.6 4.0 4.0 6.6 4.0 4.0 Notes: Adjusted BAU includes reductions identified in the Scoping Plan associated with Transportation (Pavely+LCFS), Energy & Water/Wastewater (improvements in the carbon intensity of electricity identified by SCE), and Other (LCFS). The current inventory does not account for reductions in building energy use from Title 24 cycle updates. Emissions forecast based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy), or service population (City energy, waste, water/wastewater, transportation). Transportation. EMFAC2011 and data provided by ITERIS using the ATAM model. Transportation sector does not proportion 50 percent of the trip length for trips that occur outside of the City boundaries. Per the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) under Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), 50 percent of the trip length for intrajurisdictional trips are the responsibility of the adjacent/corresponding jurisdiction while the other 50 percent. External-Internal and Internal-External trips do not include 50 percent of the trip length. Energy. Energy use based on a three year (2009-2011) average provided by Anaheim Utilities and a three year (2009-2011) average provided by SoCal Gas. Nonresidential* includes direct access customers, county facilities, and other district facilities within the City boundaries. Anaheim energy based on the utility's 2011 carbon intensity provided by Anaheim Utilities. Water/Wastewater. Includes fugitive emissions from wastewater processing and energy associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Water use is estimated based on generation rates identified in Anaheim's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Waste. WARM2012 and CalRecycle. GHG emissions from landfilled waste is based on a three year average (2010-2011) of waste generated in the City. GHG emissions are based on the waste commitment method and modeling using WARM, version 2. Waste generation for the City obtained from CalRecycle. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured within the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System with a landfill gas capture efficiency of 75%. The Landfill gas capture efficiency is based on the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1. Other Sources. OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City of Anaheim as a percentage of Orange County. Excludes SCAQMD permitted sources (see note below). Construction is estimated based on housing permit data for the City of Anaheim from the U.S. Census. Daily construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Industrial Sector are "point" sources that are permitted by SCAQMD. Because the reductions associated with the Industrial sector are regulated separately by SCAQMD and CARB through the CAP and trade program and industry-specific sector reductions) and are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, these emissions are shown for informational purposes only. In addition, given that these sources are for energy generation, it is likely that associated emissions would be double-counted because indirect GHG emissions from electricity use is included in the residential and non-residential sectors. ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM - GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY COMPARISON Change of ABAU from 2012 MTCO2e Change from BAU to ABAU Change from 2004 EIR SECTORS Delta 2020 Percent of Total Delta Project Percent of Total Delta Current GP Delta 2020 Delta Project Percent of Total Delta Current GP Transportation (482,264) (253,515) (656,150) (607,365) (952,561) 402,634 23% Residential (Natural Gas and Electricity) (14,413) 112,379 (9,006) (92,622) (112,472) 121,385 20% Nonresidential* (Natural Gas and Electricity) (129,859) 94,996 (241,004) (273,484) (317,927) 335,999 26% Waste 9,212 26,484 6,778 0 0 19,705 23% Water/Wastewater (41,563) (13,677) (45,121) (35,495) (42,404) 31,444 23% Other - Offroad Equipment (3,418) 1,848 (4,809) (6,539) (7,124) 6,657 12% Total Community Emissions (662,305) (31,486) (949,311) (1,015,505) (1,432,488) 917,825 23% -14% -19% -19% -23% 18% ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM - CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY EXISTING BASELINE SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 9,983 19,609 94,134 153 1,920 945 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 111 950 404 6 77 77 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 154 1,398 1,174 8 106 106 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 1,775 1,297 28,075 3 149 147 Other (Construction Equipment) 283 1,947 1,698 2 121 119 Total 12,306 25,201 125,485 173 2,372 1,395 SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 1,732 3,402 16,332 27 333 164 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 20 173 74 1 14 14 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 28 255 214 2 19 19 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 324 237 5,124 0 27 27 Other (Construction Equipment)** 49 338 295 0 21 21 Total 2,153 4,405 22,038 30 414 245 EXISTING w/2035 EMISSION RATES SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 4,003 6,469 31,185 159 1,782 803 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 111 950 404 6 77 77 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 154 1,398 1,174 8 106 106 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 1,775 1,297 28,075 3 149 147 Other (Construction Equipment) 283 1,947 1,698 2 121 119 Total 6,326 12,060 62,536 178 2,234 1,253 Net Change from Baseline -5,980 -13,141 -62,949 5 -137 -142 SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 694 1,122 5,411 28 309 139 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 20 173 74 1 14 14 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 28 255 214 2 19 19 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 324 237 5,124 0 27 27 Other (Construction Equipment)** 49 338 295 0 21 21 Total 1,116 2,125 11,117 31 391 220 Net Change from Baseline -1,038 -2,280 -10,922 1 -24 -25 2012 - lbs/day 2012 - tons/year 2035 Existing Land Uses - lbs/day 2035 Existing Land Uses - tons/year ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM - CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 4,978 8,045 38,785 197 2,216 999 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 152 1,302 554 8 105 105 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 196 1,780 1,495 11 135 135 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 2,433 1,778 38,491 4 204 202 Other (Construction Equipment) 377 2,590 2,260 3 161 159 Total without Construction 7,760 12,906 79,325 220 2,661 1,441 Total with Construction 8,137 15,496 81,585 223 2,821 1,600 Net Change from Baseline in 2035 1,811 3,435 19,048 45 587 347 Net Change from Current GP 1,565 2,929 16,032 41 528 302 Net Change from 2004 Certified EIR 5,857 14,013 72,341 199 -581 -1,768 SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 864 1,396 6,729 34 385 173 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 28 238 101 2 19 19 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 36 325 273 2 25 25 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 444 325 7,025 1 37 37 Other (Construction Equipment)** 65 449 392 1 28 28 Total without Construction 1,437 2,732 14,520 39 493 282 Total with Construction 1,371 2,283 14,128 38 466 254 Net Change from Baseline in 2035 255 158 3,011 7 75 34 Net Change from Current GP 211 67 2,466 7 65 26 Net Change from 2004 Certified EIR -909 800 4,884 14 -2,937 -3,114 Project Land Uses - lbs/day Project Land Uses - tons/year ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM - CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY 2004 Certified EIR ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 899 1,109 8,967 20 3,401 3,367 Energy (Natural Gas) 28 374 156 0 1 1 Area Sources 1,353 0 121 4 0 0 Total 2,280 1,483 9,244 24 3,402 3,368 SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 4,058 6,558 31,618 161 1,807 814 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 127 1,082 461 7 87 87 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 155 1,408 1,183 8 107 107 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 1,925 1,407 30,449 3 161 160 Other (Construction Equipment) 307 2,111 1,842 3 131 130 Total 6,572 12,567 65,552 182 2,293 1,298 Net Change from Baseline in 2035 246 507 3,016 4 59 45 SECTORS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transportation 704 1,138 5,486 28 313 141 Energy - Residential (Natural Gas) 23 198 84 1 16 16 Energy - Nonresidential* (Natural Gas) 28 257 216 2 20 20 Area Sources (Landscaping, Light Commercial Equipment) 351 257 5,557 1 29 29 Other (Construction Equipment)** 53 366 320 0 23 22 Total 1,160 2,215 11,662 32 401 228 Net Change from Baseline in 2035 44 90 545 1 10 8 Current GP Land Uses - lbs/day Current GP Land Uses - tons/year ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM - CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY Notes: Emissions forecasts estimated based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy), or service population (transportation) Other Sources. OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on housing permit data for Orange County and Anaheim from the U.S. Census. Daily offroad construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites. EMFAC2011 based on daily VMT provided by ITERIS using the ATAM model. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for external-internal trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT x 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008). Energy. Based on a two-year average (2010-2011) of energy use provided by Anaheim Utilities and a three year average (2010-2012) provided by SoCal Gas. Nonresidential* includes direct access customers, county facilities, and other district facilities within the City boundaries. Area Sources. OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City of Anaheim as a percentage of Orange County. Excludes SCAQMD permitted sources. Does not include emissions from wood-burning fireplaces or consumer products (Note: no new homes would permit wood- burning fireplaces). Various industrial and commercial processes manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Project would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1401, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be included in the table because they would be speculative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Model Inputs From ITERIS Interpolated From ITERIS From 2004 EIR 2012 2020 estimate Proposed GP Current GP Population 354,383 400,116 485,866 403,773 Employment 249,698 273,393 317,821 251,397 Service Population 604,081 673,509 803,687 655,170 Notes: Source: 2012 and 2035 Population and Employment is provided by ITERIS. The Current General Plan Population and Employment is based on the 2004 General Plan EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Model Inputs Note: highlighted areas are the model inputs. The remaining areas are automatically updated based on the change in Population and Employment Sector Inputs 2012 2020 estimate Proposed GP Current GP Residential Electricity (Kwh) 624,930,745 705,578,219 856,792,231 712,026,710 Commercial + Industrial Electricity (Kwh) 1,902,781,978 2,083,345,444 2,421,901,942 1,915,728,924 Total Electricity (Kwh) 2,527,712,723 2,788,923,662 3,278,694,173 2,627,755,635 Residential Natural Gas (Therms) 37,619,540 42,474,351 51,577,122 42,862,537 Commercial+Industrial Natural Gas (Therms) 51,604,334 56,501,299 65,683,109 51,955,461 City (Therms) 439,475 489,984 584,690 476,642 Total Natural Gas (Therms) 89,663,348 99,465,634 117,844,920 95,294,640 VMT/day 14,628,528 15,246,764 18,193,703 14,831,605 Water (AF/year) 70,098 67,834 81,028 66,130 Water (gallons/year) 22,841,599,435 22,103,667,911 26,403,029,546 21,548,668,225 Wastewater (gallons/year) 13,491,373,791 12,989,607,124 15,534,357,680 12,694,850,440 Indoor Water as a Percent of Total Water Use 59% 59% 59% 59% Waste Generation (tons/year) 369,373 411,826 491,425 400,612 Waste Generation ADC (tons/year) 235,432 262,490 313,225 255,343 Total Waste Disposal (tons/year) 604,805 674,316 804,650 655,955 Sources Waste generation based on waste commitment for the City of Anaheim is obtained from CalRecycle. Forecasts are based on an average 2011-2009 disposal rate and adjusted for increases in population and employment. EMFAC2011 based on daily VMT provided by ITERIS using the ATAM model. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for external-internal trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT x 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008). Natural gas and electricity use for residential land uses in the City were modeled using data provided by SoCalGas and Anaheim Utilities, respectively. Natural gas and electricity use is based on a three-year average (2011, 2010, and 2009) to account for fluctuation in annual natural use as a result of natural variations in climate. Forecasts in energy are based on the change in population and employment. Total water generation for the City of Anaheim is based on Anaheim's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan SBX7-7 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Forecasts (2020 and 2035) are adjusted for increases in population and employment and are based on the Target per capita SBx7-7 for Anaheim Utilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Water and Wastewater Water Demand Calculations Derived from the Urban Water Management Plan Total Demand % Total Demand Indoor Outdoor Residential (single + multi-family) - Demand 58% 61% 39% Commercial + Industrial 37% 62% 38% Other non-residential: Irrigation + Other + System Loss - Outdoor 5% 0% 100% Total Per Capita Water Use (gpdc) Total Residential Indoor Residential Outdoor Non-Residential Indoor Non-Residential Outdoor Base 201.6 71.7 45.2 46.2 38.4 2020 Target 161.2 57.3 36.2 46.2 38.4 Water Use gallons/year Total Residential Indoor Residential Outdoor Non-Residential Indoor Non-Residential Outdoor 2012 22,841,599,435 9,276,429,202 5,848,183,628 4,214,944,589 3,502,042,017 2020 22,103,667,911 8,374,687,651 5,279,694,389 4,614,919,474 3,834,366,398 Proposed Project 26,403,029,546 10,169,485,298 6,411,197,253 5,364,872,382 4,457,474,612 Current General Plan 21,548,668,225 8,451,226,443 5,327,947,106 4,243,623,997 3,525,870,679 California Total (AFY) Percent Residential Indoor Water Use 2,300,000 61% Residential Outdoor Water Use 1,450,000 39% Office Outdoor Water Use percentage 38% Misc. Retail Outdoor Water Use percentage 38% Source: Anaheim. 2011, June. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. http://www.anaheim.net/articlenew2222.asp?id=4400 The Pacific Institute. 2003, November. Waste Not Want Not (WNWN): The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Appendix E, Details of Commercial Water Use and Potential Savings, by Sector; and Appendix F, Details of Industrial Water Use and Potential Saves, by Sector. The SBX7-7 rate is allocated to residential, non-residential, and outdoor water use based on the Customer type % identified in Table above (since rate only includes population not employment) The City’s service area excludes several small areas inside City limits serviced by other water purveyors and includes areas outside of City limits (between Brookhurst and Gilbert Streets) serviced by the City. The Pacific Institute. 2003, November. Waste Not Want Not (WNWN): The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Table ES-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Water and Wastewater Fugitive Emissions - Process Emissions from WWTP with Nitrification/Denitrification Buildout Fugitive Emissions - Process Emissions from WWTP with Nitrification/Denitrification LGOP Version 1.1. Equation 10.9. N2O = 2012 2020 Proposed Project Current GP wastewater (Liters)= 51,064,849,799 49,165,662,966 58,797,543,819 48,050,008,916 10^-6 = 1.00E-06 conversion factor; kg/mg N Load 40.00 mg/L of wastewater USEPA 2008 EF effluent 0.01 kg/N2O/kg N 10^-3 = 1.00E-03 conversion factor: MTons/kg 2012 2020 Proposed Project Current GP MTons N2O 10.21 9.83 11.76 9.61 CO2e = 3,166 3,048 3,645 2,979 Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, May. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1. The LGOP protocol provides default values for all the terms except the Nitrogen Load, which is assumed to be 40 mg of N per Liter of wastewater effluent based on USEPA methodology outlined in the CalEEMod program manual. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. User's Manual. USEPA. 2008. Page 8-12. USEPA cites Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1991, “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal, and Reuse,” 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill Publishing. CH4 - Microorganisms can biodegrade soluble organic material in wastewater under aerobic (presence of oxygen) or anaerobic (absence of oxygen) conditions. Anaerobic conditions result in the production of CH4. N2O - Treatment of domestic wastewater during both nitrification and denitrification of the nitrogen present leads to the formation of N2O, usually in the form of urea, ammonia, and proteins. These compounds are converted to nitrate through the aerobic process of nitrification. Denitrification occurs under anoxic conditions (without free oxygen), and involves the biological conversion of nitrate into dinitrogen. N2O can be an intermediate product of both processes, but more often is associated with denitrification. Notes: Waste discharge facilities in compliance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Standards do not typically result in CH4 emissions. However, poorly-operated aerobic wastewater treatment systems can result in the generation of CH4. Because wastewater treatment systems are assumed to operate in compliance with state and federal laws pertaining to water quality, CH4 emissions from centralized aerobic treatments are not included in the inventory. Wastewater x 10^-6 x Nload x EF effluent x 10^3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Water and Wastewater Energy for Water Conveyance, Treatment, Distribution, and Wastewater Treatment (Southern California) Water Supply and Conveyance Water Treatment Water Distribution Total Water Wastewater Treatment (Tertiary) 9,727 111 1,272 11,110 1,911 Anaheim Carbon Intensity CO2e CO2 MTons/MWH1 CH4 MTons/MWH2 N2O MTons/MWH2 MTons/MWh 0.649 0.000013 0.000003 0.650 ABAU Carbon Intensity 2011 2020 CO2e Assumed Percent Renewable 16% 33% MTons/MWh CO2e MTons/Mwh 0.649 0.517 0.519 GHG Emissions from Energy Associated with Water/Wastewater 2012 2020 Proposed Project Current GP MwH/Year Water 253,770 245,572 293,338 239,406 Wastewater 25,782 24,823 29,686 24,260 Total Water/Wastewater 279,552 270,395 323,024 263,666 2012 2020 Proposed Project Current GP MTCO2e/Year Water 164,894 159,567 190,605 155,561 Wastewater 16,753 16,130 19,289 15,764 Total Water/Wastewater 181,647 175,697 209,894 171,324 Total GHGs 2012 2020 Proposed Project Current GP MTCO2e/Year Water 164,894 159,567 190,605 155,561 Wastewater 19,919 19,178 22,935 18,743 Total Water/Wastewater 184,813 178,745 213,539 174,303 GHG Emissions from Energy Use - Adjusted for Lower Carbon Intensity in 2020 2020 Proposed Project Current GP MTCO2e/Year Water 127,331 152,098 124,134 Wastewater 15,919 19,038 15,558 Total Water/Wastewater 143,250 171,136 139,692 GHG Emissions from Water/Wastewater Use kWhr/million gallons Source: California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006, December. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. CEC-500-2006-118. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Based on the electricity use for Southern California. Source: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California RPS Procurement Summary 2003-20010. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/index.htm Energy Associated with Water Use GHG Emissions from Energy Associated with Water Use/Wastewater Generation GHG Emissions from Water/Wastewater Use Intensity factor Source 1: Anaheim, Public Utilities Department. 2013, February 12. Mandip Kaur Samra, Integrated Resources Planner. Source 2: CH4 intensity factor=28.94 lb/GWh; N20 intensity factor=6.17 lb/GWh. United States Environmental Protection Agency. eGRID2012 Version 1.0 Year 2009 GHG Annual Emission Rates. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf Source: Anaheim, Public Utilities Department. 2013, February 12. Mandip Kaur Samra, Integrated Resources Planner. Wastewater Modeling assumes 100% septic treatment for 2012, 50% septic treatment for 2020; 25% septic treatment in 2035, and 0% septic treatment at P-2035. ---PAGE BREAK--- Water and Wastewater General Conversion Factors Global Warming Potentials (GWP) CO2 1 CH4 21 N2O 310 gallons to Liters 3.785 kilowatt hrs to megawatt hrs 0.001 gallons to AF [PHONE REDACTED] Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2 Water Demand City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-6 Table 2-5: Additional Water Uses and Losses (AFY) Water Use &ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ ŶĚŝŶŐ 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ-opt Saline Barriers - - - - - - - Groundwater Recharge - - - - - - - Conjunctive Use - - - - - - - Raw Water - - - - - - - Golf Course Irrigation 232 355 300 300 300 300 300 Unaccounted-for Water 1,831 3,698 3,258 3,312 3,416 3,488 3,497 Total Ϯ͕Ϭϲϯ ϰ͕Ϭϱϯ ϯ͕ϱϱϴ ϯ͕ϲϭϮ ϯ͕ϳϭϲ ϯ͕ϳϴϴ ϯ͕ϳϵϳ 2.4. SBx7-7 Requirements 2.4.1. Overview SBx7-7, which became effective on February 3, 2010, is the water conservation component to the Delta legislative package. It seeks to implement Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2008 water use reduction goals to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. As discussed above, the bill requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and an interim 10% goal by 2015. The bill establishes methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine targets to help achieve water reduction targets. The retail water supplier must select one of the four target-setting methods (compliance options). The retail agency may choose to comply to SBx7-7 as an individual or as a region in collaboration with other water suppliers. Under the regional compliance option, the retail water supplier still has to report the water use target for its individual service area. The bill also includes reporting requirements in the 2010, 2015, and 2020 UWMPs. An agency that does not comply with SBx7-7 requirement will not be eligible for water related grant, or loan, from the state on and after July 16, 2016. However, if an agency that is not in compliance documents a plan and obtains funding approval to come into compliance then could become eligible for grants or loans. 2.4.2. SBx7-7 Compliance Options DWR has established four compliance options for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. Each supplier is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options include: x Option 1 requires a simple 20 percent reduction from the baseline by 2020 and 10 percent by 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2 Water Demand City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-7 x Option 2 employs a budget-based approach by requiring an agency to achieve a performance standard based on three metrics: o Residential indoor water use of 55 GPCD o Landscape water use commiserate with Model Landscape Ordinance o 10 percent reduction in baseline CII water use x Option 3 is to achieve 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. x Option 4 requires calculation of Total Savings and subtraction from Base GPCD: o Total Savings includes indoor residential savings, metering savings, CII savings, landscape and water loss savings. Anaheim’s Compliance Option Selection With MWDOC’s assistance in the calculation of the City’s base daily per capita use and water use targets, the City has selected to comply with Option 1. While each retail agency is required to choose a compliance option in 2010, DWR allows for the agency to change its compliance option in 2015. This will allow the City to determine its water use targets for Compliance Option 2 and 4 as it anticipates more data to be available for targets calculation in the future. 2.4.3. Regional Alliance As discussed above, retail agencies can choose to meet the SBx7-7 targets on its own or several retail agencies may form a regional alliance and meet the water use targets as a region. The benefit for an agency that joins a regional alliance is that it has multiple means of meeting compliance. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County as described in MWDOC’s 2010 RUWMP. The Regional Alliance Weighted 2015 target is 174 GPCD and 2020 target is 157 GPCD. 2.4.4. Baseline Water Use The first step to calculating an agency’s water use targets is to determine its base daily per capita water use (baseline water use). This baseline water use is essentially the agency’s gross water use divided by its service area population, reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The baseline water use is calculated as a continuous 10-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010. Agencies that recycled water consists of 10 percent or more of 2008 retail water delivery can use up to a 15-year average for the calculation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2 Water Demand City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-8 The City’s retail delivery in 2008 did not include recycled water; therefore, a 10-year instead of a 15-year rolling average was calculated. The City’s baseline water use is 201.6 GPCD which was obtained from the 10-year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005. Tables 2-6 and 2-7 provide the base period ranges used to calculate the baseline water use for the City as well as the service area population and annual water use data which the base daily per capita water use was derived. Data provided in Table 2-6 was used to calculate the continuous 10-year average baseline GPCD. Moreover, regardless of the compliance option adopted by the City, it will need to meet a minimum water use target of 5% reduction from a five-year baseline as calculated in Table 2-7. Because the City is an OCWD agency, the City’s gross water use includes deductions for indirect potable recycled water use from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) and Water Factory 21 managed by OCWD. The calculations for the gross water use are included in Appendix C. Table 2-6: Base Daily per Capita Water Use – 10-year range Highest Available Baseline Beginning Ending 10 Year Avg July 1, 1995 June 30, 2005 Fiscal Year Ending Service Area Population Gross Water Use (gallons per day) Daily Per Capita Water Use 1996 303,051 63,978,[PHONE REDACTED] 309,953 66,920,[PHONE REDACTED] 317,468 61,984,[PHONE REDACTED] 324,968 66,564,[PHONE REDACTED] 333,052 71,142,[PHONE REDACTED] 339,261 67,467,[PHONE REDACTED] 342,641 70,750,[PHONE REDACTED] 345,157 66,261,[PHONE REDACTED] 348,117 68,300,[PHONE REDACTED] 348,018 63,114,928 181 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use: 201.6 The most recent year in base period must end no earlier than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010. The base period cannot exceed 10 years unless at least 10 percent of 2008 retail deliveries were met with recycled water. ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2 Water Demand City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-9 Table 2-7: Base Daily per Capita Water Use – 5-year range Highest Available Baseline Beginning Ending 5 Year Avg July 1, 2003 June 30, 2008 Fiscal Year Ending Service Area Population Gross Water Use (gallons per day) Daily Per Capita Water Use 2004 348,117 68,300,[PHONE REDACTED] 348,018 63,114,[PHONE REDACTED] 347,959 64,643,[PHONE REDACTED] 349,645 68,159,[PHONE REDACTED] 351,933 66,023,837 188 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use: 189.2 The base period must end no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than December 31, 2010. 2.4.5. SBx7-7 Water Use Targets Under Compliance Option 1, the simple 20 percent reduction from the baseline, the City’s 2015 interim water use target is 181.4 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 161.2 GPCD as summarized in Table 2-8. Table 2-8: Preferred Compliance Option and Water Use Targets Baseline 2015 Target 2020 Target Option 1 - Simple 20% Reduction 201.6 181.4 161.2 2.4.6. Water Use Reduction Implementation Plan The City will continue to implement Demand Management Measures described in Section 4 as part of its Water Use Reduction Implementation Plan. As part of this implementation, the City recently submitted a grant application to the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to develop a Water Use Efficiency Master Plan. The purpose of this master plan is to develop specific approaches for implementing cost effective water conservation measures to achieve the 20 x 2020 targets set by the 2009 Water Conservation Bill. In addition, the City will participate in the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance along with 28 other retail urban water suppliers in Orange County. The Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance was created to allow local water suppliers to meet their 20% by 2020 reduction targets set by the 2009 Water Conservation Bill on a regional basis through the successful implementation of region-wide programs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Community Wide GHG Inventory Report for Anaheim California Energy Commission Sector Group: Bundled and Direct Access Customers 2010 Annual KWH 2011 Annual KWH 2012 Annual KWH Average 2009-2011 Annual KWH Residential 623,834,747 630,893,341 620,064,147 624,930,745 Commercial + Industrial + City 1,973,078,213 1,902,931,293 1,832,336,428 1,902,781,978 0 0 0 0 2,596,912,960 2,533,824,634 2,452,400,575 2,527,712,723 * City facilities not disaggregated from commercial + industrial accounts. SoCal Gas Natural Gas Use 2010 Annual Therms 2011 Annual Therms 2012 Annual Therms Average 2010-2012 Annual Therms Residential 37,533,733 37,705,346 37,619,540 Commercial + Industrial 41,155,908 62,052,759 51,604,334 City 452,395 426,554 439,475 79,142,036 100,184,659 0 89,663,348 Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), 2013, April 12. 2011, 2010, and 2009 Annual Natural Gas Use. Provided by Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor, Customer Programs. Anaheim, Public Utilities Department. 2013, May 9. Brian Beelner, Financial Planning Manager. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), 2013, May 16. 2012, 2011, and 2010 Annual Natural Gas Use (City). Provided by Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor, Customer Programs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Natural Gas Emission Factors Natural Gas CO2e lbs CO2/Therm MTons CO2/Therm CH4 MTons/Therm N2O MTons/Therm MTons/Therm All Years 11.7 0.00530 5.E-07 1.E-08 0.00532 Anaheim Utility Electricity Carbon Intensity CO2e CO2 MTons/MWH1 CH4 MTons/MWH2 N2O MTons/MWH2 MTons/MWh 0.649 0.000013 0.000003 0.650 ABAU Carbon Intensity 2011 2020 CO2e Assumed Percent Renewable 16% 33% MTons/MWh CO2e MTons/Mwh 0.649 0.517 0.519 Intensity factor Source: CO2, CH4 and N2O intensity based on Table G.3 of the LGOP for residential and non-residential (CO2, 53.02 kg/Mmbtu; CH4: 0.005 kg/MMBtu; N2O: 0.0001 kg/MMBtu) Source: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California RPS Procurement Summary 2003-2010. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/index.htm Intensity factor 2011 Source 1: Anaheim, Public Utilities Department. 2013, February 12. Mandip Kaur Samra, Integrated Resources Planner. Source: Anaheim, Public Utilities Department. 2013, February 12. Mandip Kaur Samra, Integrated Resources Planner. Source 2: CH4 intensity factor=28.94 lb/GWh; N20 intensity factor=6.17 lb/GWh. United States Environmental Protection Agency. eGRID2012 Version 1.0 Year 2009 GHG Annual Emission Rates. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions from Energy Use 2012 2020 Project Current GP Electricity Residential Electricity 406,067 458,470 556,725 462,660 Commercial + Industrial 1,236,387 1,353,713 1,573,700 1,244,800 Total 1,642,454 1,812,183 2,130,425 1,707,459 2012 2020 Project Current GP Natural Gas Residential Electricity 199,970 225,777 274,163 227,840 Commercial + Industrial 274,308 300,338 349,145 276,174 City 2,336 2,605 3,108 2,534 Total 476,614 528,720 626,416 506,548 2012 2020 Project Current GP Summary Residential Total 606,037 684,246 830,889 690,500 Commercial + Industrial Total 1,510,695 1,654,052 1,922,845 1,520,974 City Total (natural gas only) 2,336 2,605 3,108 2,534 Total 2,119,068 2,340,902 2,756,842 2,214,007 ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions from Energy Use - Adjusted for Lower Carbon Intensity in 2020 2020 Project Current GP Electricity MTCO2e/Year Residential Electricity 365,847 444,253 369,191 Commercial + Industrial 1,080,229 1,255,773 993,319 Total 1,446,077 1,700,026 1,362,510 2020 Project Current GP Natural Gas MTCO2e/Year Residential Electricity 225,777 274,163 227,840 Commercial + Industrial 300,338 349,145 276,174 City 2,605 3,108 2,534 Total 528,720 626,416 506,548 2020 P-2035 2035 Summary MTCO2e/Year Residential Total 591,624 718,416 597,031 Commercial + Industrial Total 1,380,568 1,604,919 1,269,494 City Total (natural gas only) 2,605 3,108 2,534 Total 1,974,796 2,326,443 1,869,058 General Conversion Factors lbs to kg 0.4536 kg to MTons 0.001 Mmbtu to Therm 0.1 kilowatt hrs to megawatt hrs 0.001 lbs to Tons 2000 Tons to MTon 0.9071847 Global Warming Potentials (GWP) CO2 1 CH4 21 N2O 310 Therms to kwh 29.30711111 Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol. Version 1.1. Appendix F, Standard Conversion Factors Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Criteria Air Pollutants from Natural Gas Rate Natural Gas ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Residential 0.01078431 0.09215686 0.03921569 0.00058824 0.00745098 0.00745098 Non-Residential 0.01078431 0.09803922 0.08235294 0.00058824 0.00745098 0.00745098 Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Natural Gas ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Residential 111 950 404 6 77 77 Commercial + Industrial 152 1386 1164 8 105 105 City 1 12 10 0 1 1 Total 265 2348 1578 14 183 183 Natural Gas ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Residential 125 1072 456 7 87 87 Commercial + Industrial 167 1518 1275 9 115 115 City 1 13 11 0 1 1 Total 294 2603 1742 16 203 203 Increase from Baseline 29 255 164 2 20 20 Natural Gas ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Residential 152 1302 554 8 105 105 Commercial + Industrial 194 1764 1482 11 134 134 City 2 16 13 0 1 1 Total 348 3082 2049 19 241 241 Increase from Baseline 83 734 471 5 58 58 Natural Gas ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Residential 127 1082 461 7 87 87 Commercial + Industrial 154 1396 1172 8 106 106 City 1 13 11 0 1 1 Total 282 2491 1644 15 195 195 Increase from Baseline 17 143 65 1 11 11 General Conversion Factors Mmbtu to Therm 0.1 lbs to Tons 2000 Tons to MTon 0.9071847 lbs/MBTU 2012 lbs/day Project lbs/day Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol. Version 1.1. Appendix F, Standard Conversion Factors Current GP lbs/day 2020 lbs/day ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Anaheim’s Renewable Resources and Resource Mix: a. Based on Published Data: http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/PowerContentLabel.pdf b. We are 16% Renewable for Calendar Year 2012 (this data has not been audited). Our aim is to be at 33% RPS by 2020. Anaheim intends to comply with the State RPS Statute, SBX1 2, passed in April 2011. i. Here is Anaheim’s RPS Policy, based on data from 2011 and 2012 (please click on the link that says “Anaheim’s Renewable Procurement Plan”: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=4606 2. Anaheim’s Carbon Content (2012 data is not available- it will be available in September of 2013). As you can see, overall, our carbon content has gone down over time. This is primarily due to the purchase of Renewable Resources. Calendar Year MT CO2/MWh lbs CO2/MWh 2008 0.732675195 1615.[PHONE REDACTED] 0.75860895 1672.[PHONE REDACTED] 0.692666204 1527.[PHONE REDACTED] 0.648635319 1429.996097 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim 2010 Category Annual Therms # of meters Anaheim Facilities Aggregated Therms** # of meters Industrual/Commercial* 41608303 4,240 452,395 44 Single Family Residential 27327288 75438 Multi-Family Resdential 10206445 3051 Total Therms 79,142,036 82,729 City of Anaheim 2011 Category Annual Therms # of meters Industrual/Commercial* 62479313 4,199 426,554 44 Single Family Residential 27593056 75962 Multi-Family Resdential 10112290 3,053 Total Therms 100,184,659 83,214 City of Anaheim 2012 Category Annual Therms # of meters Industrual/Commercial Single Family Residential Multi-Family Resdential Total Therms 0 0 * Industrual/Commercial load includes City of Anaheim Facilities **Anaheim Facilities Aggregated Therms. Load does not include Power Generation ---PAGE BREAK--- Disability & Civil Rights Program Translate Public Notification of Amendment and Adoption of Renewable Portfolio Standard In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20% of retail sales by 2017. In 2006, Senate Bill 107 codified California's 20% by 2010 RPS goal. Publicly owned utilities, like Anaheim Public Utilities, set their own RPS goals recognizing the intent of the legislature is to achieve the 20% by 2010 target. In response to SB 107, Anaheim Public Utilities established a goal of 20% RPS by 2015, which was approved by the Anaheim City Council per Resolution 2006-187. In April 2011 new legislation, Senate Bill X1 2 (SBX1 was signed by Governor Brown requiring all utilities to meet a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal by 2020. By legislative mandate, Anaheim Public Utilities must adopt the new RPS goals of an average of 20% of retail sales from renewable resources for the period 2011-2013, 25% by the end of 2016, and 33% by the end of 2020. In December of 2011, Anaheim posted the Resolution and Anaheim RPS Policy, which included the Enforcement Program and Procurement Plan. Anaheim is proposing an amendment to the 2011 RPS policy, to include an updated Resources Procurement Plan and a cost limitation provision. The draft 2013 RPS Policy is posted below. There is no change to the Resolution. Please note that the draft RPS Policy remain in draft form until they are approved by the Anaheim City Council. Reference Documents: - Resolution - Anaheim’s RPS Policy and Resources Procurement Plan All contents © 2013 City of Anaheim I Privacy Policy I Browser I Contact Us Page 1 of 1 City of Anaheim - Public Notification of Amendment and Adoption of Renewable Portfol... 5/8/2013 http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=4606 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM — TRANSPORTATION SECTOR VMT Population Employment Service Population (SP) Daily VMT* Rate (VMT/ SP) Adjusted Daily VMT Annual VMT 2012 354,383 249,698 604,081 14,628,528 24.22 14,628,528 5,076,099,216 2020 400,116 273,393 673,509 15,246,764 22.64 15,246,764 5,290,627,047 Proposed Project 485,866 317,821 803,687 18,193,703 22.64 18,193,703 6,313,214,941 Current GP 403,773 251,397 655,170 14,831,605 22.64 14,831,605 5,146,567,050 Baseline in 2035 354,383 249,698 604,081 14,628,528 24.22 14,628,528 5,076,099,216 ITERIS 2012 Baseline 354,383 249,698 604,081 14,628,528 24.22 ITERIS 2035 485,866 317,821 803,687 18,193,703 22.64 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2012 9,983 19,609 94,134 153 1,[PHONE REDACTED] 6,187 11,034 51,624 161 1,821 814 Proposed Project 4,978 8,045 38,785 197 2,216 999 Current GP 4,058 6,558 31,618 161 1,807 814 Baseline in 2035 4,003 6,469 31,185 159 1,782 803 ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2012 1,732 3,402 16,332 27 [PHONE REDACTED] 1,074 1,914 8,957 28 316 141 Proposed Project 864 1,396 6,729 34 385 173 Current GP 704 1,138 5,486 28 313 141 Baseline in 2035 694 1,122 5,411 28 309 139 GHG EMISSIONS N2O CO2 CO2e N2O CO2 CO2e 2012 98 2,401,910 2,432,336 98 2,315,823 2,346,249 NA 2020 55 2,540,316 2,557,437 55 1,932,951 1,950,072 -24% -17% Proposed Project 33 3,118,899 3,131,382 33 2,166,338 2,178,821 -30% Current GP 40 2,542,543 2,552,719 40 1,766,011 1,776,187 -30% -24% Baseline in 2035 32 2,507,730 2,517,767 32 1,741,830 1,751,867 -30% -25% State and Federal Fuel Efficiency Improvements + Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Percent Reduction from 2012 Source: EMFAC2011-SG Note: MTons = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide-equivalent. Adjusted BAU Includes Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). 1493 (AB 1493) Pavley I Fuel Efficiency Standards. In addition, the State of California has adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). In January 2012, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Advanced Clean Car Program which implements the Pavley II Fuel Efficiency Standards and projects that by 2025, one in every seven new cars sold will be electric vehicles (PHEV or PEV). However, the Pavley II Advanced Clean Car Program is not included in the transportation emissions reductions and therefore reductions are conservative. On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court’s rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Night Circuit Court granted CARB’s motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. Percent Reduction from BAU Tons/year Daily emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. Source: EMFAC2011-SG MTons/year - Business as Usual (BAU) MTons/year - Adjusted City of Anaheim Source: 2012 and 2035 VMT is based on data provided by Iteris using the ATAM model. VMT for the Current General Plan is based on per capita VMT in the Traffic Study provided by Iteris VMT/population and employment (service population)). Adjusted Daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. lbs/day ---PAGE BREAK--- Baseline in 2035 Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year Daily Baseline in 2035 14,628,528 Percent of VMT Adjust % VMT ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 All Other Buses 0.06% 0.06% 2 22 8 0 3 2 LDA 47.75% 47.75% 1,030 970 11,194 56 738 319 LDT1 5.96% 5.96% 247 147 1,755 8 92 40 LDT2 20.40% 20.40% 750 514 5,654 32 315 135 LHD1 4.37% 4.37% 311 1,041 1,698 8 84 37 LHD2 0.63% 0.63% 28 160 191 1 16 7 MCY 0.30% 0.30% 366 119 2,089 0 4 2 MDV 15.90% 15.90% 932 580 6,267 32 244 105 MH 0.38% 0.38% 4 92 29 1 9 4 Motor Coach 0.06% 0.06% 5 40 25 0 4 2 OBUS 0.04% 0.04% 13 17 103 0 1 0 PTO 0.04% 0.04% 3 24 10 0 1 0 SBUS 0.05% 0.05% 5 57 32 0 8 4 T6 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 instate construction heavy 0.05% 0.05% 2 20 7 0 3 2 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 0.16% 4 50 20 1 9 5 T6 instate heavy 0.29% 0.29% 9 106 40 1 17 9 T6 instate small 0.87% 0.87% 24 271 108 3 50 26 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 public 0.04% 0.04% 1 15 6 0 2 1 T6 utility 0.01% 0.01% 0 2 1 0 0 0 T6TS 0.31% 0.31% 43 57 386 1 4 2 T7 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 1 0 0 0 T7 CAIRP 0.28% 0.28% 30 245 158 2 16 10 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 0.02% 2 18 11 0 1 1 T7 NNOOS 0.32% 0.32% 32 241 172 2 17 10 T7 NOOS 0.10% 0.10% 12 95 64 1 6 4 T7 other port 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.63% 0.63% 63 609 329 3 40 26 T7 public 0.02% 0.02% 3 29 15 0 1 1 T7 Single 0.15% 0.15% 11 88 59 1 8 4 T7 single construction 0.05% 0.05% 4 31 21 0 3 2 T7 SWCV 0.05% 0.05% 5 63 26 0 3 1 T7 tractor 0.40% 0.40% 29 281 152 2 23 14 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 0.04% 3 30 18 0 2 1 T7 utility 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 2 0 0 0 T7IS 0.04% 0.04% 6 54 380 0 1 0 UBUS 0.24% 0.24% 23 377 153 1 56 27 TOTAL 100% 100% 4,003 6,469 31,185 159 1,782 803 lbs/day Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Current GP Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year Daily Current GP 14,831,605 Percent of VMT Adjust % VMT ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 All Other Buses 0.06% 0.06% 2 23 8 0 3 2 LDA 47.75% 47.75% 1,044 984 11,349 57 748 323 LDT1 5.96% 5.96% 250 149 1,780 8 93 40 LDT2 20.40% 20.40% 760 521 5,733 33 319 137 LHD1 4.37% 4.37% 315 1,056 1,721 8 85 37 LHD2 0.63% 0.63% 29 162 194 1 16 7 MCY 0.30% 0.30% 371 121 2,118 0 4 2 MDV 15.90% 15.90% 945 588 6,354 33 248 106 MH 0.38% 0.38% 4 93 30 1 9 4 Motor Coach 0.06% 0.06% 5 40 25 0 4 2 OBUS 0.04% 0.04% 13 17 105 0 1 0 PTO 0.04% 0.04% 3 25 10 0 1 0 SBUS 0.05% 0.05% 5 58 32 0 9 4 T6 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 instate construction heavy 0.05% 0.05% 2 20 8 0 3 2 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 0.16% 4 51 20 1 9 5 T6 instate heavy 0.29% 0.29% 9 107 41 1 18 9 T6 instate small 0.87% 0.87% 24 275 109 3 51 26 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 public 0.04% 0.04% 1 15 6 0 2 1 T6 utility 0.01% 0.01% 0 2 1 0 0 0 T6TS 0.31% 0.31% 43 58 391 1 5 2 T7 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 1 0 0 0 T7 CAIRP 0.28% 0.28% 30 248 160 2 16 10 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 0.02% 2 18 12 0 1 1 T7 NNOOS 0.32% 0.32% 33 244 174 2 17 10 T7 NOOS 0.10% 0.10% 12 96 65 1 6 4 T7 other port 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.63% 0.63% 64 618 334 3 41 26 T7 public 0.02% 0.02% 3 29 15 0 1 1 T7 Single 0.15% 0.15% 11 90 60 1 8 4 T7 single construction 0.05% 0.05% 4 31 21 0 3 2 T7 SWCV 0.05% 0.05% 5 64 27 0 3 1 T7 tractor 0.40% 0.40% 30 284 154 2 23 14 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 0.04% 3 31 18 0 2 1 T7 utility 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 2 0 0 0 T7IS 0.04% 0.04% 6 54 385 0 1 0 UBUS 0.24% 0.24% 24 382 155 1 57 28 TOTAL 100% 100% 4,058 6,558 31,618 161 1,807 814 lbs/day Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Project Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year Daily Proposed Proje 18,193,703 Percent of VMT Adjust % VMT ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 All Other Buses 0.06% 0.06% 2 28 10 0 4 2 LDA 47.75% 47.75% 1,281 1,207 13,922 70 918 397 LDT1 5.96% 5.96% 307 183 2,183 10 114 49 LDT2 20.40% 20.40% 932 639 7,032 40 391 169 LHD1 4.37% 4.37% 387 1,295 2,111 10 104 46 LHD2 0.63% 0.63% 35 199 238 1 20 9 MCY 0.30% 0.30% 455 148 2,598 0 5 2 MDV 15.90% 15.90% 1,160 722 7,794 40 304 130 MH 0.38% 0.38% 5 114 37 1 11 5 Motor Coach 0.06% 0.06% 6 50 31 0 5 3 OBUS 0.04% 0.04% 16 21 128 0 1 0 PTO 0.04% 0.04% 4 30 12 0 1 1 SBUS 0.05% 0.05% 6 71 39 0 11 5 T6 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 1 0 0 0 T6 instate construction heavy 0.05% 0.05% 2 24 9 0 4 2 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 0.16% 5 62 25 1 12 6 T6 instate heavy 0.29% 0.29% 11 132 50 1 22 11 T6 instate small 0.87% 0.87% 29 337 134 4 62 32 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 public 0.04% 0.04% 1 18 7 0 3 1 T6 utility 0.01% 0.01% 0 2 1 0 0 0 T6TS 0.31% 0.31% 53 71 480 1 6 2 T7 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 1 0 0 0 T7 CAIRP 0.28% 0.28% 37 304 197 2 20 12 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 0.02% 3 22 14 0 1 1 T7 NNOOS 0.32% 0.32% 40 300 213 2 21 12 T7 NOOS 0.10% 0.10% 15 118 79 1 7 5 T7 other port 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.63% 0.63% 78 758 410 4 50 32 T7 public 0.02% 0.02% 3 36 18 0 1 1 T7 Single 0.15% 0.15% 14 110 74 1 10 6 T7 single construction 0.05% 0.05% 5 38 26 0 3 2 T7 SWCV 0.05% 0.05% 6 79 33 0 3 2 T7 tractor 0.40% 0.40% 37 349 189 3 28 17 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 0.04% 4 38 22 0 3 2 T7 utility 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 2 0 0 0 T7IS 0.04% 0.04% 8 67 473 0 1 0 UBUS 0.24% 0.24% 29 468 190 2 70 34 TOTAL 100% 100.0% 4,978 8,045 38,785 197 2,216 999 lbs/day Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Year 2020 Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year Daily 2020 15,246,764 Percent of VMT Adjust % VMT ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 All Other Buses 0.05% 0.05% 2 46 7 0 3 2 LDA 50.89% 50.89% 1,752 1,425 16,805 62 807 342 LDT1 5.64% 5.64% 610 391 4,444 8 92 40 LDT2 19.32% 19.32% 971 870 8,561 32 306 129 LHD1 4.19% 4.19% 526 1,915 3,056 8 88 40 LHD2 0.59% 0.59% 52 351 284 1 17 8 MCY 0.47% 0.47% 589 197 3,586 0 7 3 MDV 15.08% 15.08% 1,304 1,335 11,865 32 240 102 MH 0.23% 0.23% 7 110 112 1 7 4 Motor Coach 0.05% 0.05% 4 63 21 0 3 2 OBUS 0.05% 0.05% 21 38 216 0 1 0 PTO 0.03% 0.03% 2 59 8 0 1 0 SBUS 0.05% 0.05% 8 132 79 0 10 5 T6 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 instate construction heavy 0.06% 0.06% 2 69 8 0 4 2 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 0.16% 6 82 26 1 11 6 T6 instate heavy 0.27% 0.27% 8 277 36 1 17 9 T6 instate small 0.76% 0.76% 26 357 115 3 50 27 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 public 0.03% 0.03% 1 49 4 0 2 1 T6 utility 0.01% 0.01% 0 4 1 0 0 0 T6TS 0.30% 0.30% 74 139 851 1 5 2 T7 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 4 1 0 0 0 T7 CAIRP 0.23% 0.23% 25 244 132 1 14 9 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 0.02% 2 23 12 0 1 1 T7 NNOOS 0.26% 0.26% 27 211 145 2 14 8 T7 NOOS 0.08% 0.08% 10 93 53 0 5 3 T7 other port 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.32% 0.32% 57 848 292 2 24 16 T7 public 0.01% 0.01% 1 66 7 0 1 0 T7 Single 0.12% 0.12% 8 203 42 1 7 4 T7 single construction 0.06% 0.06% 4 93 19 0 3 2 T7 SWCV 0.04% 0.04% 3 138 17 0 2 1 T7 tractor 0.33% 0.33% 25 471 127 2 20 12 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 0.04% 4 68 18 0 3 2 T7 utility 0.00% 0.00% 0 4 1 0 0 0 T7IS 0.03% 0.03% 8 47 335 0 0 0 UBUS 0.22% 0.22% 48 608 335 1 57 29 TOTAL 100% 100% 6,187 11,034 51,624 161 1,821 814 lbs/day Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Year 2012 Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year Daily 2012 14,628,528 Percent of VMT Adjust % VMT ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 All Other Buses 0.04% 0.04% 5 111 19 0 6 5 LDA 51.25% 51.25% 4,030 3,069 36,245 60 789 339 LDT1 5.75% 5.75% 987 748 8,610 8 94 43 LDT2 19.11% 19.11% 1,543 1,965 16,802 31 292 124 LHD1 4.02% 4.02% 622 2,705 4,621 8 85 41 LHD2 0.59% 0.59% 76 553 526 1 17 9 MCY 0.46% 0.46% 647 193 4,201 0 7 3 MDV 15.62% 15.62% 1,470 2,264 18,093 32 240 102 MH 0.22% 0.22% 21 166 531 0 7 4 Motor Coach 0.04% 0.04% 7 161 34 0 7 6 OBUS 0.06% 0.06% 31 63 348 0 1 0 PTO 0.02% 0.02% 6 106 30 0 4 3 SBUS 0.05% 0.05% 19 162 187 0 14 8 T6 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 0 5 1 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 0 0 0 0 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0.00% 0 4 1 0 0 0 T6 instate construction heavy 0.04% 0.04% 5 110 18 0 5 4 T6 instate construction small 0.11% 0.11% 9 225 38 0 13 9 T6 instate heavy 0.24% 0.24% 27 642 105 1 32 24 T6 instate small 0.68% 0.68% 55 1,312 222 2 76 54 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 0 0 0 0 T6 public 0.03% 0.03% 2 79 9 0 3 2 T6 utility 0.00% 0.00% 0 11 1 0 0 0 T6TS 0.27% 0.27% 141 280 1,648 1 4 2 T7 Ag 0.00% 0.00% 1 11 3 0 1 0 T7 CAIRP 0.18% 0.18% 35 592 162 1 31 25 T7 CAIRP construction 0.01% 0.01% 3 48 13 0 2 2 T7 NNOOS 0.20% 0.20% 31 423 147 1 23 17 T7 NOOS 0.07% 0.07% 13 217 60 0 11 9 T7 other port 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.21% 0.21% 28 589 141 1 17 12 T7 public 0.01% 0.01% 4 80 19 0 3 2 T7 Single 0.10% 0.10% 16 406 77 1 15 12 T7 single construction 0.04% 0.04% 6 158 30 0 6 5 T7 SWCV 0.03% 0.03% 2 179 10 0 2 1 T7 tractor 0.26% 0.26% 57 1,052 268 1 49 41 T7 tractor construction 0.03% 0.03% 7 120 31 0 6 5 T7 utility 0.00% 0.00% 0 8 1 0 0 0 T7IS 0.03% 0.03% 19 55 409 0 0 0 UBUS 0.21% 0.21% 58 730 472 1 55 29 TOTAL 100% 100% 9,983 19,609 94,134 153 1,920 945 lbs/day Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Baseline in 2035 (MTons/Year) Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year GWP GWP Baseline in 2035 310 1 MTons MTons Percent of VMT NOx N2O CO2 CO2e CO2w/Pavley + LCF CO2e w/ Pavley + LCFS All Other Buses 0.06% 4 0 3,134 3,169 2,821 2,856 LDA 47.75% 153 5 879,440 880,946 524,297 525,802 LDT1 5.96% 23 1 127,329 127,557 78,584 78,811 LDT2 20.40% 81 3 509,445 510,242 346,888 347,685 LHD1 4.37% 164 5 131,765 133,380 118,589 120,204 LHD2 0.63% 25 1 18,282 18,530 16,454 16,702 MCY 0.30% 19 1 2,588 2,773 2,329 2,514 MDV 15.90% 91 3 508,780 509,680 357,599 358,500 MH 0.38% 14 0 13,229 13,372 11,906 12,049 Motor Coach 0.06% 6 0 5,086 5,148 4,577 4,639 OBUS 0.04% 3 0 1,385 1,411 1,247 1,272 PTO 0.04% 4 0 3,910 3,947 3,519 3,556 SBUS 0.05% 9 0 2,872 2,961 2,585 2,674 T6 Ag 0.00% 0 0 88 89 80 80 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0 0 59 59 53 53 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0 0 203 205 183 184 T6 instate construction heavy 0.05% 3 0 3,062 3,093 2,756 2,786 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 8 0 9,038 9,116 8,134 8,212 T6 instate heavy 0.29% 17 1 16,610 16,775 14,949 15,114 T6 instate small 0.87% 43 1 48,915 49,335 44,023 44,443 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0 0 34 34 30 31 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0 0 116 117 105 106 T6 public 0.04% 2 0 2,331 2,354 2,098 2,120 T6 utility 0.01% 0 0 400 403 360 363 T6TS 0.31% 9 0 9,502 9,591 8,552 8,641 T7 Ag 0.00% 0 0 174 176 156 159 T7 CAIRP 0.28% 38 1 25,955 26,335 23,360 23,739 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 3 0 1,873 1,901 1,686 1,714 T7 NNOOS 0.32% 38 1 29,382 29,757 26,444 26,818 T7 NOOS 0.10% 15 0 9,612 9,759 8,651 8,798 T7 other port 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.63% 96 3 56,118 57,064 50,506 51,452 T7 public 0.02% 5 0 1,893 1,937 1,703 1,748 T7 Single 0.15% 14 0 13,523 13,660 12,171 12,308 T7 single construction 0.05% 5 0 4,694 4,742 4,225 4,272 T7 SWCV 0.05% 10 0 4,700 4,798 4,230 4,328 T7 tractor 0.40% 44 1 34,724 35,159 31,251 31,687 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 5 0 3,497 3,544 3,147 3,194 T7 utility 0.00% 0 0 210 212 189 192 T7IS 0.04% 8 0 1,103 1,186 993 1,076 UBUS 0.24% 59 2 22,667 23,251 20,400 20,985 TOTAL 100% 1,018 32 2,507,730 2,517,767 1,741,830 1,751,867 5,076,099,216 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off-model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Current GP (MTons/Year) Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year GWP GWP Current GP 310 1 MTons MTons Percent of VMT NOx N2O CO2 CO2e CO2w/Pavley + LCF CO2e w/ Pavley + LCFS All Other Buses 0.06% 4 0 3,178 3,213 2,860 2,895 LDA 47.75% 155 5 891,649 893,175 531,575 533,102 LDT1 5.96% 23 1 129,097 129,328 79,674 79,905 LDT2 20.40% 82 3 516,517 517,326 351,704 352,512 LHD1 4.37% 166 5 133,594 135,232 120,235 121,873 LHD2 0.63% 26 1 18,536 18,787 16,682 16,934 MCY 0.30% 19 1 2,624 2,811 2,361 2,549 MDV 15.90% 93 3 515,843 516,756 362,564 363,477 MH 0.38% 15 0 13,413 13,557 12,071 12,216 Motor Coach 0.06% 6 0 5,157 5,219 4,641 4,704 OBUS 0.04% 3 0 1,404 1,430 1,264 1,290 PTO 0.04% 4 0 3,964 4,002 3,568 3,606 SBUS 0.05% 9 0 2,912 3,002 2,620 2,711 T6 Ag 0.00% 0 0 90 91 81 82 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0 0 60 60 54 54 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0 0 206 208 185 187 T6 instate construction heavy 0.05% 3 0 3,105 3,136 2,794 2,825 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 8 0 9,164 9,242 8,247 8,326 T6 instate heavy 0.29% 17 1 16,841 17,007 15,157 15,323 T6 instate small 0.87% 43 1 49,594 50,020 44,634 45,060 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0 0 34 34 31 31 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0 0 118 119 106 107 T6 public 0.04% 2 0 2,363 2,386 2,127 2,150 T6 utility 0.01% 0 0 405 408 365 368 T6TS 0.31% 9 0 9,634 9,724 8,670 8,761 T7 Ag 0.00% 0 0 176 178 158 161 T7 CAIRP 0.28% 39 1 26,315 26,700 23,684 24,069 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 3 0 1,899 1,927 1,710 1,737 T7 NNOOS 0.32% 38 1 29,790 30,170 26,811 27,191 T7 NOOS 0.10% 15 0 9,746 9,895 8,771 8,920 T7 other port 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.63% 97 3 56,897 57,856 51,207 52,166 T7 public 0.02% 5 0 1,919 1,964 1,727 1,772 T7 Single 0.15% 14 0 13,711 13,850 12,340 12,479 T7 single construction 0.05% 5 0 4,759 4,807 4,283 4,332 T7 SWCV 0.05% 10 0 4,766 4,865 4,289 4,388 T7 tractor 0.40% 45 1 35,206 35,647 31,685 32,126 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 5 0 3,546 3,593 3,191 3,239 T7 utility 0.00% 0 0 213 215 191 194 T7IS 0.04% 9 0 1,119 1,203 1,007 1,091 UBUS 0.24% 60 2 22,982 23,574 20,684 21,276 TOTAL 100% 1,032 33 2,542,543 2,552,719 1,766,011 1,776,187 5,146,567,050 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off-model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Project (MTons/Year) Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year GWP GWP Proposed Proje 310 1 MTons MTons Percent of VMT NOx N2O CO2 CO2e CO2w/Pavley + LCF CO2e w/ Pavley + LCFS All Other Buses 0.06% 4 0 3,898 3,941 3,509 3,552 LDA 47.75% 190 6 1,093,772 1,095,644 652,075 653,948 LDT1 5.96% 29 1 158,361 158,645 97,735 98,019 LDT2 20.40% 101 3 633,604 634,595 431,430 432,421 LHD1 4.37% 204 6 163,878 165,887 147,490 149,499 LHD2 0.63% 31 1 22,738 23,046 20,464 20,772 MCY 0.30% 23 1 3,219 3,448 2,897 3,126 MDV 15.90% 114 4 632,777 633,897 444,751 445,871 MH 0.38% 18 1 16,453 16,630 14,808 14,985 Motor Coach 0.06% 8 0 6,326 6,402 5,693 5,770 OBUS 0.04% 3 0 1,723 1,755 1,550 1,582 PTO 0.04% 5 0 4,863 4,910 4,376 4,423 SBUS 0.05% 11 0 3,572 3,682 3,214 3,325 Source: 2010 and 2035 VMT is b 0.00% 0 0 110 111 99 100 VMT (forecasted) is approximate 0.00% 0 0 73 74 66 66 Adjusted Daily vehicles miles trav 0.00% 0 0 253 255 227 229 T6 instate construction heavy 0.05% 4 0 3,809 3,846 3,428 3,465 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 10 0 11,241 11,337 10,117 10,213 T6 instate heavy 0.29% 21 1 20,658 20,863 18,592 18,797 T6 instate small 0.87% 53 2 60,836 61,358 54,752 55,275 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0 0 42 42 38 38 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0 0 145 146 130 132 T6 public 0.04% 3 0 2,899 2,927 2,609 2,637 T6 utility 0.01% 0 0 497 501 448 451 T6TS 0.31% 11 0 11,818 11,928 10,636 10,746 T7 Ag 0.00% 0 0 216 219 194 197 T7 CAIRP 0.28% 48 2 32,281 32,753 29,053 29,525 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 3 0 2,330 2,364 2,097 2,131 T7 NNOOS 0.32% 47 2 36,543 37,009 32,889 33,354 T7 NOOS 0.10% 19 1 11,955 12,138 10,760 10,942 T7 other port 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.63% 119 4 69,795 70,971 62,815 63,991 T7 public 0.02% 6 0 2,354 2,410 2,118 2,174 T7 Single 0.15% 17 1 16,819 16,989 15,137 15,307 T7 single construction 0.05% 6 0 5,838 5,897 5,254 5,313 T7 SWCV 0.05% 12 0 5,846 5,968 5,261 5,383 T7 tractor 0.40% 55 2 43,186 43,728 38,868 39,409 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 6 0 4,349 4,408 3,915 3,973 T7 utility 0.00% 0 0 261 264 235 238 T7IS 0.04% 10 0 1,372 1,476 1,235 1,338 UBUS 0.24% 74 2 28,191 28,918 25,372 26,099 TOTAL 100% 1,266 40 3,118,899 3,131,382 2,166,338 2,178,821 6,313,214,941 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off-model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Year 2020 (MTons/Year) Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year GWP GWP 2020 310 1 MTons MTons Percent of VMT NOx N2O CO2 CO2e CO2w/Pavley + LCF CO2e w/ Pavley + LCFS All Other Buses 0.05% 7 0 2,721 2,792 2,449 2,520 LDA 50.89% 224 7 977,141 979,353 674,213 676,425 LDT1 5.64% 62 2 125,135 125,742 91,296 91,902 LDT2 19.32% 137 4 503,479 504,828 379,787 381,136 LHD1 4.19% 301 10 131,880 134,852 118,692 121,664 LHD2 0.59% 55 2 17,949 18,494 16,154 16,699 MCY 0.47% 31 1 4,180 4,485 3,762 4,067 MDV 15.08% 210 7 502,057 504,128 398,401 400,473 MH 0.23% 17 1 8,202 8,373 7,382 7,552 Motor Coach 0.05% 10 0 4,414 4,513 3,973 4,071 OBUS 0.05% 6 0 1,781 1,841 1,603 1,663 PTO 0.03% 9 0 3,365 3,457 3,029 3,121 SBUS 0.05% 21 1 3,194 3,398 2,875 3,079 T6 Ag 0.00% 0 0 104 107 94 97 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0 0 53 54 48 49 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 0 0 182 184 164 166 T6 instate construction heavy 0.06% 11 0 3,617 3,725 3,255 3,363 T6 instate construction small 0.16% 13 0 9,694 9,822 8,725 8,852 T6 instate heavy 0.27% 44 1 15,922 16,351 14,329 14,759 T6 instate small 0.76% 56 2 44,708 45,262 40,237 40,791 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0 0 31 31 28 28 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0 0 104 105 94 95 T6 public 0.03% 8 0 1,963 2,040 1,767 1,843 T6 utility 0.01% 1 0 343 349 308 314 T6TS 0.30% 22 1 9,634 9,849 8,670 8,885 T7 Ag 0.00% 1 0 203 210 183 189 T7 CAIRP 0.23% 38 1 22,154 22,532 19,939 20,317 T7 CAIRP construction 0.02% 4 0 2,044 2,080 1,840 1,875 T7 NNOOS 0.26% 33 1 25,113 25,441 22,602 22,930 T7 NOOS 0.08% 15 0 8,195 8,340 7,376 7,521 T7 other port 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.32% 133 4 31,047 32,363 27,942 29,258 T7 public 0.01% 10 0 1,601 1,703 1,441 1,543 T7 Single 0.12% 32 1 11,596 11,912 10,437 10,752 T7 single construction 0.06% 15 0 5,148 5,293 4,633 4,778 T7 SWCV 0.04% 22 1 3,962 4,176 3,566 3,780 T7 tractor 0.33% 74 2 29,854 30,585 26,869 27,600 T7 tractor construction 0.04% 11 0 3,835 3,940 3,451 3,556 T7 utility 0.00% 1 0 180 186 162 168 T7IS 0.03% 7 0 911 984 820 893 UBUS 0.22% 96 3 22,618 23,561 20,356 21,299 TOTAL 1,737 55 2,540,316 2,557,437 1,932,951 1,950,072 5,290,627,047 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off-model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Year 2012 MTons/Year) Based on EMFAC2011 Emission year GWP GWP 2012 310 1 MTons MTons Percent of VMT NOx N2O CO2 CO2e CO2w/Pavley + LCF CO2e w/ Pavley + LCFS All Other Buses 0.04% 18 1 2,305 2,478 2,294 2,466 LDA 51.25% 483 15 942,227 946,989 893,260 898,022 LDT1 5.75% 118 4 121,597 122,758 116,181 117,342 LDT2 19.11% 309 10 478,660 481,709 461,056 464,104 LHD1 4.02% 426 14 121,432 125,629 120,825 125,022 LHD2 0.59% 87 3 17,157 18,015 17,071 17,929 MCY 0.46% 30 1 3,588 3,888 3,570 3,870 MDV 15.62% 356 11 496,166 499,679 483,883 487,395 MH 0.22% 26 1 7,673 7,931 7,635 7,892 Motor Coach 0.04% 25 1 3,658 3,908 3,640 3,890 OBUS 0.06% 10 0 1,973 2,070 1,963 2,061 PTO 0.02% 17 1 2,555 2,720 2,542 2,707 SBUS 0.05% 26 1 3,203 3,455 3,187 3,439 T6 Ag 0.00% 1 0 104 112 103 111 T6 CAIRP heavy 0.00% 0 0 46 49 46 49 T6 CAIRP small 0.00% 1 0 155 161 154 161 T6 instate construction heavy 0.04% 17 1 2,342 2,514 2,331 2,502 T6 instate construction small 0.11% 35 1 6,429 6,778 6,397 6,746 T6 instate heavy 0.24% 101 3 14,064 15,060 13,993 14,990 T6 instate small 0.68% 207 7 39,227 41,263 39,031 41,067 T6 OOS heavy 0.00% 0 0 27 28 26 28 T6 OOS small 0.00% 0 0 89 92 88 92 T6 public 0.03% 12 0 1,601 1,723 1,593 1,715 T6 utility 0.00% 2 0 290 307 289 305 T6TS 0.27% 44 1 8,398 8,833 8,356 8,791 T7 Ag 0.00% 2 0 200 217 199 216 T7 CAIRP 0.18% 93 3 16,480 17,398 16,397 17,316 T7 CAIRP construction 0.01% 8 0 1,313 1,387 1,307 1,381 T7 NNOOS 0.20% 67 2 18,833 19,490 18,739 19,396 T7 NOOS 0.07% 34 1 6,058 6,395 6,027 6,365 T7 other port 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POAK 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 T7 POLA 0.21% 93 3 19,481 20,395 19,383 20,298 T7 public 0.01% 13 0 1,300 1,425 1,294 1,418 T7 Single 0.10% 64 2 8,685 9,315 8,642 9,272 T7 single construction 0.04% 25 1 3,328 3,574 3,312 3,557 T7 SWCV 0.03% 28 1 3,311 3,588 3,294 3,572 T7 tractor 0.26% 166 5 22,575 24,208 22,462 24,095 T7 tractor construction 0.03% 19 1 2,483 2,669 2,470 2,657 T7 utility 0.00% 1 0 153 164 152 163 T7IS 0.03% 9 0 814 899 810 895 UBUS 0.21% 115 4 21,931 23,063 21,821 22,953 TOTAL 100% 3,086 98 2,401,910 2,432,336 2,315,823 2,346,249 5,076,099,216 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off-model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2035 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT ROG_TOTA L NOx_TOTE X CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOT AL PM2_5_TOT AL CO2_TOTE X CO2_TOTE X (Pavley I + LCFS) All Other Buses - TOT 817 47,868 0.1% 5.286E-03 6.606E-02 2.413E-02 5.617E-04 9.947E-03 5.347E-03 5.888E+01 5.299E+01 LDA - TOT 1,226,829 41,308,032 47.8% 3.046E+00 2.869E+00 3.310E+01 1.654E-01 2.183E+00 9.427E-01 1.652E+04 9.849E+03 LDT1 - TOT 150,727 5,155,730 6.0% 7.289E-01 4.342E-01 5.190E+00 2.396E-02 2.717E-01 1.170E-01 2.392E+03 1.476E+03 LDT2 - TOT 481,960 17,649,762 20.4% 2.216E+00 1.519E+00 1.672E+01 9.580E-02 9.302E-01 4.006E-01 9.570E+03 6.516E+03 LHD1 - TOT 94,649 3,776,753 4.4% 9.199E-01 3.078E+00 5.019E+00 2.456E-02 2.479E-01 1.085E-01 2.475E+03 2.228E+03 LHD2 - TOT 13,677 544,895 0.6% 8.411E-02 4.724E-01 5.650E-01 3.370E-03 4.782E-02 2.172E-02 3.434E+02 3.091E+02 MCY - TOT 37,438 259,852 0.3% 1.081E+00 3.517E-01 6.176E+00 6.087E-04 1.294E-02 5.188E-03 4.861E+01 4.375E+01 MDV - TOT 396,794 13,753,433 15.9% 2.756E+00 1.716E+00 1.853E+01 9.571E-02 7.227E-01 3.101E-01 9.557E+03 6.717E+03 MH - TOT 26,855 329,680 0.4% 1.229E-02 2.715E-01 8.702E-02 2.449E-03 2.574E-02 1.196E-02 2.485E+02 2.236E+02 Motor Coach - TOT 327 48,996 0.1% 1.409E-02 1.177E-01 7.414E-02 9.115E-04 1.152E-02 6.707E-03 9.554E+01 8.599E+01 OBUS - TOT 1,025 36,934 0.0% 3.810E-02 4.889E-02 3.054E-01 2.652E-04 1.844E-03 7.430E-04 2.602E+01 2.342E+01 PTO - TOT 0 31,471 0.0% 9.194E-03 7.168E-02 2.829E-02 7.007E-04 1.536E-03 1.413E-03 7.344E+01 6.610E+01 SBUS - TOT 1,185 41,362 0.0% 1.491E-02 1.696E-01 9.376E-02 5.208E-04 2.506E-02 1.144E-02 5.394E+01 4.855E+01 T6 Ag - TOT 38 1,339 0.0% 1.478E-04 1.826E-03 7.004E-04 1.583E-05 2.761E-04 1.476E-04 1.660E+00 1.494E+00 T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 14 898 0.0% 8.461E-05 9.753E-04 3.873E-04 1.053E-05 1.781E-04 9.244E-05 1.103E+00 9.929E-01 T6 CAIRP small - TOT 43 3,109 0.0% 2.779E-04 3.103E-03 1.269E-03 3.640E-05 6.079E-04 3.122E-04 3.816E+00 3.434E+00 T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 813 46,759 0.1% 4.786E-03 5.769E-02 2.198E-02 5.488E-04 9.487E-03 5.012E-03 5.752E+01 5.177E+01 T6 instate construction small - TOT 2,027 138,258 0.2% 1.290E-02 1.479E-01 5.896E-02 1.620E-03 2.735E-02 1.417E-02 1.698E+02 1.528E+02 T6 instate heavy - TOT 4,413 253,617 0.3% 2.598E-02 3.133E-01 1.193E-01 2.977E-03 5.147E-02 2.720E-02 3.120E+02 2.808E+02 T6 instate small - TOT 10,975 748,246 0.9% 6.985E-02 8.009E-01 3.192E-01 8.766E-03 1.480E-01 7.671E-02 9.188E+02 8.269E+02 T6 OOS heavy - TOT 8 515 0.0% 4.851E-05 5.591E-04 2.220E-04 6.034E-06 1.021E-04 5.300E-05 6.325E-01 5.693E-01 T6 OOS small - TOT 25 1,783 0.0% 1.593E-04 1.779E-03 7.276E-04 2.087E-05 3.485E-04 1.790E-04 2.188E+00 1.969E+00 T6 public - TOT 1,893 34,684 0.0% 3.093E-03 4.330E-02 1.647E-02 4.177E-04 6.615E-03 3.330E-03 4.378E+01 3.940E+01 T6 utility - TOT 298 5,976 0.0% 5.028E-04 5.364E-03 2.679E-03 7.166E-05 1.121E-03 5.566E-04 7.511E+00 6.760E+00 T6TS - TOT 6,185 264,009 0.3% 1.261E-01 1.693E-01 1.140E+00 1.802E-03 1.313E-02 5.262E-03 1.785E+02 1.606E+02 T7 Ag - TOT 23 1,674 0.0% 4.972E-04 4.267E-03 2.611E-03 3.112E-05 3.206E-04 1.944E-04 3.262E+00 2.936E+00 T7 CAIRP - TOT 1,003 243,346 0.3% 8.800E-02 7.229E-01 4.677E-01 4.651E-03 4.773E-02 2.930E-02 4.876E+02 4.388E+02 T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 72 17,564 0.0% 6.353E-03 5.219E-02 3.377E-02 3.357E-04 3.445E-03 2.115E-03 3.519E+01 3.167E+01 T7 NNOOS - TOT 991 273,755 0.3% 9.493E-02 7.129E-01 5.072E-01 5.266E-03 4.972E-02 2.931E-02 5.519E+02 4.967E+02 T7 NOOS - TOT 365 88,620 0.1% 3.521E-02 2.797E-01 1.882E-01 1.723E-03 1.743E-02 1.071E-02 1.806E+02 1.625E+02 T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 T7 POLA - TOT 2,739 541,972 0.6% 1.862E-01 1.801E+00 9.742E-01 1.006E-02 1.181E-01 7.613E-02 1.054E+03 9.487E+02 T7 public - TOT 638 15,829 0.0% 7.930E-03 8.565E-02 4.331E-02 3.392E-04 2.647E-03 1.485E-03 3.555E+01 3.199E+01 T7 Single - TOT 1,653 130,907 0.2% 3.336E-02 2.615E-01 1.754E-01 2.423E-03 2.277E-02 1.309E-02 2.540E+02 2.286E+02 T7 single construction - TOT 575 45,437 0.1% 1.159E-02 9.086E-02 6.094E-02 8.412E-04 7.905E-03 4.545E-03 8.817E+01 7.936E+01 T7 SWCV - TOT 864 42,888 0.0% 1.456E-02 1.867E-01 7.794E-02 8.424E-04 7.409E-03 4.242E-03 8.829E+01 7.946E+01 T7 tractor - TOT 2,064 343,347 0.4% 8.701E-02 8.295E-01 4.501E-01 6.223E-03 6.694E-02 4.097E-02 6.523E+02 5.870E+02 T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,877 0.0% 1.001E-02 8.937E-02 5.241E-02 6.267E-04 6.633E-03 4.069E-03 6.569E+01 5.912E+01 T7 utility - TOT 71 1,761 0.0% 9.388E-04 5.478E-03 5.155E-03 3.756E-05 2.843E-04 1.559E-04 3.937E+00 3.544E+00 T7IS - TOT 263 31,826 0.0% 1.820E-02 1.584E-01 1.124E+00 2.251E-04 1.577E-03 6.297E-04 2.072E+01 1.865E+01 UBUS - TOT 1,857 204,309 0.2% 6.934E-02 1.113E+00 4.516E-01 4.088E-03 1.657E-01 8.108E-02 4.258E+02 3.832E+02 86,501,072 100% Tons/Day ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2035 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 817 47,868 0.1% LDA - TOT 1,226,829 41,308,032 47.8% LDT1 - TOT 150,727 5,155,730 6.0% LDT2 - TOT 481,960 17,649,762 20.4% LHD1 - TOT 94,649 3,776,753 4.4% LHD2 - TOT 13,677 544,895 0.6% MCY - TOT 37,438 259,852 0.3% MDV - TOT 396,794 13,753,433 15.9% MH - TOT 26,855 329,680 0.4% Motor Coach - TOT 327 48,996 0.1% OBUS - TOT 1,025 36,934 0.0% PTO - TOT 0 31,471 0.0% SBUS - TOT 1,185 41,362 0.0% T6 Ag - TOT 38 1,339 0.0% T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 14 898 0.0% T6 CAIRP small - TOT 43 3,109 0.0% T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 813 46,759 0.1% T6 instate construction small - TOT 2,027 138,258 0.2% T6 instate heavy - TOT 4,413 253,617 0.3% T6 instate small - TOT 10,975 748,246 0.9% T6 OOS heavy - TOT 8 515 0.0% T6 OOS small - TOT 25 1,783 0.0% T6 public - TOT 1,893 34,684 0.0% T6 utility - TOT 298 5,976 0.0% T6TS - TOT 6,185 264,009 0.3% T7 Ag - TOT 23 1,674 0.0% T7 CAIRP - TOT 1,003 243,346 0.3% T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 72 17,564 0.0% T7 NNOOS - TOT 991 273,755 0.3% T7 NOOS - TOT 365 88,620 0.1% T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POLA - TOT 2,739 541,972 0.6% T7 public - TOT 638 15,829 0.0% T7 Single - TOT 1,653 130,907 0.2% T7 single construction - TOT 575 45,437 0.1% T7 SWCV - TOT 864 42,888 0.0% T7 tractor - TOT 2,064 343,347 0.4% T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,877 0.0% T7 utility - TOT 71 1,761 0.0% T7IS - TOT 263 31,826 0.0% UBUS - TOT 1,857 204,309 0.2% 86,501,072 100% ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2035 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 817 47,868 0.1% LDA - TOT 1,226,829 41,308,032 47.8% LDT1 - TOT 150,727 5,155,730 6.0% LDT2 - TOT 481,960 17,649,762 20.4% LHD1 - TOT 94,649 3,776,753 4.4% LHD2 - TOT 13,677 544,895 0.6% MCY - TOT 37,438 259,852 0.3% MDV - TOT 396,794 13,753,433 15.9% MH - TOT 26,855 329,680 0.4% Motor Coach - TOT 327 48,996 0.1% OBUS - TOT 1,025 36,934 0.0% PTO - TOT 0 31,471 0.0% SBUS - TOT 1,185 41,362 0.0% T6 Ag - TOT 38 1,339 0.0% T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 14 898 0.0% T6 CAIRP small - TOT 43 3,109 0.0% T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 813 46,759 0.1% T6 instate construction small - TOT 2,027 138,258 0.2% T6 instate heavy - TOT 4,413 253,617 0.3% T6 instate small - TOT 10,975 748,246 0.9% T6 OOS heavy - TOT 8 515 0.0% T6 OOS small - TOT 25 1,783 0.0% T6 public - TOT 1,893 34,684 0.0% T6 utility - TOT 298 5,976 0.0% T6TS - TOT 6,185 264,009 0.3% T7 Ag - TOT 23 1,674 0.0% T7 CAIRP - TOT 1,003 243,346 0.3% T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 72 17,564 0.0% T7 NNOOS - TOT 991 273,755 0.3% T7 NOOS - TOT 365 88,620 0.1% T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POLA - TOT 2,739 541,972 0.6% T7 public - TOT 638 15,829 0.0% T7 Single - TOT 1,653 130,907 0.2% T7 single construction - TOT 575 45,437 0.1% T7 SWCV - TOT 864 42,888 0.0% T7 tractor - TOT 2,064 343,347 0.4% T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,877 0.0% T7 utility - TOT 71 1,761 0.0% T7IS - TOT 263 31,826 0.0% UBUS - TOT 1,857 204,309 0.2% 86,501,072 100% 9.072E-01 ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) 1.002E-07 1.252E-06 4.574E-07 1.065E-08 1.885E-07 1.013E-07 1.116E-03 1.004E-03 6.688E-08 6.300E-08 7.268E-07 3.633E-09 4.793E-08 2.070E-08 3.628E-04 2.163E-04 1.282E-07 7.640E-08 9.132E-07 4.216E-09 4.781E-08 2.059E-08 4.209E-04 2.597E-04 1.139E-07 7.806E-08 8.593E-07 4.924E-09 4.781E-08 2.059E-08 4.919E-04 3.349E-04 2.210E-07 7.394E-07 1.206E-06 5.900E-09 5.954E-08 2.606E-08 5.945E-04 5.351E-04 1.400E-07 7.866E-07 9.406E-07 5.610E-09 7.962E-08 3.617E-08 5.718E-04 5.146E-04 3.775E-06 1.228E-06 2.156E-05 2.125E-09 4.517E-08 1.811E-08 1.697E-04 1.527E-04 1.818E-07 1.132E-07 1.222E-06 6.313E-09 4.767E-08 2.046E-08 6.304E-04 4.431E-04 3.382E-08 7.472E-07 2.395E-07 6.738E-09 7.084E-08 3.291E-08 6.838E-04 6.154E-04 2.609E-07 2.180E-06 1.373E-06 1.688E-08 2.133E-07 1.242E-07 1.769E-03 1.592E-03 9.358E-07 1.201E-06 7.502E-06 6.513E-09 4.529E-08 1.825E-08 6.391E-04 5.752E-04 2.650E-07 2.066E-06 8.155E-07 2.020E-08 4.428E-08 4.074E-08 2.117E-03 1.905E-03 3.271E-07 3.720E-06 2.056E-06 1.142E-08 5.496E-07 2.509E-07 1.183E-03 1.065E-03 1.001E-07 1.237E-06 4.745E-07 1.073E-08 1.871E-07 1.000E-07 1.124E-03 1.012E-03 8.546E-08 9.851E-07 3.912E-07 1.063E-08 1.799E-07 9.338E-08 1.114E-03 1.003E-03 8.109E-08 9.054E-07 3.703E-07 1.062E-08 1.774E-07 9.109E-08 1.113E-03 1.002E-03 9.285E-08 1.119E-06 4.264E-07 1.065E-08 1.841E-07 9.725E-08 1.116E-03 1.004E-03 8.466E-08 9.704E-07 3.869E-07 1.063E-08 1.794E-07 9.299E-08 1.114E-03 1.003E-03 9.294E-08 1.121E-06 4.268E-07 1.065E-08 1.841E-07 9.729E-08 1.116E-03 1.004E-03 8.469E-08 9.710E-07 3.870E-07 1.063E-08 1.795E-07 9.300E-08 1.114E-03 1.003E-03 8.546E-08 9.851E-07 3.912E-07 1.063E-08 1.799E-07 9.338E-08 1.114E-03 1.003E-03 8.109E-08 9.054E-07 3.703E-07 1.062E-08 1.774E-07 9.109E-08 1.113E-03 1.002E-03 8.090E-08 1.133E-06 4.307E-07 1.093E-08 1.730E-07 8.709E-08 1.145E-03 1.031E-03 7.633E-08 8.144E-07 4.068E-07 1.088E-08 1.702E-07 8.451E-08 1.140E-03 1.026E-03 4.335E-07 5.818E-07 3.919E-06 6.191E-09 4.511E-08 1.808E-08 6.133E-04 5.520E-04 2.694E-07 2.312E-06 1.415E-06 1.686E-08 1.737E-07 1.053E-07 1.767E-03 1.591E-03 3.281E-07 2.695E-06 1.744E-06 1.734E-08 1.779E-07 1.092E-07 1.818E-03 1.636E-03 3.281E-07 2.696E-06 1.744E-06 1.734E-08 1.779E-07 1.092E-07 1.818E-03 1.636E-03 3.146E-07 2.362E-06 1.681E-06 1.745E-08 1.648E-07 9.712E-08 1.829E-03 1.646E-03 3.605E-07 2.863E-06 1.926E-06 1.763E-08 1.784E-07 1.097E-07 1.848E-03 1.664E-03 3.117E-07 3.015E-06 1.631E-06 1.683E-08 1.977E-07 1.274E-07 1.764E-03 1.588E-03 4.545E-07 4.909E-06 2.482E-06 1.944E-08 1.517E-07 8.513E-08 2.037E-03 1.834E-03 2.312E-07 1.812E-06 1.216E-06 1.679E-08 1.578E-07 9.072E-08 1.760E-03 1.584E-03 2.313E-07 1.814E-06 1.217E-06 1.680E-08 1.578E-07 9.075E-08 1.760E-03 1.584E-03 3.080E-07 3.950E-06 1.649E-06 1.782E-08 1.567E-07 8.973E-08 1.868E-03 1.681E-03 2.299E-07 2.192E-06 1.189E-06 1.644E-08 1.769E-07 1.083E-07 1.723E-03 1.551E-03 2.679E-07 2.393E-06 1.404E-06 1.678E-08 1.776E-07 1.090E-07 1.759E-03 1.583E-03 4.837E-07 2.822E-06 2.656E-06 1.935E-08 1.465E-07 8.031E-08 2.029E-03 1.826E-03 5.187E-07 4.516E-06 3.203E-05 6.416E-09 4.496E-08 1.795E-08 5.907E-04 5.317E-04 3.079E-07 4.943E-06 2.005E-06 1.815E-08 7.357E-07 3.600E-07 1.891E-03 1.702E-03 MTons/Mile ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2035 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 817 47,868 0.1% LDA - TOT 1,226,829 41,308,032 47.8% LDT1 - TOT 150,727 5,155,730 6.0% LDT2 - TOT 481,960 17,649,762 20.4% LHD1 - TOT 94,649 3,776,753 4.4% LHD2 - TOT 13,677 544,895 0.6% MCY - TOT 37,438 259,852 0.3% MDV - TOT 396,794 13,753,433 15.9% MH - TOT 26,855 329,680 0.4% Motor Coach - TOT 327 48,996 0.1% OBUS - TOT 1,025 36,934 0.0% PTO - TOT 0 31,471 0.0% SBUS - TOT 1,185 41,362 0.0% T6 Ag - TOT 38 1,339 0.0% T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 14 898 0.0% T6 CAIRP small - TOT 43 3,109 0.0% T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 813 46,759 0.1% T6 instate construction small - TOT 2,027 138,258 0.2% T6 instate heavy - TOT 4,413 253,617 0.3% T6 instate small - TOT 10,975 748,246 0.9% T6 OOS heavy - TOT 8 515 0.0% T6 OOS small - TOT 25 1,783 0.0% T6 public - TOT 1,893 34,684 0.0% T6 utility - TOT 298 5,976 0.0% T6TS - TOT 6,185 264,009 0.3% T7 Ag - TOT 23 1,674 0.0% T7 CAIRP - TOT 1,003 243,346 0.3% T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 72 17,564 0.0% T7 NNOOS - TOT 991 273,755 0.3% T7 NOOS - TOT 365 88,620 0.1% T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POLA - TOT 2,739 541,972 0.6% T7 public - TOT 638 15,829 0.0% T7 Single - TOT 1,653 130,907 0.2% T7 single construction - TOT 575 45,437 0.1% T7 SWCV - TOT 864 42,888 0.0% T7 tractor - TOT 2,064 343,347 0.4% T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,877 0.0% T7 utility - TOT 71 1,761 0.0% T7IS - TOT 263 31,826 0.0% UBUS - TOT 1,857 204,309 0.2% 86,501,072 100% 2.000E+03 ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) 2.209E-04 2.760E-03 1.008E-03 2.347E-05 4.156E-04 2.234E-04 2.460E+00 2.214E+00 1.475E-04 1.389E-04 1.602E-03 8.010E-06 1.057E-04 4.564E-05 7.998E-01 4.768E-01 2.827E-04 1.684E-04 2.013E-03 9.295E-06 1.054E-04 4.539E-05 9.278E-01 5.726E-01 2.512E-04 1.721E-04 1.894E-03 1.086E-05 1.054E-04 4.539E-05 1.084E+00 7.384E-01 4.871E-04 1.630E-03 2.658E-03 1.301E-05 1.313E-04 5.745E-05 1.311E+00 1.180E+00 3.087E-04 1.734E-03 2.074E-03 1.237E-05 1.755E-04 7.973E-05 1.260E+00 1.134E+00 8.321E-03 2.707E-03 4.754E-02 4.685E-06 9.957E-05 3.993E-05 3.742E-01 3.367E-01 4.008E-04 2.495E-04 2.694E-03 1.392E-05 1.051E-04 4.510E-05 1.390E+00 9.768E-01 7.456E-05 1.647E-03 5.279E-04 1.486E-05 1.562E-04 7.255E-05 1.508E+00 1.357E+00 5.751E-04 4.805E-03 3.026E-03 3.721E-05 4.703E-04 2.738E-04 3.900E+00 3.510E+00 2.063E-03 2.648E-03 1.654E-02 1.436E-05 9.985E-05 4.024E-05 1.409E+00 1.268E+00 5.843E-04 4.556E-03 1.798E-03 4.453E-05 9.762E-05 8.981E-05 4.667E+00 4.201E+00 7.211E-04 8.202E-03 4.534E-03 2.518E-05 1.212E-03 5.532E-04 2.608E+00 2.347E+00 2.207E-04 2.727E-03 1.046E-03 2.365E-05 4.124E-04 2.205E-04 2.479E+00 2.231E+00 1.884E-04 2.172E-03 8.624E-04 2.344E-05 3.965E-04 2.059E-04 2.457E+00 2.211E+00 1.788E-04 1.996E-03 8.163E-04 2.342E-05 3.910E-04 2.008E-04 2.455E+00 2.209E+00 2.047E-04 2.468E-03 9.400E-04 2.347E-05 4.058E-04 2.144E-04 2.460E+00 2.214E+00 1.866E-04 2.139E-03 8.529E-04 2.343E-05 3.956E-04 2.050E-04 2.456E+00 2.210E+00 2.049E-04 2.471E-03 9.409E-04 2.347E-05 4.059E-04 2.145E-04 2.460E+00 2.214E+00 1.867E-04 2.141E-03 8.533E-04 2.343E-05 3.956E-04 2.050E-04 2.456E+00 2.210E+00 1.884E-04 2.172E-03 8.624E-04 2.344E-05 3.965E-04 2.059E-04 2.457E+00 2.211E+00 1.788E-04 1.996E-03 8.163E-04 2.342E-05 3.910E-04 2.008E-04 2.455E+00 2.209E+00 1.784E-04 2.497E-03 9.495E-04 2.409E-05 3.815E-04 1.920E-04 2.525E+00 2.272E+00 1.683E-04 1.795E-03 8.968E-04 2.398E-05 3.753E-04 1.863E-04 2.514E+00 2.262E+00 9.556E-04 1.283E-03 8.640E-03 1.365E-05 9.944E-05 3.986E-05 1.352E+00 1.217E+00 5.939E-04 5.098E-03 3.119E-03 3.717E-05 3.829E-04 2.322E-04 3.896E+00 3.507E+00 7.233E-04 5.942E-03 3.844E-03 3.823E-05 3.923E-04 2.408E-04 4.007E+00 3.606E+00 7.234E-04 5.943E-03 3.845E-03 3.823E-05 3.923E-04 2.408E-04 4.007E+00 3.606E+00 6.935E-04 5.208E-03 3.705E-03 3.847E-05 3.632E-04 2.141E-04 4.032E+00 3.629E+00 7.947E-04 6.313E-03 4.247E-03 3.888E-05 3.933E-04 2.418E-04 4.075E+00 3.667E+00 6.871E-04 6.648E-03 3.595E-03 3.711E-05 4.359E-04 2.809E-04 3.890E+00 3.501E+00 1.002E-03 1.082E-02 5.472E-03 4.285E-05 3.345E-04 1.877E-04 4.492E+00 4.043E+00 5.097E-04 3.996E-03 2.680E-03 3.703E-05 3.479E-04 2.000E-04 3.881E+00 3.493E+00 5.100E-04 3.999E-03 2.683E-03 3.703E-05 3.480E-04 2.001E-04 3.881E+00 3.493E+00 6.791E-04 8.708E-03 3.634E-03 3.928E-05 3.455E-04 1.978E-04 4.117E+00 3.706E+00 5.069E-04 4.832E-03 2.622E-03 3.625E-05 3.899E-04 2.387E-04 3.799E+00 3.419E+00 5.907E-04 5.276E-03 3.094E-03 3.700E-05 3.916E-04 2.402E-04 3.878E+00 3.490E+00 1.066E-03 6.222E-03 5.855E-03 4.267E-05 3.230E-04 1.771E-04 4.473E+00 4.025E+00 1.144E-03 9.956E-03 7.062E-02 1.414E-05 9.913E-05 3.957E-05 1.302E+00 1.172E+00 6.788E-04 1.090E-02 4.421E-03 4.002E-05 1.622E-03 7.937E-04 4.168E+00 3.751E+00 lbs/Mile ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2020 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTA L PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) All Other Buses - TOT 667 36,900 0.0 4.009E-03 1.219E-01 1.793E-02 4.372E-04 7.777E-03 4.222E-03 4.583E+01 4.125E+01 LDA - TOT 41,139,994 0.5 4.646E+00 3.779E+00 4.456E+01 1.650E-01 2.139E+00 9.063E-01 1.646E+04 1.136E+04 LDT1 - TOT 135,201 4,561,398 0.1 1.617E+00 1.037E+00 1.178E+01 2.124E-02 2.444E-01 1.073E-01 2.108E+03 1.538E+03 LDT2 - TOT 423,264 15,620,106 0.2 2.574E+00 2.306E+00 2.270E+01 8.504E-02 8.103E-01 3.425E-01 8.481E+03 6.397E+03 LHD1 - TOT 83,222 3,390,445 0.0 1.394E+00 5.078E+00 8.101E+00 2.211E-02 2.325E-01 1.066E-01 2.221E+03 1.999E+03 LHD2 - TOT 12,014 478,737 0.0 1.366E-01 9.308E-01 7.541E-01 2.971E-03 4.477E-02 2.163E-02 3.023E+02 2.721E+02 MCY - TOT 50,851 383,754 0.0 1.562E+00 5.215E-01 9.508E+00 8.914E-04 1.917E-02 7.707E-03 7.040E+01 6.336E+01 MDV - TOT 346,831 12,194,196 0.2 3.458E+00 3.540E+00 3.146E+01 8.495E-02 6.358E-01 2.704E-01 8.457E+03 6.711E+03 MH - TOT 15,750 184,105 0.0 1.862E-02 2.912E-01 2.982E-01 1.366E-03 1.796E-02 1.000E-02 1.382E+02 1.243E+02 Motor Coach - TOT 264 37,769 0.0 1.064E-02 1.683E-01 5.531E-02 7.094E-04 9.086E-03 5.358E-03 7.436E+01 6.692E+01 OBUS - TOT 1,097 42,862 0.0 5.528E-02 1.020E-01 5.732E-01 3.097E-04 2.167E-03 8.872E-04 3.001E+01 2.701E+01 PTO - TOT 0 24,035 0.0 6.530E-03 1.569E-01 2.057E-02 5.409E-04 1.335E-03 1.228E-03 5.669E+01 5.102E+01 SBUS - TOT 1,106 40,297 0.0 2.118E-02 3.489E-01 2.107E-01 5.210E-04 2.643E-02 1.223E-02 5.380E+01 4.842E+01 T6 Ag - TOT 42 1,404 0.0 3.041E-04 5.166E-03 1.263E-03 1.676E-05 4.018E-04 2.581E-04 1.756E+00 1.581E+00 T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 11 729 0.0 6.872E-05 1.578E-03 3.096E-04 8.595E-06 1.462E-04 7.661E-05 9.009E-01 8.108E-01 T6 CAIRP small - TOT 34 2,493 0.0 2.427E-04 3.022E-03 1.100E-03 2.925E-05 5.060E-04 2.674E-04 3.066E+00 2.759E+00 T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 907 48,888 0.0 4.899E-03 1.841E-01 2.185E-02 5.813E-04 1.020E-02 5.496E-03 6.093E+01 5.483E+01 T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,982 132,420 0.0 1.513E-02 2.179E-01 6.829E-02 1.558E-03 2.903E-02 1.619E-02 1.633E+02 1.470E+02 T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,873 215,571 0.0 2.150E-02 7.334E-01 9.616E-02 2.559E-03 4.469E-02 2.398E-02 2.682E+02 2.414E+02 T6 instate small - TOT 8,988 611,084 0.0 6.765E-02 9.466E-01 3.055E-01 7.185E-03 1.318E-01 7.271E-02 7.531E+02 6.778E+02 T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 418 0.0 3.940E-05 9.046E-04 1.775E-04 4.928E-06 8.384E-05 4.392E-05 5.165E-01 4.649E-01 T6 OOS small - TOT 20 1,429 0.0 1.391E-04 1.733E-03 6.304E-04 1.677E-05 2.901E-04 1.533E-04 1.758E+00 1.582E+00 T6 public - TOT 1,429 25,771 0.0 1.984E-03 1.309E-01 9.833E-03 3.155E-04 5.039E-03 2.588E-03 3.307E+01 2.976E+01 T6 utility - TOT 227 4,556 0.0 3.672E-04 9.914E-03 1.914E-03 5.508E-05 8.637E-04 4.325E-04 5.774E+00 5.196E+00 T6TS - TOT 5,468 240,160 0.0 1.953E-01 3.673E-01 2.256E+00 1.660E-03 1.219E-02 5.012E-03 1.623E+02 1.460E+02 T7 Ag - TOT 26 1,755 0.0 6.939E-04 1.170E-02 3.421E-03 3.260E-05 5.110E-04 3.648E-04 3.417E+00 3.075E+00 T7 CAIRP - TOT 757 186,531 0.0 6.681E-02 6.458E-01 3.508E-01 3.560E-03 3.699E-02 2.283E-02 3.732E+02 3.359E+02 T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 70 17,212 0.0 6.159E-03 6.038E-02 3.232E-02 3.285E-04 3.414E-03 2.107E-03 3.444E+01 3.099E+01 T7 NNOOS - TOT 746 209,840 0.0 7.259E-02 5.598E-01 3.857E-01 4.036E-03 3.808E-02 2.243E-02 4.230E+02 3.807E+02 T7 NOOS - TOT 276 67,930 0.0 2.655E-02 2.472E-01 1.401E-01 1.317E-03 1.351E-02 8.350E-03 1.380E+02 1.242E+02 T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 T7 POLA - TOT 1,486 260,698 0.0 1.511E-01 2.248E+00 7.743E-01 4.989E-03 6.397E-02 4.320E-02 5.230E+02 4.707E+02 T7 public - TOT 474 11,761 0.0 3.799E-03 1.753E-01 1.974E-02 2.572E-04 2.198E-03 1.317E-03 2.696E+01 2.427E+01 T7 Single - TOT 1,288 100,343 0.0 2.187E-02 5.388E-01 1.124E-01 1.864E-03 1.776E-02 1.032E-02 1.953E+02 1.758E+02 T7 single construction - TOT 577 44,526 0.0 9.677E-03 2.472E-01 4.972E-02 8.273E-04 7.904E-03 4.598E-03 8.672E+01 7.805E+01 T7 SWCV - TOT 642 31,867 0.0 8.596E-03 3.651E-01 4.453E-02 6.368E-04 6.076E-03 3.677E-03 6.675E+01 6.007E+01 T7 tractor - TOT 1,614 263,185 0.0 6.609E-02 1.248E+00 3.361E-01 4.798E-03 5.266E-02 3.265E-02 5.029E+02 4.526E+02 T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,197 0.0 9.342E-03 1.793E-01 4.799E-02 6.163E-04 6.688E-03 4.160E-03 6.460E+01 5.814E+01 T7 utility - TOT 54 1,343 0.0 5.838E-04 1.004E-02 3.185E-03 2.896E-05 2.216E-04 1.233E-04 3.035E+00 2.732E+00 T7IS - TOT 190 23,553 0.0 2.016E-02 1.245E-01 8.879E-01 1.677E-04 1.174E-03 4.720E-04 1.534E+01 1.381E+01 UBUS - TOT 1,587 174,562 0.0 1.283E-01 1.611E+00 8.876E-01 3.665E-03 1.500E-01 7.701E-02 3.810E+02 3.429E+02 80,847,824 100% Tons/Day ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2020 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 667 36,900 0.0 LDA - TOT 41,139,994 0.5 LDT1 - TOT 135,201 4,561,398 0.1 LDT2 - TOT 423,264 15,620,106 0.2 LHD1 - TOT 83,222 3,390,445 0.0 LHD2 - TOT 12,014 478,737 0.0 MCY - TOT 50,851 383,754 0.0 MDV - TOT 346,831 12,194,196 0.2 MH - TOT 15,750 184,105 0.0 Motor Coach - TOT 264 37,769 0.0 OBUS - TOT 1,097 42,862 0.0 PTO - TOT 0 24,035 0.0 SBUS - TOT 1,106 40,297 0.0 T6 Ag - TOT 42 1,404 0.0 T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 11 729 0.0 T6 CAIRP small - TOT 34 2,493 0.0 T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 907 48,888 0.0 T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,982 132,420 0.0 T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,873 215,571 0.0 T6 instate small - TOT 8,988 611,084 0.0 T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 418 0.0 T6 OOS small - TOT 20 1,429 0.0 T6 public - TOT 1,429 25,771 0.0 T6 utility - TOT 227 4,556 0.0 T6TS - TOT 5,468 240,160 0.0 T7 Ag - TOT 26 1,755 0.0 T7 CAIRP - TOT 757 186,531 0.0 T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 70 17,212 0.0 T7 NNOOS - TOT 746 209,840 0.0 T7 NOOS - TOT 276 67,930 0.0 T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0 T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0 T7 POLA - TOT 1,486 260,698 0.0 T7 public - TOT 474 11,761 0.0 T7 Single - TOT 1,288 100,343 0.0 T7 single construction - TOT 577 44,526 0.0 T7 SWCV - TOT 642 31,867 0.0 T7 tractor - TOT 1,614 263,185 0.0 T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,197 0.0 T7 utility - TOT 54 1,343 0.0 T7IS - TOT 190 23,553 0.0 UBUS - TOT 1,587 174,562 0.0 80,847,824 100% 9.072E-01 ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) 9.856E-08 2.996E-06 4.408E-07 1.075E-08 1.912E-07 1.038E-07 1.127E-03 1.014E-03 1.025E-07 8.332E-08 9.825E-07 3.639E-09 4.716E-08 1.998E-08 3.630E-04 2.504E-04 3.216E-07 2.062E-07 2.343E-06 4.224E-09 4.861E-08 2.133E-08 4.192E-04 3.059E-04 1.495E-07 1.339E-07 1.318E-06 4.939E-09 4.706E-08 1.989E-08 4.926E-04 3.715E-04 3.731E-07 1.359E-06 2.168E-06 5.916E-09 6.220E-08 2.853E-08 5.944E-04 5.350E-04 2.588E-07 1.764E-06 1.429E-06 5.630E-09 8.484E-08 4.099E-08 5.729E-04 5.156E-04 3.693E-06 1.233E-06 2.248E-05 2.107E-09 4.531E-08 1.822E-08 1.664E-04 1.498E-04 2.573E-07 2.633E-07 2.340E-06 6.320E-09 4.730E-08 2.011E-08 6.292E-04 4.993E-04 9.177E-08 1.435E-06 1.469E-06 6.731E-09 8.848E-08 4.928E-08 6.808E-04 6.127E-04 2.555E-07 4.041E-06 1.329E-06 1.704E-08 2.182E-07 1.287E-07 1.786E-03 1.607E-03 1.170E-06 2.159E-06 1.213E-05 6.555E-09 4.586E-08 1.878E-08 6.351E-04 5.716E-04 2.465E-07 5.923E-06 7.764E-07 2.041E-08 5.038E-08 4.635E-08 2.140E-03 1.926E-03 4.769E-07 7.855E-06 4.744E-06 1.173E-08 5.949E-07 2.753E-07 1.211E-03 1.090E-03 1.965E-07 3.338E-06 8.164E-07 1.083E-08 2.597E-07 1.668E-07 1.135E-03 1.022E-03 8.552E-08 1.964E-06 3.853E-07 1.070E-08 1.820E-07 9.535E-08 1.121E-03 1.009E-03 8.831E-08 1.100E-06 4.001E-07 1.064E-08 1.841E-07 9.732E-08 1.116E-03 1.004E-03 9.091E-08 3.416E-06 4.054E-07 1.079E-08 1.892E-07 1.020E-07 1.131E-03 1.018E-03 1.037E-07 1.493E-06 4.678E-07 1.067E-08 1.989E-07 1.109E-07 1.119E-03 1.007E-03 9.048E-08 3.086E-06 4.047E-07 1.077E-08 1.881E-07 1.009E-07 1.129E-03 1.016E-03 1.004E-07 1.405E-06 4.535E-07 1.067E-08 1.957E-07 1.079E-07 1.118E-03 1.006E-03 8.552E-08 1.964E-06 3.853E-07 1.070E-08 1.820E-07 9.535E-08 1.121E-03 1.009E-03 8.831E-08 1.100E-06 4.001E-07 1.064E-08 1.841E-07 9.732E-08 1.116E-03 1.004E-03 6.985E-08 4.608E-06 3.461E-07 1.111E-08 1.774E-07 9.110E-08 1.164E-03 1.048E-03 7.311E-08 1.974E-06 3.810E-07 1.097E-08 1.720E-07 8.611E-08 1.150E-03 1.035E-03 7.378E-07 1.387E-06 8.523E-06 6.269E-09 4.603E-08 1.893E-08 6.130E-04 5.517E-04 3.587E-07 6.047E-06 1.768E-06 1.685E-08 2.641E-07 1.885E-07 1.766E-03 1.590E-03 3.249E-07 3.141E-06 1.706E-06 1.732E-08 1.799E-07 1.110E-07 1.815E-03 1.633E-03 3.246E-07 3.182E-06 1.703E-06 1.732E-08 1.799E-07 1.111E-07 1.815E-03 1.634E-03 3.138E-07 2.420E-06 1.668E-06 1.745E-08 1.646E-07 9.699E-08 1.829E-03 1.646E-03 3.545E-07 3.301E-06 1.871E-06 1.759E-08 1.804E-07 1.115E-07 1.844E-03 1.659E-03 5.258E-07 7.823E-06 2.695E-06 1.736E-08 2.226E-07 1.503E-07 1.820E-03 1.638E-03 2.930E-07 1.353E-05 1.523E-06 1.984E-08 1.696E-07 1.016E-07 2.080E-03 1.872E-03 1.977E-07 4.871E-06 1.017E-06 1.685E-08 1.606E-07 9.328E-08 1.766E-03 1.589E-03 1.972E-07 5.036E-06 1.013E-06 1.686E-08 1.610E-07 9.369E-08 1.767E-03 1.590E-03 2.447E-07 1.039E-05 1.268E-06 1.813E-08 1.730E-07 1.047E-07 1.900E-03 1.710E-03 2.278E-07 4.303E-06 1.159E-06 1.654E-08 1.815E-07 1.125E-07 1.733E-03 1.560E-03 2.553E-07 4.900E-06 1.311E-06 1.684E-08 1.828E-07 1.137E-07 1.765E-03 1.589E-03 3.945E-07 6.782E-06 2.152E-06 1.957E-08 1.498E-07 8.332E-08 2.051E-03 1.846E-03 7.765E-07 4.796E-06 3.420E-05 6.461E-09 4.522E-08 1.818E-08 5.910E-04 5.319E-04 6.669E-07 8.371E-06 4.613E-06 1.905E-08 7.793E-07 4.002E-07 1.980E-03 1.782E-03 MTons/Mile ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2020 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 667 36,900 0.0 LDA - TOT 41,139,994 0.5 LDT1 - TOT 135,201 4,561,398 0.1 LDT2 - TOT 423,264 15,620,106 0.2 LHD1 - TOT 83,222 3,390,445 0.0 LHD2 - TOT 12,014 478,737 0.0 MCY - TOT 50,851 383,754 0.0 MDV - TOT 346,831 12,194,196 0.2 MH - TOT 15,750 184,105 0.0 Motor Coach - TOT 264 37,769 0.0 OBUS - TOT 1,097 42,862 0.0 PTO - TOT 0 24,035 0.0 SBUS - TOT 1,106 40,297 0.0 T6 Ag - TOT 42 1,404 0.0 T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 11 729 0.0 T6 CAIRP small - TOT 34 2,493 0.0 T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 907 48,888 0.0 T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,982 132,420 0.0 T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,873 215,571 0.0 T6 instate small - TOT 8,988 611,084 0.0 T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 418 0.0 T6 OOS small - TOT 20 1,429 0.0 T6 public - TOT 1,429 25,771 0.0 T6 utility - TOT 227 4,556 0.0 T6TS - TOT 5,468 240,160 0.0 T7 Ag - TOT 26 1,755 0.0 T7 CAIRP - TOT 757 186,531 0.0 T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 70 17,212 0.0 T7 NNOOS - TOT 746 209,840 0.0 T7 NOOS - TOT 276 67,930 0.0 T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0 T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0 T7 POLA - TOT 1,486 260,698 0.0 T7 public - TOT 474 11,761 0.0 T7 Single - TOT 1,288 100,343 0.0 T7 single construction - TOT 577 44,526 0.0 T7 SWCV - TOT 642 31,867 0.0 T7 tractor - TOT 1,614 263,185 0.0 T7 tractor construction - TOT 421 33,197 0.0 T7 utility - TOT 54 1,343 0.0 T7IS - TOT 190 23,553 0.0 UBUS - TOT 1,587 174,562 0.0 80,847,824 100% 2.000E+03 ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) 2.173E-04 6.606E-03 9.718E-04 2.370E-05 4.215E-04 2.288E-04 2.484E+00 2.236E+00 2.259E-04 1.837E-04 2.166E-03 8.023E-06 1.040E-04 4.406E-05 8.002E-01 5.521E-01 7.091E-04 4.545E-04 5.166E-03 9.313E-06 1.072E-04 4.703E-05 9.242E-01 6.743E-01 3.295E-04 2.952E-04 2.906E-03 1.089E-05 1.038E-04 4.386E-05 1.086E+00 8.191E-01 8.225E-04 2.996E-03 4.779E-03 1.304E-05 1.371E-04 6.289E-05 1.310E+00 1.179E+00 5.705E-04 3.889E-03 3.150E-03 1.241E-05 1.870E-04 9.036E-05 1.263E+00 1.137E+00 8.141E-03 2.718E-03 4.955E-02 4.646E-06 9.990E-05 4.017E-05 3.669E-01 3.302E-01 5.672E-04 5.806E-04 5.159E-03 1.393E-05 1.043E-04 4.434E-05 1.387E+00 1.101E+00 2.023E-04 3.164E-03 3.239E-03 1.484E-05 1.951E-04 1.086E-04 1.501E+00 1.351E+00 5.632E-04 8.909E-03 2.929E-03 3.757E-05 4.811E-04 2.837E-04 3.938E+00 3.544E+00 2.580E-03 4.760E-03 2.675E-02 1.445E-05 1.011E-04 4.140E-05 1.400E+00 1.260E+00 5.434E-04 1.306E-02 1.712E-03 4.501E-05 1.111E-04 1.022E-04 4.717E+00 4.246E+00 1.051E-03 1.732E-02 1.046E-02 2.586E-05 1.312E-03 6.069E-04 2.670E+00 2.403E+00 4.333E-04 7.359E-03 1.800E-03 2.387E-05 5.724E-04 3.677E-04 2.502E+00 2.252E+00 1.885E-04 4.329E-03 8.494E-04 2.358E-05 4.012E-04 2.102E-04 2.472E+00 2.225E+00 1.947E-04 2.424E-03 8.821E-04 2.347E-05 4.060E-04 2.145E-04 2.460E+00 2.214E+00 2.004E-04 7.531E-03 8.938E-04 2.378E-05 4.172E-04 2.249E-04 2.493E+00 2.243E+00 2.286E-04 3.291E-03 1.031E-03 2.353E-05 4.385E-04 2.445E-04 2.466E+00 2.220E+00 1.995E-04 6.804E-03 8.921E-04 2.374E-05 4.146E-04 2.225E-04 2.488E+00 2.239E+00 2.214E-04 3.098E-03 9.998E-04 2.352E-05 4.314E-04 2.380E-04 2.465E+00 2.218E+00 1.885E-04 4.329E-03 8.494E-04 2.358E-05 4.012E-04 2.102E-04 2.472E+00 2.225E+00 1.947E-04 2.424E-03 8.821E-04 2.347E-05 4.060E-04 2.145E-04 2.460E+00 2.214E+00 1.540E-04 1.016E-02 7.631E-04 2.448E-05 3.911E-04 2.009E-04 2.566E+00 2.310E+00 1.612E-04 4.352E-03 8.400E-04 2.418E-05 3.791E-04 1.898E-04 2.534E+00 2.281E+00 1.627E-03 3.059E-03 1.879E-02 1.382E-05 1.015E-04 4.174E-05 1.351E+00 1.216E+00 7.907E-04 1.333E-02 3.899E-03 3.715E-05 5.823E-04 4.157E-04 3.894E+00 3.504E+00 7.163E-04 6.924E-03 3.761E-03 3.817E-05 3.966E-04 2.448E-04 4.001E+00 3.601E+00 7.156E-04 7.016E-03 3.755E-03 3.818E-05 3.967E-04 2.449E-04 4.001E+00 3.601E+00 6.918E-04 5.336E-03 3.676E-03 3.847E-05 3.629E-04 2.138E-04 4.032E+00 3.629E+00 7.816E-04 7.278E-03 4.125E-03 3.878E-05 3.977E-04 2.458E-04 4.064E+00 3.658E+00 1.159E-03 1.725E-02 5.940E-03 3.828E-05 4.908E-04 3.315E-04 4.012E+00 3.611E+00 6.460E-04 2.982E-02 3.357E-03 4.374E-05 3.739E-04 2.239E-04 4.585E+00 4.127E+00 4.358E-04 1.074E-02 2.241E-03 3.714E-05 3.540E-04 2.056E-04 3.893E+00 3.504E+00 4.347E-04 1.110E-02 2.233E-03 3.716E-05 3.550E-04 2.065E-04 3.895E+00 3.506E+00 5.395E-04 2.291E-02 2.795E-03 3.997E-05 3.813E-04 2.308E-04 4.189E+00 3.770E+00 5.023E-04 9.487E-03 2.554E-03 3.646E-05 4.002E-04 2.481E-04 3.822E+00 3.439E+00 5.628E-04 1.080E-02 2.891E-03 3.713E-05 4.029E-04 2.506E-04 3.892E+00 3.503E+00 8.697E-04 1.495E-02 4.745E-03 4.314E-05 3.302E-04 1.837E-04 4.522E+00 4.070E+00 1.712E-03 1.057E-02 7.540E-02 1.424E-05 9.969E-05 4.008E-05 1.303E+00 1.173E+00 1.470E-03 1.846E-02 1.017E-02 4.199E-05 1.718E-03 8.823E-04 4.365E+00 3.929E+00 lbs/Mile ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2012 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) All Other Buses - TOT 531 30,181 0.0% 1.311E-02 2.891E-01 4.878E-02 3.629E-04 1.575E-02 1.209E-02 3.804E+01 3.785E+01 LDA - TOT 1,143,115 38,950,639 51.3% 1.047E+01 7.972E+00 9.415E+01 1.568E-01 2.051E+00 8.797E-01 1.555E+04 1.474E+04 LDT1 - TOT 127,918 4,368,740 5.7% 2.564E+00 1.944E+00 2.236E+01 2.042E-02 2.446E-01 1.120E-01 2.007E+03 1.917E+03 LDT2 - TOT 392,552 14,523,762 19.1% 4.009E+00 5.103E+00 4.364E+01 7.960E-02 7.584E-01 3.227E-01 7.899E+03 7.609E+03 LHD1 - TOT 72,236 3,055,492 4.0% 1.616E+00 7.026E+00 1.200E+01 2.002E-02 2.215E-01 1.068E-01 2.004E+03 1.994E+03 LHD2 - TOT 10,813 447,100 0.6% 1.963E-01 1.437E+00 1.367E+00 2.792E-03 4.523E-02 2.317E-02 2.831E+02 2.817E+02 MCY - TOT 46,696 348,839 0.5% 1.680E+00 5.015E-01 1.091E+01 8.021E-04 1.791E-02 7.376E-03 5.922E+01 5.892E+01 MDV - TOT 320,449 11,868,463 15.6% 3.817E+00 5.880E+00 4.700E+01 8.254E-02 6.224E-01 2.662E-01 8.188E+03 7.986E+03 MH - TOT 14,403 167,271 0.2% 5.352E-02 4.307E-01 1.380E+00 1.270E-03 1.877E-02 1.125E-02 1.266E+02 1.260E+02 Motor Coach - TOT 209 30,406 0.0% 1.906E-02 4.187E-01 8.926E-02 5.759E-04 1.825E-02 1.437E-02 6.037E+01 6.006E+01 OBUS - TOT 1,051 46,499 0.1% 7.932E-02 1.637E-01 9.039E-01 3.411E-04 2.457E-03 1.050E-03 3.255E+01 3.239E+01 PTO - TOT 0 17,798 0.0% 1.626E-02 2.755E-01 7.723E-02 4.023E-04 9.604E-03 8.836E-03 4.217E+01 4.195E+01 SBUS - TOT 1,048 39,552 0.1% 4.839E-02 4.217E-01 4.847E-01 5.155E-04 3.634E-02 2.131E-02 5.285E+01 5.259E+01 T6 Ag - TOT 39 1,344 0.0% 7.739E-04 1.348E-02 2.776E-03 1.633E-05 8.046E-04 6.334E-04 1.711E+00 1.703E+00 T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 10 611 0.0% 1.538E-04 4.114E-03 6.224E-04 7.297E-06 2.195E-04 1.534E-04 7.649E-01 7.610E-01 T6 CAIRP small - TOT 29 2,044 0.0% 4.325E-04 1.073E-02 1.818E-03 2.438E-05 6.818E-04 4.648E-04 2.556E+00 2.543E+00 T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 568 30,798 0.0% 1.216E-02 2.870E-01 4.650E-02 3.688E-04 1.413E-02 1.055E-02 3.866E+01 3.846E+01 T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,308 84,786 0.1% 2.430E-02 5.843E-01 9.800E-02 1.012E-03 3.328E-02 2.388E-02 1.061E+02 1.056E+02 T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,371 185,036 0.2% 7.102E-02 1.668E+00 2.720E-01 2.214E-03 8.310E-02 6.175E-02 2.321E+02 2.309E+02 T6 instate small - TOT 7,911 517,747 0.7% 1.429E-01 3.409E+00 5.773E-01 6.176E-03 1.978E-01 1.408E-01 6.474E+02 6.441E+02 T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 350 0.0% 8.815E-05 2.359E-03 3.568E-04 4.184E-06 1.259E-04 8.796E-05 4.385E-01 4.363E-01 T6 OOS small - TOT 17 1,172 0.0% 2.480E-04 6.150E-03 1.042E-03 1.398E-05 3.909E-04 2.665E-04 1.465E+00 1.458E+00 T6 public - TOT 1,138 20,539 0.0% 6.149E-03 2.047E-01 2.456E-02 2.520E-04 8.629E-03 6.306E-03 2.642E+01 2.629E+01 T6 utility - TOT 190 3,747 0.0% 5.986E-04 2.766E-02 2.728E-03 4.572E-05 1.171E-03 7.798E-04 4.792E+00 4.768E+00 T6TS - TOT 4,833 202,701 0.3% 3.666E-01 7.283E-01 4.282E+00 1.459E-03 1.105E-02 4.886E-03 1.386E+02 1.379E+02 T7 Ag - TOT 24 1,691 0.0% 1.487E-03 2.873E-02 7.109E-03 3.145E-05 1.307E-03 1.101E-03 3.296E+00 3.280E+00 T7 CAIRP - TOT 595 137,701 0.2% 9.182E-02 1.537E+00 4.220E-01 2.595E-03 7.925E-02 6.464E-02 2.720E+02 2.706E+02 T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 48 10,973 0.0% 7.390E-03 1.243E-01 3.392E-02 2.067E-04 6.395E-03 5.225E-03 2.167E+01 2.156E+01 T7 NNOOS - TOT 584 154,908 0.2% 7.998E-02 1.100E+00 3.828E-01 2.965E-03 5.901E-02 4.499E-02 3.108E+02 3.093E+02 T7 NOOS - TOT 217 50,147 0.1% 3.427E-02 5.647E-01 1.558E-01 9.538E-04 2.884E-02 2.352E-02 9.997E+01 9.947E+01 T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 T7 POLA - TOT 1,087 160,092 0.2% 7.155E-02 1.531E+00 3.653E-01 3.067E-03 4.489E-02 3.169E-02 3.215E+02 3.199E+02 T7 public - TOT 380 9,432 0.0% 1.121E-02 2.081E-01 4.852E-02 2.047E-04 6.642E-03 5.545E-03 2.146E+01 2.135E+01 T7 Single - TOT 984 74,076 0.1% 4.261E-02 1.055E+00 1.994E-01 1.367E-03 3.806E-02 3.057E-02 1.433E+02 1.426E+02 T7 single construction - TOT 380 28,385 0.0% 1.651E-02 4.104E-01 7.720E-02 5.241E-04 1.476E-02 1.187E-02 5.493E+01 5.466E+01 T7 SWCV - TOT 514 25,557 0.0% 5.268E-03 4.653E-01 2.564E-02 5.212E-04 5.450E-03 3.480E-03 5.463E+01 5.436E+01 T7 tractor - TOT 1,214 194,288 0.3% 1.473E-01 2.733E+00 6.966E-01 3.554E-03 1.283E-01 1.064E-01 3.726E+02 3.707E+02 T7 tractor construction - TOT 275 21,163 0.0% 1.736E-02 3.123E-01 8.164E-02 3.909E-04 1.435E-02 1.193E-02 4.097E+01 4.077E+01 T7 utility - TOT 45 1,111 0.0% 7.709E-04 1.962E-02 3.785E-03 2.401E-05 4.605E-04 3.570E-04 2.517E+00 2.504E+00 T7IS - TOT 180 20,330 0.0% 4.838E-02 1.417E-01 1.062E+00 1.521E-04 1.077E-03 4.578E-04 1.344E+01 1.337E+01 UBUS - TOT 1,464 161,061 0.2% 1.504E-01 1.895E+00 1.225E+00 3.487E-03 1.439E-01 7.614E-02 3.619E+02 3.601E+02 75,996,533 Tons/Day ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2012 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 531 30,181 0.0% LDA - TOT 1,143,115 38,950,639 51.3% LDT1 - TOT 127,918 4,368,740 5.7% LDT2 - TOT 392,552 14,523,762 19.1% LHD1 - TOT 72,236 3,055,492 4.0% LHD2 - TOT 10,813 447,100 0.6% MCY - TOT 46,696 348,839 0.5% MDV - TOT 320,449 11,868,463 15.6% MH - TOT 14,403 167,271 0.2% Motor Coach - TOT 209 30,406 0.0% OBUS - TOT 1,051 46,499 0.1% PTO - TOT 0 17,798 0.0% SBUS - TOT 1,048 39,552 0.1% T6 Ag - TOT 39 1,344 0.0% T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 10 611 0.0% T6 CAIRP small - TOT 29 2,044 0.0% T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 568 30,798 0.0% T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,308 84,786 0.1% T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,371 185,036 0.2% T6 instate small - TOT 7,911 517,747 0.7% T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 350 0.0% T6 OOS small - TOT 17 1,172 0.0% T6 public - TOT 1,138 20,539 0.0% T6 utility - TOT 190 3,747 0.0% T6TS - TOT 4,833 202,701 0.3% T7 Ag - TOT 24 1,691 0.0% T7 CAIRP - TOT 595 137,701 0.2% T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 48 10,973 0.0% T7 NNOOS - TOT 584 154,908 0.2% T7 NOOS - TOT 217 50,147 0.1% T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POLA - TOT 1,087 160,092 0.2% T7 public - TOT 380 9,432 0.0% T7 Single - TOT 984 74,076 0.1% T7 single construction - TOT 380 28,385 0.0% T7 SWCV - TOT 514 25,557 0.0% T7 tractor - TOT 1,214 194,288 0.3% T7 tractor construction - TOT 275 21,163 0.0% T7 utility - TOT 45 1,111 0.0% T7IS - TOT 180 20,330 0.0% UBUS - TOT 1,464 161,061 0.2% 75,996,533 ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2012 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 531 30,181 0.0% LDA - TOT 1,143,115 38,950,639 51.3% LDT1 - TOT 127,918 4,368,740 5.7% LDT2 - TOT 392,552 14,523,762 19.1% LHD1 - TOT 72,236 3,055,492 4.0% LHD2 - TOT 10,813 447,100 0.6% MCY - TOT 46,696 348,839 0.5% MDV - TOT 320,449 11,868,463 15.6% MH - TOT 14,403 167,271 0.2% Motor Coach - TOT 209 30,406 0.0% OBUS - TOT 1,051 46,499 0.1% PTO - TOT 0 17,798 0.0% SBUS - TOT 1,048 39,552 0.1% T6 Ag - TOT 39 1,344 0.0% T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 10 611 0.0% T6 CAIRP small - TOT 29 2,044 0.0% T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 568 30,798 0.0% T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,308 84,786 0.1% T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,371 185,036 0.2% T6 instate small - TOT 7,911 517,747 0.7% T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 350 0.0% T6 OOS small - TOT 17 1,172 0.0% T6 public - TOT 1,138 20,539 0.0% T6 utility - TOT 190 3,747 0.0% T6TS - TOT 4,833 202,701 0.3% T7 Ag - TOT 24 1,691 0.0% T7 CAIRP - TOT 595 137,701 0.2% T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 48 10,973 0.0% T7 NNOOS - TOT 584 154,908 0.2% T7 NOOS - TOT 217 50,147 0.1% T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POLA - TOT 1,087 160,092 0.2% T7 public - TOT 380 9,432 0.0% T7 Single - TOT 984 74,076 0.1% T7 single construction - TOT 380 28,385 0.0% T7 SWCV - TOT 514 25,557 0.0% T7 tractor - TOT 1,214 194,288 0.3% T7 tractor construction - TOT 275 21,163 0.0% T7 utility - TOT 45 1,111 0.0% T7IS - TOT 180 20,330 0.0% UBUS - TOT 1,464 161,061 0.2% 75,996,533 9.072E-01 ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) 3.940E-07 8.690E-06 1.466E-06 1.091E-08 4.734E-07 3.635E-07 1.143E-03 1.138E-03 2.438E-07 1.857E-07 2.193E-06 3.653E-09 4.776E-08 2.049E-08 3.622E-04 3.433E-04 5.323E-07 4.037E-07 4.644E-06 4.239E-09 5.079E-08 2.326E-08 4.167E-04 3.981E-04 2.504E-07 3.187E-07 2.726E-06 4.972E-09 4.737E-08 2.016E-08 4.934E-04 4.753E-04 4.797E-07 2.086E-06 3.563E-06 5.945E-09 6.578E-08 3.171E-08 5.950E-04 5.920E-04 3.984E-07 2.916E-06 2.775E-06 5.665E-09 9.177E-08 4.701E-08 5.745E-04 5.716E-04 4.370E-06 1.304E-06 2.838E-05 2.086E-09 4.657E-08 1.918E-08 1.540E-04 1.532E-04 2.918E-07 4.495E-07 3.592E-06 6.309E-09 4.758E-08 2.035E-08 6.259E-04 6.104E-04 2.903E-07 2.336E-06 7.486E-06 6.887E-09 1.018E-07 6.102E-08 6.868E-04 6.834E-04 5.686E-07 1.249E-05 2.663E-06 1.718E-08 5.444E-07 4.288E-07 1.801E-03 1.792E-03 1.547E-06 3.194E-06 1.763E-05 6.654E-09 4.794E-08 2.049E-08 6.351E-04 6.320E-04 8.286E-07 1.404E-05 3.936E-06 2.050E-08 4.895E-07 4.504E-07 2.149E-03 2.138E-03 1.110E-06 9.674E-06 1.112E-05 1.182E-08 8.336E-07 4.887E-07 1.212E-03 1.206E-03 5.223E-07 9.096E-06 1.874E-06 1.102E-08 5.430E-07 4.274E-07 1.155E-03 1.149E-03 2.284E-07 6.111E-06 9.245E-07 1.084E-08 3.261E-07 2.279E-07 1.136E-03 1.130E-03 1.919E-07 4.761E-06 8.067E-07 1.082E-08 3.026E-07 2.063E-07 1.134E-03 1.129E-03 3.582E-07 8.454E-06 1.370E-06 1.086E-08 4.161E-07 3.107E-07 1.139E-03 1.133E-03 2.600E-07 6.252E-06 1.049E-06 1.083E-08 3.561E-07 2.555E-07 1.135E-03 1.130E-03 3.482E-07 8.179E-06 1.333E-06 1.086E-08 4.074E-07 3.027E-07 1.138E-03 1.132E-03 2.503E-07 5.972E-06 1.011E-06 1.082E-08 3.466E-07 2.467E-07 1.134E-03 1.129E-03 2.284E-07 6.111E-06 9.245E-07 1.084E-08 3.261E-07 2.279E-07 1.136E-03 1.130E-03 1.919E-07 4.761E-06 8.067E-07 1.082E-08 3.026E-07 2.063E-07 1.134E-03 1.129E-03 2.716E-07 9.042E-06 1.085E-06 1.113E-08 3.811E-07 2.785E-07 1.167E-03 1.161E-03 1.450E-07 6.698E-06 6.607E-07 1.107E-08 2.836E-07 1.888E-07 1.160E-03 1.155E-03 1.641E-06 3.260E-06 1.916E-05 6.531E-09 4.944E-08 2.187E-08 6.203E-04 6.172E-04 7.977E-07 1.541E-05 3.813E-06 1.687E-08 7.012E-07 5.907E-07 1.768E-03 1.759E-03 6.049E-07 1.013E-05 2.780E-06 1.709E-08 5.221E-07 4.259E-07 1.792E-03 1.783E-03 6.109E-07 1.028E-05 2.804E-06 1.709E-08 5.287E-07 4.320E-07 1.792E-03 1.783E-03 4.684E-07 6.442E-06 2.242E-06 1.737E-08 3.456E-07 2.635E-07 1.820E-03 1.811E-03 6.200E-07 1.022E-05 2.818E-06 1.725E-08 5.217E-07 4.255E-07 1.809E-03 1.799E-03 4.055E-07 8.674E-06 2.070E-06 1.738E-08 2.544E-07 1.796E-07 1.822E-03 1.813E-03 1.078E-06 2.001E-05 4.667E-06 1.969E-08 6.388E-07 5.333E-07 2.064E-03 2.054E-03 5.218E-07 1.292E-05 2.442E-06 1.675E-08 4.661E-07 3.744E-07 1.755E-03 1.747E-03 5.275E-07 1.312E-05 2.467E-06 1.675E-08 4.717E-07 3.795E-07 1.756E-03 1.747E-03 1.870E-07 1.651E-05 9.103E-07 1.850E-08 1.935E-07 1.235E-07 1.939E-03 1.930E-03 6.878E-07 1.276E-05 3.253E-06 1.660E-08 5.991E-07 4.967E-07 1.740E-03 1.731E-03 7.440E-07 1.339E-05 3.499E-06 1.676E-08 6.149E-07 5.113E-07 1.756E-03 1.747E-03 6.296E-07 1.602E-05 3.091E-06 1.961E-08 3.761E-07 2.915E-07 2.055E-03 2.045E-03 2.159E-06 6.325E-06 4.739E-05 6.789E-09 4.807E-08 2.043E-08 5.998E-04 5.968E-04 8.469E-07 1.068E-05 6.899E-06 1.964E-08 8.105E-07 4.288E-07 2.039E-03 2.028E-03 MTons/Mile ---PAGE BREAK--- Orange County 2012 Annual Veh & Tech Pop VMT Percent of VMT All Other Buses - TOT 531 30,181 0.0% LDA - TOT 1,143,115 38,950,639 51.3% LDT1 - TOT 127,918 4,368,740 5.7% LDT2 - TOT 392,552 14,523,762 19.1% LHD1 - TOT 72,236 3,055,492 4.0% LHD2 - TOT 10,813 447,100 0.6% MCY - TOT 46,696 348,839 0.5% MDV - TOT 320,449 11,868,463 15.6% MH - TOT 14,403 167,271 0.2% Motor Coach - TOT 209 30,406 0.0% OBUS - TOT 1,051 46,499 0.1% PTO - TOT 0 17,798 0.0% SBUS - TOT 1,048 39,552 0.1% T6 Ag - TOT 39 1,344 0.0% T6 CAIRP heavy - TOT 10 611 0.0% T6 CAIRP small - TOT 29 2,044 0.0% T6 instate construction heavy - TOT 568 30,798 0.0% T6 instate construction small - TOT 1,308 84,786 0.1% T6 instate heavy - TOT 3,371 185,036 0.2% T6 instate small - TOT 7,911 517,747 0.7% T6 OOS heavy - TOT 6 350 0.0% T6 OOS small - TOT 17 1,172 0.0% T6 public - TOT 1,138 20,539 0.0% T6 utility - TOT 190 3,747 0.0% T6TS - TOT 4,833 202,701 0.3% T7 Ag - TOT 24 1,691 0.0% T7 CAIRP - TOT 595 137,701 0.2% T7 CAIRP construction - TOT 48 10,973 0.0% T7 NNOOS - TOT 584 154,908 0.2% T7 NOOS - TOT 217 50,147 0.1% T7 other port - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POAK - TOT 0 0 0.0% T7 POLA - TOT 1,087 160,092 0.2% T7 public - TOT 380 9,432 0.0% T7 Single - TOT 984 74,076 0.1% T7 single construction - TOT 380 28,385 0.0% T7 SWCV - TOT 514 25,557 0.0% T7 tractor - TOT 1,214 194,288 0.3% T7 tractor construction - TOT 275 21,163 0.0% T7 utility - TOT 45 1,111 0.0% T7IS - TOT 180 20,330 0.0% UBUS - TOT 1,464 161,061 0.2% 75,996,533 2.000E+03 ROG_TOTAL NOx_TOTEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX PM10_TOTAL PM2_5_TOTA L CO2_TOTEX CO2_TOTEX (Pavley I + LCFS) 8.687E-04 1.916E-02 3.233E-03 2.405E-05 1.044E-03 8.013E-04 2.521E+00 2.508E+00 5.375E-04 4.093E-04 4.834E-03 8.053E-06 1.053E-04 4.517E-05 7.984E-01 7.569E-01 1.174E-03 8.899E-04 1.024E-02 9.346E-06 1.120E-04 5.128E-05 9.187E-01 8.778E-01 5.521E-04 7.027E-04 6.010E-03 1.096E-05 1.044E-04 4.444E-05 1.088E+00 1.048E+00 1.058E-03 4.599E-03 7.856E-03 1.311E-05 1.450E-04 6.992E-05 1.312E+00 1.305E+00 8.783E-04 6.429E-03 6.117E-03 1.249E-05 2.023E-04 1.036E-04 1.267E+00 1.260E+00 9.635E-03 2.875E-03 6.257E-02 4.599E-06 1.027E-04 4.229E-05 3.395E-01 3.378E-01 6.433E-04 9.909E-04 7.920E-03 1.391E-05 1.049E-04 4.487E-05 1.380E+00 1.346E+00 6.399E-04 5.150E-03 1.650E-02 1.518E-05 2.245E-04 1.345E-04 1.514E+00 1.507E+00 1.254E-03 2.754E-02 5.871E-03 3.788E-05 1.200E-03 9.453E-04 3.971E+00 3.951E+00 3.412E-03 7.041E-03 3.888E-02 1.467E-05 1.057E-04 4.516E-05 1.400E+00 1.393E+00 1.827E-03 3.096E-02 8.678E-03 4.520E-05 1.079E-03 9.929E-04 4.738E+00 4.714E+00 2.447E-03 2.133E-02 2.451E-02 2.607E-05 1.838E-03 1.077E-03 2.673E+00 2.659E+00 1.151E-03 2.005E-02 4.130E-03 2.429E-05 1.197E-03 9.424E-04 2.546E+00 2.534E+00 5.035E-04 1.347E-02 2.038E-03 2.389E-05 7.188E-04 5.024E-04 2.505E+00 2.492E+00 4.232E-04 1.050E-02 1.778E-03 2.386E-05 6.671E-04 4.548E-04 2.500E+00 2.488E+00 7.897E-04 1.864E-02 3.020E-03 2.395E-05 9.173E-04 6.849E-04 2.510E+00 2.498E+00 5.732E-04 1.378E-02 2.312E-03 2.388E-05 7.850E-04 5.633E-04 2.503E+00 2.490E+00 7.676E-04 1.803E-02 2.939E-03 2.393E-05 8.982E-04 6.674E-04 2.509E+00 2.496E+00 5.519E-04 1.317E-02 2.230E-03 2.386E-05 7.640E-04 5.440E-04 2.501E+00 2.488E+00 5.035E-04 1.347E-02 2.038E-03 2.389E-05 7.188E-04 5.024E-04 2.505E+00 2.492E+00 4.232E-04 1.050E-02 1.778E-03 2.386E-05 6.671E-04 4.548E-04 2.500E+00 2.488E+00 5.987E-04 1.993E-02 2.391E-03 2.454E-05 8.402E-04 6.141E-04 2.572E+00 2.560E+00 3.196E-04 1.477E-02 1.457E-03 2.441E-05 6.252E-04 4.163E-04 2.558E+00 2.545E+00 3.618E-03 7.186E-03 4.225E-02 1.440E-05 1.090E-04 4.821E-05 1.367E+00 1.361E+00 1.759E-03 3.398E-02 8.407E-03 3.719E-05 1.546E-03 1.302E-03 3.898E+00 3.879E+00 1.334E-03 2.233E-02 6.129E-03 3.769E-05 1.151E-03 9.389E-04 3.950E+00 3.930E+00 1.347E-03 2.265E-02 6.182E-03 3.768E-05 1.166E-03 9.523E-04 3.950E+00 3.930E+00 1.033E-03 1.420E-02 4.942E-03 3.828E-05 7.619E-04 5.809E-04 4.013E+00 3.993E+00 1.367E-03 2.252E-02 6.213E-03 3.804E-05 1.150E-03 9.380E-04 3.987E+00 3.967E+00 8.939E-04 1.912E-02 4.563E-03 3.832E-05 5.608E-04 3.959E-04 4.016E+00 3.996E+00 2.377E-03 4.412E-02 1.029E-02 4.341E-05 1.408E-03 1.176E-03 4.550E+00 4.527E+00 1.150E-03 2.848E-02 5.384E-03 3.692E-05 1.028E-03 8.254E-04 3.870E+00 3.851E+00 1.163E-03 2.892E-02 5.439E-03 3.693E-05 1.040E-03 8.366E-04 3.870E+00 3.851E+00 4.122E-04 3.641E-02 2.007E-03 4.079E-05 4.265E-04 2.723E-04 4.276E+00 4.254E+00 1.516E-03 2.814E-02 7.171E-03 3.659E-05 1.321E-03 1.095E-03 3.835E+00 3.816E+00 1.640E-03 2.952E-02 7.715E-03 3.694E-05 1.356E-03 1.127E-03 3.872E+00 3.852E+00 1.388E-03 3.532E-02 6.814E-03 4.323E-05 8.291E-04 6.427E-04 4.532E+00 4.509E+00 4.759E-03 1.394E-02 1.045E-01 1.497E-05 1.060E-04 4.504E-05 1.322E+00 1.316E+00 1.867E-03 2.354E-02 1.521E-02 4.330E-05 1.787E-03 9.454E-04 4.494E+00 4.472E+00 lbs/Mile ---PAGE BREAK--- Area Sources - Criteria Air Pollutants ROG Exhaust NOx Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust* Construction Equipment 283 1,947 1,698 2 121 119 Lawn & Garden Equipment 1,295 335 15,879 1 47 46 Light Commercial Equipment 480 962 12,196 1 102 101 TOTAL 2,058 3,244 29,773 5 269 267 ROG Exhaust NOx Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust* Construction Equipment 316 2,171 1,894 3 135 133 Lawn & Garden Equipment 1,444 374 17,704 1 52 51 Light Commercial Equipment 535 1,072 13,598 2 114 113 TOTAL 2,295 3,617 33,195 6 300 297 ROG Exhaust NOx Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust* Construction Equipment 377 2,590 2,260 3 161 159 Lawn & Garden Equipment 1,776 460 21,770 2 64 63 Light Commercial Equipment 658 1,319 16,721 2 140 138 TOTAL 2,810 4,368 40,750 7 364 361 ROG Exhaust NOx Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust* Construction Equipment 307 2,111 1,842 3 131 130 Lawn & Garden Equipment 1,405 364 17,222 1 51 50 Light Commercial Equipment 520 1,043 13,227 2 111 109 TOTAL 2,232 3,518 32,291 5 292 289 * assumes PM2.5 is 99 percent of PM10 Sources Building Permits Source: U.S. Census Bureau Employment Population Source. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 2020 lbs/day Current General Plan lbs/day 2012 lbs/day Project lbs/day Source. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. ---PAGE BREAK--- Other Emissions Sources - Off-road Equipment Source: OFFROAD2007. Based on equipment use in Orange County. Year 2012 BAU 2012 MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 18,761 Based on the percentage of employment in Anaheim compared to Orange County. Lawn & Garden Equipment 10,387 Based on the percentage of residential units in Anaheim compared to Orange County. Construction Equipment 33,118 Based on the percentage of residential building permits issued in Anaheim compared to Orange County. TOTAL 62,267 Year 2020 BAU 2020 MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 20,542 proportional to employment growth Lawn & Garden Equipment 11,728 proportional to population growth Construction Equipment 33,118 similar to historic TOTAL 65,388 Project BAU Project MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 23,880 proportional to employment growth Lawn & Garden Equipment 14,241 proportional to population growth Construction Equipment 33,118 similar to historic TOTAL 71,239 Current General Plan BAU Current GP MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 18,889 proportional to employment growth Lawn & Garden Equipment 11,835 proportional to population growth Construction Equipment 33,118 similar to historic TOTAL 63,842 ---PAGE BREAK--- Other Emissions Sources - Off-road Equipment Source: OFFROAD2007. Based on equipment use in Orange County. Adjusted Business as Usual - Low Carbon Fuel Standard Year 2020 Adjusted 2020 MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 18,488 With LCFS (10% reduction) Lawn & Garden Equipment 10,555 With LCFS (10% reduction) Construction Equipment 29,806 With LCFS (10% reduction) TOTAL 58,849 reduction 6,539 Project Adjusted Project MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 21,492 With LCFS (10% reduction) Lawn & Garden Equipment 12,817 With LCFS (10% reduction) Construction Equipment 29,806 With LCFS (10% reduction) TOTAL 64,115 reduction 7,124 Current General Plan Adjusted Current GP MTons of CO2e Notes Light Commercial Equipment 17,000 With LCFS (10% reduction) Lawn & Garden Equipment 10,651 With LCFS (10% reduction) Construction Equipment 29,806 With LCFS (10% reduction) TOTAL 57,458 reduction 6,384 Sources Building Permits Source: U.S. Census Bureau Employment Population On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court’s rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Night Circuit Court granted CARB’s motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. Source. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. http://lehd.ces.census.gov/ Source. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Construction Tons/Day MTons/Year Equipment Fuel MaxHP C/R Pre Hand Port County Population Activity Consumption ROG Exhaust NOX Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM Exhaust CO2 Exhaust N2O Exhaust CH4 Exhaust CO2e CO2e Tampers/Rammers G2 15 U P NHH NP Orange 413.9909 2.07E+02 4.17E+01 2.62E-03 1.99E-03 1.13E-01 8.86E-06 1.80E-03 2.15E-01 3.21E-04 1.63E-04 3.18E-01 100 Plate Compactors G2 15 U P NHH NP Orange 35.51225 2.01E+01 4.04E+00 2.54E-04 1.93E-04 1.09E-02 8.60E-07 1.75E-04 2.09E-02 3.12E-05 1.58E-05 3.09E-02 10 Asphalt Pavers G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 9.028493 9.80E+00 5.63E+00 4.24E-04 3.09E-04 1.60E-02 7.86E-07 2.31E-04 2.76E-02 2.81E-05 2.43E-05 3.68E-02 12 Asphalt Pavers G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 15.44003 1.68E+01 2.43E+01 1.87E-03 1.20E-03 7.11E-02 2.92E-06 9.66E-04 1.15E-01 7.41E-05 1.07E-04 1.40E-01 44 Asphalt Pavers G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 8.082569 8.69E+00 2.02E+01 7.41E-04 1.07E-03 2.13E-02 1.93E-06 1.21E-05 1.58E-01 4.81E-05 4.24E-05 1.74E-01 55 Asphalt Pavers G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 4.439721 4.77E+00 1.87E+01 5.05E-04 1.50E-03 8.98E-03 1.58E-06 1.27E-05 1.64E-01 4.12E-05 2.89E-05 1.77E-01 56 Tampers/Rammers G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 19.10377 9.53E+00 4.60E+00 3.54E-04 2.44E-04 1.31E-02 6.37E-07 1.87E-04 2.23E-02 2.44E-05 2.03E-05 3.03E-02 10 Plate Compactors G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 701.3438 3.46E+02 6.24E+01 8.74E-03 3.87E-03 1.33E-01 1.24E-05 1.18E-04 3.61E-01 5.70E-04 5.01E-04 5.48E-01 172 Plate Compactors G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 743.8693 4.20E+02 1.79E+02 1.35E-02 9.68E-03 5.10E-01 2.50E-05 7.34E-03 8.75E-01 1.02E-03 7.73E-04 1.21E+00 380 Rollers G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 78.1161 1.78E+01 4.77E+00 5.69E-04 2.52E-04 1.13E-02 9.01E-07 8.51E-06 2.61E-02 3.32E-05 3.26E-05 3.71E-02 12 Rollers G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 126.3989 1.07E+02 5.80E+01 4.32E-03 3.15E-03 1.65E-01 8.09E-06 2.38E-03 2.84E-01 2.96E-04 2.48E-04 3.81E-01 120 Rollers G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 85.31271 7.25E+01 8.51E+01 6.50E-03 4.15E-03 2.49E-01 1.02E-05 3.39E-03 4.04E-01 2.85E-04 3.73E-04 5.01E-01 158 Rollers G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 5.69195 9.69E+00 2.57E+01 1.18E-03 1.46E-03 3.28E-02 2.33E-06 1.47E-05 1.92E-01 6.08E-05 6.77E-05 2.12E-01 67 Rollers G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 10.70087 1.82E+01 8.44E+01 2.97E-03 7.34E-03 5.09E-02 6.99E-06 5.60E-05 7.23E-01 1.85E-04 1.70E-04 7.84E-01 247 Paving Equipment G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 981.4888 4.58E+02 8.89E+01 1.23E-02 5.45E-03 1.91E-01 1.77E-05 1.67E-04 5.11E-01 7.78E-04 7.06E-04 7.67E-01 242 Paving Equipment G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 1660.327 9.11E+02 5.20E+02 3.91E-02 2.81E-02 1.48E+00 7.25E-05 2.13E-02 2.54E+00 2.57E-03 2.24E-03 3.39E+00 1,066 Paving Equipment G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 36.89906 2.02E+01 2.62E+01 2.01E-03 1.27E-03 7.68E-02 3.15E-06 1.04E-03 1.24E-01 8.34E-05 1.15E-04 1.53E-01 48 Paving Equipment G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 22.08476 1.06E+01 2.39E+01 5.12E-04 8.72E-04 1.85E-02 2.43E-06 1.53E-05 2.00E-01 4.61E-05 2.93E-05 2.15E-01 68 Paving Equipment G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 5.691949 2.73E+00 9.95E+00 1.39E-04 4.94E-04 2.96E-03 8.77E-07 7.03E-06 9.08E-02 1.64E-05 7.99E-06 9.61E-02 30 Surfacing Equipment G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 180.1773 9.88E+01 1.97E+01 2.82E-03 1.25E-03 4.11E-02 3.96E-06 3.74E-05 1.15E-01 1.74E-04 1.62E-04 1.72E-01 54 Surfacing Equipment G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 535.429 7.39E+02 2.81E+02 2.19E-02 1.60E-02 7.98E-01 3.91E-05 1.15E-02 1.37E+00 1.73E-03 1.25E-03 1.93E+00 608 Surfacing Equipment G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 7.327473 1.01E+01 9.40E+00 7.52E-04 4.80E-04 2.75E-02 1.13E-06 3.73E-04 4.45E-02 3.60E-05 4.30E-05 5.66E-02 18 Signal Boards G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 2.224411 7.93E-01 2.55E-01 3.25E-05 1.44E-05 5.82E-04 4.93E-08 4.65E-07 1.43E-03 1.69E-06 1.86E-06 1.99E-03 1 Signal Boards G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 15.83258 1.23E+01 7.24E+00 5.36E-04 3.92E-04 2.06E-02 1.01E-06 2.97E-04 3.55E-02 3.54E-05 3.08E-05 4.71E-02 15 Trenchers G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 146.4186 1.74E+02 1.11E+02 8.49E-03 6.20E-03 3.17E-01 1.55E-05 4.56E-03 5.44E-01 5.31E-04 4.86E-04 7.19E-01 226 Trenchers G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 113.445 1.35E+02 1.87E+02 1.46E-02 9.32E-03 5.47E-01 2.24E-05 7.43E-03 8.86E-01 5.87E-04 8.35E-04 1.09E+00 342 Trenchers G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 51.79675 5.71E+01 1.26E+02 4.98E-03 7.04E-03 1.39E-01 1.19E-05 7.48E-05 9.76E-01 3.20E-04 2.85E-04 1.08E+00 340 Trenchers G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 17.18969 1.89E+01 8.07E+01 2.39E-03 6.93E-03 4.15E-02 6.81E-06 5.46E-05 7.05E-01 1.81E-04 1.37E-04 7.64E-01 240 Bore/Drill Rigs G4 15 U P NHH P Orange 4.187128 1.42E+00 1.09E+00 8.18E-05 5.63E-05 3.13E-03 1.52E-07 4.46E-05 5.32E-03 4.59E-06 4.69E-06 6.84E-03 2 Bore/Drill Rigs G4 25 U P NHH P Orange 20.80479 7.07E+00 1.01E+01 7.61E-04 4.64E-04 2.96E-02 1.21E-06 3.99E-04 4.76E-02 2.98E-05 4.36E-05 5.78E-02 18 Bore/Drill Rigs G4 50 U P NHH P Orange 2.504458 7.35E-01 1.96E+00 5.91E-05 1.07E-04 1.67E-03 1.95E-07 1.23E-06 1.60E-02 4.44E-06 3.39E-06 1.75E-02 6 Bore/Drill Rigs G4 120 U P NHH P Orange 11.49774 3.37E+00 2.24E+01 4.87E-04 1.89E-03 8.70E-03 1.93E-06 1.55E-05 2.00E-01 4.00E-05 2.79E-05 2.13E-01 67 Bore/Drill Rigs G4 175 U P NHH P Orange 2.845975 8.35E-01 7.54E+00 9.68E-05 7.37E-04 2.16E-03 6.86E-07 5.50E-06 6.90E-02 1.26E-05 5.55E-06 7.30E-02 23 Concrete/Industrial Saws G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 76.80761 2.74E+01 7.24E+00 9.21E-04 4.08E-04 1.65E-02 1.40E-06 1.32E-05 4.04E-02 5.25E-05 5.28E-05 5.78E-02 18 Concrete/Industrial Saws G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 345.438 2.94E+02 1.99E+02 1.48E-02 1.08E-02 5.67E-01 2.78E-05 8.18E-03 9.76E-01 9.14E-04 8.51E-04 1.28E+00 402 Concrete/Industrial Saws G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 108.0802 9.19E+01 1.21E+02 9.27E-03 5.92E-03 3.55E-01 1.46E-05 4.83E-03 5.77E-01 3.85E-04 5.31E-04 7.07E-01 223 Concrete/Industrial Saws G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 9.334799 1.56E+01 4.32E+01 4.47E-04 6.47E-04 3.01E-02 4.47E-06 2.82E-05 3.68E-01 5.16E-05 2.56E-05 3.85E-01 121 Concrete/Industrial Saws G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 5.350433 8.95E+00 4.22E+01 1.84E-04 4.14E-04 8.20E-03 3.80E-06 3.05E-05 3.93E-01 3.14E-05 1.05E-05 4.03E-01 127 Cement and Mortar Mixers G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 1394.706 3.52E+02 8.87E+01 1.10E-02 4.87E-03 2.06E-01 1.70E-05 1.60E-04 4.91E-01 6.48E-04 6.31E-04 7.05E-01 222 Cement and Mortar Mixers G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 2363.11 5.96E+02 2.93E+02 2.96E-02 1.26E-02 8.82E-01 3.80E-05 1.09E-02 1.33E+00 1.37E-03 1.70E-03 1.79E+00 564 Cement and Mortar Mixers G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 9.944429 2.51E+00 3.88E+00 3.67E-04 1.49E-04 1.18E-02 4.44E-07 1.43E-04 1.75E-02 1.00E-05 2.10E-05 2.11E-02 7 Cranes G4 50 U P NHH P Orange 2.845975 3.24E+00 6.28E+00 2.51E-04 3.52E-04 7.01E-03 5.91E-07 3.72E-06 4.86E-02 1.70E-05 1.44E-05 5.42E-02 17 Cranes G4 120 U P NHH P Orange 5.69195 6.48E+00 2.21E+01 6.60E-04 1.90E-03 1.15E-02 1.86E-06 1.49E-05 1.92E-01 5.50E-05 3.78E-05 2.10E-01 66 Cranes G4 175 U P NHH P Orange 0.227678 2.59E-01 1.39E+00 2.09E-05 1.44E-04 4.43E-04 1.26E-07 1.01E-06 1.26E-02 3.09E-06 1.20E-06 1.36E-02 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment G4 15 U P NHH P Orange 3.794584 3.01E+00 2.22E+00 1.65E-04 1.20E-04 6.32E-03 3.10E-07 9.13E-05 1.09E-02 9.77E-06 9.45E-06 1.41E-02 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment G4 25 U P NHH P Orange 2.486107 1.97E+00 2.67E+00 2.03E-04 1.30E-04 7.82E-03 3.21E-07 1.06E-04 1.27E-02 8.34E-06 1.16E-05 1.55E-02 5 Crushing/Proc. Equipment G4 120 U P NHH P Orange 3.301331 2.18E+00 1.72E+01 4.36E-04 1.46E-03 7.66E-03 1.47E-06 1.18E-05 1.52E-01 2.86E-05 2.50E-05 1.61E-01 51 Rough Terrain Forklifts G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 1.13839 1.29E+00 4.25E+00 1.70E-04 2.38E-04 4.74E-03 4.01E-07 2.52E-06 3.30E-02 8.97E-06 9.74E-06 3.59E-02 11 Rough Terrain Forklifts G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 16.16514 1.83E+01 9.60E+01 2.87E-03 8.25E-03 4.97E-02 8.09E-06 6.48E-05 8.37E-01 1.96E-04 1.64E-04 9.01E-01 284 Rough Terrain Forklifts G4 175 U P NHH NP Orange 0.569195 6.45E-01 5.27E+00 7.93E-05 5.45E-04 1.68E-03 4.76E-07 3.81E-06 4.79E-02 9.63E-06 4.54E-06 5.10E-02 16 Rubber Tired Loaders G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 2.845975 4.00E+00 9.76E+00 4.11E-04 5.44E-04 1.15E-02 9.06E-07 5.71E-06 7.45E-02 2.36E-05 2.35E-05 8.23E-02 26 Rubber Tired Loaders G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 18.89727 2.65E+01 1.02E+02 3.22E-03 8.66E-03 5.59E-02 8.51E-06 6.82E-05 8.81E-01 2.38E-04 1.84E-04 9.58E-01 302 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 10.01783 2.39E+01 7.03E+01 1.38E-03 3.25E-03 3.56E-02 5.96E-06 4.78E-05 6.17E-01 1.29E-04 7.84E-05 6.59E-01 207 Skid Steer Loaders G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 7.458321 6.52E+00 5.12E+00 3.87E-04 2.82E-04 1.46E-02 7.15E-07 2.10E-04 2.51E-02 2.21E-05 2.22E-05 3.24E-02 10 Skid Steer Loaders G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 498.6607 4.36E+02 4.79E+02 3.70E-02 2.37E-02 1.40E+00 5.77E-05 1.91E-02 2.28E+00 1.67E-03 2.12E-03 2.84E+00 893 Skid Steer Loaders G4 50 U P NHH NP Orange 77.63819 6.60E+01 1.26E+02 1.69E-03 2.69E-03 9.76E-02 1.29E-05 8.10E-05 1.06E+00 2.07E-04 9.69E-05 1.12E+00 354 Skid Steer Loaders G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 46.44632 3.95E+01 1.69E+02 1.17E-03 3.54E-03 4.05E-02 1.51E-05 1.21E-04 1.56E+00 1.73E-04 6.70E-05 1.62E+00 510 Dumpers/Tenders G4 5 U P NHH NP Orange 71.18116 2.91E+01 3.88E+00 5.54E-04 2.45E-04 8.13E-03 7.80E-07 7.36E-06 2.26E-02 4.12E-05 3.18E-05 3.60E-02 11 Dumpers/Tenders G4 15 U P NHH NP Orange 151.7834 6.20E+01 2.36E+01 2.32E-03 1.08E-03 7.03E-02 3.09E-06 8.90E-04 1.08E-01 1.29E-04 1.33E-04 1.51E-01 48 Dumpers/Tenders G4 25 U P NHH NP Orange 28.13226 1.15E+01 9.31E+00 8.69E-04 3.82E-04 2.81E-02 1.07E-06 3.48E-04 4.24E-02 3.36E-05 4.98E-05 5.38E-02 17 Dumpers/Tenders G4 120 U P NHH NP Orange 2.049102 7.14E-01 1.84E+00 4.12E-05 1.56E-04 7.33E-04 1.59E-07 1.28E-06 1.65E-02 5.13E-06 2.36E-06 1.81E-02 6 Other Construction Equipment G4 175 U P NHH NP Orange 7.96873 8.11E+00 4.44E+01 1.91E-04 7.68E-04 1.32E-02 4.04E-06 3.24E-05 4.07E-01 3.82E-05 1.09E-05 4.19E-01 132 Pavers D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 2.116483 4.76E+00 4.05E+00 6.07E-05 3.64E-04 1.93E-04 5.64E-07 1.91E-05 4.44E-02 0.00E+00 5.48E-06 4.45E-02 14 Pavers D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 123.0382 2.81E+02 3.69E+02 2.04E-02 4.27E-02 5.18E-02 5.09E-05 4.60E-03 3.94E+00 0.00E+00 1.84E-03 3.97E+00 1,251 Pavers D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 145.0497 3.32E+02 1.05E+03 2.44E-02 1.46E-01 8.47E-02 1.35E-04 1.29E-02 1.15E+01 0.00E+00 2.20E-03 1.15E+01 3,625 Pavers D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 90.16222 2.06E+02 1.21E+03 1.92E-02 1.49E-01 8.07E-02 1.49E-04 8.45E-03 1.32E+01 0.00E+00 1.74E-03 1.33E+01 4,173 Pavers D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 10.86462 2.49E+01 2.19E+02 2.71E-03 2.57E-02 7.89E-03 2.72E-05 1.02E-03 2.41E+00 0.00E+00 2.44E-04 2.42E+00 761 Pavers D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 11.14681 2.55E+01 2.71E+02 3.03E-03 2.86E-02 1.27E-02 2.92E-05 1.12E-03 2.97E+00 0.00E+00 2.74E-04 2.98E+00 937 Plate Compactors D 15 U P NHH NP Orange 45.43384 7.48E+01 1.47E+01 1.88E-04 1.17E-03 9.84E-04 2.51E-06 4.69E-05 1.61E-01 0.00E+00 1.69E-05 1.61E-01 51 Rollers D 15 U P NHH NP Orange 85.36483 1.63E+02 4.69E+01 5.98E-04 3.74E-03 3.14E-03 7.99E-06 1.44E-04 5.14E-01 0.00E+00 5.39E-05 5.15E-01 162 Rollers D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 35.69801 6.80E+01 4.13E+01 5.50E-04 3.50E-03 1.87E-03 5.75E-06 1.52E-04 4.53E-01 0.00E+00 4.96E-05 4.54E-01 143 Rollers D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 111.0448 2.14E+02 2.59E+02 1.18E-02 2.86E-02 3.20E-02 3.59E-05 2.81E-03 2.77E+00 0.00E+00 1.07E-03 2.80E+00 880 Rollers D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 596.1428 1.15E+03 3.10E+03 6.05E-02 3.80E-01 2.35E-01 3.97E-04 3.30E-02 3.38E+01 0.00E+00 5.46E-03 3.39E+01 10,677 Rollers D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 239.727 4.61E+02 2.28E+03 3.05E-02 2.47E-01 1.43E-01 2.80E-04 1.36E-02 2.49E+01 0.00E+00 2.75E-03 2.50E+01 7,863 Rollers D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 34.00483 6.54E+01 4.54E+02 4.40E-03 4.61E-02 1.33E-02 5.63E-05 1.63E-03 5.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.97E-04 5.01E+00 1,578 Rollers D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 23.84571 4.59E+01 4.56E+02 4.02E-03 4.15E-02 1.55E-02 4.93E-05 1.49E-03 5.02E+00 0.00E+00 3.63E-04 5.03E+00 1,583 Scrapers D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 5.502857 1.68E+01 7.24E+01 1.67E-03 9.87E-03 5.89E-03 9.25E-06 8.87E-04 7.88E-01 0.00E+00 1.51E-04 7.91E-01 249 Scrapers D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 50.3723 1.54E+02 1.04E+03 1.67E-02 1.26E-01 7.04E-02 1.28E-04 7.28E-03 1.14E+01 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.14E+01 3,592 Scrapers D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 49.10241 1.50E+02 1.43E+03 1.77E-02 1.64E-01 5.01E-02 1.77E-04 6.43E-03 1.57E+01 0.00E+00 1.60E-03 1.57E+01 4,949 Scrapers D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 135.1728 4.13E+02 6.03E+03 6.87E-02 6.22E-01 2.67E-01 6.51E-04 2.45E-02 6.63E+01 0.00E+00 6.20E-03 6.64E+01 20,904 Scrapers D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 11.20752 3.42E+01 8.64E+02 9.88E-03 9.09E-02 3.83E-02 9.54E-05 3.55E-03 9.49E+00 0.00E+00 8.92E-04 9.51E+00 2,994 Paving Equipment D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 3.668571 8.34E+00 4.79E+00 6.38E-05 4.06E-04 2.17E-04 6.67E-07 1.77E-05 5.26E-02 0.00E+00 5.76E-06 5.27E-02 17 Paving Equipment D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 3.104175 7.12E+00 7.99E+00 4.41E-04 9.21E-04 1.11E-03 1.10E-06 9.93E-05 8.51E-02 0.00E+00 3.98E-05 8.59E-02 27 Paving Equipment D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 44.72834 1.03E+02 2.57E+02 5.90E-03 3.54E-02 2.05E-02 3.28E-05 3.13E-03 2.79E+00 0.00E+00 5.32E-04 2.80E+00 883 Paving Equipment D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 21.02373 4.82E+01 2.23E+02 3.51E-03 2.74E-02 1.47E-02 2.74E-05 1.54E-03 2.43E+00 0.00E+00 3.17E-04 2.44E+00 768 Paving Equipment D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 5.926155 1.36E+01 7.55E+01 9.15E-04 8.82E-03 2.68E-03 9.34E-06 3.44E-04 8.30E-01 0.00E+00 8.26E-05 8.32E-01 262 Surfacing Equipment D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 2.821978 3.50E+00 2.29E+00 8.99E-05 2.47E-04 2.52E-04 3.19E-07 2.24E-05 2.47E-02 0.00E+00 8.11E-06 2.49E-02 8 Surfacing Equipment D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 0.5643956 7.01E-01 2.04E+00 3.65E-05 2.41E-04 1.49E-04 2.62E-07 1.95E-05 2.23E-02 0.00E+00 3.29E-06 2.24E-02 7 Surfacing Equipment D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 0.4232967 5.25E-01 2.05E+00 2.50E-05 2.15E-04 1.25E-04 2.53E-07 1.11E-05 2.25E-02 0.00E+00 2.25E-06 2.26E-02 7 Surfacing Equipment D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 0.8465933 1.05E+00 6.42E+00 5.75E-05 6.30E-04 1.85E-04 7.97E-07 2.17E-05 7.08E-02 0.00E+00 5.19E-06 7.09E-02 22 Surfacing Equipment D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 7.054943 8.76E+00 8.78E+01 7.13E-04 7.80E-03 2.98E-03 9.50E-06 2.72E-04 9.68E-01 0.00E+00 6.43E-05 9.69E-01 305 Surfacing Equipment D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 2.141564 2.66E+00 4.18E+01 3.45E-04 3.80E-03 1.42E-03 4.63E-06 1.31E-04 4.61E-01 0.00E+00 3.12E-05 4.62E-01 145 Signal Boards D 15 U P NHH NP Orange 397.1934 8.17E+02 2.30E+02 2.93E-03 1.84E-02 1.54E-02 3.92E-05 7.12E-04 2.52E+00 0.00E+00 2.64E-04 2.52E+00 794 Signal Boards D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 1.975384 2.90E+00 4.86E+00 1.84E-04 5.16E-04 5.20E-04 6.77E-07 4.69E-05 5.24E-02 0.00E+00 1.66E-05 5.27E-02 17 Signal Boards D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 32.31165 4.74E+01 1.74E+02 3.05E-03 1.98E-02 1.25E-02 2.23E-05 1.67E-03 1.90E+00 0.00E+00 2.75E-04 1.91E+00 600 Signal Boards D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 20.03604 2.94E+01 2.07E+02 2.44E-03 2.10E-02 1.23E-02 2.55E-05 1.10E-03 2.27E+00 0.00E+00 2.21E-04 2.27E+00 716 Signal Boards D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 4.232967 6.21E+00 7.18E+01 5.42E-04 6.71E-03 1.71E-03 8.91E-06 1.98E-04 7.92E-01 0.00E+00 4.89E-05 7.93E-01 250 Trenchers D 15 U P NHH NP Orange 10.58242 1.79E+01 6.93E+00 8.83E-05 5.53E-04 4.63E-04 1.18E-06 2.14E-05 7.58E-02 0.00E+00 7.96E-06 7.60E-02 24 Trenchers D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 11.14681 1.89E+01 2.83E+01 3.75E-04 2.38E-03 1.28E-03 3.94E-06 9.49E-05 3.11E-01 0.00E+00 3.39E-05 3.11E-01 98 Trenchers D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 424.2843 7.35E+02 1.13E+03 6.09E-02 1.30E-01 1.53E-01 1.56E-04 1.37E-02 1.21E+01 0.00E+00 5.49E-03 1.22E+01 3,841 Trenchers D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 574.978 9.96E+02 2.97E+03 6.75E-02 4.11E-01 2.36E-01 3.79E-04 3.53E-02 3.23E+01 0.00E+00 6.09E-03 3.24E+01 10,206 Trenchers D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 62.93011 1.09E+02 7.17E+02 1.12E-02 8.89E-02 4.73E-02 8.82E-05 4.91E-03 7.84E+00 0.00E+00 1.01E-03 7.86E+00 2,474 Trenchers D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 5.643954 9.78E+00 9.90E+01 1.21E-03 1.17E-02 3.62E-03 1.23E-05 4.64E-04 1.09E+00 0.00E+00 1.09E-04 1.09E+00 343 Trenchers D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 7.196044 1.25E+01 1.77E+02 1.95E-03 1.88E-02 8.70E-03 1.90E-05 7.40E-04 1.94E+00 0.00E+00 1.76E-04 1.94E+00 611 Trenchers D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 0.4283126 7.42E-01 1.98E+01 2.21E-04 2.15E-03 9.77E-04 2.19E-06 8.38E-05 2.18E-01 0.00E+00 1.99E-05 2.18E-01 69 Bore/Drill Rigs D 15 U P NHH P Orange 1.410989 3.14E+00 1.48E+00 1.89E-05 1.18E-04 9.90E-05 2.52E-07 4.56E-06 1.62E-02 0.00E+00 1.70E-06 1.63E-02 5 Bore/Drill Rigs D 25 U P NHH P Orange 4.232966 9.41E+00 6.85E+00 9.12E-05 5.80E-04 3.10E-04 9.54E-07 2.52E-05 7.52E-02 0.00E+00 8.23E-06 7.54E-02 24 Bore/Drill Rigs D 50 U P NHH P Orange 18.48396 4.27E+01 6.06E+01 7.48E-04 5.91E-03 4.98E-03 8.56E-06 3.19E-04 6.62E-01 0.00E+00 6.75E-05 6.64E-01 209 ---PAGE BREAK--- Construction Tons/Day MTons/Year Equipment Fuel MaxHP C/R Pre Hand Port County Population Activity Consumption ROG Exhaust NOX Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM Exhaust CO2 Exhaust N2O Exhaust CH4 Exhaust CO2e CO2e Bore/Drill Rigs D 120 U P NHH P Orange 56.72176 1.31E+02 4.60E+02 3.36E-03 3.29E-02 3.09E-02 5.92E-05 2.15E-03 5.05E+00 0.00E+00 3.03E-04 5.06E+00 1,592 Bore/Drill Rigs D 175 U P NHH P Orange 13.1222 3.03E+01 1.95E+02 1.14E-03 1.13E-02 1.14E-02 2.40E-05 5.55E-04 2.14E+00 0.00E+00 1.03E-04 2.14E+00 673 Bore/Drill Rigs D 250 U N NHH P Orange 11.28791 2.61E+01 2.22E+02 1.09E-03 1.14E-02 4.48E-03 2.76E-05 3.49E-04 2.45E+00 0.00E+00 9.84E-05 2.45E+00 772 Bore/Drill Rigs D 500 U N NHH P Orange 25.1156 5.80E+01 8.17E+02 3.92E-03 3.81E-02 1.60E-02 8.86E-05 1.26E-03 9.03E+00 0.00E+00 3.54E-04 9.03E+00 2,844 Bore/Drill Rigs D 750 U N NHH P Orange 6.638848 1.53E+01 4.26E+02 2.06E-03 2.02E-02 8.37E-03 4.74E-05 6.64E-04 4.71E+00 0.00E+00 1.86E-04 4.72E+00 1,485 Bore/Drill Rigs D 1000 U N NHH P Orange 11.13613 2.57E+01 1.08E+03 5.77E-03 8.50E-02 2.15E-02 1.20E-04 2.18E-03 1.19E+01 0.00E+00 5.21E-04 1.19E+01 3,757 Excavators D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 5.220659 2.00E+01 1.49E+01 1.98E-04 1.25E-03 6.76E-04 2.08E-06 4.78E-05 1.64E-01 0.00E+00 1.79E-05 1.65E-01 52 Excavators D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 196.5508 7.67E+02 8.92E+02 3.51E-02 9.84E-02 1.13E-01 1.24E-04 9.08E-03 9.59E+00 0.00E+00 3.16E-03 9.65E+00 3,039 Excavators D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 533.7771 2.08E+03 7.02E+03 1.23E-01 7.61E-01 5.43E-01 8.99E-04 6.86E-02 7.66E+01 0.00E+00 1.11E-02 7.69E+01 24,193 Excavators D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 1029.74 4.02E+03 2.06E+04 2.59E-01 1.93E+00 1.34E+00 2.54E-03 1.14E-01 2.25E+02 0.00E+00 2.34E-02 2.26E+02 71,078 Excavators D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 418.7815 1.63E+03 1.17E+04 1.06E-01 1.02E+00 2.96E-01 1.46E-03 3.39E-02 1.30E+02 0.00E+00 9.59E-03 1.30E+02 40,849 Excavators D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 302.0927 1.18E+03 1.25E+04 1.06E-01 9.50E-01 3.23E-01 1.35E-03 3.38E-02 1.38E+02 0.00E+00 9.59E-03 1.38E+02 43,400 Excavators D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 3.355116 1.31E+01 2.30E+02 1.97E-03 1.80E-02 5.95E-03 2.55E-05 6.33E-04 2.53E+00 0.00E+00 1.78E-04 2.54E+00 799 Concrete/Industrial Saws D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 0.5643955 9.16E-01 6.87E-01 9.11E-06 5.77E-05 3.11E-05 9.57E-08 2.30E-06 7.54E-03 0.00E+00 8.22E-07 7.56E-03 2 Concrete/Industrial Saws D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 4.938461 7.85E+00 1.10E+01 4.11E-04 1.17E-03 1.18E-03 1.53E-06 1.05E-04 1.19E-01 0.00E+00 3.71E-05 1.19E-01 38 Concrete/Industrial Saws D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 8.607033 1.37E+01 4.64E+01 7.91E-04 5.22E-03 3.34E-03 5.95E-06 4.38E-04 5.07E-01 0.00E+00 7.14E-05 5.09E-01 160 Concrete/Industrial Saws D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 0.2821978 4.49E-01 3.28E+00 3.79E-05 3.26E-04 1.96E-04 4.04E-07 1.72E-05 3.59E-02 0.00E+00 3.42E-06 3.60E-02 11 Cement and Mortar Mixers D 15 U P NHH NP Orange 72.10153 5.93E+01 1.71E+01 2.22E-04 1.41E-03 1.14E-03 2.91E-06 6.91E-05 1.87E-01 0.00E+00 2.01E-05 1.88E-01 59 Cement and Mortar Mixers D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 6.490549 5.34E+00 4.28E+00 7.82E-05 4.13E-04 2.27E-04 5.94E-07 2.42E-05 4.68E-02 0.00E+00 7.06E-06 4.70E-02 15 Cranes D 50 U P NHH P Orange 4.797362 1.68E+01 1.83E+01 9.29E-04 2.09E-03 2.51E-03 2.52E-06 2.17E-04 1.95E-01 0.00E+00 8.38E-05 1.97E-01 62 Cranes D 120 U P NHH P Orange 52.62989 1.85E+02 4.25E+02 9.08E-03 5.40E-02 3.37E-02 5.43E-05 4.93E-03 4.63E+00 0.00E+00 8.20E-04 4.65E+00 1,463 Cranes D 175 U P NHH P Orange 52.62989 1.85E+02 6.78E+02 1.01E-02 7.63E-02 4.47E-02 8.35E-05 4.44E-03 7.42E+00 0.00E+00 9.09E-04 7.44E+00 2,341 Cranes D 250 U N NHH P Orange 102.0145 3.58E+02 1.82E+03 1.97E-02 1.92E-01 5.55E-02 2.26E-04 6.95E-03 2.01E+01 0.00E+00 1.78E-03 2.01E+01 6,331 Cranes D 500 U N NHH P Orange 37.39122 1.31E+02 1.07E+03 1.07E-02 1.01E-01 3.73E-02 1.16E-04 3.74E-03 1.18E+01 0.00E+00 9.67E-04 1.18E+01 3,726 Cranes D 750 U N NHH P Orange 13.92016 4.89E+01 6.72E+02 6.76E-03 6.46E-02 2.34E-02 7.44E-05 2.38E-03 7.40E+00 0.00E+00 6.10E-04 7.41E+00 2,334 Cranes D 9999 U N NHH P Orange 17.48944 6.14E+01 2.71E+03 3.04E-02 3.36E-01 1.10E-01 2.99E-04 1.04E-02 2.98E+01 0.00E+00 2.74E-03 2.98E+01 9,384 Graders D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 1.975385 5.15E+00 6.62E+00 3.05E-04 7.42E-04 8.67E-04 9.16E-07 7.37E-05 7.09E-02 0.00E+00 2.75E-05 7.15E-02 22 Graders D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 131.7864 3.44E+02 1.18E+03 2.32E-02 1.41E-01 9.20E-02 1.51E-04 1.27E-02 1.29E+01 0.00E+00 2.09E-03 1.29E+01 4,066 Graders D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 450.2465 1.17E+03 6.64E+03 9.14E-02 7.01E-01 4.32E-01 8.18E-04 4.04E-02 7.27E+01 0.00E+00 8.25E-03 7.29E+01 22,941 Graders D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 279.3758 7.29E+02 5.69E+03 5.73E-02 5.59E-01 1.64E-01 7.05E-04 1.99E-02 6.27E+01 0.00E+00 5.17E-03 6.28E+01 19,758 Graders D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 7.901538 2.06E+01 2.14E+02 2.00E-03 1.87E-02 6.83E-03 2.32E-05 6.90E-04 2.36E+00 0.00E+00 1.81E-04 2.37E+00 745 Graders D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 0.2141564 5.59E-01 1.23E+01 1.16E-04 1.10E-03 3.92E-04 1.36E-06 4.02E-05 1.36E-01 0.00E+00 1.04E-05 1.36E-01 43 Off-Highway Trucks D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 9.171428 5.00E+01 2.86E+02 3.84E-03 2.77E-02 1.90E-02 3.52E-05 1.67E-03 3.13E+00 0.00E+00 3.47E-04 3.13E+00 987 Off-Highway Trucks D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 67.72749 3.70E+02 2.79E+03 2.71E-02 2.50E-01 7.28E-02 3.46E-04 8.51E-03 3.07E+01 0.00E+00 2.45E-03 3.08E+01 9,696 Off-Highway Trucks D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 95.38286 5.21E+02 6.42E+03 5.88E-02 5.06E-01 1.73E-01 6.95E-04 1.83E-02 7.08E+01 0.00E+00 5.31E-03 7.09E+01 22,326 Off-Highway Trucks D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 44.90145 2.45E+02 4.90E+03 4.52E-02 3.99E-01 1.32E-01 5.44E-04 1.42E-02 5.41E+01 0.00E+00 4.08E-03 5.42E+01 17,048 Off-Highway Trucks D 1000 U N NHH NP Orange 21.05871 1.15E+02 3.25E+03 3.32E-02 3.67E-01 1.02E-01 3.60E-04 1.11E-02 3.58E+01 0.00E+00 3.00E-03 3.59E+01 11,298 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 50 U P NHH P Orange 22.57582 5.91E+01 1.21E+02 5.70E-03 1.34E-02 1.54E-02 1.68E-05 1.37E-03 1.30E+00 0.00E+00 5.14E-04 1.31E+00 413 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 120 U P NHH P Orange 63.63559 1.67E+02 6.35E+02 1.27E-02 7.64E-02 4.85E-02 8.12E-05 7.10E-03 6.92E+00 0.00E+00 1.15E-03 6.95E+00 2,186 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 175 U P NHH P Orange 26.94989 7.06E+01 5.39E+02 7.38E-03 5.77E-02 3.40E-02 6.63E-05 3.34E-03 5.90E+00 0.00E+00 6.65E-04 5.91E+00 1,861 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 250 U N NHH P Orange 2.680879 7.02E+00 7.78E+01 6.85E-04 7.69E-03 1.96E-03 9.65E-06 2.39E-04 8.58E-01 0.00E+00 6.18E-05 8.59E-01 270 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 500 U N NHH P Orange 15.09758 3.95E+01 6.69E+02 5.40E-03 5.82E-02 1.77E-02 7.24E-05 1.92E-03 7.38E+00 0.00E+00 4.87E-04 7.39E+00 2,326 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 750 U N NHH P Orange 0.3569273 9.35E-01 2.49E+01 2.04E-04 2.26E-03 6.49E-04 2.76E-06 7.28E-05 2.75E-01 0.00E+00 1.84E-05 2.75E-01 87 Crushing/Proc. Equipment D 9999 U N NHH P Orange 0.3569273 9.35E-01 5.55E+01 5.66E-04 6.66E-03 1.88E-03 6.14E-06 1.96E-04 6.11E-01 0.00E+00 5.10E-05 6.12E-01 193 Rough Terrain Forklifts D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 15.66198 4.87E+01 7.67E+01 3.20E-03 8.40E-03 9.51E-03 1.06E-05 8.04E-04 8.23E-01 0.00E+00 2.89E-04 8.29E-01 261 Rough Terrain Forklifts D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 750.0817 2.33E+03 6.66E+03 1.21E-01 7.49E-01 5.08E-01 8.53E-04 6.83E-02 7.27E+01 0.00E+00 1.09E-02 7.29E+01 22,959 Rough Terrain Forklifts D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 96.08834 2.99E+02 1.70E+03 2.16E-02 1.67E-01 1.08E-01 2.10E-04 9.74E-03 1.86E+01 0.00E+00 1.95E-03 1.87E+01 5,877 Rough Terrain Forklifts D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 5.361757 1.67E+01 1.29E+02 1.13E-03 1.17E-02 3.24E-03 1.60E-05 3.81E-04 1.42E+00 0.00E+00 1.02E-04 1.42E+00 448 Rough Terrain Forklifts D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 3.527472 1.10E+01 1.27E+02 1.04E-03 1.02E-02 3.27E-03 1.38E-05 3.52E-04 1.40E+00 0.00E+00 9.36E-05 1.41E+00 443 Rubber Tired Loaders D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 1.975384 5.18E+00 3.99E+00 5.30E-05 3.35E-04 1.81E-04 5.56E-07 1.34E-05 4.38E-02 0.00E+00 4.78E-06 4.39E-02 14 Rubber Tired Loaders D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 38.37889 1.03E+02 1.49E+02 6.76E-03 1.66E-02 1.93E-02 2.06E-05 1.64E-03 1.60E+00 0.00E+00 6.10E-04 1.61E+00 507 Rubber Tired Loaders D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 1043.426 2.79E+03 7.53E+03 1.46E-01 8.93E-01 5.84E-01 9.63E-04 8.04E-02 8.21E+01 0.00E+00 1.32E-02 8.24E+01 25,936 Rubber Tired Loaders D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 588.1002 1.57E+03 7.63E+03 1.03E-01 7.97E-01 4.94E-01 9.40E-04 4.59E-02 8.35E+01 0.00E+00 9.32E-03 8.37E+01 26,353 Rubber Tired Loaders D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 584.855 1.56E+03 1.06E+04 1.04E-01 1.03E+00 3.00E-01 1.31E-03 3.61E-02 1.16E+02 0.00E+00 9.38E-03 1.17E+02 36,700 Rubber Tired Loaders D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 243.3956 6.51E+02 6.99E+03 6.38E-02 6.04E-01 2.19E-01 7.56E-04 2.20E-02 7.71E+01 0.00E+00 5.75E-03 7.72E+01 24,295 Rubber Tired Loaders D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 8.637643 2.31E+01 5.08E+02 4.67E-03 4.51E-02 1.59E-02 5.63E-05 1.62E-03 5.60E+00 0.00E+00 4.21E-04 5.61E+00 1,766 Rubber Tired Loaders D 1000 U N NHH NP Orange 0.928011 2.48E+00 6.68E+01 6.79E-04 7.84E-03 2.42E-03 7.39E-06 2.36E-04 7.35E-01 0.00E+00 6.12E-05 7.37E-01 232 Rubber Tired Dozers D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 1.410989 6.31E+00 3.74E+01 6.97E-04 5.14E-03 2.69E-03 4.59E-06 2.98E-04 4.08E-01 0.00E+00 6.29E-05 4.09E-01 129 Rubber Tired Dozers D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 34.56923 1.55E+02 1.29E+03 1.96E-02 1.70E-01 5.49E-02 1.59E-04 7.27E-03 1.42E+01 0.00E+00 1.77E-03 1.42E+01 4,471 Rubber Tired Dozers D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 53.19429 2.38E+02 2.87E+03 3.97E-02 3.42E-01 1.80E-01 3.09E-04 1.44E-02 3.15E+01 0.00E+00 3.58E-03 3.15E+01 9,929 Rubber Tired Dozers D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 9.494269 4.24E+01 7.72E+02 1.07E-02 9.35E-02 4.85E-02 8.50E-05 3.89E-03 8.46E+00 0.00E+00 9.65E-04 8.48E+00 2,668 Rubber Tired Dozers D 1000 U N NHH NP Orange 0.6424689 2.87E+00 7.76E+01 1.12E-03 1.12E-02 5.26E-03 8.53E-06 3.91E-04 8.48E-01 0.00E+00 1.01E-04 8.51E-01 268 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 39.78989 1.03E+02 7.42E+01 1.02E-03 6.42E-03 3.40E-03 1.03E-05 3.14E-04 8.14E-01 0.00E+00 9.21E-05 8.16E-01 257 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 237.7516 6.31E+02 8.88E+02 3.18E-02 9.55E-02 1.04E-01 1.24E-04 8.42E-03 9.56E+00 0.00E+00 2.87E-03 9.62E+00 3,028 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 3180.086 8.44E+03 2.00E+04 3.21E-01 2.07E+00 1.50E+00 2.56E-03 1.83E-01 2.18E+02 0.00E+00 2.90E-02 2.19E+02 68,807 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 237.3283 6.30E+02 2.91E+03 3.34E-02 2.61E-01 1.85E-01 3.59E-04 1.51E-02 3.19E+01 0.00E+00 3.01E-03 3.19E+01 10,057 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 76.75778 2.04E+02 1.58E+03 1.29E-02 1.31E-01 3.82E-02 1.97E-04 4.23E-03 1.75E+01 0.00E+00 1.16E-03 1.75E+01 5,506 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 123.8848 3.29E+02 5.13E+03 3.92E-02 3.72E-01 1.27E-01 6.37E-04 1.29E-02 5.66E+01 0.00E+00 3.54E-03 5.67E+01 17,843 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 43.18821 1.15E+02 2.68E+03 2.07E-02 2.01E-01 6.62E-02 3.33E-04 6.86E-03 2.96E+01 0.00E+00 1.86E-03 2.96E+01 9,331 Crawler Tractors D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 1.975385 5.68E+00 6.63E+00 3.59E-04 7.70E-04 9.47E-04 9.13E-07 8.22E-05 7.06E-02 0.00E+00 3.24E-05 7.13E-02 22 Crawler Tractors D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 1120.748 3.22E+03 9.74E+03 2.22E-01 1.31E+00 7.90E-01 1.24E-03 1.18E-01 1.06E+02 0.00E+00 2.00E-02 1.06E+02 33,495 Crawler Tractors D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 379.2738 1.09E+03 6.04E+03 9.60E-02 7.23E-01 4.08E-01 7.43E-04 4.18E-02 6.60E+01 0.00E+00 8.66E-03 6.62E+01 20,848 Crawler Tractors D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 325.9385 9.38E+02 7.07E+03 8.68E-02 7.99E-01 2.44E-01 8.75E-04 3.12E-02 7.78E+01 0.00E+00 7.83E-03 7.80E+01 24,545 Crawler Tractors D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 223.3596 6.42E+02 7.57E+03 8.53E-02 7.68E-01 3.27E-01 8.17E-04 3.02E-02 8.32E+01 0.00E+00 7.70E-03 8.34E+01 26,242 Crawler Tractors D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 5.710835 1.64E+01 3.47E+02 3.93E-03 3.59E-02 1.50E-02 3.83E-05 1.40E-03 3.81E+00 0.00E+00 3.54E-04 3.82E+00 1,203 Crawler Tractors D 1000 U N NHH NP Orange 5.710835 1.64E+01 4.91E+02 5.93E-03 6.36E-02 2.38E-02 5.42E-05 2.05E-03 5.40E+00 0.00E+00 5.35E-04 5.41E+00 1,702 Skid Steer Loaders D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 270.9099 6.20E+02 3.90E+02 6.53E-03 3.68E-02 1.97E-02 5.42E-05 2.07E-03 4.27E+00 0.00E+00 5.89E-04 4.28E+00 1,348 Skid Steer Loaders D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 2457.237 5.73E+03 6.73E+03 1.71E-01 6.87E-01 6.68E-01 9.44E-04 5.17E-02 7.30E+01 0.00E+00 1.54E-02 7.33E+01 23,082 Skid Steer Loaders D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 1287.527 3.00E+03 5.86E+03 7.24E-02 5.31E-01 4.15E-01 7.52E-04 4.30E-02 6.41E+01 0.00E+00 6.54E-03 6.42E+01 20,220 Off-Highway Tractors D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 0.1410989 4.33E-01 1.86E+00 4.81E-05 2.80E-04 1.57E-04 2.38E-07 2.47E-05 2.03E-02 0.00E+00 4.34E-06 2.03E-02 6 Off-Highway Tractors D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 172.5639 5.29E+02 3.16E+03 5.65E-02 4.25E-01 2.22E-01 3.88E-04 2.44E-02 3.45E+01 0.00E+00 5.10E-03 3.46E+01 10,883 Off-Highway Tractors D 250 U N NHH NP Orange 163.1104 5.00E+02 2.97E+03 4.29E-02 3.82E-01 1.22E-01 3.67E-04 1.61E-02 3.26E+01 0.00E+00 3.87E-03 3.27E+01 10,280 Off-Highway Tractors D 750 U N NHH NP Orange 35.83549 1.10E+02 2.85E+03 3.74E-02 3.37E-01 1.70E-01 3.13E-04 1.38E-02 3.12E+01 0.00E+00 3.38E-03 3.12E+01 9,837 Off-Highway Tractors D 1000 U N NHH NP Orange 3.78343 1.16E+01 4.31E+02 5.93E-03 6.08E-02 2.79E-02 4.74E-05 2.10E-03 4.71E+00 0.00E+00 5.35E-04 4.72E+00 1,487 Dumpers/Tenders D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 3.386374 6.15E+00 2.13E+00 3.06E-05 1.89E-04 9.95E-05 2.97E-07 9.59E-06 2.34E-02 0.00E+00 2.76E-06 2.35E-02 7 Other Construction Equipment D 15 U P NHH NP Orange 46.70373 8.84E+01 4.08E+01 5.19E-04 3.25E-03 2.72E-03 6.94E-06 1.25E-04 4.46E-01 0.00E+00 4.69E-05 4.47E-01 141 Other Construction Equipment D 25 U P NHH NP Orange 7.901538 1.50E+01 8.99E+00 1.20E-04 7.61E-04 4.06E-04 1.25E-06 3.31E-05 9.87E-02 0.00E+00 1.08E-05 9.89E-02 31 Other Construction Equipment D 50 U P NHH NP Orange 12.1345 2.34E+01 3.03E+01 9.86E-04 3.16E-03 3.20E-03 4.23E-06 2.67E-04 3.27E-01 0.00E+00 8.90E-05 3.29E-01 104 Other Construction Equipment D 120 U P NHH NP Orange 20.03604 3.86E+01 1.43E+02 2.14E-03 1.46E-02 1.03E-02 1.83E-05 1.22E-03 1.56E+00 0.00E+00 1.93E-04 1.56E+00 492 Other Construction Equipment D 175 U P NHH NP Orange 27.65538 5.33E+01 2.59E+02 2.69E-03 2.29E-02 1.57E-02 3.19E-05 1.25E-03 2.84E+00 0.00E+00 2.43E-04 2.84E+00 894 Other Construction Equipment D 500 U N NHH NP Orange 64.2 1.24E+02 1.42E+03 9.38E-03 1.03E-01 3.35E-02 1.54E-04 3.37E-03 1.57E+01 0.00E+00 8.47E-04 1.57E+01 4,951 33,105 65,083 263,123 3.872 26.607 23.212 0.032 1.650 2,863.407 0.017 0.340 2,876 905,260 Population Activity Consumption lbs/day Tons/Day MTons/Year 1,211 2,381 9,626 283 1,947 1,698 2 121 105 0 0 105 33,118 As a percent of Total Building Permits issued. Orange County 1,864 Anaheim 68 Percent 3.66% SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau. Buildings Estimates with Imputation OC ANA 2012 2,600 128 4.9% 2011 2,035 48 2.4% 2010 1,801 63 3.5% 2009 1,435 56 3.9% 2008 1,450 46 3.2% avg 1,864 68 3.6% Annual GHG emissions (MTons/Year) multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) methodology for transportation within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Lawn & Garden Tons/Day MTons/Year Equipment Fuel MaxHP C/R Pre Hand Port County Population Activity Consumption ROG Exhaust NOX Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM Exhaust CO2 Exhaust N2O Exhaust CH4 Exhaust CO2e CO2e Lawn Mowers G2 15 C N NHH NP Orange 5.96E+03 3.73E+03 4.22E+02 4.77E-02 1.24E-02 8.57E-01 1.05E-04 8.02E-03 2.54E+00 3.30E-03 2.97E-03 3.63E+00 1,201 Lawn Mowers G2 15 R N NHH NP Orange 4.47E+04 1.90E+03 2.77E+02 6.90E-02 7.04E-03 7.12E-01 5.33E-05 4.79E-03 1.30E+00 1.69E-03 4.29E-03 1.91E+00 632 Chainsaws G2 2 C N HH NP Orange 1.07E+04 8.46E+03 5.04E+02 4.22E-01 6.51E-03 7.63E-01 8.49E-05 1.20E-03 2.06E+00 3.42E-03 2.62E-02 3.67E+00 1,216 Chainsaws G2 2 R N HH NP Orange 1.20E+05 1.61E+03 9.38E+01 5.32E-02 1.28E-03 1.97E-01 1.62E-05 1.00E-03 3.93E-01 6.57E-04 3.31E-03 6.66E-01 220 Chainsaws G2 15 C N HH NP Orange 7.52E+03 5.96E+03 8.59E+02 7.18E-01 1.11E-02 1.30E+00 1.45E-04 2.04E-03 3.51E+00 3.86E-03 4.46E-02 5.64E+00 1,869 Chainsaws G2 15 R N HH NP Orange 8.46E+04 1.13E+03 1.52E+02 8.11E-02 2.13E-03 3.11E-01 2.75E-05 1.90E-03 6.69E-01 7.29E-04 5.04E-03 1.00E+00 331 Chainsaws Preempt G2 15 C P HH NP Orange 9.36E+03 7.41E+03 1.07E+03 8.94E-01 1.38E-02 1.62E+00 1.80E-04 2.54E-03 4.37E+00 4.80E-03 5.56E-02 7.02E+00 2,326 Chainsaws Preempt G2 15 R P HH NP Orange 1.05E+05 1.41E+03 2.14E+02 1.32E-01 2.18E-03 4.64E-01 3.43E-05 1.25E-03 8.33E-01 8.22E-04 8.23E-03 1.26E+00 417 Trimmers/Edgers/Brush Cutters G2 2 C N HH NP Orange 3.48E+04 1.16E+04 5.13E+02 2.77E-01 7.78E-03 9.12E-01 1.02E-04 1.43E-03 2.46E+00 4.35E-03 1.72E-02 4.18E+00 1,383 Trimmers/Edgers/Brush Cutters G2 2 R N HH NP Orange 3.88E+05 2.28E+04 9.72E+02 4.41E-01 1.59E-02 1.80E+00 2.00E-04 2.89E-03 4.87E+00 8.74E-03 2.74E-02 8.15E+00 2,699 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums G2 2 C N HH P Orange 5.20E+04 2.80E+04 1.49E+03 1.03E+00 2.09E-02 2.45E+00 2.72E-04 3.85E-03 6.62E+00 1.11E-02 6.40E-02 1.14E+01 3,777 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums G2 2 R N HH P Orange 1.34E+05 1.76E+03 9.95E+01 5.63E-02 1.36E-03 2.09E-01 1.72E-05 1.07E-03 4.17E-01 7.06E-04 3.50E-03 7.09E-01 235 Shredders G2 15 C P NHH NP Orange 2.63E+02 9.76E+01 4.28E+01 2.41E-03 1.83E-03 1.16E-01 9.13E-06 1.86E-03 2.22E-01 2.16E-04 1.50E-04 2.92E-01 97 Shredders G2 15 R P NHH NP Orange 9.35E+03 2.31E+01 1.18E+01 3.12E-03 3.26E-04 3.16E-02 2.16E-06 4.39E-04 5.24E-02 4.28E-05 1.94E-04 6.97E-02 23 Commercial Turf Equipment G2 15 C N NHH NP Orange 1.39E+02 3.05E+02 1.25E+02 5.77E-03 4.28E-03 3.40E-01 2.68E-05 3.03E-04 6.50E-01 5.78E-04 3.59E-04 8.37E-01 277 Commercial Turf Equipment G2 25 C N NHH NP Orange 6.87E+01 1.51E+02 1.34E+02 6.00E-03 4.47E-03 3.76E-01 2.79E-05 3.15E-04 6.77E-01 4.26E-04 3.73E-04 8.17E-01 271 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G2 2 C N HH NP Orange 5.88E+01 1.11E+01 6.17E-01 3.03E-04 9.58E-06 1.12E-03 1.25E-07 1.77E-06 3.04E-03 4.76E-06 1.89E-05 4.91E-03 2 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G2 2 R N HH NP Orange 1.80E+03 2.12E+01 1.39E+00 7.80E-04 1.90E-05 2.93E-03 2.40E-07 1.49E-05 5.83E-03 9.22E-06 4.84E-05 9.71E-03 3 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G2 15 C N HH NP Orange 2.56E+01 4.81E+00 1.34E+00 6.60E-04 2.09E-05 2.44E-03 2.72E-07 3.84E-06 6.60E-03 4.89E-06 4.10E-05 8.98E-03 3 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G2 15 R N HH NP Orange 7.85E+02 9.25E+00 2.88E+00 1.52E-03 4.05E-05 5.90E-03 5.23E-07 3.61E-05 1.27E-02 9.33E-06 9.43E-05 1.76E-02 6 Lawn Mowers G4 5 C N NHH NP Orange 3.53E+04 2.21E+04 2.60E+03 3.06E-01 7.68E-02 5.63E+00 5.20E-04 4.75E-02 1.51E+01 1.95E-02 1.76E-02 2.15E+01 7,113 Lawn Mowers G4 5 R N NHH NP Orange 5.59E+05 2.37E+04 3.29E+03 3.48E-01 9.27E-02 9.07E+00 5.59E-04 3.87E-02 1.62E+01 2.15E-02 2.00E-02 2.33E+01 7,707 Tillers G4 5 C N NHH NP Orange 3.66E+03 5.61E+02 7.85E+01 6.98E-03 1.77E-03 1.95E-01 1.47E-05 1.12E-03 4.25E-01 4.65E-04 4.01E-04 5.77E-01 191 Tillers G4 5 R N NHH NP Orange 1.42E+04 7.01E+02 1.09E+02 1.27E-02 3.09E-03 3.01E-01 1.83E-05 1.32E-03 5.31E-01 6.78E-04 7.28E-04 7.57E-01 251 Trimmers/Edgers/Brush Cutters G4 5 C P NHH NP Orange 6.44E+03 2.39E+03 7.26E+01 9.40E-03 4.16E-03 1.64E-01 1.41E-05 1.33E-04 4.08E-01 1.46E-03 5.39E-04 8.72E-01 289 Trimmers/Edgers/Brush Cutters G4 5 R P NHH NP Orange 3.00E+04 1.77E+03 6.41E+01 9.78E-03 2.53E-03 1.78E-01 1.04E-05 5.67E-04 3.01E-01 9.69E-04 5.61E-04 6.13E-01 203 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums G4 5 C N NHH P Orange 1.64E+03 2.79E+02 1.82E+01 1.34E-03 3.28E-04 4.83E-02 3.29E-06 2.23E-04 9.52E-02 1.38E-04 7.71E-05 1.39E-01 46 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums G4 5 R N NHH P Orange 1.41E+03 1.85E+01 1.42E+00 1.41E-04 3.14E-05 4.33E-03 2.18E-07 1.26E-05 6.32E-03 1.09E-05 8.07E-06 9.86E-03 3 Rear Engine Riding Mowers G4 15 C N NHH NP Orange 1.93E+04 1.44E+04 4.69E+03 2.17E-01 1.54E-01 1.35E+01 6.63E-04 1.08E-02 2.32E+01 2.31E-02 1.25E-02 3.07E+01 10,161 Rear Engine Riding Mowers G4 15 R N NHH NP Orange 1.69E+04 1.31E+03 4.33E+02 2.31E-02 1.47E-02 1.26E+00 6.04E-05 8.45E-04 2.12E+00 2.14E-03 1.32E-03 2.81E+00 930 Rear Engine Riding Mowers G4 25 C N NHH NP Orange 8.83E+01 6.57E+01 4.17E+01 1.87E-03 1.35E-03 1.24E-01 5.09E-06 9.32E-05 2.01E-01 1.49E-04 1.07E-04 2.49E-01 83 Rear Engine Riding Mowers G4 25 R N NHH NP Orange 7.62E+01 5.89E+00 3.78E+00 1.99E-04 1.16E-04 1.13E-02 4.56E-07 7.18E-06 1.80E-02 1.30E-05 1.14E-05 2.23E-02 7 Front Mowers G4 15 C N NHH NP Orange 8.85E+02 6.58E+02 3.44E+02 1.59E-02 1.13E-02 9.88E-01 4.85E-05 7.89E-04 1.70E+00 1.36E-03 9.12E-04 2.14E+00 709 Front Mowers G4 15 R N NHH NP Orange 2.86E+04 2.21E+03 1.17E+03 6.23E-02 3.97E-02 3.39E+00 1.63E-04 2.28E-03 5.72E+00 4.64E-03 3.57E-03 7.23E+00 2,394 Front Mowers G4 25 C N NHH NP Orange 6.94E+02 5.16E+02 3.62E+02 1.62E-02 1.17E-02 1.07E+00 4.42E-05 8.09E-04 1.74E+00 1.24E-03 9.28E-04 2.15E+00 710 Front Mowers G4 25 R N NHH NP Orange 2.24E+04 1.73E+03 1.23E+03 6.46E-02 3.77E-02 3.66E+00 1.48E-04 2.33E-03 5.85E+00 4.03E-03 3.70E-03 7.18E+00 2,378 Shredders G4 5 C P NHH NP Orange 6.95E+02 2.59E+02 6.97E+01 9.02E-03 3.99E-03 1.57E-01 1.35E-05 1.28E-04 3.92E-01 5.05E-04 5.17E-04 5.59E-01 185 Shredders G4 5 R P NHH NP Orange 2.59E+04 6.37E+01 2.20E+01 2.15E-03 6.19E-04 6.85E-02 3.33E-06 2.31E-04 9.66E-02 9.72E-05 1.23E-04 1.29E-01 43 Lawn & Garden Tractors G4 15 C N NHH NP Orange 3.54E+03 1.25E+03 7.85E+02 3.05E-02 2.19E-02 2.26E+00 1.11E-04 1.53E-03 3.90E+00 2.61E-03 1.75E-03 4.75E+00 1,571 Lawn & Garden Tractors G4 15 R N NHH NP Orange 2.30E+04 9.20E+02 5.85E+02 2.75E-02 1.85E-02 1.70E+00 8.20E-05 1.05E-03 2.87E+00 2.05E-03 1.58E-03 3.54E+00 1,174 Lawn & Garden Tractors G4 25 C N NHH NP Orange 1.40E+03 4.92E+02 4.92E+02 1.89E-02 1.30E-02 1.46E+00 6.02E-05 9.32E-04 2.38E+00 1.28E-03 1.09E-03 2.79E+00 925 Lawn & Garden Tractors G4 25 R N NHH NP Orange 9.07E+03 3.63E+02 3.67E+02 1.72E-02 1.04E-02 1.09E+00 4.44E-05 6.37E-04 1.75E+00 9.79E-04 9.87E-04 2.08E+00 688 Lawn & Garden Tractors G4 50 U N NHH NP Orange 2.02E+01 5.76E+00 8.93E+00 1.91E-04 3.69E-04 6.90E-03 9.07E-07 5.71E-06 7.46E-02 2.24E-05 1.10E-05 8.17E-02 27 Wood Splitters G4 5 C N NHH NP Orange 1.19E+03 4.19E+02 1.22E+02 1.28E-02 3.19E-03 2.81E-01 2.36E-05 2.01E-03 6.84E-01 5.59E-04 7.32E-04 8.73E-01 289 Wood Splitters G4 5 R N NHH NP Orange 2.97E+04 8.96E+01 3.28E+01 2.68E-03 6.81E-04 1.02E-01 5.05E-06 2.61E-04 1.46E-01 1.17E-04 1.54E-04 1.86E-01 62 Chippers/Stump Grinders G4 15 C P NHH P Orange 1.68E+01 5.80E+01 4.87E+01 3.82E-03 2.77E-03 1.40E-01 6.71E-06 1.97E-03 2.35E-01 2.06E-04 2.15E-04 3.04E-01 101 Chippers/Stump Grinders G4 15 R P NHH P Orange 2.99E+01 1.35E+00 1.20E+00 9.21E-05 4.34E-05 3.64E-03 1.57E-07 4.09E-05 5.50E-03 3.90E-06 5.28E-06 6.82E-03 2 Chippers/Stump Grinders G4 25 C P NHH P Orange 9.52E+01 3.29E+02 4.66E+02 3.75E-02 2.38E-02 1.38E+00 5.54E-05 1.83E-02 2.19E+00 1.46E-03 2.11E-03 2.68E+00 889 Chippers/Stump Grinders G4 25 R P NHH P Orange 1.69E+02 7.66E+00 1.12E+01 8.17E-04 3.63E-04 3.47E-02 1.29E-06 3.79E-04 5.09E-02 2.72E-05 4.68E-05 6.03E-02 20 Commercial Turf Equipment G4 15 C N NHH NP Orange 1.25E+03 2.75E+03 1.46E+03 8.39E-02 5.90E-02 4.20E+00 2.04E-04 4.00E-03 7.15E+00 6.38E-03 4.77E-03 9.23E+00 3,057 Commercial Turf Equipment G4 25 C N NHH NP Orange 6.18E+02 1.35E+03 1.28E+03 6.98E-02 5.20E-02 3.79E+00 1.54E-04 3.40E-03 6.09E+00 4.29E-03 3.97E-03 7.50E+00 2,483 Commercial Turf Equipment G4 50 U N NHH NP Orange 2.49E+02 5.00E+02 8.22E+02 2.57E-02 3.74E-02 1.14E+00 7.35E-05 4.63E-04 6.05E+00 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 6.75E+00 2,235 Commercial Turf Equipment G4 120 U N NHH NP Orange 1.65E+00 3.31E+00 8.08E+00 3.59E-05 2.11E-04 1.93E-03 7.23E-07 5.80E-06 7.48E-02 1.37E-05 2.05E-06 7.91E-02 26 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 5 C N NHH NP Orange 1.10E+03 2.07E+02 4.20E+01 3.71E-03 9.15E-04 1.05E-01 7.85E-06 5.97E-04 2.27E-01 2.07E-04 2.13E-04 2.96E-01 98 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 5 R N NHH NP Orange 3.37E+04 3.97E+02 9.78E+01 9.48E-03 2.15E-03 3.00E-01 1.51E-05 8.58E-04 4.37E-01 4.32E-04 5.44E-04 5.82E-01 193 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 15 C N NHH NP Orange 4.89E+02 9.19E+01 4.06E+01 1.61E-03 1.15E-03 1.17E-01 5.75E-06 8.01E-05 2.02E-01 1.61E-04 9.22E-05 2.54E-01 84 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 15 R N NHH NP Orange 1.50E+04 1.77E+02 8.19E+01 4.29E-03 2.54E-03 2.46E-01 1.11E-05 1.34E-04 3.88E-01 3.31E-04 2.46E-04 4.96E-01 164 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 25 C N NHH NP Orange 1.03E+01 1.94E+00 1.88E+00 7.34E-05 5.04E-05 5.59E-03 2.30E-07 3.60E-06 9.06E-03 5.00E-06 4.21E-06 1.07E-02 4 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 25 R N NHH NP Orange 3.19E+02 3.75E+00 3.78E+00 1.93E-04 1.03E-04 1.16E-02 4.44E-07 6.04E-06 1.75E-02 9.93E-06 1.11E-05 2.08E-02 7 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 50 U N NHH NP Orange 7.49E-01 1.25E-01 2.69E-01 6.18E-06 1.23E-05 2.02E-04 2.74E-08 1.73E-07 2.26E-03 6.11E-07 3.54E-07 2.45E-03 1 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment G4 120 U N NHH NP Orange 1.80E+00 3.00E-01 1.67E+00 2.62E-05 1.16E-04 5.36E-04 1.46E-07 1.17E-06 1.52E-02 3.01E-06 1.50E-06 1.61E-02 5 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums D 15 U N NHH P Orange 1.20E+00 3.94E-01 5.40E-02 6.24E-07 4.39E-06 3.61E-06 9.21E-09 2.03E-07 5.92E-04 0.00E+00 5.63E-08 5.93E-04 0 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums D 120 U N NHH P Orange 1.05E+00 3.44E-01 7.65E-01 1.05E-05 7.92E-05 4.99E-05 9.82E-08 5.51E-06 8.37E-03 0.00E+00 9.47E-07 8.39E-03 3 Leaf Blowers/Vacuums D 250 U N NHH P Orange 2.99E-01 9.84E-02 4.47E-01 2.65E-06 3.80E-05 9.97E-06 5.55E-08 1.01E-06 4.93E-03 0.00E+00 2.39E-07 4.94E-03 2 Lawn & Garden Tractors D 15 U N NHH NP Orange 2.89E+03 4.31E+03 1.83E+03 2.14E-02 1.50E-01 1.22E-01 3.11E-04 7.42E-03 2.00E+01 0.00E+00 1.93E-03 2.00E+01 6,634 Lawn & Garden Tractors D 25 U N NHH NP Orange 2.26E+03 3.37E+03 2.19E+03 2.93E-02 1.87E-01 9.93E-02 3.05E-04 8.69E-03 2.41E+01 0.00E+00 2.65E-03 2.41E+01 7,988 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 25 U P NHH P Orange 1.35E+00 1.72E+00 1.57E+00 2.09E-05 1.32E-04 7.11E-05 2.19E-07 5.29E-06 1.73E-02 0.00E+00 1.88E-06 1.73E-02 6 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 120 U P NHH P Orange 3.71E+01 4.73E+01 1.64E+02 2.75E-03 1.84E-02 1.16E-02 2.11E-05 1.50E-03 1.80E+00 0.00E+00 2.49E-04 1.80E+00 596 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 175 U P NHH P Orange 2.55E+00 3.24E+00 1.95E+01 2.21E-04 1.94E-03 1.14E-03 2.40E-06 9.94E-05 2.13E-01 0.00E+00 1.99E-05 2.14E-01 71 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 250 U N NHH P Orange 5.99E-01 7.63E-01 7.68E+00 5.79E-05 7.10E-04 1.88E-04 9.54E-07 2.16E-05 8.48E-02 0.00E+00 5.23E-06 8.49E-02 28 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 500 U N NHH P Orange 5.54E+00 7.06E+00 7.89E+01 5.38E-04 6.58E-03 2.06E-03 8.55E-06 2.07E-04 8.71E-01 0.00E+00 4.85E-05 8.72E-01 289 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 750 U N NHH P Orange 6.29E+00 8.01E+00 2.16E+02 1.51E-03 1.85E-02 5.63E-03 2.39E-05 5.75E-04 2.38E+00 0.00E+00 1.36E-04 2.38E+00 789 Chippers/Stump Grinders D 1000 U N NHH P Orange 1.20E+01 1.52E+01 5.85E+02 5.35E-03 6.72E-02 1.94E-02 6.48E-05 1.93E-03 6.45E+00 0.00E+00 4.83E-04 6.46E+00 2,138 Commercial Turf Equipment D 15 U N NHH NP Orange 7.28E+01 2.13E+02 9.37E+01 1.06E-03 7.49E-03 6.27E-03 1.60E-05 2.99E-04 1.03E+00 0.00E+00 9.61E-05 1.03E+00 341 Commercial Turf Equipment D 25 U N NHH NP Orange 1.37E+03 4.00E+03 2.64E+03 3.49E-02 2.21E-01 1.19E-01 3.67E-04 8.43E-03 2.89E+01 0.00E+00 3.15E-03 2.90E+01 9,608 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment D 15 U N NHH NP Orange 1.05E+00 1.24E+00 6.93E-01 7.92E-06 5.57E-05 4.64E-05 1.18E-07 2.34E-06 7.59E-03 0.00E+00 7.14E-07 7.61E-03 3 Other Lawn & Garden Equipment D 25 U N NHH NP Orange 1.50E-01 1.78E-01 1.32E-01 1.75E-06 1.11E-05 5.95E-06 1.83E-08 4.43E-07 1.45E-03 0.00E+00 1.58E-07 1.45E-03 0 1,904,483 190,496 36,165 5.797 1.501 71.075 0.006 0.209 226.583 0.151 0.356 280.832 92,990 Population Activity Consumption lbs/day Tons/Day MTons/Year 212,738 21,279 4,040 1,295 335 15,879 1 47 25 0 0 31 10,387 As a percent of 2010 Total Population Orange County 3,010,332 Anaheim 336,265 Percent 11% SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Light Commercial Tons/Day MTons/Year Equipment Fuel MaxHP C/R Pre Hand Port County Population Activity Consumption ROG Exhaust NOX Exhaust CO Exhaust SO2 Exhaust PM Exhaust CO2 Exhaust N2O Exhaust CH4 Exhaust CO2e CO2e Generator Sets G2 2 C N NHH P Orange 2.26E+02 8.32E+01 5.22E+00 1.36E-03 2.02E-04 1.17E-02 1.10E-06 1.07E-04 2.68E-02 6.09E-05 8.44E-05 4.74E-02 16 Generator Sets G2 2 R N NHH P Orange 1.78E+02 4.40E+01 2.98E+00 9.24E-04 1.05E-04 7.06E-03 5.83E-07 6.04E-05 1.42E-02 3.18E-05 5.75E-05 2.52E-02 8 Generator Sets G2 15 C N NHH P Orange 2.28E+00 8.39E-01 4.77E-01 3.08E-05 1.85E-05 1.31E-03 1.00E-07 1.22E-06 2.43E-03 2.02E-06 1.92E-06 3.10E-03 1 Generator Sets G2 15 R N NHH P Orange 1.74E+00 4.30E-01 2.65E-01 4.27E-05 8.91E-06 7.32E-04 5.13E-08 1.63E-06 1.25E-03 9.88E-07 2.66E-06 1.61E-03 1 Pumps G2 2 C N NHH P Orange 8.99E+02 6.35E+02 3.40E+01 5.06E-03 1.55E-03 6.42E-02 8.54E-06 7.28E-04 2.07E-01 4.69E-04 3.15E-04 3.59E-01 119 Pumps G2 2 R N NHH P Orange 7.06E+02 3.36E+02 2.05E+01 4.77E-03 8.31E-04 4.44E-02 4.51E-06 4.22E-04 1.10E-01 2.49E-04 2.97E-04 1.93E-01 64 Pumps G2 15 C P NHH P Orange 2.42E+02 1.71E+02 8.72E+01 5.75E-03 4.19E-03 2.37E-01 1.84E-05 3.75E-03 4.48E-01 4.38E-04 3.57E-04 5.91E-01 196 Pumps G2 15 R P NHH P Orange 1.90E+02 9.05E+01 4.74E+01 4.70E-03 2.13E-03 1.29E-01 9.74E-06 1.98E-03 2.36E-01 2.25E-04 2.92E-04 3.12E-01 103 Pumps G2 25 C P NHH P Orange 2.93E+00 2.07E+00 2.29E+00 1.51E-04 1.00E-04 6.39E-03 4.74E-07 9.65E-05 1.15E-02 7.62E-06 9.38E-06 1.41E-02 5 Pumps G2 25 R P NHH P Orange 2.28E+00 1.08E+00 1.21E+00 8.15E-05 5.10E-05 3.39E-03 2.48E-07 5.05E-05 6.02E-03 3.92E-06 5.06E-06 7.34E-03 2 Generator Sets G4 5 C N NHH P Orange 2.97E+03 1.09E+03 2.75E+02 5.13E-02 1.12E-02 6.68E-01 4.86E-05 4.85E-03 1.41E+00 1.69E-03 2.94E-03 1.99E+00 660 Generator Sets G4 5 R N NHH P Orange 2.33E+03 5.77E+02 1.54E+02 3.02E-02 5.89E-03 3.97E-01 2.57E-05 2.53E-03 7.43E-01 8.90E-04 1.73E-03 1.06E+00 349 Generator Sets G4 15 C N NHH P Orange 8.16E+03 3.00E+03 1.80E+03 1.31E-01 7.84E-02 5.23E+00 2.48E-04 4.58E-03 8.69E+00 7.70E-03 7.52E-03 1.12E+01 3,720 Generator Sets G4 15 R N NHH P Orange 6.41E+03 1.59E+03 1.01E+03 9.53E-02 3.93E-02 3.02E+00 1.31E-04 2.40E-03 4.59E+00 3.95E-03 5.46E-03 5.93E+00 1,965 Generator Sets G4 25 C N NHH P Orange 4.38E+03 1.61E+03 2.09E+03 1.47E-01 8.49E-02 6.21E+00 2.50E-04 5.20E-03 9.86E+00 6.02E-03 8.41E-03 1.19E+01 3,940 Generator Sets G4 25 R N NHH P Orange 3.44E+03 8.52E+02 1.15E+03 1.01E-01 4.11E-02 3.48E+00 1.32E-04 2.72E-03 5.21E+00 3.03E-03 5.77E-03 6.27E+00 2,076 Generator Sets G4 50 U N NHH P Orange 1.46E+03 4.59E+02 1.05E+03 2.65E-02 5.01E-02 8.67E-01 1.05E-04 6.61E-04 8.62E+00 2.39E-03 1.52E-03 9.40E+00 3,112 Generator Sets G4 120 U N NHH P Orange 2.82E+02 8.87E+01 4.74E+02 8.37E-03 3.46E-02 1.70E-01 4.13E-05 3.31E-04 4.27E+00 8.97E-04 4.80E-04 4.56E+00 1,510 Generator Sets G4 175 U N NHH P Orange 2.66E+01 8.38E+00 7.53E+01 7.86E-04 6.20E-03 2.14E-02 6.86E-06 5.50E-05 6.91E-01 1.19E-04 4.51E-05 7.28E-01 241 Pumps G4 5 C P NHH P Orange 1.05E+03 7.44E+02 1.25E+02 2.10E-02 8.29E-03 2.53E-01 2.52E-05 5.92E-04 7.29E-01 1.22E-03 1.20E-03 1.13E+00 375 Pumps G4 5 R P NHH P Orange 8.28E+02 3.93E+02 7.47E+01 1.45E-02 4.05E-03 1.79E-01 1.33E-05 7.71E-04 3.85E-01 6.17E-04 8.33E-04 5.94E-01 197 Pumps G4 15 C P NHH P Orange 1.14E+03 8.06E+02 4.34E+02 3.42E-02 2.36E-02 1.24E+00 6.01E-05 1.77E-02 2.11E+00 2.22E-03 1.96E-03 2.84E+00 939 Pumps G4 15 R P NHH P Orange 8.97E+02 4.26E+02 2.34E+02 2.01E-02 1.20E-02 6.80E-01 3.17E-05 9.21E-03 1.11E+00 1.14E-03 1.15E-03 1.49E+00 494 Pumps G4 25 C P NHH P Orange 2.92E+02 2.07E+02 2.41E+02 1.86E-02 1.19E-02 7.07E-01 2.91E-05 9.62E-03 1.15E+00 8.15E-04 1.07E-03 1.42E+00 471 Pumps G4 25 R P NHH P Orange 2.30E+02 1.09E+02 1.29E+02 1.03E-02 6.05E-03 3.79E-01 1.54E-05 5.08E-03 6.06E-01 4.21E-04 5.90E-04 7.49E-01 248 Pumps G4 50 U P NHH P Orange 1.17E+02 7.05E+01 1.59E+02 4.19E-03 6.89E-03 1.36E-01 1.58E-05 9.97E-05 1.30E+00 3.38E-04 2.40E-04 1.41E+00 468 Pumps G4 120 U P NHH P Orange 1.48E+02 8.94E+01 5.43E+02 9.92E-03 3.39E-02 1.93E-01 4.73E-05 3.79E-04 4.90E+00 8.19E-04 5.69E-04 5.16E+00 1,709 Pumps G4 175 U P NHH P Orange 4.45E+00 2.69E+00 2.43E+01 2.50E-04 1.75E-03 7.16E-03 2.21E-06 1.77E-05 2.22E-01 3.29E-05 1.43E-05 2.33E-01 77 Air Compressors G4 5 C P NHH P Orange 3.80E+02 5.89E+02 1.29E+02 2.06E-02 9.13E-03 2.44E-01 2.69E-05 2.54E-04 7.80E-01 1.15E-03 1.18E-03 1.16E+00 385 Air Compressors G4 5 R P NHH P Orange 2.99E+02 3.11E+02 6.79E+01 1.09E-02 4.82E-03 1.28E-01 1.42E-05 1.34E-04 4.12E-01 6.09E-04 6.24E-04 6.14E-01 203 Air Compressors G4 15 C P NHH P Orange 1.93E+02 2.98E+02 1.13E+02 8.85E-03 6.46E-03 3.23E-01 1.58E-05 4.64E-03 5.53E-01 6.98E-04 5.06E-04 7.80E-01 258 Air Compressors G4 15 R P NHH P Orange 1.51E+02 1.58E+02 5.98E+01 4.56E-03 3.33E-03 1.70E-01 8.33E-06 2.45E-03 2.92E-01 3.64E-04 2.61E-04 4.11E-01 136 Air Compressors G4 25 C P NHH P Orange 2.60E+01 4.02E+01 3.82E+01 3.06E-03 1.95E-03 1.12E-01 4.59E-06 1.52E-03 1.81E-01 1.45E-04 1.75E-04 2.30E-01 76 Air Compressors G4 25 R P NHH P Orange 2.04E+01 2.13E+01 2.02E+01 1.59E-03 1.01E-03 5.91E-02 2.43E-06 8.03E-04 9.58E-02 7.58E-05 9.09E-05 1.21E-01 40 Air Compressors G4 50 U P NHH P Orange 4.43E+01 5.87E+01 1.28E+02 5.05E-03 6.69E-03 1.43E-01 1.21E-05 7.61E-05 9.94E-01 3.13E-04 2.89E-04 1.10E+00 363 Air Compressors G4 120 U P NHH P Orange 1.44E+02 1.90E+02 7.29E+02 2.13E-02 5.75E-02 3.71E-01 6.16E-05 4.94E-04 6.37E+00 1.62E-03 1.22E-03 6.90E+00 2,284 Air Compressors G4 175 U P NHH P Orange 9.67E+00 1.28E+01 8.77E+01 1.25E-03 8.34E-03 2.79E-02 7.93E-06 6.36E-05 7.98E-01 1.64E-04 7.17E-05 8.50E-01 282 Welders G4 15 C P NHH P Orange 7.44E+02 4.24E+02 2.40E+02 2.20E-02 1.19E-02 7.04E-01 3.21E-05 9.19E-03 1.12E+00 1.14E-03 1.26E-03 1.50E+00 498 Welders G4 25 C P NHH P Orange 2.69E+03 1.53E+03 1.34E+03 1.11E-01 6.30E-02 3.96E+00 1.59E-04 5.25E-02 6.28E+00 5.04E-03 6.36E-03 7.98E+00 2,642 Welders G4 50 U P NHH P Orange 2.32E+02 1.32E+02 3.22E+02 1.01E-02 1.65E-02 2.89E-01 3.18E-05 2.00E-04 2.61E+00 7.32E-04 5.78E-04 2.85E+00 944 Welders G4 120 U P NHH P Orange 2.36E+02 1.35E+02 4.59E+02 1.04E-02 3.56E-02 1.84E-01 3.96E-05 3.18E-04 4.10E+00 1.05E-03 5.94E-04 4.44E+00 1,470 Welders G4 175 U P NHH P Orange 1.63E+01 9.28E+00 5.58E+01 6.94E-04 5.05E-03 1.63E-02 5.07E-06 4.07E-05 5.11E-01 1.07E-04 3.98E-05 5.45E-01 180 Pressure Washers G4 5 C N NHH P Orange 7.98E+02 2.93E+02 1.03E+02 1.60E-02 4.60E-03 2.20E-01 2.04E-05 2.02E-03 5.90E-01 5.69E-04 9.17E-04 7.86E-01 260 Pressure Washers G4 5 R N NHH P Orange 6.27E+02 1.55E+02 6.30E+01 1.20E-02 2.45E-03 1.60E-01 1.08E-05 1.06E-03 3.12E-01 3.02E-04 6.86E-04 4.20E-01 139 Pressure Washers G4 15 C N NHH P Orange 7.12E+02 2.62E+02 1.53E+02 1.11E-02 6.65E-03 4.44E-01 2.10E-05 3.89E-04 7.37E-01 6.62E-04 6.37E-04 9.56E-01 316 Pressure Washers G4 15 R N NHH P Orange 5.59E+02 1.38E+02 8.53E+01 8.08E-03 3.34E-03 2.56E-01 1.11E-05 2.04E-04 3.90E-01 3.40E-04 4.63E-04 5.05E-01 167 Pressure Washers G4 25 C N NHH P Orange 1.34E+02 4.91E+01 7.52E+01 5.03E-03 3.06E-03 2.23E-01 9.02E-06 1.86E-04 3.56E-01 2.01E-04 2.88E-04 4.24E-01 140 Pressure Washers G4 25 R N NHH P Orange 1.05E+02 2.60E+01 4.11E+01 3.45E-03 1.49E-03 1.24E-01 4.77E-06 9.76E-05 1.88E-01 1.01E-04 1.98E-04 2.24E-01 74 Pressure Washers G4 50 U P NHH P Orange 1.30E+01 4.10E+00 1.05E+01 2.50E-04 4.49E-04 8.05E-03 1.06E-06 6.69E-06 8.73E-02 2.08E-05 1.44E-05 9.41E-02 31 Generator Sets C4 120 U N NHH P Orange 2.10E+01 6.60E+00 4.14E+01 3.36E-05 2.21E-03 8.70E-03 0.00E+00 2.46E-05 2.77E-01 0.00E+00 2.82E-04 2.83E-01 94 Generator Sets C4 175 U N NHH P Orange 1.74E+01 5.47E+00 5.98E+01 3.87E-05 3.20E-03 1.04E-02 0.00E+00 3.59E-05 4.04E-01 0.00E+00 3.24E-04 4.11E-01 136 Gas Compressors C4 50 U P NHH P Orange 3.26E+00 7.59E+01 2.59E+02 1.48E-04 5.36E-03 2.62E-02 0.00E+00 1.37E-04 1.78E+00 0.00E+00 1.24E-03 1.81E+00 599 Gas Compressors C4 120 U P NHH P Orange 6.74E+00 1.57E+02 1.52E+03 8.05E-04 3.17E-02 4.18E-01 0.00E+00 7.76E-04 1.00E+01 0.00E+00 6.75E-03 1.02E+01 3,363 Gas Compressors C4 175 U P NHH P Orange 1.09E+00 2.53E+01 3.90E+02 2.25E-04 8.49E-03 8.51E-02 0.00E+00 2.08E-04 2.61E+00 0.00E+00 1.88E-03 2.65E+00 876 Gas Compressors C4 250 U N NHH P Orange 8.69E-01 2.02E+01 4.04E+02 1.73E-04 8.22E-03 9.80E-02 0.00E+00 2.39E-04 2.69E+00 0.00E+00 1.45E-03 2.72E+00 900 Gas Compressors C4 500 U N NHH P Orange 7.61E-01 1.77E+01 5.69E+02 2.43E-04 1.16E-02 1.38E-01 0.00E+00 3.36E-04 3.78E+00 0.00E+00 2.04E-03 3.83E+00 1,267 Generator Sets D 15 U N NHH P Orange 5.53E+02 5.11E+02 2.39E+02 3.95E-03 2.68E-02 1.77E-02 4.06E-05 1.55E-03 2.61E+00 0.00E+00 3.56E-04 2.61E+00 865 Generator Sets D 25 U N NHH P Orange 4.04E+02 3.74E+02 3.01E+02 5.10E-03 3.03E-02 1.75E-02 4.18E-05 1.77E-03 3.29E+00 0.00E+00 4.60E-04 3.30E+00 1,093 Generator Sets D 50 U N NHH P Orange 4.94E+02 4.57E+02 6.46E+02 2.13E-02 6.73E-02 6.15E-02 9.03E-05 5.71E-03 6.98E+00 0.00E+00 1.92E-03 7.02E+00 2,326 Generator Sets D 120 U N NHH P Orange 7.50E+02 6.94E+02 2.47E+03 4.09E-02 2.77E-01 1.71E-01 3.17E-04 2.18E-02 2.70E+01 0.00E+00 3.69E-03 2.71E+01 8,970 Generator Sets D 175 U N NHH P Orange 4.43E+01 4.10E+01 2.65E+02 2.92E-03 2.65E-02 1.52E-02 3.27E-05 1.30E-03 2.91E+00 0.00E+00 2.64E-04 2.91E+00 965 Generator Sets D 250 U N NHH P Orange 2.48E+01 2.29E+01 2.20E+02 1.54E-03 2.04E-02 5.09E-03 2.74E-05 5.70E-04 2.43E+00 0.00E+00 1.39E-04 2.44E+00 806 Generator Sets D 500 U N NHH P Orange 5.51E+01 5.09E+01 7.77E+02 4.84E-03 6.47E-02 1.91E-02 8.41E-05 1.88E-03 8.57E+00 0.00E+00 4.37E-04 8.58E+00 2,842 Generator Sets D 750 U N NHH P Orange 3.42E+01 3.17E+01 7.79E+02 5.03E-03 6.69E-02 1.91E-02 8.65E-05 1.92E-03 8.60E+00 0.00E+00 4.54E-04 8.61E+00 2,850 Generator Sets D 9999 U N NHH P Orange 8.91E+00 8.24E+00 3.92E+02 3.49E-03 4.43E-02 1.23E-02 4.34E-05 1.25E-03 4.32E+00 0.00E+00 3.15E-04 4.32E+00 1,431 Pumps D 15 U P NHH P Orange 4.15E+02 4.58E+02 1.56E+02 2.98E-03 1.78E-02 1.15E-02 2.64E-05 1.21E-03 1.70E+00 0.00E+00 2.69E-04 1.70E+00 564 Pumps D 25 U P NHH P Orange 1.24E+02 1.37E+02 1.22E+02 2.58E-03 1.22E-02 7.07E-03 1.69E-05 7.86E-04 1.33E+00 0.00E+00 2.33E-04 1.34E+00 442 Pumps D 50 U P NHH P Orange 2.16E+02 2.38E+02 3.78E+02 1.34E-02 3.98E-02 3.79E-02 5.28E-05 3.50E-03 4.09E+00 0.00E+00 1.21E-03 4.11E+00 1,362 Pumps D 120 U P NHH P Orange 4.24E+02 4.67E+02 1.67E+03 2.86E-02 1.90E-01 1.17E-01 2.13E-04 1.54E-02 1.82E+01 0.00E+00 2.58E-03 1.82E+01 6,043 Pumps D 175 U P NHH P Orange 4.59E+01 5.06E+01 3.23E+02 3.70E-03 3.28E-02 1.87E-02 3.98E-05 1.65E-03 3.54E+00 0.00E+00 3.34E-04 3.55E+00 1,174 Pumps D 250 U N NHH P Orange 3.30E+01 3.64E+01 3.32E+02 2.42E-03 3.11E-02 7.81E-03 4.12E-05 8.92E-04 3.66E+00 0.00E+00 2.18E-04 3.67E+00 1,215 Pumps D 500 U N NHH P Orange 6.52E-01 7.19E-01 1.12E+01 7.32E-05 9.47E-04 2.84E-04 1.22E-06 2.82E-05 1.24E-01 0.00E+00 6.60E-06 1.24E-01 41 Pumps D 750 U N NHH P Orange 1.09E-01 1.20E-01 3.09E+00 2.08E-05 2.69E-04 7.82E-05 3.43E-07 7.91E-06 3.42E-02 0.00E+00 1.88E-06 3.42E-02 11 Pumps D 9999 U N NHH P Orange 2.39E+00 2.64E+00 1.62E+02 1.48E-03 1.85E-02 5.21E-03 1.79E-05 5.26E-04 1.78E+00 0.00E+00 1.33E-04 1.79E+00 592 Air Compressors D 15 U P NHH P Orange 5.65E+00 1.26E+01 4.17E+00 7.99E-05 4.77E-04 3.09E-04 7.07E-07 3.24E-05 4.55E-02 0.00E+00 7.21E-06 4.56E-02 15 Air Compressors D 25 U P NHH P Orange 1.12E+01 2.50E+01 1.65E+01 3.49E-04 1.66E-03 9.57E-04 2.29E-06 1.06E-04 1.80E-01 0.00E+00 3.15E-05 1.81E-01 60 Air Compressors D 50 U P NHH P Orange 1.02E+02 2.27E+02 2.36E+02 1.11E-02 2.60E-02 2.95E-02 3.26E-05 2.66E-03 2.52E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.54E+00 842 Air Compressors D 120 U P NHH P Orange 6.77E+02 1.51E+03 3.25E+03 6.59E-02 3.97E-01 2.47E-01 4.16E-04 3.65E-02 3.54E+01 0.00E+00 5.95E-03 3.56E+01 11,772 Air Compressors D 175 U P NHH P Orange 2.56E+01 5.72E+01 2.31E+02 3.17E-03 2.52E-02 1.44E-02 2.84E-05 1.43E-03 2.53E+00 0.00E+00 2.86E-04 2.53E+00 839 Air Compressors D 250 U N NHH P Orange 3.61E+01 8.04E+01 4.78E+02 4.20E-03 4.82E-02 1.21E-02 5.93E-05 1.49E-03 5.27E+00 0.00E+00 3.79E-04 5.28E+00 1,749 Air Compressors D 500 U N NHH P Orange 4.70E+01 1.05E+02 1.10E+03 8.78E-03 9.81E-02 2.95E-02 1.19E-04 3.19E-03 1.21E+01 0.00E+00 7.92E-04 1.22E+01 4,027 Air Compressors D 750 U N NHH P Orange 1.76E+01 3.93E+01 6.37E+02 5.16E-03 5.86E-02 1.71E-02 7.06E-05 1.88E-03 7.02E+00 0.00E+00 4.65E-04 7.03E+00 2,329 Air Compressors D 1000 U N NHH P Orange 4.35E-01 9.69E-01 2.14E+01 2.15E-04 2.59E-03 7.36E-04 2.37E-06 7.55E-05 2.35E-01 0.00E+00 1.94E-05 2.36E-01 78 Welders D 15 U P NHH P Orange 1.88E+02 3.30E+02 9.38E+01 1.80E-03 1.07E-02 6.96E-03 1.59E-05 7.29E-04 1.02E+00 0.00E+00 1.62E-04 1.03E+00 340 Welders D 25 U P NHH P Orange 1.65E+02 2.91E+02 1.50E+02 3.17E-03 1.51E-02 8.71E-03 2.08E-05 9.68E-04 1.64E+00 0.00E+00 2.86E-04 1.64E+00 544 Welders D 50 U P NHH P Orange 5.08E+02 8.94E+02 1.08E+03 4.65E-02 1.17E-01 1.26E-01 1.50E-04 1.14E-02 1.16E+01 0.00E+00 4.20E-03 1.17E+01 3,869 Welders D 120 U P NHH P Orange 3.95E+02 6.95E+02 1.26E+03 2.40E-02 1.50E-01 9.28E-02 1.61E-04 1.32E-02 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 2.17E-03 1.38E+01 4,553 Welders D 175 U P NHH P Orange 1.96E+00 3.44E+00 1.54E+01 1.99E-04 1.64E-03 9.38E-04 1.90E-06 8.96E-05 1.69E-01 0.00E+00 1.79E-05 1.69E-01 56 Welders D 250 U N NHH P Orange 4.35E-01 7.65E-01 4.12E+00 3.40E-05 4.06E-04 1.02E-04 5.12E-07 1.23E-05 4.55E-02 0.00E+00 3.07E-06 4.55E-02 15 Welders D 500 U N NHH P Orange 1.09E+00 1.91E+00 1.45E+01 1.08E-04 1.27E-03 3.82E-04 1.57E-06 4.02E-05 1.60E-01 0.00E+00 9.73E-06 1.60E-01 53 Pressure Washers D 15 U N NHH P Orange 2.56E+01 1.02E+01 2.28E+00 3.76E-05 2.56E-04 1.69E-04 3.87E-07 1.47E-05 2.49E-02 0.00E+00 3.40E-06 2.49E-02 8 Pressure Washers D 25 U N NHH P Orange 5.98E+00 2.37E+00 7.74E-01 1.31E-05 7.79E-05 4.50E-05 1.07E-07 4.56E-06 8.47E-03 0.00E+00 1.18E-06 8.49E-03 3 Pressure Washers D 50 U P NHH P Orange 1.18E+01 4.70E+00 3.09E+00 7.99E-05 3.13E-04 2.49E-04 4.34E-07 2.37E-05 3.36E-02 0.00E+00 7.21E-06 3.37E-02 11 Pressure Washers D 120 U P NHH P Orange 4.89E+00 1.94E+00 2.13E+00 3.15E-05 2.28E-04 1.41E-04 2.74E-07 1.64E-05 2.33E-02 0.00E+00 2.84E-06 2.34E-02 8 50,665 26,503 35,636 1.355 2.716 34.438 0.004 0.288 301.972 0.051 0.102 319.990 105,956 Population Activity Consumption lbs/day Tons/Day MTons/Year 8,971 4,693 6,310 480 962 12,196 1 102 53 0 0 57 18,761 As a percent of 2010 Total Employment Orange County 1,410,179 Anaheim 249,698 Percent 17.7% SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. http://lehd.ces.census.gov/ for the County. ---PAGE BREAK--- QWI Quick Facts Orange (Q1) Orange (Avg:Selected + 3 Prior qtrs) California (Q1) California (Avg:Selected + 3 Prior qtrs) Total_Employment 1,410,179 1,410,220 14,228,431 14,291,645 Net_Job_Flows 14,818 14,518 120,216 155,781 Job_Creation 67,092 67,454 672,248 754,897 New_Hires 214,183 219,542 1,795,434 2,066,051 Separations 228,615 239,028 2,049,129 2,391,186 Turnover 7.60% 8.00% 7.70% 8.10% $4,903.00 $4,696.00 $4,839.00 $4,636.00 Avg_New_Hire_Earnings $2,730.00 $2,912.00 $2,667.00 $2,825.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2012 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Orange County California ( 059) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 2271 2271 667148849 2245 2245 660927555 Two Family 123 246 39509452 123 246 39509452 Three and Four Family 39 131 29167951 35 119 27988623 Five or More Family 167 3434 407745166 167 3434 407745166 Total 2600 6082 [PHONE REDACTED] 2570 6044 [PHONE REDACTED] Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2011 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Orange County California ( 059) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 1822 1822 490068932 1777 1777 464195339 Two Family 31 62 15805574 28 56 13688336 Three and Four Family 27 87 16487065 24 78 15602569 Five or More Family 155 2381 297879210 155 2381 297879210 Total 2035 4352 820240781 1984 4292 791365454 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2010 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Orange County California ( 059) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 1624 1624 494627842 1534 1534 448877260 Two Family 30 60 15081616 24 48 10735644 Three and Four Family 75 264 43272685 71 252 42343888 Five or More Family 72 1186 138600050 72 1186 138600050 Total 1801 3134 691582193 1701 3020 640556842 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2009 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Orange County California ( 059) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 1341 1341 421287968 1313 1313 403809540 Two Family 24 48 12509695 22 44 11478983 Three and Four Family 26 86 12174003 25 83 11879171 Five or More Family 44 668 82855591 44 668 82855591 Total 1435 2143 528827257 1404 2108 510023285 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2008 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Orange County California ( 059) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 1330 1330 465860485 1296 1296 457831068 Two Family 41 82 17752173 40 80 17610205 Three and Four Family 13 49 7587218 11 43 6850594 Five or More Family 66 1774 187883579 60 1729 182915059 Total 1450 3235 679083455 1407 3148 665206926 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Map View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map 2010 Census Interactive Population Search CA - Orange County Population Total Population 3,010,232 Housing Status ( in housing units unless noted ) Total 1,048,907 Occupied 992,781 Owner-occupied 588,313 Population in owner-occupied ( number of individuals ) 1,755,924 Renter-occupied 404,468 Population in renter-occupied ( number of individuals ) 1,215,072 Households with individuals under 18 375,387 Vacant 56,126 Vacant: for rent 25,254 Vacant: for sale 8,434 Population by Sex/Age Male 1,488,780 Female 1,521,452 Under 18 736,659 18 & over 2,273,573 20 - 24 213,601 25 - 34 413,528 35 - 49 669,639 50 - 64 535,443 65 & over 349,677 Population by Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 1,012,973 Non Hispanic or Latino 1,997,259 Population by Race White 1,830,758 African American 50,744 Asian 537,804 American Indian and Alaska Native 18,132 Page 1 of 3 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 5/9/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- CA - California Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 9,354 Other 435,641 Identified by two or more 127,799 Population Total Population 37,253,956 Housing Status ( in housing units unless noted ) Total 13,680,081 Occupied 12,577,498 Owner-occupied 7,035,371 Population in owner-occupied ( number of individuals ) 20,742,929 Renter-occupied 5,542,127 Population in renter-occupied ( number of individuals ) 15,691,211 Households with individuals under 18 4,713,016 Vacant 1,102,583 Vacant: for rent 374,610 Vacant: for sale 154,775 Population by Sex/Age Male 18,517,830 Female 18,736,126 Under 18 9,295,040 18 & over 27,958,916 20 - 24 2,765,949 25 - 34 5,317,877 35 - 49 7,872,529 50 - 64 6,599,045 65 & over 4,246,514 Population by Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 14,013,719 Non Hispanic or Latino 23,240,237 Population by Race White 21,453,934 African American 2,299,072 Asian 4,861,007 American Indian and Alaska Native 362,801 Page 2 of 3 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 5/9/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 144,386 Other 6,317,372 Identified by two or more 1,815,384 Page 3 of 3 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 5/9/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- QWI Quick Facts Anaheim City WIB (Q1) Anaheim City WIB (Avg:Selected + 3 Prior qtrs) California (Q1) California (Avg:Selected + 3 Prior qtrs) Total_Employment 161,520 162,724 14,228,431 14,291,645 Net_Job_Flows 1,051 1,477 120,216 155,781 Job_Creation 6,535 6,903 672,248 754,897 New_Hires 17,518 19,379 1,795,434 2,066,051 Separations 19,372 21,549 2,049,129 2,391,186 Turnover 7.30% 7.40% 7.70% 8.10% $3,956.00 $3,846.50 $4,839.00 $4,636.00 Avg_New_Hire_Earnings $2,343.00 $2,478.50 $2,667.00 $2,825.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2012 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Anaheim California (Orange County - 011000) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 125 125 30261209 125 125 30261209 Two Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 Three and Four Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 Five or More Family 3 45 7264490 3 45 7264490 Total 128 170 37525699 128 170 37525699 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2011 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Anaheim California (Orange County - 011000) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 41 41 7769432 41 41 7769432 Two Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 Three and Four Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 Five or More Family 7 106 14145062 7 106 14145062 Total 48 147 21914494 48 147 21914494 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2010 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Anaheim California (Orange County - 011000) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 59 59 12416668 59 59 12416668 Two Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 Three and Four Family 2 8 1100000 2 8 1100000 Five or More Family 2 20 2625424 2 20 2625424 Total 63 87 16142092 63 87 16142092 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2009 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Anaheim California (Orange County - 011000) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 32 32 5510228 32 32 5510228 Two Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 Three and Four Family 2 8 1142400 2 8 1142400 Five or More Family 22 267 31224798 22 267 31224798 Total 56 307 37877426 56 307 37877426 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Permits 2008 Building Permits New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits Anaheim California (Orange County - 011000) Estimates with Imputation Reported Only Item Buildings Units Construction cost Buildings Units Construction cost Single Family 27 27 9299753 27 27 9299753 Two Family 3 6 840000 3 6 840000 Three and Four Family 1 4 571200 1 4 571200 Five or More Family 15 469 64587507 15 469 64587507 Total 46 506 75298460 46 506 75298460 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Map View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map 2010 Census Interactive Population Search CA - Anaheim city Population Total Population 336,265 Housing Status ( in housing units unless noted ) Total 104,237 Occupied 98,294 Owner-occupied 47,677 Population in owner-occupied ( number of individuals ) 160,843 Renter-occupied 50,617 Population in renter-occupied ( number of individuals ) 171,865 Households with individuals under 18 44,045 Vacant 5,943 Vacant: for rent 3,915 Vacant: for sale 819 Population by Sex/Age Male 167,249 Female 169,016 Under 18 91,917 18 & over 244,348 20 - 24 25,944 25 - 34 52,023 35 - 49 72,683 50 - 64 51,914 65 & over 31,222 Population by Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 177,467 Non Hispanic or Latino 158,798 Population by Race White 177,237 African American 9,347 Asian 49,857 American Indian and Alaska Native 2,648 Page 1 of 3 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 5/9/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- CA - California Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 1,607 Other 80,705 Identified by two or more 14,864 Population Total Population 37,253,956 Housing Status ( in housing units unless noted ) Total 13,680,081 Occupied 12,577,498 Owner-occupied 7,035,371 Population in owner-occupied ( number of individuals ) 20,742,929 Renter-occupied 5,542,127 Population in renter-occupied ( number of individuals ) 15,691,211 Households with individuals under 18 4,713,016 Vacant 1,102,583 Vacant: for rent 374,610 Vacant: for sale 154,775 Population by Sex/Age Male 18,517,830 Female 18,736,126 Under 18 9,295,040 18 & over 27,958,916 20 - 24 2,765,949 25 - 34 5,317,877 35 - 49 7,872,529 50 - 64 6,599,045 65 & over 4,246,514 Population by Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 14,013,719 Non Hispanic or Latino 23,240,237 Population by Race White 21,453,934 African American 2,299,072 Asian 4,861,007 American Indian and Alaska Native 362,801 Page 2 of 3 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 5/9/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 144,386 Other 6,317,372 Identified by two or more 1,815,384 Page 3 of 3 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 5/9/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Analysis Inputs Page 1 of 6 Version 12 1. Describe the baseline generation and management for the MSW materials listed below. 2. Describe the alternative management scenario for the MSW materials generated in the baseline. If the material is not generated in your community or you do not want to analyze it, leave Any decrease in generation should be entered in the Source Reduction column. it blank or enter 0. Make sure that the total quantity generated equals the total quantity managed. Any increase in generation should be entered in the Source Reduction column as a negative value. (Make sure that the total quantity generated equals the total quantity managed.) Material Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Tons Generated Tons Source Reduced Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Aluminum Cans 445 NA 444.8 445 NA Aluminum Ingot 784 NA 783.6 784 NA Steel Cans 2,391 NA 2391.0 2,391 NA Copper Wire 7,455 NA 7454.9 7,455 NA Glass 5,262 NA 5261.7 5,262 NA HDPE 1,467 NA 1467.1 1,467 NA LDPE NA 15,784 NA 15783.7 NA 15,784 NA PET 1,856 NA 1856.4 1,856 NA LLDPE NA 4,514 NA 4513.6 NA 4,514 NA PP NA - NA 0.0 NA - NA PS NA - NA 0.0 NA - NA PVC NA - NA 0.0 NA - NA PLA NA - 0.0 NA - Corrugated Containers 1,516 NA 1515.8 1,516 NA Magazines/Third-class Mail 2,632 NA 2632.2 2,632 NA Newspaper 4,649 NA 4649.0 4,649 NA Office Paper 6,800 NA 6800.2 6,800 NA Phonebooks 225 NA 224.6 225 NA Textbooks - NA 0.0 - NA Dimensional Lumber 53,612 NA 53611.9 53,612 NA Medium-density Fiberboard - NA 0.0 - NA Food Scraps NA 57,263 57262.9 NA 57,263 Yard Trimmings NA 146,602 146602.2 NA 146,602 Grass NA 14,067 14067.5 NA 14,067 Leaves NA - 0.0 NA - Branches NA 2,286 2285.9 NA 2,286 Mixed Paper (general) 49,475 NA 49475.4 NA 49,475 NA Mixed Paper (primarily residential) - NA 0.0 NA - NA Mixed Paper (primarily from offices) - NA 0.0 NA - NA Mixed Metals 42,755 NA 42755.2 NA 42,755 NA Mixed Plastics 10,273 NA 10272.5 NA 10,273 NA Mixed Recyclables - NA 0.0 NA - NA Mixed Organics NA 45,279 45279.2 NA NA 45,279 Mixed MSW NA 18,752 NA 18751.8 NA NA 18,752 NA Carpet 11,953 NA 11953.3 11,953 NA Personal Computers 2,011 NA 2011.3 2,011 NA Clay Bricks NA 11,710 NA NA 11710.0 NA 11,710 NA NA Concrete 1 4,495 NA NA 4494.7 NA 4,495 NA NA Fly Ash 2 551 NA NA 550.9 NA 551 NA NA Tires 3 3,571 NA 3571.3 3,571 NA Asphalt Concrete 29,489 NA NA 29489.1 29,489 NA NA Asphalt Shingles 10,433 NA 10432.7 10,433 NA Drywall 26,202 NA NA 26202.4 26,202 NA NA Fiberglass Insulation NA 8,246 NA NA 8246.3 NA 8,246 NA NA Vinyl Flooring NA - NA 0.0 NA - NA Wood Flooring NA - NA 0.0 NA - NA Please enter data in short tons (1 short ton = 2,000 lbs.) Please refer to the User's Guide if you need assistance completing this table. 1 Recycled concrete used as aggregate in the production of new concrete 2 Recycled fly ash is utilized to displace portland cement in concrete production. 3 Recycling tires is defined in this analysis as using tires for crumb rubber applications and tire-derived aggregate uses in civil engineering applications Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Inputs Use this worksheet to describe the baseline and alternative MSW management scenarios that you want to compare. The blue shaded areas indicate where you need to enter information. ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions Analysis Summary Report Version 12 GHG Emissions Waste Management Analysis for TPC/DC&E Prepared by: Anaheim Project Period for this Analysis: 01/00/00 to 01/00/00 Note: If you wish to save these results, rename this file WARM-MN1) and save it. Then the "Analysis Inputs" sheet of the "WARM" file will be blank when you are ready to make another model run. GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCO2E): 320,598 GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E): 320,598 Commodity Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Commodity Tons Source Reduced Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Change (Alt - Base) MTCO2E Aluminum Cans - 444.8 - NA 17 Aluminum Cans - - 444.8 - NA 17 0 Aluminum Ingot - 783.6 - NA 30 Aluminum Ingot - - 783.6 - NA 30 0 Steel Cans - 2,391.0 - NA 93 Steel Cans - - 2,391.0 - NA 93 0 Copper Wire - 7,454.9 - NA 289 Copper Wire - - 7,454.9 - NA 289 0 Glass - 5,261.7 - NA 204 Glass - - 5,261.7 - NA 204 0 HDPE - 1,467.1 - NA 57 HDPE - - 1,467.1 - NA 57 0 LDPE NA 15,783.7 - NA 613 LDPE - NA 15,783.7 - NA 613 0 PET - 1,856.4 - NA 72 PET - - 1,856.4 - NA 72 0 LLDPE NA 4,513.6 - NA 175 LLDPE - NA 4,513.6 - NA 175 0 Corrugated Containers - 1,515.8 - NA 2,253 Corrugated Containers - - 1,515.8 - NA 2,253 0 Magazines/third-class mail - 2,632.2 - NA 363 Magazines/third-class mail - - 2,632.2 - NA 363 0 Newspaper - 4,649.0 - NA (2,239) Newspaper - - 4,649.0 - NA (2,239) 0 Office Paper - 6,800.2 - NA 25,252 Office Paper - - 6,800.2 - NA 25,252 0 Phonebooks - 224.6 - NA (108) Phonebooks - - 224.6 - NA (108) 0 Dimensional Lumber - 53,611.9 - NA 3,968 Dimensional Lumber - - 53,611.9 - NA 3,968 0 Food Scraps NA 57,262.9 - - 81,681 Food Scraps - NA 57,262.9 - - 81,681 0 Yard Trimmings NA 146,602.2 - - 29,554 Yard Trimmings - NA 146,602.2 - - 29,554 0 Grass NA 14,067.5 - - 7,243 Grass - NA 14,067.5 - - 7,243 0 Branches NA 2,285.9 - - 169 Branches - NA 2,285.9 - - 169 0 Mixed Paper (general) - 49,475.4 - NA 66,875 Mixed Paper (general) NA - 49,475.4 - NA 66,875 0 Mixed Metals - 42,755.2 - NA 1,660 Mixed Metals NA - 42,755.2 - NA 1,660 0 Mixed Plastics - 10,272.5 - NA 399 Mixed Plastics NA - 10,272.5 - NA 399 0 Mixed Organics NA 45,279.2 - - 37,411 Mixed Organics NA NA 45,279.2 - - 37,411 0 Mixed MSW NA 18,751.8 - NA 58,048 Mixed MSW NA NA 18,751.8 - NA 58,048 0 Carpet - 11,953.3 - NA 464 Carpet - - 11,953.3 - NA 464 0 Personal Computers - 2,011.3 - NA 78 Personal Computers - - 2,011.3 - NA 78 0 Clay Bricks NA 11,710.0 NA NA 455 Clay Bricks - NA 11,710.0 NA NA 455 0 Concrete - 4,494.7 NA NA 174 Concrete NA - 4,494.7 NA NA 174 0 Fly Ash - 550.9 NA NA 21 Fly Ash NA - 550.9 NA NA 21 0 Tires - 3,571.3 - NA 139 Tires - - 3,571.3 - NA 139 0 Asphalt Concrete - 29,489.1 NA NA 1,145 Asphalt Concrete - - 29,489.1 NA NA 1,145 0 Asphalt Shingles - 10,432.7 - NA 405 Asphalt Shingles - - 10,432.7 - NA 405 0 Drywall - 26,202.4 NA NA 3,317 Drywall - - 26,202.4 NA NA 3,317 0 Fiberglass Insulation NA 8,246.3 NA NA 320 Fiberglass Insulation - NA 8,246.3 NA NA 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Change in GHG Emissions (MTCO2E): - This is equivalent to… a) For explanation of methodology, see the EPA report: Removing annual emissions from - Conserving - Conserving - Conserving - 0.00000% 0.00000% Cylinders of Propane Used for Home Barbeques Railway Cars of Coal Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. transportation sector c) The GHG emissions results estimated in WARM indicate the full life-cycle benefits waste management alternatives. Due to the timing of the GHG emissions from the waste management pathways, avoided landfilling and increased recycling), the actual GHG implications may accrue over the long-term. Therefore, one should not interpret the GHG emissions implications as occurring all in one year, but rather through time. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. electricity sector b) Emissions estimates provided by this model are intended to support voluntary GHG measurement and reporting initiatives. Note: a negative value a value in parentheses) indicates an emission reduction; a positive value indicates an emission increase. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks (EPA530-R-06-004) available on the Internet at http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf (5.6 Mb PDF file). Passenger Vehicles Gallons of Gasoline ---PAGE BREAK--- CalRecycle. 2008 Waste Characterization Study Material Classes in California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream (Detailed) Categories in WARM Tons Percent Percent by Category Paper 17.3% Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Mixed Paper (general) 1,905,897 4.8% Paper Bags Mixed Paper (general) 155,848 0.4% Newspaper Newspaper 499,960 1.3% White Ledger Paper Office Paper 259,151 0.7% Other Office Paper Office Paper 472,147 1.2% Maganizes and Catalogs Magazines/Third-class Mail 283,069 0.7% Phone Books and Directories Phonebooks 24,149 0.1% Other Miscellaneous Paper Mixed Paper (general) 1,202,354 3.0% Remainder/Composite Paper Mixed Paper (general) 2,056,546 5.2% Glass 1.4% Clear Glass Bottles and Containers Glass 196,093 0.5% Green Glass Bottles and Containers Glass 79,491 0.2% Brown Glass Bottles and Containers Glass 108,953 0.3% Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers Glass 40,570 0.1% Flat Glas Glass 33,899 0.1% Remainder/Composite Glass Glass 106,838 0.3% Metal 4.6% Tin/Steel Cans Steel Cans 236,405 0.6% Major Appliances Steel Cans 17,120 0.0% Used Oil Filters Steel Cans 3,610 0.0% Other Ferrous Copper Wire 801,704 2.0% Aluminum Cans Aluminum Cans 47,829 0.1% Other Non-Ferrous Aluminum Ingot 84,268 0.2% Remainder/Composite Metal Mixed Metals 618,747 1.6% Electronics 0.5% Brown Goods Personal Computers 76,725 0.2% Computer-Related Electronnics Personal Computers 32,932 0.1% Other Small Consumer Electronics Personal Computers 34,588 0.1% Video Display Devices Personal Computers 72,053 0.2% Plastic 9.6% PETE Containers PET 199,644 0.5% HDPE Containers HDPE 157,779 0.4% Miscellaneous Plastic Containers Corrugated Containers 163,008 0.4% Plastic Trash Bags LLDPE 361,997 0.9% Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags LLDPE 123,405 0.3% Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging 194,863 0.5% Film Products LDPE 113,566 0.3% Other Film LDPE 554,002 1.4% Durable Plastic Items LDPE 834,970 2.1% Remainder/Composite Plastic Mixed Plastics 1,104,719 2.8% Other Organic 32.4% Food Food Scraps 6,158,120 15.5% Leaves and Grass Grass (assume leaves too) 1,512,832 3.8% Prunings and Trimmings Yard Trimmings 1,058,854 2.7% Branches and Stumps Branches 245,830 0.6% Manures Mixed Organics 20,373 0.1% Textiles Fiberglass Insulation 886,814 2.2% Carpet Carpet 1,285,473 3.2% Remainder/Composite Organic Mixed Organics 1,719,743 4.3% ---PAGE BREAK--- Inerts and Other 29.1% Concrete Concrete 483,367 1.2% Asphalt Paving Asphalt Concrete 129,834 0.3% Asphalt Roofing Asphalt Shingles 1,121,945 2.8% Lumber Dimensional Lumber 5,765,482 14.5% Gypsum Board Drywall 642,511 1.6% Rock, Soil and Fines Clay Bricks 1,259,308 3.2% Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other Drywall 2,175,322 5.5% Household Hazardous Wastes 0.3% Paint Mixed MSW 48,025 0.1% Vehicle and Equipment Fuels Mixed MSW 6,424 0.0% Used Oil Mixed MSW 3,348 0.0% Batteries Mixed MSW 19,082 0.0% Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous WasteMixed MSW 43,873 0.1% Special Waste 3.9% Ash Fly Ash 40,736 0.1% Treated Medical Waste Mixed MSW 0 0.0% Bulky Itmes Mixed MSW 1,393,091 3.5% Tires Tires 60,180 0.2% Remainder/Composite Special Waste Mixed MSW 52,463 0.1% Mixed Residue 0.8% Mixed Residue Mixed MSW 330,891 0.8% TOTAL 39,722,820 100.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- CalRecycle. Statewide Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) by Material Type http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/ReportViewer.aspx?ReportName=ReportEdrsAnnualQuarterADC Total of ADC by Material Type Year Ash Auto Shred C&D Compost Contamina ted Sediment Green Material Mixed Other Sludge Tires Total 2006 2,255 683,064 383,619 0 77 2,656,850 28,145 126,052 298,998 40,931 4,219,992 2007 1,566 632,495 358,784 3,379 40,960 2,307,255 12,588 172,311 326,680 66,042 3,922,060 2008 5,282 622,055 746,300 679 63,232 2,195,876 17,894 256,033 235,743 49,638 4,192,731 Percent of ADC by Material Type Ash Auto Shred C&D Compost Contamina ted Sediment Green Material Mixed Other Sludge Tires Total 2006 0.05% 16.19% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 62.96% 0.67% 2.99% 7.09% 0.97% 100.00% 2007 0.04% 16.13% 9.15% 0.09% 1.04% 58.83% 0.32% 4.39% 8.33% 1.68% 100.00% 2008 0.13% 14.84% 17.80% 0.02% 1.51% 52.37% 0.43% 6.11% 5.62% 1.18% 100.00% Average 0.07% 15.72% 12.01% 0.03% 0.85% 58.05% 0.47% 4.50% 7.01% 1.28% 100.00% ---PAGE BREAK--- WARM OUTPUTs CalRecycle Disposal By Facility - City of Anaheim (Disposal Reporting System) Interstate Tons + Transform Tons ADC+AIC TOTAL 2011 358,148 239,015 597,163 2010 373,358 218,357 591,715 2009 376,613 248,924 625,537 Average 2011-2009 369,373 235,432 604,805 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Viewer.aspx?P=OriginJurisdictionIDs%3d595%26ReportYear%3d2009%26ReportName%3dReportEDRSJurisDisposalByFacility Average Baseline 2012 TONS MSW TONS ADC TOTAL MTons CO2e 369,373 235,432 604,805 320,598 MSW TONS MSW ADC TONS ADC TOTAL MTons CO2e With 75% Landfill Recovery Inputs For WARM % 369,373 % 235,432 604,805 % 80,149 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 445 0 445 0.1% Aluminum Ingot 0.2% 784 0 784 0.1% Steel Cans 0.6% 2,391 0 2,391 0.4% Copper Wire 2.0% 7,455 0 7,455 1.2% Glass 1.4% 5,262 0 5,262 0.9% HDPE 0.4% 1,467 0 1,467 0.2% LDPE 4.3% 15,784 0 15,784 2.6% PET 0.5% 1,856 0 1,856 0.3% LLDPE 1.2% 4,514 0 4,514 0.7% PP 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% PS 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% PVC 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% PLA 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Corrugated Containers 0.4% 1,516 0 1,516 0.3% Magazines/Third-class Mail 0.7% 2,632 0 2,632 0.4% Newspaper 1.3% 4,649 0 4,649 0.8% Office Paper 1.8% 6,800 0 6,800 1.1% Phonebooks 0.1% 225 0 225 0.0% Textbooks 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Dimensional Lumber 14.5% 53,612 0 53,612 8.9% Medium-density Fiberboard 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Food Scraps 15.5% 57,263 0 57,263 9.5% Yard Trimmings 2.7% 9,846 58.1% 136,756 146,602 24.2% Grass 3.8% 14,067 0 14,067 2.3% Leaves 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Branches 0.6% 2,286 0 2,286 0.4% Mixed Paper (general) 13.4% 49,475 0 49,475 8.2% Mixed Paper (primarily residential) 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Mixed Paper (primarily from offices) 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Mixed Metals 1.6% 5,754 15.7% 37,002 42,755 7.1% Mixed Plastics 2.8% 10,273 0 10,273 1.7% Mixed Recyclables 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Mixed Organics 4.4% 16,181 12.4% 29,098 45,279 7.5% Mixed MSW 4.8% 17,642 0.5% 1,110 18,752 3.1% Carpet 3.2% 11,953 0 11,953 2.0% Personal Computers 0.5% 2,011 0 2,011 0.3% Clay Bricks 3.2% 11,710 0 11,710 1.9% Concrete 1.2% 4,495 0 4,495 0.7% Fly Ash 0.1% 379 0.1% 172 551 0.1% Tires 0.2% 560 1.3% 3,012 3,571 0.6% Asphalt Concrete 0.3% 1,207 12.0% 28,282 29,489 4.9% Asphalt Shingles 2.8% 10,433 0 10,433 1.7% Drywall 7.1% 26,202 0 26,202 4.3% Fiberglass Insulation 2.2% 8,246 0 8,246 1.4% Vinyl Flooring 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Wood Flooring 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 100% 369,373 100.0% 235,432 604,805 100.0% Dry landfill conditions Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured within the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System with a landfill gas capture efficiency of 75%. The Landfill gas capture efficiency is based on the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1. Because the landfill gas captured is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, the landfill gas emissions from the capture system are not included in the City's inventory. Only fugitive sources of GHG emissions from landfill are included. ---PAGE BREAK--- Notes: 1. Disposal tonnage is subject to change due to revisions. Report is based upon information provided by County disposal reports. 2. AIC information was not collected prior to 2006. Print Date: 5/9/2013 2:54:40 PM Destination Facility SWISNo Qtr Transform Ton Export Ton Total AIC Antelope Valley Public Landfill I and II 19-AA-5624 Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill 19-AA-0013 California Street Landfill 36-AA-0017 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 19-AA-0052 Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility 19-AA-0506 28 El Sobrante Landfill 33-AA-0217 Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF 30-AB-0360 Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center 19-AA-0050 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 36-AA-0055 Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill 30-AB-0035 Otay Landfill 37-AA-0010 Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill 30-AB-0019 Puente Hills Landfill 19-AA-0053 San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill 36-AA-0087 Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center 56-AA-0007 Southeast Resource Recovery Facility 19-AK-0083 166 Yearly Totals: 193.24. 358,148.1. 238,821.7. 698 82,014 56 266 668 582 328,400 76,698 1 1 36 10 25,847 584 994 567 78,848 11 684 7 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal Reporting System (DRS) Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility With Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC) Disposal during 2011 for Anaheim Instate Ton Total ADC ---PAGE BREAK--- Notes: 1. Disposal tonnage is subject to change due to revisions. Report is based upon information provided by County disposal reports. 2. AIC information was not collected prior to 2006. Print Date: 5/9/2013 3:22:41 PM Destination Facility SWISNo Qtr Transform Ton Export Ton Total AIC Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill 19-AA-0013 Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) SLF 15-AA-0273 California Street Landfill 36-AA-0017 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 19-AA-0052 Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility 19-AA-0506 12 El Sobrante Landfill 33-AA-0217 Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF 30-AB-0360 Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center 19-AA-0050 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 36-AA-0055 Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill 30-AB-0035 Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill 30-AB-0019 Puente Hills Landfill 19-AA-0053 Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center 56-AA-0007 Southeast Resource Recovery Facility 19-AK-0083 12 Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill 19-AA-2000 Yearly Totals: 23.89. 373,358.3. 218,332.75. 11 1,001 63,111 47 2,597 483 335,894 80,792 1 1 23 11 27,602 460 131 276 69,058 45 1 5,728 4,416 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal Reporting System (DRS) Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility With Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC) Disposal during 2010 for Anaheim Instate Ton Total ADC ---PAGE BREAK--- Notes: 1. Disposal tonnage is subject to change due to revisions. Report is based upon information provided by County disposal reports. 2. AIC information was not collected prior to 2006. Print Date: 5/9/2013 3:41:40 PM Destination Facility SWISNo Qtr Transform Ton Export Ton Total AIC Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill 19-AA-0013 Badlands Sanitary Landfill 33-AA-0006 Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) SLF 15-AA-0273 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 19-AA-0052 Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility 19-AA-0506 7 El Sobrante Landfill 33-AA-0217 Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF 30-AB-0360 Kettleman Hills - B18 Nonhaz Codisposal 16-AA-0023 Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center 19-AA-0050 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 36-AA-0055 Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill 30-AB-0035 Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill 30-AB-0019 Puente Hills Landfill 19-AA-0053 Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center 56-AA-0007 Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill 19-AA-2000 Yearly Totals: 7.46. 373,613.07. 248,916.49. 13 42 62,301 28 1 175 1,039 346,114 91,767 4 5 5 4 2 26,502 1,136 60 68 92,645 2 5 593 19 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal Reporting System (DRS) Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility With Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC) Disposal during 2009 for Anaheim Instate Ton Total ADC ---PAGE BREAK--- EPA Reported Year Facility Location City CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 2011 Anaheim Combustion Turbine 1144 North Kraemer Boulevard Anaheim 14,653 0.027 0.27 14,667 2011 Canyon Power Plant 3071 E. Miraloma Avenue Anaheim 21,293 0.039 0.39 21,313 35,946 0.066 0.660 35,980 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Facility Level information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (Flight). 2011 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities. Anaheim. http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/facility Metric Tons/Year ---PAGE BREAK--- Facility Name: Canyon Power Plant Facility Identifier: Facility Reporting Year: 2011 Facility Location: Address: 3071 E. Miraloma Avenue City: Anaheim, CA State: CA Postal Code: 92806 Facility Site Details: CO2 Equivalent (excluding biogenic, mtons, Subparts C-HH): 21313.3 CO2 Equivalent (mtons, Subparts NN-PP): Biogenic CO2 (mtons, Subparts C-HH): 0 Cogeneration Unit Emissions Indicator: N GHG Report Start Date: 2011-01-01 GHG Report End Date: 2011-12-31 Description of Changes to Calculation Methodology: Description of Best Available Monitoring Methods Used: Part 75 Biogenic Emissions Indication: Primary NAICS Code: 221112 Second Primary NAICS Code: Parent Company Details: Parent Company Name: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY Address: 225 South Lake Street Suite 1250, Pasadena, CA 91101 Percent Ownership Interest: 100 Subpart D: Electricity Generation Gas Information Details Gas Name Other Gas Name Gas Quantity Own Result? Biogenic Carbon dioxide 0 (Metric Tons) Methane 0.39 (Metric Tons) Nitrous Oxide 0.039 (Metric Tons) Carbon Dioxide 21293 (Metric Tons) Unit Details: Unit Name : 3 Unit Type : Electricity Generator Part 75 Methodology : Appendix G, Equation G-4 Methodology Start Date: 2011-06-12 Methodology End Date: 2011-12-31 Acid Rain Program Indicator: Y Emission Details: Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (metric tons): 7114.9 Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (short tons): 7842.8 Annual CO2 Emissions from Biomass (metric tons): 0.0 Appendix G Equation G4: Operating Hours Fuel Flow Rate: 0 Operating Hours HHV Substitution: 0 Electricity Fuel Details: Page 1 of 3 GHG Summary Report 5/10/2013 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/service/html/2011?id=1000566&ds=E ---PAGE BREAK--- Fuel type : Natural Gas (Weighted U.S. Average) CH4 Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 2.8 N2O Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 4.1 Unit Name : 1 Unit Type : Electricity Generator Part 75 Methodology : Appendix G, Equation G-4 Methodology Start Date: 2011-08-12 Methodology End Date: 2011-12-31 Acid Rain Program Indicator: Y Emission Details: Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (metric tons): 3335.5 Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (short tons): 3676.7 Annual CO2 Emissions from Biomass (metric tons): 0.0 Appendix G Equation G4: Operating Hours Fuel Flow Rate: 0 Operating Hours HHV Substitution: 0 Electricity Fuel Details: Fuel type : Natural Gas (Weighted U.S. Average) CH4 Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 1.3 N2O Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 1.9 Unit Name : 2 Unit Type : Electricity Generator Part 75 Methodology : Appendix G, Equation G-4 Methodology Start Date: 2011-08-10 Methodology End Date: 2011-12-31 Acid Rain Program Indicator: Y Emission Details: Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (metric tons): 3781.7 Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (short tons): 4168.6 Annual CO2 Emissions from Biomass (metric tons): 0.0 Appendix G Equation G4: Operating Hours Fuel Flow Rate: 0 Operating Hours HHV Substitution: 0 Electricity Fuel Details: Fuel type : Natural Gas (Weighted U.S. Average) CH4 Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 1.5 N2O Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 2.2 Unit Name : 4 Unit Type : Electricity Generator Part 75 Methodology : Appendix G, Equation G-4 Methodology Start Date: 2011-06-11 Methodology End Date: 2011-12-31 Acid Rain Program Indicator: Y Page 2 of 3 GHG Summary Report 5/10/2013 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/service/html/2011?id=1000566&ds=E ---PAGE BREAK--- Emission Details: Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (metric tons): 7060.9 Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (short tons): 7783.2 Annual CO2 Emissions from Biomass (metric tons): 0.0 Appendix G Equation G4: Operating Hours Fuel Flow Rate: 0 Operating Hours HHV Substitution: 0 Electricity Fuel Details: Fuel type : Natural Gas (Weighted U.S. Average) CH4 Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 2.8 N2O Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 4.1 Page 3 of 3 GHG Summary Report 5/10/2013 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/service/html/2011?id=1000566&ds=E ---PAGE BREAK--- Facility Name: Anaheim Combustion Turbine Facility Identifier: Facility Reporting Year: 2011 Facility Location: Address: 1144 NORTH KRAEMER BLVD City: ANAHEIM State: CA Postal Code: 92805 Facility Site Details: CO2 Equivalent (excluding biogenic, mtons, Subparts C-HH): 14666.5 CO2 Equivalent (mtons, Subparts NN-PP): Biogenic CO2 (mtons, Subparts C-HH): 0 Cogeneration Unit Emissions Indicator: N GHG Report Start Date: 2011-01-01 GHG Report End Date: 2011-12-31 Description of Changes to Calculation Methodology: Description of Best Available Monitoring Methods Used: Part 75 Biogenic Emissions Indication: Primary NAICS Code: 221112 Second Primary NAICS Code: Parent Company Details: Parent Company Name: The City of Anaheim Address: 201S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 Percent Ownership Interest: 100 Subpart D: Electricity Generation Gas Information Details Gas Name Other Gas Name Gas Quantity Own Result? Biogenic Carbon dioxide 0 (Metric Tons) Methane 0.27 (Metric Tons) Nitrous Oxide 0.027 (Metric Tons) Carbon Dioxide 14652.5 (Metric Tons) Unit Details: Unit Name : 1 Unit Type : Electricity Generator Part 75 Methodology : Appendix G, Equation G-4 Methodology Start Date: 2011-01-01 Methodology End Date: 2011-12-31 Acid Rain Program Indicator: Y Emission Details: Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (metric tons): 14652.5 Annual CO2 Emissions Including Biomass (short tons): 16151.5 Annual CO2 Emissions from Biomass (metric tons): 0.0 Appendix G Equation G4: Operating Hours Fuel Flow Rate: 0 Operating Hours HHV Substitution: 0 Electricity Fuel Details: Page 1 of 2 GHG Summary Report 5/10/2013 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/service/html/2011?id=1001134&ds=E ---PAGE BREAK--- Fuel type : Natural Gas (Weighted U.S. Average) CH4 Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 5.7 N2O Emissions CO2 Equivalent (metric tons): 8.4 Page 2 of 2 GHG Summary Report 5/10/2013 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/service/html/2011?id=1001134&ds=E ---PAGE BREAK--- Other Data Sources I Download I Help Like 2.8k Tweet 975 139 319          Data Year 2011  Data Type What's this? Emitters  Search Options Orange  Browse to a County Filter By Greenhouse Gas Emission Range Data View View by Geography Facility Current Year Changes 2 Total Emitters Displayed Facility Name/Location 2011 Emissions (metric tons CO2e) Anaheim Combustion Turbine ANAHEIM, CA, 92805 14,667 Canyon Power Plant Anaheim, CA, CA, 92806 21,313 Page 1 of 1 Pages SELECT ALL DESELECT ALL APPLY Sector Power Plants Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Refineries Chemicals Other Waste Metals Minerals Pu P 2011 GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e) 35,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Reporting Facilities 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Emissions totals displayed at the county level exclude Onshore Oil and Gas Production, Natural Gas Local Distribution Companies and Us Electrical Equipment This data set does not reflect total U.S. GHG emissions. Learn more about related EPA GHG data sources. Data reported to EPA as of 02/17/2 * Facilities in this source category reported process emissions for the first time in 2011. FLIGHT R.50 2011 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities Anaheim Search Facility City State Total Reported Emissions Sectors Anaheim Combustion Turbine ANAHEIM CA 14,667 Power Plants Canyon Power Plant Anaheim, CA CA 21,313 Power Plants Page 1 of 1 EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions Data 5/10/2013 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do ---PAGE BREAK--- ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature Station:(040192) ANAHEIM From Year=1989 To Year=2012 Averages Daily Extremes Extremes Max. Temp. Max. Min. Mean High Date Low Date Highest Mean Year Lowest Mean Year 90 F 32 F F F F F dd/yyyy or F dd/yyyy or F - F - # Days # Day January 70.0 47.5 58.7 95 31/2003 30 30/2002 64.8 2003 55.4 2001 0.1 0. February 70.0 48.2 59.1 94 12/2006 30 15/1990 63.2 1995 55.3 2001 0.6 0. March 72.4 50.4 61.4 97 19/1997 37 18/2002 66.9 2004 55.8 1999 1.0 0. April 74.7 52.8 63.7 106 26/2004 38 02/1999 67.6 2008 59.1 1999 1.5 0. May 77.1 57.3 67.2 106 03/2004 45 01/1999 71.8 2004 62.6 1995 2.0 0. June 80.1 60.5 70.3 104 27/1990 50 17/1995 76.1 2006 66.6 1999 2.2 0. July 85.2 64.2 74.7 107 22/2006 54 24/1999 82.6 2006 71.3 1991 7.1 0. August 87.1 64.5 75.8 104 27/2009 53 23/2002 79.5 2012 71.4 2002 9.7 0. September 86.5 62.7 74.6 109 27/2010 51 13/1991 79.2 2012 71.1 1999 10.1 0. October 81.2 57.7 69.4 107 10/1991 44 29/2009 74.7 2008 63.2 2002 5.3 0. November 75.4 51.8 63.6 102 03/2010 33 19/1994 68.5 2008 57.9 1994 1.4 0. December 69.7 46.9 58.3 91 12/2010 32 23/1998 61.6 2005 55.0 2002 0.0 0. Annual 77.4 55.4 66.4 109 20100927 30 19900215 67.7 2004 64.2 2002 41.1 0. Winter 69.9 47.6 58.7 95 20030131 30 19900215 61.2 2006 56.7 2001 0.8 0. Spring 74.7 53.5 64.1 106 20040426 37 20020318 68.6 2004 59.4 1999 4.6 0. Summer 84.1 63.0 73.6 107 20060722 50 19950617 78.6 2006 70.7 1999 19.0 0. Fall 81.0 57.4 69.2 109 20100927 33 19941119 73.3 2008 66.2 2000 16.8 0. Table updated on Oct 31, 2012 For and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and May Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov. Page 1 of 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature 5/13/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Western Regional Climate Center, [EMAIL REDACTED] Page 2 of 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature 5/13/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA (040192) Period of Record Climate Summary Period of Record : 8/ 1/1989 to 3/31/2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature 70.0 70.0 72.4 74.7 77.1 80.1 85.2 87.1 86.5 81.2 75.4 69.7 77.4 Average Min. Temperature 47.5 48.2 50.4 52.8 57.3 60.5 64.2 64.5 62.7 57.7 51.8 46.9 55.4 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 3.34 3.47 1.86 0.83 0.53 0.15 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.72 0.99 2.02 14.09 Average Total SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 99.8% Min. Temp.: 99.7% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 100% Snow Depth: 100% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, [EMAIL REDACTED] Page 1 of 1 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record Climate Summary 5/13/2013 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?ca0192 ---PAGE BREAK--- RESOLUTION 2006-187 A RESOLUTION OF TilE CITY COUNCIL OF TilE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTIIORIZING AND DIRECTING Tiffi GENERAL MANAGER OF TIIE ANAHEIM PUBUC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE GREEN CONNECTION TIIA T ACCOMMODATES TilE PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDNESS AND SUSTAINABILITY. WHEREAS, the decisions of a city to avoid the depletion or degradation of natural resources (sustainability) must also allow the economy and the community as a whole to continue to thrive; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Green Building Council finds that "green design" in the construction and remodeling of buildings can result in significant cost savings over the life of the buildings; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim (Anaheim) finds City projects should incorporate the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED TM) as necessary and appropriate to achieve the benefits of green building; and WHEREAS, California state law requires electric utilities procurement plans to first meet its resource needs through all available energy and demand reduction resources that are cost effective, reliable and feasible; and WHEREAS, investments in energy and water efficiency measures provide returns on those investments and deliver economic and environmental benefits to Anaheim consumers; and WHEREAS, the Energy Policy Act requires ninety percent (90%) of utilities' new light and medium fleet vehicles be Alternative Fuel Vehicles; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim as follows: 1. The Anaheim Public Utilities will increase pmchases of eligible renewable energy resources. The Anaheim Public Utilities will take into consideration market conditions and renewable project availability, as well as utilize similar rate protections as provided to the investor-owned utilities. The Anaheim Public Utilities will strive to achieve its target of increasing its purchases of eligible renewable energy resources to ten percent (10%) by 2010 and twenty percent (20%) by 2015. 2. The Anaheim Public Utilities will register its power plant and fleet emissions and develop a plan to reduce those emissions in conjunction with Cal EPA mandates. ---PAGE BREAK--- II II II II II II II 3. All futme City-owned projects over 10,000 square feet in building area that enter the design and construction phase shall meet U.S. Green Building Council's LEEDTM registration and certification, provided that the project is cost-effective over the life of the building. 4. Developers and builders in Anaheim shall be encouraged to receive LEED™ registration and certification. 5. The Anaheim Public Utilities shall first acquire all cost effective, reliable and · feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction resources before procuring other energy resources. 6. An overall citywide goal of twenty percent (200/o) reduction in energy use and a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in water use are to be achieved by 2015, taking into consideration savings achieved since public benefit programs and water best management practices were implemented. 7. The Anaheim Public Utilities shall accelerate the average rate of fleet vehicle replacement to six Alternative Fuel Vehicles per year so that ninety percent (90%) of the Utilities' light and medium vehicles are Alternative Fuel Vehicles by 2020, provided the appropriate technology is both available as well as appropriately meets business requirements. 8. The City of Anaheim shall replace ten percent (10%) of its light, non-emergency vehicles with preferred low emission technologies as the vehicles are scheduled for nonnal replacement. 9. The Anaheim Public Utilities shall provide community leadership as well as education in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability to increase community awareness, responsibility and participation. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this.JHL_day of Auaust , 2006, by the following roll- call vote: AYES: Mayor Pringl~. Council Members Chave~ . Hernandez, Galloway, Sidhu NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATIEST: ~ CITY ~THE 1CITY OF ANAHEIM 62651.3 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix E Noise Modeling Data ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Anaheim Boulevard N. of Cerritos Ave. to Cerritos Avenue 51,777 72.8 ‐ 2 Ball Road SR‐57 (West Side) to SR‐57 (East Side) 53,761 73.3 3 Ball Road SR‐57 (East Side) to W. of Main Street 52,284 73.2 4 Ball Road W. of Main Street to Main Street 46,098 72.6 5 Cerritos Avenue Euclid St. to Ninth Street 16,848 66.6 6 Cerritos Avenue Ninth Street to W. of Walnut St. 18,407 66.9 7 Cerritos Avenue W. of Walnut St. to Walnut St. 19,364 67.2 8 Cerritos Avenue State College Blvd. to W. of Sunkist St. 21,774 69.1 9 Cerritos Avenue W. of Sunkist St. to Sunkist St. 21,127 68.9 10 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist St. to Douglass Road 16,221 67.8 11 Disney Way/Freedman Way Harbor Blvd. to Clementine St. 12,864 66.8 12 Disney Way/Freedman Way Clementine Street to I‐5 (West Side) 12,878 66.8 13 Harbor Boulevard SR‐91 to SR‐91 (South Side) 60,090 72.1 14 Harbor Boulevard South Street to Ball Road 53,999 71.6 15 Haster Street/Anaheim Blvd. Manchester Avenue to N. of Gene Autry Way 50,715 71.4 16 Haster Street/Anaheim Blvd. N. of Gene Autry Way to Gene Autry Way 49,172 71.2 17 Imperial Highway E. La Palma Ave. to N. of SR‐91 89,619 76.1 18 Katella Avenue W. of Walnut St. to Walnut St. 50,806 73.1 19 Katella Avenue Walnut St. to West Street 58,249 73.7 20 Katella Avenue West Street to W. of Harbor Blvd. 64,833 74.1 21 Katella Avenue W. of Harbor Blvd. to Harbor Blvd. 69,210 74.4 22 Katella Avenue Harbor Blvd. to Clementine Street 71,537 74.5 23 Katella Avenue Clementine Street to W. of Haster St. 71,741 74.6 24 Katella Avenue W. of Haster St. to Haster Street 77,204 74.9 25 Katella Avenue Haster Street to I‐5 (East Side) 81,410 75.1 26 Katella Avenue I‐5 (East Side) to Anaheim Blvd. 85,733 75.3 27 Katella Avenue Anaheim Blvd. to Lewis Street 85,733 75.3 28 Katella Avenue Lewis Street to E. of Lewis St. 78,260 74.9 29 Katella Avenue E. of Lewis St. to W. of State College Blvd. 78,260 74.9 30 Katella Avenue W. of State College Blvd. to State College Blvd. 76,618 74.8 31 Katella Avenue State College Blvd. to SR‐57 (West Side) 81,121 75.1 32 Katella Avenue SR‐57 (West Side) to Douglass Road 71,402 74.5 33 La Palma Avenue Euclid St. to W. of West St. 28,518 70.3 34 La Palma Avenue W. of West St. to West Street 25,734 69.8 35 La Palma Avenue West Street to Citron Drive 25,706 68.4 36 La Palma Avenue Kraemer Blvd. to W. of Miller St. 52,238 74.5 37 La Palma Avenue W. of Tustin Ave. to Tustin Ave. 42,906 73.6 38 La Palma Avenue Imperial Highway to E. of Imperial Highway 33,900 71.0 39 Lincoln Avenue Lemon Street to Anaheim Blvd. 39,255 71.9 40 Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Canyon to E. of Nohl Canyon 16,797 68.0 41 Nohl Ranch Road E. of Nohl Canyon to W. of Meats 15,403 67.6 42 Nohl Ranch Road Imperial Highway to E. of Imperial Highway 32,415 70.8 43 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Rd. to Canyon Rim 28,057 70.2 44 North Rio Vista Street S. of Frontera St. to N. of Lincoln Ave. 18,907 68.5 45 North Rio Vista Street N. of Lincoln Ave. to W. Lincoln Ave. 18,907 68.5 46 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Ave. to W. of Weir Canyon Rd. 5,829 63.4 47 Oak Canyon Drive W. of Weir Canyon Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 7,372 64.4 48 Orangewood Avenue I‐5 (East Side) to W. of State College Blvd. 36,220 71.3 49 Orangewood Avenue W. of State College Blvd. to State College Blvd. 40,542 71.8 50 Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Rd. to E. of Nohl Ranch Rd. 14,263 67.2 51 Serrano Avenue E. of Nohl Ranch Rd. to E. of Nohl Ranch Rd.(1) 14,529 67.3 52 Serrano Avenue E. of Nohl Ranch Rd.(1) to W. of Canyon Rim 18,502 68.4 53 Serrano Avenue W. of Canyon Rim to Canyon Rim 20,992 68.9 54 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim to E. of Canyon Rim 20,407 68.8 55 Serrano Avenue E. of Canyon Rim to W. of Oak Canyon Dr. 23,305 69.4 56 Serrano Avenue W. of Oak Canyon Dr. to Oak Canyon Dr. 28,994 70.3 57 Serrano Avenue Oak Canyon Dr. to W. of Weir Canyon Rd. 24,594 69.6 58 Serrano Avenue W. of Weir Canyon Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 31,211 70.6 59 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue to Orangewood Ave. 63,413 74.0 60 State College Boulevard Orangewood Ave. to N. of I‐5 59,472 73.7 61 Sunkist Street Ball Road to N. of Cerritos Ave. 21,406 67.6 # Table Noise Contours for Approved Project (Published 2025 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 ACACIA ST LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA DR 4,700 65.7 26 56 120 2 ACACIA ST ROMNEYA DR TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 5,300 66.6 30 64 137 3 ANAHEIM BLVD KATELLA AVE TO I‐5 19,400 75.7 120 258 556 4 ANAHEIM BLVD I‐5 TO CERRITOS AVE 33,200 75.7 176 379 816 5 ANAHEIM BLVD CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 26,800 77.4 155 334 720 6 ANAHEIM BLVD BALL RD TO VERMONT ST 23,000 77.2 150 323 697 7 ANAHEIM BLVD VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST 20,300 72.5 74 159 342 8 ANAHEIM BLVD SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY 20,900 72.9 78 168 361 9 ANAHEIM BLVD BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 20,500 72.3 71 153 330 10 ANAHEIM BLVD LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE ST 17,900 72.2 70 151 325 11 ANAHEIM BLVD SYCAMORE ST TO NORTH ST 17,700 72.4 73 156 337 12 ANAHEIM BLVD NORTH ST TO LA PALMA AVE 16,400 72.3 71 153 329 13 ANAHEIM BLVD LA PALMA AVE TO CARL KARCHER WAY 19,400 71.6 64 138 298 14 ANAHEIM BLVD CARL KARCHER WAY TO RIVERSIDE FWY 19,500 72.0 68 146 316 15 LEMON ST RIVERSIDE FWY TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 36,600 74.8 105 226 487 16 LEMON ST ORANGETHORPE AVE TO NORTH CITY LIMITS 27,100 73.6 87 187 402 17 ANAHEIM HILLS RD NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTA ANA CYN ROAD 12,200 69.7 48 103 223 18 ANAHEIM WY ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLA AVE 18,200 71.1 59 127 274 19 ANAHEIM WY KATELLA AVE TO ANAHEIM BLVD 10,800 69.9 49 106 228 20 BALL RD HOLDER ST TO KNOTT AVE 18,600 71.4 62 134 290 21 BALL RD KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE 20,900 71.9 67 145 313 22 BALL RD WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BLVD 20,400 71.9 66 143 308 23 BALL RD BEACH BLVD TO DALE AVE 24,000 73.6 86 186 400 24 BALL RD DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 27,800 73.1 81 175 376 25 BALL RD MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 27,600 73.2 82 176 380 26 BALL RD GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 27,300 73.2 82 176 380 27 BALL RD BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOOD ST 27,900 73.1 80 173 372 28 BALL RD NUTWOOD ST TO 26,300 73.2 82 177 381 29 BALL RD EUCLID ST TO EUCLID ST 26,300 73.2 81 175 377 30 BALL RD WALNUT ST TO DISNEYLAND DR 34,000 77.8 167 359 774 31 BALL RD DISNEYLAND DR TO HARBOR BLVD 44,300 79.1 202 435 937 32 BALL RD HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 36,900 78.6 187 403 867 33 BALL RD ANAHEIM BLVD TO EAST ST 35,300 77.5 159 342 737 34 BALL RD EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 38,100 77.8 166 357 770 35 BALL RD STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 40,500 78.8 193 416 897 36 BALL RD SUNKIST ST TO ORANGE FWY 48,400 79.1 203 438 943 37 BALL RD ORANGE FWY TO EAST CITY LIMITS 32,700 79.5 216 466 1,004 38 BEACH BLVD CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 53,700 86.6 664 1,430 3,081 39 BEACH BLVD BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 55,800 86.8 681 1,467 3,160 40 BEACH BLVD ORANGE AVE TO LINCOLN AVE 55,000 86.7 674 1,452 3,129 41 BEACH BLVD LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 47,200 86.0 607 1,308 2,818 42 BLUE GUM ST LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA AVE 9,900 68.9 42 90 195 43 BLUE GUM ST MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 11,000 68.9 42 91 196 44 BRASHER ST LA PALMA AVE TO HUNTER AVE 2,000 57.7 8 16 35 45 BROADWAY DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 8,700 66.1 27 59 127 46 BROADWAY MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 11,400 67.2 33 71 152 47 BROADWAY GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 12,400 67.6 35 75 162 48 BROADWAY BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOOD ST 15,200 68.5 40 86 184 49 BROADWAY NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST 16,200 68.8 41 89 192 50 BROADWAY EUCLID ST TO MANCHESTER AVE 14,600 70.4 53 114 247 51 BROADWAY MANCHESTER AVE TO HARBOR BLVD 17,100 68.6 40 87 186 52 BROADWAY HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 13,700 69.7 48 103 221 53 BROADWAY ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 13,600 67.6 34 74 160 54 BROADWAY OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 17,500 68.7 41 88 189 55 BROADWAY EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD 5,900 62.0 15 31 68 56 BROOKHURST ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 36,600 77.2 150 324 698 57 BROOKHURST ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 33,700 76.8 142 307 661 58 BROOKHURST ST BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 39,400 77.5 158 340 733 59 BROOKHURST ST ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY 35,900 77.1 148 320 689 60 BROOKHURST ST BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 40,700 77.6 161 348 749 61 BROOKHURST ST LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 42,300 77.8 166 357 769 62 BROOKHURST ST CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 51,600 78.7 189 407 878 63 BROOKHURST ST LA PALMA AVE TO RIVERSIDE FWY 50,700 78.6 187 403 867 64 CARL KARCHER WAY HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 5,200 61.4 13 29 62 65 CANYON CREEK RD SUNSET RIDGE RD TO SERRANO AVE 6,900 62.7 16 35 75 66 CANYON RIM RD NOHL RANCH RD TO FAIRMONT BLVD 4,900 65.2 24 52 112 67 CANYON RIM RD FAIRMONT BLVD TO SERRANO AVE 8,000 67.4 33 72 155 68 CANYON VISTA DR WEIR CYN RD TO EVENINGSONG LN 3,000 59.0 9 20 43 69 CERRITOS AVE HOLDER ST TO KNOTT AVE 16,800 70.6 55 118 254 70 CERRITOS AVE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 14,600 67.9 36 78 168 71 CERRITOS AVE MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 13,000 67.4 33 72 155 72 CERRITOS AVE GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 15,500 66.2 28 60 129 73 CERRITOS AVE BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOOD ST 22,200 69.7 48 103 222 74 CERRITOS AVE NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST 24,000 70.0 50 108 234 75 CERRITOS AVE EUCLID ST TO WALNUT ST 19,700 69.2 44 95 205 76 CERRITOS AVE ANAHEIM BLVD TO LEWIS ST 26,800 72.6 75 161 346 77 CERRITOS AVE LEWIS ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 28,200 72.8 77 166 358 # Table Noise Contours for Proposed Project (2035 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to noise contour (feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL # Table Noise Contours for Proposed Project (2035 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to noise contour (feet) 78 CERRITOS AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 16,100 68.3 39 83 179 79 CERRITOS AVE SUNKIST ST TO DOUGLASS RD 19,400 69.1 44 94 203 80 CHAPMAN AVE HARBOR BLVD TO HASTER ST 27,700 72.8 76 164 354 81 CLEMENTINE ST KATELLA AVE TO MANCHESTER AVE 12,800 67.3 33 71 154 82 COMMERCIAL ST ANAHEIM BLVD TO PATT ST 4,200 60.5 12 25 54 83 CONVENTION WY 0.25 M W/HARBOR BLVD TO HARBOR BLVD 17,500 70.8 56 121 261 84 CORONADO ST BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BLVD 3,900 60.2 11 24 51 85 CORONADO ST JEFFERSON ST TO VAREN BUREN ST 2,200 57.7 8 16 35 86 CRESCENT AVE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 19,700 69.2 44 95 205 87 CRESCENT AVE MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 9,800 66.2 28 60 129 88 CRESCENT AVE GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 12,500 67.2 33 70 151 89 CRESCENT AVE BROOKHURST ST TO MULLER ST 8,600 65.6 25 55 118 90 CRESCENT AVE CHIPPEWA AVE TO EUCLID ST 10,000 66.2 28 61 130 91 CRESCENT AVE EUCLID ST TO LOARA ST 13,600 67.6 34 74 160 92 CRESCENT WY LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 5,100 61.3 13 29 61 93 CROWTHER AVE WEST CITY LIMIT TO KRAEMER BLVD 4,800 63.1 17 37 80 94 CROWTHER AVE KRAEMER BLVD TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 3,700 61.9 14 31 67 95 DALE AVE CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 14,000 67.7 35 76 163 96 DALE AVE BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 18,100 68.8 42 90 194 97 DALE AVE ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY 18,900 69.0 43 93 199 98 DALE AVE BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 17,900 68.8 41 89 192 99 DALE AVE LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 16,400 68.4 39 84 181 100 DISNEY WAY HARBOR BLVD TO CLEMENTINE ST 13,900 73.0 79 170 366 101 DISNEY WAY CLEMENTINE ST TO ANAHEIM BLVD 33,400 76.8 141 305 657 102 DISNEYLAND DR KATELLA AVE TO MAGIC WY 28,100 72.8 77 166 358 103 DISNEYLAND DR MAGIC WY TO BALL RD 27,100 72.7 75 162 349 104 DISNEYLAND DR BALL RD TO MANCHESTER AVE 37,600 74.8 105 226 486 105 DOUGLASS RD KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 25,900 72.5 73 157 339 106 EAST ST BALL RD TO VERMONT ST 23,200 69.9 49 106 229 107 EAST ST VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST 23,600 70.0 50 107 231 108 EAST ST SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY 22,400 69.7 48 104 223 109 EAST ST BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 28,400 70.8 56 121 262 110 EAST ST LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE ST 25,400 70.3 52 113 243 111 EAST ST SYCAMORE ST TO LA PALMA AVE 26,500 70.5 54 116 250 112 EAST ST LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA DR 27,300 70.6 55 118 255 113 EAST ST ROMNEYA DR TO RIVERSIDE FWY 29,700 73.1 80 172 371 114 RAYMOND AVE RIVERSIDE FWY TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 31,900 73.4 84 181 389 115 RAYMOND AVE ORANGETHORPE AVE TO NORTH CITY LIMITS 23,400 72.0 68 147 316 116 EUCLID ST CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 34,000 76.9 143 308 665 117 EUCLID ST ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLA AVE 35,800 77.1 148 319 688 118 EUCLID ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 38,700 77.4 156 336 725 119 EUCLID ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 40,700 77.6 161 348 749 120 EUCLID ST BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 42,200 77.8 165 356 768 121 EUCLID ST ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY 42,000 77.8 165 355 765 122 EUCLID ST BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 45,700 78.1 174 376 809 123 EUCLID ST LINCOLN AVE TO I‐5 49,600 78.5 184 397 855 124 EUCLID ST I‐5 TO CRESCENT AVE 56,300 79.0 200 432 930 125 EUCLID ST CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 53,000 78.8 192 415 893 126 EUCLID ST LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA DR 52,400 78.7 191 412 887 127 EUCLID ST ROMNEYA DR TO RIVERSIDE FWY 52,700 78.8 192 413 890 128 FAIRMONT BLVD CANYON RIM RD TO SANTA ANA CYN ROAD 5,300 65.6 25 55 118 129 FAIRMONT BLVD LA PALMA AVE TO ESPERANZA RD 32,200 76.6 138 297 641 130 FRONTERA ST LA PALMA AVE TO GLASSELL ST 8,400 65.5 25 54 116 131 GENE AUTRY WY ANAHEIM WAY TO STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD 30,500 76.4 133 287 618 132 GILBERT ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 12,400 67.2 32 70 151 133 GILBERT ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 11,600 66.9 31 67 144 134 GILBERT ST BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 10,600 64.5 22 46 100 135 GILBERT ST ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY 10,300 64.4 21 46 98 136 GILBERT ST BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 10,800 64.6 22 47 101 137 GILBERT ST LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 12,400 65.2 24 52 111 138 GILBERT ST CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 9,900 64.2 21 44 96 139 GILBERT ST RHODES AVE TO CL @ HOUSTON AVE 700 52.7 4 8 16 140 GLASSELL ST SANTA ANA RIVER TO RIVERSIDE FWY 32,600 76.7 139 300 646 141 GRAND AVE LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 4,600 60.9 12 27 57 142 GROVE ST LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA AVE 8,200 63.4 18 39 84 143 GYPSUM CYN RD SANTA ANA CYN RD TO RIVERSIDE FWY 26,400 68.5 40 85 184 144 HANCOCK ST LA PALMA AVE TO HUNTER AVE 3,000 59.0 9 20 43 145 HARBOR BLVD CHAPMAN AVE TO WILKEN WAY 43,400 77.9 168 363 782 146 HARBOR BLVD WILKEN WAY TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 47,900 78.3 180 388 835 147 HARBOR BLVD ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CONVENTION WAY 45,000 78.1 173 372 801 148 HARBOR BLVD CONVENTION WAY TO KATELLA AVE 53,400 78.8 193 417 898 149 HARBOR BLVD KATELLA AVE TO DISNEY WAY 48,500 78.4 181 391 842 150 HARBOR BLVD DISNEY WAY TO MANCHESTER AVE 47,100 78.3 178 383 826 151 HARBOR BLVD MANCHESTER AVE TO I‐5 57,200 81.5 291 626 1,350 152 HARBOR BLVD I‐5 TO BALL RD 60,700 153 HARBOR BLVD BALL RD TO VERMONT ST 42,600 77.8 166 359 772 154 HARBOR BLVD VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST 37,900 77.3 154 332 714 ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL # Table Noise Contours for Proposed Project (2035 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to noise contour (feet) 155 HARBOR BLVD SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY 38,400 77.4 155 335 721 156 HARBOR BLVD BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 44,000 78.0 170 366 789 157 HARBOR BLVD LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE ST 36,800 77.2 151 325 701 158 HARBOR BLVD SYCAMORE ST TO NORTH ST 38,400 77.4 155 335 721 159 HARBOR BLVD NORTH ST TO LA PALMA AVE 38,800 77.4 156 337 726 160 HARBOR BLVD LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA DR 46,300 78.2 176 379 816 161 HARBOR BLVD ROMNEYA DR TO RIVERSIDE FWY 47,500 78.3 179 386 831 162 HASTER ST CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 33,100 76.7 141 303 653 163 HASTER ST ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLA AVE 36,400 77.1 150 323 696 164 THE HIGHLANDS CANYON RIM RD TO SUNSET RIDGE RD 3,200 59.3 10 21 45 165 HOWELL AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 15,300 68.1 37 80 173 166 HOWELL AVE SUNKIST ST TO KATELLA AVE 13,400 67.5 34 74 158 167 HUNTER AVE HANCOCK ST TO KELLOGG DR 2,000 57.3 7 15 33 168 HUNTER AVE KELLOGG DR TO BRASHER ST 2,100 57.5 7 16 34 169 IMPERIAL HWY SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO NOHL RANCH RD 27,700 76.0 125 269 580 170 IMPERIAL HWY NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTA ANA CYN RD 35,500 77.0 147 317 684 171 IMPERIAL HWY SANTA ANA CYN RD TO RIVERSIDE FWY 58,700 86.6 661 1,423 3,067 172 IMPERIAL HWY RIVERSIDE FWY TO LA PALMA AVE 59,400 79.3 208 447 964 173 IMPERIAL HWY LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 56,300 81.4 288 620 1,335 174 IMPERIAL HWY ORANGETHORPE AVE TO KELLOGG DR 56,300 75.8 122 264 568 175 JEFFERSON AVE TUSTIN AVE TO MIRALOMA AVE 8,100 65.3 24 53 113 176 JEFFERSON AVE MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 11,300 66.8 30 66 141 177 KAISER BLVD ROOSEVELT RD TO WEIR CYN RD 3,200 59.3 10 21 45 178 KATELLA AVE GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 45,500 78.1 174 375 807 179 KATELLA AVE BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOOD ST 38,800 77.4 156 337 726 180 KATELLA AVE NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST 51,300 78.6 188 406 874 181 KATELLA AVE EUCLID ST TO NINTH ST 45,500 78.1 174 375 807 182 KATELLA AVE NINTH ST TO WALNUT ST 44,600 78.0 172 370 796 183 KATELLA AVE WALNUT ST TO DISNEYLAND DR 55,400 79.0 198 427 920 184 KATELLA AVE DISNEYLAND DR TO HARBOR BLVD 71,000 87.4 750 1,616 3,481 185 KATELLA AVE HARBOR BLVD TO CLEMENTINE ST 62,500 86.8 689 1,484 3,198 186 KATELLA AVE CLEMENTINE ST TO ANAHEIM BLVD 66,700 87.1 719 1,550 3,339 187 KATELLA AVE ANAHEIM BLVD TO I‐5 78,700 87.8 803 1,731 3,729 188 KATELLA AVE I‐5 TO LEWIS ST 95,900 88.7 916 1,974 4,254 189 KATELLA AVE LEWIS ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 84,500 88.1 842 1,815 3,910 190 KATELLA AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO HOWELL AVE 81,400 88.0 822 1,770 3,813 191 KATELLA AVE HOWELL AVE TO ORANGE FWY 90,500 81.1 275 592 1,276 192 KATELLA AVE ORANGE FWY TO SANTA ANA FWY 65,500 79.7 222 478 1,029 193 KELLOGG DR LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 10,800 68.7 41 88 189 194 KELLOGG DR ORANGETHORPE AVE TO CL N/IMPERIAL HWY 14,800 70.0 50 108 233 195 KNOTT AVE CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 24,200 75.4 114 246 530 196 KNOTT AVE BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 30,300 76.4 133 286 615 197 KNOTT AVE ORANGE AVE TO LINCOLN AVE 32,700 76.7 140 301 648 198 KRAEMER BLVD RIVERSIDE FWY TO LA PALMA AVE 53,300 78.8 193 416 897 199 KRAEMER BLVD LA PALMA AVE TO CORONADO ST 34,700 76.9 145 313 674 200 KRAEMER BLVD CORONADO ST TO MIRALOMA AVE 33,500 76.8 142 305 658 201 KRAEMER BLVD MIRALOMA AVE TO LA JOLLA ST 33,000 76.7 140 302 651 202 KRAEMER BLVD LA JOLLA ST TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 32,200 76.6 138 297 641 203 KRAEMER BLVD ORANGETHORPE AVE TO CROWTHER AVE 23,700 75.3 113 243 522 204 LA JOLLA ST BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BLVD 5,400 61.6 14 30 64 205 LA PALMA AVE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 30,300 73.1 81 175 376 206 LA PALMA AVE MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 23,300 72.0 68 146 316 207 LA PALMA AVE GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 26,700 72.6 74 160 346 208 LA PALMA AVE BROOKHURST ST TO ANAHEIM SHORES DR 23,100 72.0 68 146 314 209 LA PALMA AVE ANAHEIM SHORES DR TO EUCLID ST 21,800 71.7 65 140 302 210 LA PALMA AVE EUCLID ST TO WEST ST 24,900 72.3 71 153 330 211 LA PALMA AVE WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD 25,600 72.4 72 156 336 212 LA PALMA AVE HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 27,500 75.9 124 268 577 213 LA PALMA AVE ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 24,700 72.3 71 152 328 214 LA PALMA AVE OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 26,300 72.5 74 159 342 215 LA PALMA AVE EAST ST TO ACACIA ST 26,100 72.5 73 158 340 216 LA PALMA AVE ACACIA ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 23,000 71.9 67 145 313 217 LA PALMA AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 23,500 72.0 68 147 317 218 LA PALMA AVE SUNKIST ST TO BLUE GUM ST 18,100 70.9 57 124 267 219 LA PALMA AVE BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BLVD 20,400 74.6 102 219 473 220 LA PALMA AVE KRAEMER BLVD TO MILLER ST 28,500 76.1 127 274 591 221 LA PALMA AVE MILLER ST TO TUSTIN AVE 31,300 76.5 135 292 629 222 LA PALMA AVE TUSTIN AVE TO VAN BUREN ST 33,300 76.8 141 304 655 223 LA PALMA AVE VAN BUREN ST TO RICHFIELD RD 27,900 76.0 125 270 583 224 LA PALMA AVE RICHFIELD RD TO LAKEVIEW AVE 22,300 75.0 108 233 502 225 LA PALMA AVE LAKEVIEW AVE TO KELLOGG DR 25,300 75.6 118 253 546 226 LA PALMA AVE KELLOGG DR TO IMPERIAL HWY 20,900 74.7 104 223 480 227 LA PALMA AVE IMPERIAL HWY TO FAIRMONT BLVD 30,500 73.2 81 175 378 228 LA PALMA AVE FAIRMONT BLVD TO YORBA LINDA BLVD 15,400 70.2 52 111 239 229 LA PALMA AVE YORBA LINDA BLVD TO EAST CITY LIMITS 25,300 72.4 72 155 333 230 LA PALMA PARK WY LA PALMA AVE TO HARBOR BLVD 1,300 55.4 5 11 25 231 LAKEVIEW AVE SANTA ANA CYN RD TO LA PALMA AVE 38,300 77.4 155 334 720 ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL # Table Noise Contours for Proposed Project (2035 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to noise contour (feet) 232 LAKEVIEW AVE LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 20,000 71.3 61 132 285 233 LAKEVIEW AVE ORANGETHORPE AVE TO NORTH CITY LIMITS 41,100 74.5 99 214 461 234 LANDON DR MANASSERO ST TO KELLOGG DR 900 53.8 4 9 19 235 LEWIS ST CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 15,600 68.2 38 81 175 236 LEWIS ST ANAHEIM WAY TO KATELLA AVE 19,900 69.2 44 96 206 237 LEWIS ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 24,400 70.1 51 110 236 238 LEWIS ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 15,800 70.3 52 113 244 239 LINCOLN AVE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE 37,900 77.3 154 332 714 240 LINCOLN AVE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BLVD 44,300 78.0 171 368 793 241 LINCOLN AVE BEACH BLVD TO DALE AVE 23,000 75.2 110 238 512 242 LINCOLN AVE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 27,100 75.9 123 265 571 243 LINCOLN AVE MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 30,000 76.3 132 284 611 244 LINCOLN AVE GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 34,400 76.9 144 311 670 245 LINCOLN AVE BROOKHURST ST TO MULLER ST 30,300 76.4 133 286 615 246 LINCOLN AVE MULLER ST TO EUCLID ST 41,200 77.7 163 351 755 247 LINCOLN AVE EUCLID ST TO MANCHESTER AVE 39,700 77.5 159 342 737 248 LINCOLN AVE MANCHESTER AVE TO WEST ST 37,600 77.3 153 330 711 249 LINCOLN AVE WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD 31,900 76.6 137 296 637 250 LINCOLN AVE HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 31,000 76.5 135 290 625 251 LINCOLN AVE ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 26,900 75.8 122 264 569 252 LINCOLN AVE OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 25,500 75.6 118 255 549 253 LINCOLN AVE EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 35,000 77.0 146 314 678 254 LINCOLN AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 38,900 77.4 157 337 727 255 LINCOLN AVE SUNKIST ST TO ORANGE FWY 49,900 78.5 185 398 858 256 LINCOLN AVE ORANGE FWY TO RIO VISTA ST 49,500 78.5 184 396 854 257 LINCOLN AVE RIO VISTA ST TO EAST CITY LIMITS 39,800 77.5 159 343 738 258 LOARA ST BALL RD TO BROADWAY 8,000 63.3 18 38 83 259 LOARA ST BROADWAY TO MANCHESTER CT 8,800 63.7 19 41 88 260 LOARA ST WILSHIRE AVE TO NORTH ST 11,000 64.7 22 48 103 261 MAGIC WAY WALNUT ST TO DISNEYLAND DR 22,100 71.8 66 141 305 262 MAGNOLIA AVE CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 24,500 72.2 70 151 326 263 MAGNOLIA AVE BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 24,500 72.2 70 151 326 264 MAGNOLIA AVE ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY 28,700 72.9 78 168 363 265 MAGNOLIA AVE BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 31,900 73.4 84 181 389 266 MAGNOLIA AVE LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 30,800 76.4 134 289 622 267 MAGNOLIA AVE CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 38,800 77.4 156 337 726 268 MAGNOLIA AVE LA PALMA AVE TO I‐5 45,600 78.1 174 375 808 269 MANASSERO ST LA PALMA AVE TO HUNTER AVE 2,900 58.9 9 20 42 270 MANCHESTER AVE COMPTON AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 15,000 68.2 38 82 176 271 MANCHESTER AVE ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLA AVE 24,900 70.4 53 114 246 272 MANCHESTER AVE KATELLA AVE TO ANAHEIM BLVD 13,300 67.7 35 75 162 273 MANCHESTER AVE CLEMENTINE ST TO HARBOUR BLVD 16,900 68.5 40 86 185 274 MANCHESTER AVE DISNEYLAND DR TO SANTA ANA ST 10,800 66.6 30 64 137 275 MANCHESTER AVE SANTA ANA ST TO LINCOLN AVE 15,500 68.1 38 81 175 276 MEATS AVE SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO NOHL RANCH RD 6,100 66.2 28 60 129 277 MEDICAL CENTER DR CORONET AVE TO EUCLID ST 3,600 59.8 10 23 49 278 MILLER ST LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA AVE 4,300 62.6 16 34 74 279 MILLER ST MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 6,900 64.6 22 47 102 280 MIRALOMA AVE LA PALMA AVE TO BLUE GUM ST 12,500 67.2 33 70 151 281 MIRALOMA AVE BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BLVD 10,900 68.7 41 88 190 282 MIRALOMA AVE KRAEMER BLVD TO MILLER ST 9,700 66.1 28 59 128 283 MIRALOMA AVE MILLER ST TO TUSTIN AVE 12,400 69.3 45 96 207 284 MIRALOMA AVE TUSTIN AVE TO VAN BUREN ST 6,400 66.4 29 62 133 285 MONTE VISTA RD ROOSEVELT RD TO WEIR CYN RD 13,400 67.5 34 74 158 286 MULLER ST LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 6,900 62.7 16 35 75 287 NINTH ST CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 12,100 67.1 32 69 148 288 NINTH ST ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLA AVE 9,300 65.9 27 58 124 289 NINTH ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 6,300 62.3 15 33 71 290 NOHL CANYON RD NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTIAGO BLVD 1,100 54.7 5 10 22 291 NOHL RANCH RD NOHL CANYON RD TO MEATS AVE 8,600 67.7 35 75 162 292 NOHL RANCH RD MEATS AVE TO ROYAL OAK RD 10,100 68.4 39 84 181 293 NOHL RANCH RD ROYAL OAK RD TO IMPERIAL HWY 10,500 68.5 40 86 186 294 NOHL RANCH RD IMPERIAL HWY TO ANAHEIM HILLS RD 17,300 70.7 56 120 259 295 NOHL RANCH RD ANAHEIM HILLS RD TO CANYON RIM RD 19,000 71.1 59 128 275 296 NOHL RANCH RD CANYON RIM RD TO SERRANO DR 9,000 67.9 36 78 167 297 NORTH ST LOARA ST TO WEST ST 6,400 62.3 15 33 71 298 NORTH ST WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD 6,500 62.4 16 34 72 299 NORTH ST HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 6,100 62.1 15 32 69 300 NORTH ST ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 3,000 59.0 9 20 43 301 NUTWOOD ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 5,300 61.5 14 29 63 302 NUTWOOD ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 6,000 62.0 15 32 68 303 NUTWOOD ST BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 3,900 60.2 11 24 51 304 NUTWOOD ST ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY 2,000 57.3 7 15 33 305 OAK CANYON DR SERRANO AVE TO WEIR CYN RD 7,600 67.1 32 69 150 306 OLIVE ST VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST 6,300 62.3 15 33 71 307 OLIVE ST SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY 5,500 61.7 14 30 65 308 OLIVE ST BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 4,200 60.5 12 25 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL # Table Noise Contours for Proposed Project (2035 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to noise contour (feet) 309 OLIVE ST LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE ST 5,400 61.6 14 30 64 310 OLIVE ST SYCAMORE ST TO LA PALMA AVE 2,700 58.6 9 19 40 311 ORANGE AVE HOLDER ST TO KNOTT AVE 13,800 67.6 35 75 162 312 ORANGE AVE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE 15,700 68.2 38 82 176 313 ORANGE AVE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BLVD 16,300 68.4 39 84 181 314 ORANGE AVE BEACH BLVD TO DALE AVE 13,200 67.5 34 73 157 315 ORANGE AVE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE 10,600 66.5 29 63 136 316 ORANGE AVE MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT ST 10,900 64.6 22 47 102 317 ORANGE AVE GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST ST 8,800 63.7 19 41 88 318 ORANGE AVE BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOOD ST 6,600 62.5 16 34 73 319 ORANGE AVE NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST 5,900 62.0 15 31 68 320 ORANGETHORPE AVE LEMON ST TO RAYMOND AVE 28,000 76.0 126 271 584 321 ORANGETHORPE AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO PLACENTIA AVE 27,500 75.9 124 268 577 322 ORANGETHORPE AVE MELROSE AVE TO KRAEMER BLVD 23,800 75.3 113 243 524 323 ORANGETHORPE AVE KRAEMER BLVD TO MILLER ST 15,600 73.5 85 184 395 324 ORANGETHORPE AVE MILLER ST TO TUSTIN AVE 24,700 75.5 116 249 537 325 ORANGETHORPE AVE TUSTIN AVE TO JEFFERSON ST 22,200 75.0 108 232 500 326 ORANGETHORPE AVE LAKEVIEW AVE TO KELLOGG DR 16,100 73.6 87 187 404 327 ORANGETHORPE AVE KELLOGG DR TO IMPERIAL HWY 15,400 73.4 84 182 392 328 ORANGEWOOD AVE EUCLID ST TO NINTH ST 16,700 68.5 40 85 184 329 ORANGEWOOD AVE NINTH ST TO WEST ST 18,700 69.0 43 92 198 330 ORANGEWOOD AVE WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD 23,800 70.0 50 108 232 331 ORANGEWOOD AVE HARBOR BLVD TO HASTER ST 21,600 69.6 47 101 218 332 ORANGEWOOD AVE HASTER ST TO MANCHESTER AVE 30,600 71.1 59 128 275 333 ORANGEWOOD AVE MANCHESTER AVE TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 43,500 77.9 169 364 783 334 ORANGEWOOD AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO RAMPART ST 60,000 79.3 209 450 971 335 ORANGEWOOD AVE RAMPART ST TO ORANGE FWY 51,500 78.7 189 407 877 336 PHOENIX CLUB DRIVE HONDA CENTER TO BALL RD 7,400 63.0 17 37 79 337 PLACENTIA AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 10,000 68.3 39 83 180 338 RAMPART ST CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 16,200 68.3 39 83 180 339 RED GUM ST LA PALMA AVE TO LA JOLLA ST 3,600 59.8 10 23 49 340 RICHFIELD RD LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA AVE 19,900 67.3 33 71 152 341 RIO VISTA ST WAGNER AVE TO SOUTH ST 4,500 60.8 12 26 56 342 RIO VISTA ST SOUTH ST TO LINCOLN AVE 11,700 64.9 23 50 107 343 RIO VISTA ST LINCOLN AVE TO FRONTERA ST 11,900 65.0 23 50 108 344 RIVERDALE AVE WEST CITY LIMIT TO TUSTIN AVE 8,900 65.7 26 56 121 345 RIVERDALE AVE TUSTIN AVE TO LAKEVIEW AVE 8,800 65.7 26 56 120 346 ROMNEYA DR LA PALMA AVE TO EUCLID ST 8,400 63.5 18 40 86 347 ROMNEYA DR EUCLID ST TO WEST ST 7,300 62.9 17 36 78 348 ROMNEYA DR WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD 9,000 63.8 19 42 90 349 ROMNEYA DR EAST ST TO ACACIA ST 6,900 62.7 16 35 75 350 ROMNEYA DR ACACIA ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 7,600 63.1 17 37 80 351 ROOSEVELT RD MONTE VISTA RD TO SANTA ANA CYN RD 27,100 70.6 55 118 253 352 ROYAL OAK RD NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTA ANA CYN RD 4,800 61.1 13 27 59 353 SANTA ANA CYN RD NOHL RANCH RD TO LAKEVIEW AVE 11,500 68.9 42 91 197 354 SANTA ANA CYN RD LAKEVIEW AVE TO ROYAL OAK RD 19,600 74.5 99 214 460 355 SANTA ANA CYN RD ROYAL OAK RD TO IMPERIAL HWY 18,000 74.1 94 202 435 356 SANTA ANA CYN RD IMPERIAL HWY TO ANAHEIM HILLS RD 35,500 73.8 90 194 418 357 SANTA ANA CYN RD ANAHEIM HILLS RD TO FAIRMONT BLVD 28,100 72.8 77 166 358 358 SANTA ANA CYN RD FAIRMONT BLVD TO EUCALYPTUS DR 22,300 71.8 66 142 306 359 SANTA ANA CYN RD EUCALYPTUS DR TO FESTIVAL 27,400 72.7 76 163 352 360 SANTA ANA CYN RD FESTIVAL TO WEIR CYN RD 28,000 76.0 126 271 584 361 SANTA ANA CYN RD WEIR CYN RD TO WOODCREEK LN 16,100 73.6 87 187 404 362 SANTA ANA CYN RD WOODCREEK LN TO GYPSUM CYN RD 18,100 70.9 57 124 267 363 SANTA ANA ST MANCHESTER AVE TO HARBOR BLVD 10,600 64.5 22 46 100 364 SANTA ANA ST HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 6,300 62.3 15 33 71 365 SANTA ANA ST ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 7,100 62.8 16 36 77 366 SANTA ANA ST OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 6,800 62.6 16 35 74 367 SANTA ANA ST EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 5,900 62.0 15 31 68 368 SEQUOIA AVE LA PALMA AVE TO BROOKHURST ST 2,000 57.3 7 15 33 369 SERRANO AVE WEST CITY LIMIT TO NOHL RANCH RD 12,100 69.2 44 95 204 370 SERRANO AVE NOHL RANCH RD TO CANYON RIM RD 11,300 68.9 42 90 195 371 SERRANO AVE CANYON RIM RD TO OAK CANYON DR 15,600 70.3 52 112 242 372 SERRANO AVE OAK CANYON DR TO WEIR CYN RD 18,100 70.9 57 124 267 373 SOUTH ST BELLEVUE DR TO HARBOR BLVD 5,900 62.0 15 31 68 374 SOUTH ST HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 8,700 63.7 19 41 88 375 SOUTH ST ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 15,800 66.3 28 61 131 376 SOUTH ST OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 10,300 64.4 21 46 98 377 SOUTH ST EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 8,100 63.3 18 39 84 378 SOUTH ST STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 12,600 65.3 24 52 112 379 SOUTH ST SUNKIST ST TO RIO VISTA ST 7,900 63.2 18 38 82 380 STATE COLLEGE BLVD I‐5 TO ORANGEWOOD AVE 52,300 86.1 612 1,318 2,839 381 STATE COLLEGE BLVD ORANGEWOOD AVE TO GENE AUTRY WAY 62,400 86.8 688 1,483 3,194 382 STATE COLLEGE BLVD GENE AUTRY WAY TO KATELLA AVE 43,700 77.9 169 365 786 383 STATE COLLEGE BLVD KATELLA AVE TO HOWELL AVE 39,400 77.5 158 340 733 384 STATE COLLEGE BLVD HOWELL AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 35,200 77.0 147 316 680 385 STATE COLLEGE BLVD CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 36,800 77.2 151 325 701 ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL # Table Noise Contours for Proposed Project (2035 Conditions) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to noise contour (feet) 386 STATE COLLEGE BLVD BALL RD TO WAGNER AVE 33,900 76.8 143 308 663 387 STATE COLLEGE BLVD WAGNER AVE TO SOUTH ST 29,700 76.3 131 282 607 388 STATE COLLEGE BLVD SOUTH ST TO LINCOLN AVE 25,500 75.6 118 255 549 389 STATE COLLEGE BLVD LINCOLN AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 33,300 76.8 141 304 655 390 STATE COLLEGE BLVD LA PALMA AVE TO PLACENTIA AVE 32,100 76.6 138 297 640 391 STATE COLLEGE BLVD PLACENTIA AVE TO RIVERSIDE FWY 25,200 75.6 117 253 544 392 STATE COLLEGE BLVD RIVERSIDE FWY TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 30,000 76.3 132 284 611 393 SUNKIST ST HOWELL AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 13,100 67.4 34 72 156 394 SUNKIST ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 12,000 67.0 32 68 147 395 SUNKIST ST BALL RD TO WAGNER AVE 18,000 68.8 42 90 193 396 SUNKIST ST WAGNER AVE TO SOUTH ST 16,200 68.3 39 83 180 397 SUNKIST ST SOUTH ST TO LINCOLN AVE 15,200 68.1 37 80 172 398 SUNKIST ST LINCOLN AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 18,000 68.8 42 90 193 399 SUNSET RIDGE RD CANYON CREEK RD TO SERRANO AVE 3,800 60.1 11 23 50 400 SYCAMORE ST WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD 5,500 61.7 14 30 65 401 SYCAMORE ST HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 5,800 61.9 14 31 67 402 SYCAMORE ST ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 7,100 62.8 16 36 77 403 SYCAMORE ST OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 9,000 63.8 19 42 90 404 SYCAMORE ST EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 6,300 62.3 15 33 71 405 TUSTIN AVE OLD SANTA ANA CYN RD TO RIVERDALE AVE 14,300 69.9 49 106 228 406 TUSTIN AVE RIVERDALE AVE TO RIVERSIDE FWY 17,400 73.9 92 197 425 407 TUSTIN AVE RIVERSIDE FWY TO LA PALMA AVE 87,200 80.9 268 578 1,245 408 TUSTIN AVE LA PALMA AVE TO JEFFERSON ST 50,900 78.6 187 404 870 409 TUSTIN AVE JEFFERSON ST TO MIRALOMA AVE 38,300 77.4 155 334 720 410 TUSTIN AVE MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 35,100 77.0 146 315 679 411 VAN BUREN ST LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHORPE AVE 6,800 62.6 16 35 74 412 VERMONT AVE HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BLVD 6,900 62.7 16 35 75 413 VERMONT AVE ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST 10,000 64.3 21 45 96 414 VERMONT AVE OLIVE ST TO EAST ST 10,500 64.5 21 46 99 415 VERMONT AVE EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BLVD 8,100 63.3 18 39 84 416 VERNON ST CERRITOS AVE TO WINSTON RD 4,200 60.5 12 25 54 417 VIA BURTON STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO PLACENTIA AVE 4,800 61.1 13 27 59 418 VILLA REAL DR SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO NOHL RANCH RD 1,600 56.3 6 13 28 419 WAGNER AV STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUNKIST ST 7,100 64.8 22 48 104 420 WAGNER AV SUNKIST ST TO RIO VISTA ST 5,000 63.2 18 38 82 421 WALNUT ST KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVE 15,700 70.3 52 113 243 422 WALNUT ST CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 23,600 72.1 69 148 318 423 WALNUT ST BALL RD TO MANCHESTER AVE 9,400 68.1 37 80 172 424 WEIR CYN RD ESPERANZA RD TO LA PALMA AVE 35,900 77.1 148 320 689 425 WEIR CYN RD LA PALMA AVE TO SHWY 91 50,300 78.6 186 401 863 426 WEIR CYN RD SHWY 91 TO SANTA ANA CYN RD 53,200 78.8 193 416 896 427 WEIR CYN RD SANTA ANA CYN RD TO SERRANO AVE 39,500 77.5 158 341 734 428 WEIR CYN RD SERRANO AVE TO OAK CANYON DR 10,400 71.7 65 140 302 429 WEIR CYN RD OAK CANYON DR TO BLUE SKY RD 1,700 63.8 19 42 90 430 WEST ST ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLA AVE 16,600 70.5 54 117 252 431 WEST ST WATER ST TO BROADWAY 2,400 58.1 8 17 37 432 WEST ST BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE 7,700 63.1 17 38 81 433 WEST ST LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE ST 9,100 63.9 19 42 90 434 WEST ST SYCAMORE ST TO NORTH ST 7,800 63.2 18 38 82 435 WEST ST NORTH ST TO LA PALMA AVE 7,200 62.8 17 36 77 436 WEST ST LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA DR 6,600 62.5 16 34 73 437 WESTMONT DR LOARA ST TO WEST ST 4,600 60.9 12 27 57 438 WESTERN AVE CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD 17,400 68.7 41 88 189 439 WESTERN AVE BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE 19,000 69.0 43 93 200 440 WESTERN AVE ORANGE AVE TO LINCOLN AVE 17,200 68.6 40 87 187 441 WESTERN AVE LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVE 18,400 68.9 42 91 196 442 WILSHIRE AVE LOARA ST TO LINCOLN AVE 15,000 66.0 27 59 126 443 WINSTON RD VERNON ST TO SUNKIST ST 3,700 59.9 11 23 50 444 WOODLAND DR MAGNOLIA AVE TO LA PALMA AVE 7,600 63.1 17 37 80 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: 2035 Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ACACIA ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA DR Date: ADT 8,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 519 13 3 398 10 2 123 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.6 -19.7 -25.7 -4.7 -20.8 -26.8 -9.8 -25.9 -31.9 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.9 55.5 54.7 60.7 54.4 53.6 55.6 49.3 48.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.4 Leq EVENING= 62.3 Leq NIGHT= 57.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.1 CNEL= 65.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 24 51 110 CNEL: 26 56 120 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ACACIA ST Analyst AN Segment: ROMNEYA DR TO ORANGETHO Date: ADT 10,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 637 16 4 489 12 3 151 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 -3.9 -19.9 -25.9 -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.8 56.4 55.6 61.6 55.3 54.5 56.5 50.2 49.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.3 Leq EVENING= 63.1 Leq NIGHT= 58.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.0 CNEL= 66.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 27 58 126 CNEL: 30 64 137 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO I-5 Date: ADT 26,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1534 38 9 1177 29 7 364 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.0 -16.0 -22.1 -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.3 64.5 63.0 71.2 63.4 61.9 66.1 58.3 56.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.4 Leq EVENING= 72.2 Leq NIGHT= 67.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.1 CNEL= 75.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 110 236 509 CNEL: 120 258 556 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: I-5 TO CERRITOS AVE Date: ADT 46,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2732 68 17 2096 52 13 649 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.5 -19.6 1.4 -14.7 -20.7 -3.7 -19.8 -25.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.8 67.0 65.5 73.7 65.9 64.4 68.6 60.8 59.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.9 Leq EVENING= 74.8 Leq NIGHT= 69.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.6 CNEL= 78.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 161 347 748 CNEL: 176 379 816 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 38,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2260 56 14 1734 43 11 537 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.2 64.7 72.8 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 142 306 660 CNEL: 155 334 720 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO VERMONT ST Date: ADT 36,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2154 53 13 1652 41 10 511 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.5 -14.6 -20.6 0.3 -15.7 -21.7 -4.8 -20.8 -26.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.8 66.0 64.5 72.6 64.8 63.3 67.5 59.8 58.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.9 Leq EVENING= 73.7 Leq NIGHT= 68.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.6 CNEL= 77.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 138 296 639 CNEL: 150 323 697 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST Date: ADT 26,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1552 38 10 1191 29 7 368 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -0.6 -16.6 -22.7 -5.7 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.0 61.8 60.7 67.8 60.7 59.5 62.7 55.6 54.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.2 Leq EVENING= 69.1 Leq NIGHT= 64.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.0 CNEL= 72.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 68 146 314 CNEL: 74 159 342 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 28,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1682 42 10 1290 32 8 399 10 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.1 -21.2 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.3 62.2 61.0 68.2 61.0 59.9 63.1 56.0 54.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.6 Leq EVENING= 69.4 Leq NIGHT= 64.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.3 CNEL= 72.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 71 154 331 CNEL: 78 168 361 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 24,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1469 36 9 1127 28 7 349 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.7 -21.7 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.7 61.6 60.4 67.6 60.5 59.3 62.5 55.4 54.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.0 Leq EVENING= 68.9 Leq NIGHT= 63.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.7 CNEL= 72.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 65 140 302 CNEL: 71 153 330 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE S Date: ADT 24,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1434 35 9 1100 27 7 340 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.2 -15.8 -21.8 -0.9 -17.0 -23.0 -6.0 -22.1 -28.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.6 61.5 60.3 67.5 60.4 59.2 62.4 55.3 54.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.9 Leq EVENING= 68.7 Leq NIGHT= 63.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.6 CNEL= 72.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 64 138 297 CNEL: 70 151 325 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: SYCAMORE ST TO NORTH ST Date: ADT 25,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1517 38 9 1163 29 7 360 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -0.7 -16.7 -22.8 -5.8 -21.8 -27.8 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.9 61.7 60.6 67.7 60.6 59.4 62.6 55.5 54.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.1 Leq EVENING= 69.0 Leq NIGHT= 63.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.9 CNEL= 72.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 67 143 309 CNEL: 73 156 337 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: NORTH ST TO LA PALMA AVE Date: ADT 24,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1463 36 9 1123 28 7 347 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.7 -21.8 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.7 61.6 60.4 67.6 60.4 59.3 62.5 55.3 54.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.0 Leq EVENING= 68.8 Leq NIGHT= 63.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.7 CNEL= 72.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 65 140 302 CNEL: 71 153 329 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO CARL KARCHDate: ADT 21,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1263 31 8 969 24 6 300 7 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.3 -16.4 -22.4 -1.5 -17.5 -23.6 -6.6 -22.6 -28.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.1 61.0 59.8 66.9 59.8 58.6 61.8 54.7 53.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.3 Leq EVENING= 68.2 Leq NIGHT= 63.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.1 CNEL= 71.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 59 127 273 CNEL: 64 138 298 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CARL KARCHER WAY TO RIVERDate: ADT 23,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1375 34 9 1055 26 7 326 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.4 61.3 60.1 67.3 60.2 59.0 62.2 55.1 53.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.7 Leq EVENING= 68.6 Leq NIGHT= 63.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.4 CNEL= 72.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 62 134 289 CNEL: 68 146 316 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: LEMON ST Analyst AN Segment: RIVERSIDE FWY TO ORANGETHDate: ADT 44,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2638 65 16 2023 50 13 626 15 4 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.9 -13.2 -19.2 1.7 -14.3 -20.4 -3.4 -19.4 -25.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.3 64.2 63.0 70.1 63.0 61.8 65.0 57.9 56.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.5 Leq EVENING= 71.4 Leq NIGHT= 66.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.3 CNEL= 74.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 96 207 447 CNEL: 105 226 487 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: LEMON ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGETHORPE AVE TO NORTDate: ADT 33,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1977 49 12 1516 38 9 469 12 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.6 -14.4 -20.5 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 70.0 62.9 61.7 68.9 61.7 60.6 63.8 56.7 55.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.3 Leq EVENING= 70.1 Leq NIGHT= 65.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.0 CNEL= 73.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 79 171 369 CNEL: 87 187 402 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM HILLS RD Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTA ANDate: ADT 13,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 814 20 5 625 15 4 193 5 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -3.4 -19.4 -25.5 -8.5 -24.5 -30.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.2 59.0 57.9 65.0 57.9 56.7 59.9 52.8 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.4 Leq EVENING= 66.3 Leq NIGHT= 61.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.2 CNEL= 69.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 44 95 204 CNEL: 48 103 223 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM WY Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLDate: ADT 29,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 42 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1729 43 11 1326 33 8 411 10 3 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.6 -14.4 -20.5 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 Distance 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.3 60.9 60.1 66.1 59.8 59.0 61.0 54.7 53.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.8 Leq EVENING= 67.7 Leq NIGHT= 62.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.5 CNEL= 71.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 54 117 252 CNEL: 59 127 274 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: ANAHEIM WY Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO ANAHEIM BLVDate: ADT 22,200 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 42 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1310 32 8 1005 25 6 311 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.4 -15.6 -21.7 -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 Distance 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.1 59.7 58.9 64.9 58.6 57.8 59.8 53.5 52.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.6 Leq EVENING= 66.4 Leq NIGHT= 61.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.3 CNEL= 69.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 45 97 209 CNEL: 49 106 228 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: HOLDER ST TO KNOTT AVE Date: ADT 20,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1210 30 7 928 23 6 287 7 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -1.7 -17.7 -23.7 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.9 60.8 59.6 66.7 59.6 58.4 61.6 54.5 53.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.2 Leq EVENING= 68.0 Leq NIGHT= 62.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.9 CNEL= 71.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 57 123 266 CNEL: 62 134 290 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE Date: ADT 23,000 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1357 34 8 1041 26 6 322 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -1.2 -17.2 -23.2 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.4 61.3 60.1 67.2 60.1 58.9 62.1 55.0 53.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.7 Leq EVENING= 68.5 Leq NIGHT= 63.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.4 CNEL= 71.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 62 133 287 CNEL: 67 145 313 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: WESTERN AVE TO BEACH ADT 22,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1328 33 8 1019 25 6 315 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.3 61.2 60.0 67.1 60.0 58.8 62.0 54.9 53.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.6 Leq EVENING= 68.4 Leq NIGHT= 63.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.3 CNEL= 71.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 61 131 283 CNEL: 66 143 308 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: BEACH BLVD TO DALE AVE Date: ADT 33,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1965 49 12 1507 37 9 467 12 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.6 -14.5 -20.5 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 70.0 62.9 61.7 68.8 61.7 60.5 63.7 56.6 55.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.3 Leq EVENING= 70.1 Leq NIGHT= 65.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.0 CNEL= 73.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 79 170 367 CNEL: 86 186 400 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE Date: ADT 30,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1788 44 11 1372 34 8 425 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 0.0 -16.0 -22.0 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 62.5 61.3 68.4 61.3 60.1 63.3 56.2 55.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.7 Leq NIGHT= 64.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.6 CNEL= 73.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 74 160 345 CNEL: 81 175 376 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT STDate: ADT 30,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1817 45 11 1394 34 9 432 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 0.1 -15.9 -22.0 -5.0 -21.0 -27.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 62.5 61.4 68.5 61.4 60.2 63.4 56.3 55.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.8 Leq NIGHT= 64.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.6 CNEL= 73.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 75 162 348 CNEL: 82 176 380 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 30,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1817 45 11 1394 34 9 432 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 0.1 -15.9 -22.0 -5.0 -21.0 -27.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 62.5 61.4 68.5 61.4 60.2 63.4 56.3 55.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.8 Leq NIGHT= 64.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.6 CNEL= 73.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 75 162 348 CNEL: 82 176 380 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOO Date: ADT 29,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1758 44 11 1349 33 8 418 10 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -14.9 -21.0 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.5 62.4 61.2 68.4 61.2 60.1 63.3 56.1 55.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.8 Leq EVENING= 69.6 Leq NIGHT= 64.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.5 CNEL= 73.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 73 158 341 CNEL: 80 173 372 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: NUTWOOD ST TO Date: ADT 30,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1823 45 11 1399 35 9 433 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 0.1 -15.9 -22.0 -5.0 -21.0 -27.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.7 62.5 61.4 68.5 61.4 60.2 63.4 56.3 55.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.8 Leq NIGHT= 64.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.7 CNEL= 73.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 75 162 349 CNEL: 82 177 381 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 30,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1794 44 11 1376 34 9 426 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 62.5 61.3 68.4 61.3 60.2 63.3 56.2 55.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.7 Leq NIGHT= 64.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.6 CNEL= 73.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 74 160 345 CNEL: 81 175 377 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: WALNUT ST TO DISNEYLAND D Date: ADT 42,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2520 62 16 1933 48 12 598 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.2 -13.9 -19.9 1.0 -15.0 -21.1 -4.1 -20.1 -26.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.5 66.7 65.2 73.3 65.5 64.0 68.2 60.4 58.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.6 Leq EVENING= 74.4 Leq NIGHT= 69.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.3 CNEL= 77.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 153 329 709 CNEL: 167 359 774 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: DISNEYLAND DR TO HARBOR BDate: ADT 56,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3358 83 21 2576 64 16 797 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.4 -12.6 -18.7 2.3 -13.8 -19.8 -2.8 -18.9 -24.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.7 67.9 66.4 74.6 66.8 65.3 69.5 61.7 60.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.8 Leq EVENING= 75.7 Leq NIGHT= 70.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.5 CNEL= 79.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 185 399 859 CNEL: 202 435 937 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 50,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2992 74 19 2295 57 14 710 18 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.9 -13.1 -19.2 1.8 -14.3 -20.3 -3.3 -19.4 -25.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.2 67.4 65.9 74.1 66.3 64.8 69.0 61.2 59.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.3 Leq EVENING= 75.1 Leq NIGHT= 70.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.0 CNEL= 78.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 171 369 795 CNEL: 187 403 867 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO EAST ST Date: ADT 39,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2343 58 14 1797 44 11 556 14 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.2 66.4 64.9 73.0 65.2 63.7 67.9 60.1 58.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.2 Leq EVENING= 74.1 Leq NIGHT= 69.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.0 CNEL= 77.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 146 314 675 CNEL: 159 342 737 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BDate: ADT 42,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2502 62 15 1919 47 12 594 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.1 -13.9 -19.9 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -4.1 -20.2 -26.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.4 66.7 65.1 73.3 65.5 64.0 68.2 60.4 58.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.5 Leq EVENING= 74.4 Leq NIGHT= 69.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.2 CNEL= 77.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 152 328 706 CNEL: 166 357 770 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUN Date: ADT 53,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3145 78 19 2413 60 15 747 18 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -12.9 -18.9 2.0 -14.1 -20.1 -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.4 67.6 66.1 74.3 66.5 65.0 69.2 61.4 59.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.5 Leq EVENING= 75.4 Leq NIGHT= 70.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.2 CNEL= 78.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 177 382 822 CNEL: 193 416 897 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: SUNKIST ST TO ORANGE FWY Date: ADT 57,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3393 84 21 2603 64 16 806 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.5 -12.6 -18.6 2.3 -13.7 -19.8 -2.8 -18.8 -24.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.8 68.0 66.5 74.6 66.8 65.3 69.5 61.7 60.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.8 Leq EVENING= 75.7 Leq NIGHT= 70.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.6 CNEL= 79.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 186 401 865 CNEL: 203 438 943 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BALL RD Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE FWY TO EAST CITY LIMDate: ADT 63,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3723 92 23 2856 71 18 884 22 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.9 -12.2 -18.2 2.7 -13.3 -19.4 -2.4 -18.4 -24.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 76.2 68.4 66.9 75.0 67.2 65.7 69.9 62.1 60.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 77.3 Leq EVENING= 76.1 Leq NIGHT= 71.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 79.0 CNEL= 79.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 198 427 920 CNEL: [PHONE REDACTED] RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BEACH BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 59,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3487 86 22 2675 66 17 828 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.6 -12.5 -18.5 2.4 -13.6 -19.7 -2.7 -18.7 -24.7 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BEACH BLVD Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 61,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3623 90 22 2779 69 17 860 21 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.8 -12.3 -18.3 2.6 -13.5 -19.5 -2.5 -18.6 -24.6 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BEACH BLVD Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 60,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3570 88 22 2739 68 17 848 21 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.7 -12.4 -18.4 2.5 -13.5 -19.5 -2.6 -18.6 -24.6 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BEACH BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 51,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3051 75 19 2340 58 14 724 18 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.0 -13.1 -19.1 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BLUE GUM ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA ADate: ADT 11,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 667 16 4 512 13 3 158 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 -4.2 -20.3 -26.3 -9.3 -25.4 -31.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.3 58.2 57.0 64.1 57.0 55.9 59.0 51.9 50.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.6 Leq EVENING= 65.4 Leq NIGHT= 60.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.3 CNEL= 68.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 83 179 CNEL: 42 90 195 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BLUE GUM ST Analyst AN Segment: MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETH Date: ADT 11,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 673 17 4 516 13 3 160 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.0 -19.1 -25.1 -4.2 -20.3 -26.3 -9.3 -25.4 -31.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.3 58.2 57.0 64.2 57.1 55.9 59.1 52.0 50.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.6 Leq EVENING= 65.5 Leq NIGHT= 60.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.3 CNEL= 68.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 39 83 180 CNEL: 42 91 196 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BRASHER ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO HUNTER AVEDate: ADT 2,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 130 3 1 100 2 1 31 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 -10.1 -26.2 -32.2 -15.2 -31.3 -37.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 53.5 48.0 47.7 52.4 46.9 46.5 47.3 41.8 41.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 55.4 Leq EVENING= 54.2 Leq NIGHT= 49.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 57.1 CNEL= 57.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 7 15 32 CNEL: 8 16 35 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE Date: ADT 9,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 566 14 4 435 11 3 135 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -4.4 -20.4 -26.5 -9.5 -25.5 -31.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.2 55.9 55.1 61.1 54.7 53.9 56.0 49.7 48.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.8 Leq EVENING= 62.6 Leq NIGHT= 57.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.5 CNEL= 66.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 25 54 116 CNEL: 27 59 127 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT STDate: ADT 12,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 744 18 5 570 14 4 177 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.0 -18.1 -24.1 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -8.3 -24.3 -30.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.4 57.1 56.3 62.3 55.9 55.1 57.2 50.8 50.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.0 Leq EVENING= 63.8 Leq NIGHT= 58.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.7 CNEL= 67.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 30 65 139 CNEL: 33 71 152 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 13,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 814 20 5 625 15 4 193 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.6 -17.7 -23.7 -2.8 -18.9 -24.9 -7.9 -23.9 -30.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.8 57.5 56.7 62.7 56.3 55.5 57.6 51.2 50.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.4 Leq EVENING= 64.2 Leq NIGHT= 59.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.1 CNEL= 67.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 32 69 148 CNEL: 35 75 162 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOO Date: ADT 16,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 991 25 6 760 19 5 235 6 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.8 -16.8 -22.9 -1.9 -18.0 -24.0 -7.0 -23.1 -29.1 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.7 58.3 57.5 63.5 57.2 56.4 58.4 52.1 51.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.2 Leq EVENING= 65.1 Leq NIGHT= 60.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.9 CNEL= 68.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 36 78 169 CNEL: 40 86 184 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 17,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1056 26 7 810 20 5 251 6 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -1.7 -17.7 -23.7 -6.8 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.9 58.6 57.8 63.8 57.4 56.6 58.7 52.4 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.5 Leq EVENING= 65.3 Leq NIGHT= 60.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.2 CNEL= 68.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 82 176 CNEL: 41 89 192 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO MANCHESTER AVDate: ADT 16,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 950 24 6 729 18 5 226 6 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.5 -17.6 -23.6 -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 -7.8 -23.9 -29.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.8 59.7 58.5 65.7 58.6 57.4 60.6 53.5 52.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.1 Leq EVENING= 67.0 Leq NIGHT= 61.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.8 CNEL= 70.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 49 105 226 CNEL: 53 114 247 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: MANCHESTER AVE TO HARBORDate: ADT 17,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1009 25 6 774 19 5 240 6 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -1.9 -17.9 -23.9 -7.0 -23.0 -29.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.7 58.4 57.6 63.6 57.3 56.4 58.5 52.2 51.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.3 Leq EVENING= 65.1 Leq NIGHT= 60.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.0 CNEL= 68.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 37 79 171 CNEL: 40 87 186 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 13,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 808 20 5 620 15 4 192 5 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.3 -18.3 -24.3 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 -8.5 -24.6 -30.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.1 59.0 57.8 65.0 57.9 56.7 59.9 52.8 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.4 Leq EVENING= 66.3 Leq NIGHT= 61.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.1 CNEL= 69.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 44 94 203 CNEL: 48 103 221 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST Date: ADT 13,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 803 20 5 616 15 4 191 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.7 -17.8 -23.8 -2.9 -18.9 -24.9 -7.9 -24.0 -30.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.8 57.4 56.6 62.6 56.3 55.5 57.5 51.2 50.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.3 Leq EVENING= 64.1 Leq NIGHT= 59.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.0 CNEL= 67.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 32 68 147 CNEL: 34 74 160 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: OLIVE ST TO EAST ST Date: ADT 17,500 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1033 26 6 792 20 5 245 6 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.6 -16.7 -22.7 -1.8 -17.8 -23.8 -6.9 -22.9 -28.9 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.8 58.5 57.7 63.7 57.4 56.5 58.6 52.3 51.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.4 Leq EVENING= 65.2 Leq NIGHT= 60.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.1 CNEL= 68.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 37 81 174 CNEL: 41 88 189 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROADWAY Analyst AN Segment: EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BDate: ADT 5,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 348 9 2 267 7 2 83 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.7 -20.7 -26.7 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 -10.9 -27.0 -33.0 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.8 52.3 52.0 56.6 51.2 50.8 51.6 46.1 45.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.7 Leq EVENING= 58.5 Leq NIGHT= 53.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.4 CNEL= 62.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 13 29 62 CNEL: 15 31 68 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVDate: ADT 36,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2160 53 13 1657 41 10 513 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.5 -14.6 -20.6 0.4 -15.7 -21.7 -4.7 -20.8 -26.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.8 66.0 64.5 72.6 64.9 63.4 67.6 59.8 58.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.9 Leq EVENING= 73.7 Leq NIGHT= 68.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.6 CNEL= 77.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 138 297 640 CNEL: 150 324 698 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 33,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1989 49 12 1525 38 9 472 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -14.9 -20.9 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.4 65.7 64.2 72.3 64.5 63.0 67.2 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.5 Leq EVENING= 73.4 Leq NIGHT= 68.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 130 281 606 CNEL: 142 307 661 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 39,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2325 58 14 1784 44 11 552 14 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.2 -20.3 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.1 66.3 64.8 73.0 65.2 63.7 67.9 60.1 58.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.2 Leq EVENING= 74.1 Leq NIGHT= 69.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.9 CNEL= 77.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 145 312 672 CNEL: 158 340 733 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 35,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2118 52 13 1625 40 10 503 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.4 -14.6 -20.7 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -4.8 -20.9 -26.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.7 65.9 64.4 72.6 64.8 63.3 67.5 59.7 58.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.8 Leq EVENING= 73.7 Leq NIGHT= 68.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.5 CNEL= 77.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 136 293 632 CNEL: 148 320 689 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 40,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2402 59 15 1842 46 11 570 14 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.0 -14.1 -20.1 0.8 -15.2 -21.3 -4.3 -20.3 -26.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.3 66.5 65.0 73.1 65.3 63.8 68.0 60.2 58.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.3 Leq EVENING= 74.2 Leq NIGHT= 69.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.1 CNEL= 77.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 148 319 687 CNEL: 161 348 749 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 42,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2496 62 15 1915 47 12 593 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.1 -13.9 -20.0 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -4.1 -20.2 -26.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.4 66.6 65.1 73.3 65.5 64.0 68.2 60.4 58.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.5 Leq EVENING= 74.4 Leq NIGHT= 69.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.2 CNEL= 77.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 152 327 705 CNEL: 166 357 769 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA ADate: ADT 51,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3045 75 19 2336 58 14 723 18 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.0 -13.1 -19.1 1.8 -14.2 -20.2 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.3 67.5 66.0 74.1 66.4 64.9 69.0 61.3 59.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.4 Leq EVENING= 75.2 Leq NIGHT= 70.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.1 CNEL= 78.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 173 373 804 CNEL: 189 407 878 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: BROOKHURST ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO RIVERSIDE FDate: ADT 50,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2992 74 19 2295 57 14 710 18 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.9 -13.1 -19.2 1.8 -14.3 -20.3 -3.3 -19.4 -25.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.2 67.4 65.9 74.1 66.3 64.8 69.0 61.2 59.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.3 Leq EVENING= 75.1 Leq NIGHT= 70.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.0 CNEL= 78.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 171 369 795 CNEL: 187 403 867 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CARL KARCHER WAY Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 5,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 307 8 2 235 6 1 73 2 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 -6.4 -22.4 -28.4 -11.5 -27.5 -33.5 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.2 51.8 51.4 56.1 50.6 50.3 51.0 45.5 45.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.1 Leq EVENING= 58.0 Leq NIGHT= 52.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 60.9 CNEL= 61.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 12 26 57 CNEL: 13 29 62 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CANYON CREEK RD Analyst AN Segment: SUNSET RIDGE RD TO SERRANDate: ADT 6,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 407 10 3 312 8 2 97 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.0 -20.0 -26.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 -10.2 -26.3 -32.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.5 53.0 52.6 57.3 51.9 51.5 52.2 46.8 46.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.4 Leq EVENING= 59.2 Leq NIGHT= 54.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.1 CNEL= 62.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 15 32 69 CNEL: 16 35 75 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CANYON RIM RD Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO FAIRMONTDate: ADT 4,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 289 7 2 222 5 1 69 2 0 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 -7.9 -23.9 -30.0 -13.0 -29.0 -35.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.7 54.5 53.4 60.5 53.4 52.2 55.4 48.3 47.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.9 Leq EVENING= 61.8 Leq NIGHT= 56.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.7 CNEL= 65.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 22 47 102 CNEL: 24 52 112 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CANYON RIM RD Analyst AN Segment: FAIRMONT BLVD TO SERRANO Date: ADT 8,000 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 472 12 3 362 9 2 112 3 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 -5.7 -21.8 -27.8 -10.8 -26.9 -32.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.8 56.7 55.5 62.6 55.5 54.4 57.5 50.4 49.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.1 Leq EVENING= 63.9 Leq NIGHT= 58.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.8 CNEL= 67.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 31 66 142 CNEL: 33 72 155 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CANYON VISTA DR Analyst AN Segment: WEIR CYN RD TO EVENINGSONDate: ADT 3,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 177 4 1 136 3 1 42 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 -8.7 -24.8 -30.8 -13.8 -29.9 -35.9 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 54.9 49.4 49.0 53.7 48.2 47.9 48.6 43.1 42.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 56.7 Leq EVENING= 55.6 Leq NIGHT= 50.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 58.5 CNEL= 59.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 9 18 40 CNEL: 9 20 43 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: HOLDER ST TO KNOTT AVE Date: ADT 16,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 991 25 6 760 19 5 235 6 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.4 -17.4 -23.5 -2.5 -18.6 -24.6 -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.0 59.9 58.7 65.9 58.7 57.6 60.8 53.7 52.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.3 Leq EVENING= 67.1 Leq NIGHT= 62.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.0 CNEL= 70.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 50 108 233 CNEL: 55 118 254 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE Date: ADT 14,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 862 21 5 661 16 4 205 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.4 -17.5 -23.5 -2.5 -18.6 -24.6 -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.1 57.7 56.9 62.9 56.6 55.8 57.8 51.5 50.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.6 Leq EVENING= 64.4 Leq NIGHT= 59.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.3 CNEL= 67.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 33 71 154 CNEL: 36 78 168 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT STDate: ADT 13,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 767 19 5 588 15 4 182 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.9 -18.0 -24.0 -3.0 -19.1 -25.1 -8.1 -24.2 -30.2 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.6 57.2 56.4 62.4 56.1 55.3 57.3 51.0 50.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.1 Leq EVENING= 63.9 Leq NIGHT= 58.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.8 CNEL= 67.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 31 66 142 CNEL: 33 72 155 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 15,500 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 915 23 6 702 17 4 217 5 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.5 -22.6 -1.6 -17.7 -23.7 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.0 56.5 56.2 60.8 55.4 55.0 55.7 50.3 49.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.9 Leq EVENING= 62.7 Leq NIGHT= 57.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.6 CNEL= 66.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 25 55 118 CNEL: 28 60 129 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOO Date: ADT 22,200 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1310 32 8 1005 25 6 311 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.4 -15.6 -21.7 -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.9 59.5 58.7 64.7 58.4 57.6 59.6 53.3 52.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.4 Leq EVENING= 66.3 Leq NIGHT= 61.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.1 CNEL= 69.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 44 94 203 CNEL: 48 103 222 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 24,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1416 35 9 1086 27 7 336 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.3 -21.3 -0.4 -16.5 -22.5 -5.5 -21.5 -27.6 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.2 59.9 59.1 65.1 58.7 57.9 60.0 53.6 52.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.8 Leq EVENING= 66.6 Leq NIGHT= 61.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.5 CNEL= 70.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 46 99 214 CNEL: 50 108 234 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO WALNUT ST Date: ADT 19,700 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1162 29 7 892 22 6 276 7 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.4 59.0 58.2 64.2 57.9 57.1 59.1 52.8 52.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.9 Leq EVENING= 65.7 Leq NIGHT= 60.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.6 CNEL= 69.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 40 87 188 CNEL: 44 95 205 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO LEWIS ST Date: ADT 26,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1581 39 10 1213 30 8 375 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -5.6 -21.6 -27.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.0 61.9 60.8 67.9 60.8 59.6 62.8 55.7 54.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.3 Leq EVENING= 69.2 Leq NIGHT= 64.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.0 CNEL= 72.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 68 147 318 CNEL: 75 161 346 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: LEWIS ST TO STATE COLLEGE Date: ADT 28,200 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1664 41 10 1277 32 8 395 10 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.2 -21.2 -0.3 -16.3 -22.4 -5.4 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.3 62.2 61.0 68.1 61.0 59.8 63.0 55.9 54.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.5 Leq EVENING= 69.4 Leq NIGHT= 64.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.3 CNEL= 72.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 71 152 329 CNEL: 77 166 358 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUN Date: ADT 16,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 950 24 6 729 18 5 226 6 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.0 -17.0 -23.1 -2.1 -18.2 -24.2 -7.2 -23.3 -29.3 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.5 58.1 57.3 63.3 57.0 56.2 58.2 51.9 51.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.0 Leq EVENING= 64.9 Leq NIGHT= 59.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.7 CNEL= 68.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 35 76 164 CNEL: 39 83 179 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CERRITOS AVE Analyst AN Segment: SUNKIST ST TO DOUGLASS RD Date: ADT 19,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1145 28 7 878 22 5 272 7 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.2 -16.2 -22.2 -1.3 -17.4 -23.4 -6.4 -22.5 -28.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.3 59.0 58.1 64.1 57.8 57.0 59.1 52.7 51.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.8 Leq EVENING= 65.7 Leq NIGHT= 60.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.6 CNEL= 69.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 40 86 186 CNEL: 44 94 203 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CHAPMAN AVE Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO HASTER ST Date: ADT 27,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1635 40 10 1254 31 8 388 10 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.3 -21.3 -0.3 -16.4 -22.4 -5.4 -21.5 -27.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.2 62.1 60.9 68.0 60.9 59.7 62.9 55.8 54.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.5 Leq EVENING= 69.3 Leq NIGHT= 64.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.2 CNEL= 72.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 70 151 325 CNEL: 76 164 354 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CLEMENTINE ST Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO MANCHESTERDate: ADT 12,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 755 19 5 579 14 4 179 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.0 -18.0 -24.1 -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 -8.2 -24.3 -30.3 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.5 57.1 56.3 62.3 56.0 55.2 57.2 50.9 50.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.0 Leq EVENING= 63.9 Leq NIGHT= 58.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.7 CNEL= 67.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 30 65 141 CNEL: 33 71 154 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: COMMERCIAL ST Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO PATT ST Date: ADT 4,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 248 6 2 190 5 1 59 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.1 -22.2 -28.2 -7.3 -23.4 -29.4 -12.4 -28.4 -34.5 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 56.3 50.9 50.5 55.2 49.7 49.3 50.1 44.6 44.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 58.2 Leq EVENING= 57.1 Leq NIGHT= 52.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 59.9 CNEL= 60.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 11 23 49 CNEL: 12 25 54 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CONVENTION WY Analyst AN Segment: 0.25 M W/HARBOR BLVD TO HARDate: ADT 17,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1033 26 6 792 20 5 245 6 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -2.3 -18.4 -24.4 -7.4 -23.5 -29.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.2 60.1 58.9 66.0 58.9 57.8 60.9 53.8 52.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.5 Leq EVENING= 67.3 Leq NIGHT= 62.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.2 CNEL= 70.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 51 111 239 CNEL: 56 121 261 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CORONADO ST Analyst AN Segment: BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BL Date: ADT 3,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 230 6 1 177 4 1 55 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.5 -22.5 -28.5 -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 -12.7 -28.8 -34.8 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 56.0 50.5 50.2 54.8 49.4 49.0 49.8 44.3 43.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 57.9 Leq EVENING= 56.7 Leq NIGHT= 51.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 59.6 CNEL= 60.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 10 22 47 CNEL: 11 24 51 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CORONADO ST Analyst AN Segment: JEFFERSON ST TO VAREN BURDate: ADT 2,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 130 3 1 100 2 1 31 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 -10.1 -26.2 -32.2 -15.2 -31.3 -37.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 53.5 48.0 47.7 52.4 46.9 46.5 47.3 41.8 41.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 55.4 Leq EVENING= 54.2 Leq NIGHT= 49.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 57.1 CNEL= 57.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 7 15 32 CNEL: 8 16 35 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT AVE Analyst AN Segment: DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE Date: ADT 19,700 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1162 29 7 892 22 6 276 7 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.4 59.0 58.2 64.2 57.9 57.1 59.1 52.8 52.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.9 Leq EVENING= 65.7 Leq NIGHT= 60.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.6 CNEL= 69.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 40 87 188 CNEL: 44 95 205 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT AVE Analyst AN Segment: MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT STDate: ADT 9,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 578 14 4 444 11 3 137 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 -4.3 -20.3 -26.4 -9.4 -25.4 -31.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.3 56.0 55.2 61.2 54.8 54.0 56.1 49.7 48.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.9 Leq EVENING= 62.7 Leq NIGHT= 57.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.6 CNEL= 66.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 25 55 118 CNEL: 28 60 129 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT AVE Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 12,500 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 738 18 5 566 14 4 175 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.1 -18.1 -24.2 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -8.3 -24.4 -30.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.4 57.0 56.2 62.2 55.9 55.1 57.1 50.8 50.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.9 Leq EVENING= 63.8 Leq NIGHT= 58.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.6 CNEL= 67.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 30 64 139 CNEL: 33 70 151 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO MULLER SDate: ADT 8,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 507 13 3 389 10 2 120 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.7 -19.8 -25.8 -4.8 -20.9 -26.9 -9.9 -26.0 -32.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.8 55.4 54.6 60.6 54.3 53.5 55.5 49.2 48.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.3 Leq EVENING= 62.2 Leq NIGHT= 57.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.0 CNEL= 65.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 23 50 108 CNEL: 25 55 118 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT AVE Analyst AN Segment: CHIPPEWA AVE TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 10,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 590 15 4 453 11 3 140 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.0 -19.1 -25.1 -4.2 -20.3 -26.3 -9.3 -25.3 -31.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.4 56.1 55.3 61.3 54.9 54.1 56.2 49.8 49.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.0 Leq EVENING= 62.8 Leq NIGHT= 57.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.7 CNEL= 66.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 26 55 120 CNEL: 28 61 130 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT AVE Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO LOARA ST Date: ADT 13,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 803 20 5 616 15 4 191 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.7 -17.8 -23.8 -2.9 -18.9 -24.9 -7.9 -24.0 -30.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.8 57.4 56.6 62.6 56.3 55.5 57.5 51.2 50.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.3 Leq EVENING= 64.1 Leq NIGHT= 59.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.0 CNEL= 67.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 32 68 147 CNEL: 34 74 160 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CRESCENT WY Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 5,100 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 301 7 2 231 6 1 71 2 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 -6.4 -22.5 -28.5 -11.5 -27.6 -33.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.2 51.7 51.3 56.0 50.5 50.2 50.9 45.5 45.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.1 Leq EVENING= 57.9 Leq NIGHT= 52.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 60.8 CNEL= 61.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 12 26 56 CNEL: 13 29 61 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CROWTHER AVE Analyst AN Segment: WEST CITY LIMIT TO KRAEMER Date: ADT 4,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 283 7 2 217 5 1 67 2 0 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 -7.4 -23.4 -29.5 -12.5 -28.5 -34.6 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.2 52.9 52.1 58.1 51.7 50.9 53.0 46.6 45.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.8 Leq EVENING= 59.6 Leq NIGHT= 54.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.5 CNEL= 63.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 16 34 73 CNEL: 17 37 80 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: CROWTHER AVE Analyst AN Segment: KRAEMER BLVD TO ORANGETHDate: ADT 3,700 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 218 5 1 167 4 1 52 1 0 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.4 -23.4 -29.4 -8.5 -24.6 -30.6 -13.6 -29.7 -35.7 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.1 51.8 51.0 57.0 50.6 49.8 51.9 45.5 44.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.6 Leq EVENING= 58.5 Leq NIGHT= 53.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.4 CNEL= 61.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 13 29 62 CNEL: 14 31 67 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: DALE AVE Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 14,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 826 20 5 634 16 4 196 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.6 -17.6 -23.7 -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 -7.8 -23.9 -29.9 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.9 57.5 56.7 62.7 56.4 55.6 57.6 51.3 50.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.4 Leq EVENING= 64.3 Leq NIGHT= 59.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.1 CNEL= 67.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 32 69 150 CNEL: 35 76 163 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: DALE AVE Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 18,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1068 26 7 819 20 5 254 6 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.5 -22.5 -1.6 -17.7 -23.7 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.0 58.6 57.8 63.8 57.5 56.7 58.8 52.4 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.5 Leq EVENING= 65.4 Leq NIGHT= 60.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.3 CNEL= 68.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 82 178 CNEL: 42 90 194 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: DALE AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 18,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1115 28 7 856 21 5 265 7 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.3 -16.3 -22.4 -1.4 -17.5 -23.5 -6.5 -22.6 -28.6 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.2 58.8 58.0 64.0 57.7 56.9 58.9 52.6 51.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.7 Leq EVENING= 65.6 Leq NIGHT= 60.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.4 CNEL= 69.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 39 85 183 CNEL: 43 93 199 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: DALE AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 17,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1056 26 7 810 20 5 251 6 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -1.7 -17.7 -23.7 -6.8 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.9 58.6 57.8 63.8 57.4 56.6 58.7 52.4 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.5 Leq EVENING= 65.3 Leq NIGHT= 60.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.2 CNEL= 68.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 82 176 CNEL: 41 89 192 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: DALE AVE Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 16,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 968 24 6 742 18 5 230 6 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.9 -17.0 -23.0 -2.0 -18.1 -24.1 -7.1 -23.2 -29.2 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.6 58.2 57.4 63.4 57.1 56.3 58.3 52.0 51.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.1 Leq EVENING= 65.0 Leq NIGHT= 59.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.8 CNEL= 68.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 36 77 166 CNEL: 39 84 181 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 5 Roadway: DISNEY WAY Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO CLEMENTINEDate: ADT 13,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 820 20 5 629 16 4 195 5 1 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 -3.9 -19.9 -25.9 -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 61.8 60.3 68.4 60.7 59.2 63.4 55.6 54.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.7 Leq EVENING= 69.5 Leq NIGHT= 64.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.4 CNEL= 73.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 72 156 336 CNEL: 79 170 366 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: DISNEY WAY Analyst AN Segment: CLEMENTINE ST TO ANAHEIM BDate: ADT 33,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1971 49 12 1512 37 9 468 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.4 65.6 64.1 72.3 64.5 63.0 67.2 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.5 Leq EVENING= 73.3 Leq NIGHT= 68.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 130 279 602 CNEL: 141 305 657 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: DISNEYLAND DR Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO MAGIC WY Date: ADT 28,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1658 41 10 1272 31 8 394 10 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.2 -21.2 -0.3 -16.3 -22.4 -5.4 -21.4 -27.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.2 62.1 61.0 68.1 61.0 59.8 63.0 55.9 54.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.5 Leq EVENING= 69.4 Leq NIGHT= 64.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.2 CNEL= 72.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 71 152 328 CNEL: 77 166 358 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: DISNEYLAND DR Analyst AN Segment: MAGIC WY TO BALL RD Date: ADT 27,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1599 40 10 1227 30 8 380 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -0.4 -16.5 -22.5 -5.5 -21.6 -27.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.1 62.0 60.8 67.9 60.8 59.7 62.8 55.7 54.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.4 Leq EVENING= 69.2 Leq NIGHT= 64.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.1 CNEL= 72.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 69 148 320 CNEL: 75 162 349 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: DISNEYLAND DR Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO MANCHESTER AVEDate: ADT 37,600 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 66 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2219 55 14 1702 42 11 527 13 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.1 -13.9 -20.0 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -4.1 -20.2 -26.2 Distance 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.3 64.1 63.0 70.1 63.0 61.8 65.0 57.9 56.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.5 Leq EVENING= 71.4 Leq NIGHT= 66.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.3 CNEL= 74.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 96 207 446 CNEL: 105 226 486 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: DOUGLASS RD Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVDate: ADT 25,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1528 38 9 1172 29 7 363 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.5 -15.5 -21.6 -0.6 -16.7 -22.7 -5.7 -21.8 -27.8 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.9 61.8 60.6 67.7 60.6 59.5 62.6 55.5 54.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.2 Leq EVENING= 69.0 Leq NIGHT= 63.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.9 CNEL= 72.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 67 144 310 CNEL: 73 157 339 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO VERMONT ST Date: ADT 23,200 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1369 34 8 1050 26 6 325 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.4 -21.5 -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -5.6 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.1 59.7 58.9 64.9 58.6 57.8 59.8 53.5 52.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.6 Leq EVENING= 66.5 Leq NIGHT= 61.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.3 CNEL= 69.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 45 97 209 CNEL: 49 106 229 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST Date: ADT 23,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1393 34 9 1068 26 7 331 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.5 -22.5 -5.6 -21.6 -27.6 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.1 59.8 59.0 65.0 58.6 57.8 59.9 53.6 52.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.7 Leq EVENING= 66.5 Leq NIGHT= 61.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.4 CNEL= 70.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 46 98 212 CNEL: 50 107 231 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 22,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1322 33 8 1014 25 6 314 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -5.8 -21.8 -27.9 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.9 59.6 58.8 64.8 58.4 57.6 59.7 53.3 52.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.5 Leq EVENING= 66.3 Leq NIGHT= 61.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.2 CNEL= 69.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 44 95 205 CNEL: 48 104 223 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 28,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1676 41 10 1286 32 8 398 10 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.5 -14.6 -20.6 0.3 -15.7 -21.7 -4.7 -20.8 -26.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.0 60.6 59.8 65.8 59.5 58.7 60.7 54.4 53.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.5 Leq EVENING= 67.3 Leq NIGHT= 62.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.2 CNEL= 70.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 52 111 240 CNEL: 56 121 262 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE S Date: ADT 25,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1499 37 9 1150 28 7 356 9 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.5 60.1 59.3 65.3 59.0 58.2 60.2 53.9 53.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.0 Leq EVENING= 66.9 Leq NIGHT= 61.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.7 CNEL= 70.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 48 103 223 CNEL: 52 113 243 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: SYCAMORE ST TO LA PALMA AVDate: ADT 26,500 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1564 39 10 1200 30 7 371 9 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 0.0 -16.0 -22.0 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.7 60.3 59.5 65.5 59.2 58.4 60.4 54.1 53.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.2 Leq EVENING= 67.0 Leq NIGHT= 61.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.9 CNEL= 70.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 49 106 229 CNEL: 54 116 250 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA D Date: ADT 27,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1611 40 10 1236 31 8 383 9 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.7 -20.8 0.2 -15.9 -21.9 -4.9 -21.0 -27.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.8 60.4 59.6 65.6 59.3 58.5 60.5 54.2 53.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.3 Leq EVENING= 67.2 Leq NIGHT= 62.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.0 CNEL= 70.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 50 108 233 CNEL: 55 118 255 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EAST ST Analyst AN Segment: ROMNEYA DR TO RIVERSIDE FWDate: ADT 29,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1753 43 11 1344 33 8 416 10 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.5 62.4 61.2 68.3 61.2 60.1 63.2 56.1 55.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.8 Leq EVENING= 69.6 Leq NIGHT= 64.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.5 CNEL= 73.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 73 158 340 CNEL: 80 172 371 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: RAYMOND AVE Analyst AN Segment: RIVERSIDE FWY TO ORANGETHDate: ADT 31,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1882 47 12 1444 36 9 447 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.4 -14.6 -20.7 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -4.8 -20.9 -26.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.8 62.7 61.5 68.6 61.5 60.4 63.6 56.4 55.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.1 Leq EVENING= 69.9 Leq NIGHT= 64.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.8 CNEL= 73.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 77 166 357 CNEL: 84 181 389 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: RAYMOND AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGETHORPE AVE TO NORTDate: ADT 23,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1381 34 9 1059 26 7 328 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -1.1 -17.1 -23.2 -6.2 -22.2 -28.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.5 61.3 60.2 67.3 60.2 59.0 62.2 55.1 53.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.7 Leq EVENING= 68.6 Leq NIGHT= 63.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.5 CNEL= 72.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 63 135 290 CNEL: 68 147 316 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWODate: ADT 34,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2006 50 12 1539 38 10 476 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 0.0 -16.0 -22.1 -5.1 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.5 65.7 64.2 72.3 64.5 63.0 67.2 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.6 Leq EVENING= 73.4 Leq NIGHT= 68.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.3 CNEL= 76.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 131 283 609 CNEL: 143 308 665 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLDate: ADT 35,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2112 52 13 1621 40 10 502 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.4 -14.7 -20.7 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -4.8 -20.9 -26.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.7 65.9 64.4 72.6 64.8 63.3 67.5 59.7 58.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.8 Leq EVENING= 73.6 Leq NIGHT= 68.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.5 CNEL= 77.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 136 293 630 CNEL: 148 319 688 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVDate: ADT 38,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2284 57 14 1752 43 11 542 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.3 -20.3 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.3 64.8 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 74.0 Leq NIGHT= 68.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 143 308 664 CNEL: 156 336 725 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 40,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2402 59 15 1842 46 11 570 14 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.0 -14.1 -20.1 0.8 -15.2 -21.3 -4.3 -20.3 -26.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.3 66.5 65.0 73.1 65.3 63.8 68.0 60.2 58.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.3 Leq EVENING= 74.2 Leq NIGHT= 69.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.1 CNEL= 77.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 148 319 687 CNEL: 161 348 749 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 42,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2490 62 15 1910 47 12 591 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.1 -13.9 -20.0 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -4.1 -20.2 -26.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.4 66.6 65.1 73.3 65.5 64.0 68.2 60.4 58.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.5 Leq EVENING= 74.4 Leq NIGHT= 69.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.2 CNEL= 77.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 152 327 704 CNEL: 165 356 768 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 42,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2478 61 15 1901 47 12 588 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.1 -14.0 -20.0 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -4.1 -20.2 -26.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.4 66.6 65.1 73.2 65.5 64.0 68.2 60.4 58.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.5 Leq EVENING= 74.3 Leq NIGHT= 69.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.2 CNEL= 77.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 151 326 701 CNEL: 165 355 765 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 45,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2697 67 17 2069 51 13 640 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.6 -19.6 1.3 -14.7 -20.8 -3.8 -19.8 -25.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.8 67.0 65.5 73.6 65.8 64.3 68.5 60.7 59.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.8 Leq EVENING= 74.7 Leq NIGHT= 69.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.6 CNEL= 78.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 160 344 742 CNEL: 174 376 809 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO I-5 Date: ADT 49,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2927 72 18 2245 56 14 695 17 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.8 -13.2 -19.3 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.1 67.3 65.8 74.0 66.2 64.7 68.9 61.1 59.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.2 Leq EVENING= 75.1 Leq NIGHT= 70.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.9 CNEL= 78.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 169 364 784 CNEL: 184 397 855 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: I-5 TO CRESCENT AVE Date: ADT 56,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3322 82 21 2549 63 16 789 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.4 -12.7 -18.7 2.2 -13.8 -19.9 -2.9 -18.9 -25.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.7 67.9 66.4 74.5 66.7 65.2 69.4 61.6 60.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.8 Leq EVENING= 75.6 Leq NIGHT= 70.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.5 CNEL= 79.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 184 396 853 CNEL: 200 432 930 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA ADate: ADT 53,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3127 77 19 2399 59 15 743 18 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -13.0 -19.0 2.0 -14.1 -20.1 -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.4 67.6 66.1 74.3 66.5 65.0 69.2 61.4 59.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.5 Leq EVENING= 75.3 Leq NIGHT= 70.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.2 CNEL= 78.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 176 380 819 CNEL: 192 415 893 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA D Date: ADT 52,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3092 77 19 2372 59 15 734 18 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -13.0 -19.0 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 -3.2 -19.2 -25.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.4 67.6 66.1 74.2 66.4 64.9 69.1 61.3 59.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.4 Leq EVENING= 75.3 Leq NIGHT= 70.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.2 CNEL= 78.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 175 377 813 CNEL: 191 412 887 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: EUCLID ST Analyst AN Segment: ROMNEYA DR TO RIVERSIDE FWDate: ADT 52,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3110 77 19 2386 59 15 738 18 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -13.0 -19.0 1.9 -14.1 -20.1 -3.2 -19.2 -25.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.4 67.6 66.1 74.2 66.4 64.9 69.1 61.4 59.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.5 Leq EVENING= 75.3 Leq NIGHT= 70.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.2 CNEL= 78.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 176 379 816 CNEL: 192 413 890 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: FAIRMONT BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CANYON RIM RD TO SANTA ANADate: ADT 5,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 313 8 2 240 6 1 74 2 0 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.4 -22.4 -28.5 -7.5 -23.6 -29.6 -12.6 -28.7 -34.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.0 54.9 53.7 60.9 53.7 52.6 55.8 48.6 47.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.3 Leq EVENING= 62.1 Leq NIGHT= 57.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.0 CNEL= 65.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 23 50 108 CNEL: 25 55 118 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: FAIRMONT BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ESPERANZA Date: ADT 32,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1900 47 12 1458 36 9 451 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.1 -21.1 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.2 65.5 64.0 72.1 64.3 62.8 67.0 59.2 57.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.3 Leq EVENING= 73.2 Leq NIGHT= 68.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.1 CNEL= 76.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 127 273 587 CNEL: 138 297 641 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: FRONTERA ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO GLASSELL S Date: ADT 8,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 496 12 3 380 9 2 118 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.8 -19.9 -25.9 -4.9 -21.0 -27.0 -10.0 -26.1 -32.1 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.7 55.3 54.5 60.5 54.2 53.4 55.4 49.1 48.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.2 Leq EVENING= 62.0 Leq NIGHT= 57.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.9 CNEL= 65.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 23 49 106 CNEL: 25 54 116 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GENE AUTRY WY Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM WAY TO STATE COLL Date: ADT 30,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1800 45 11 1381 34 9 427 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -0.4 -16.5 -22.5 -5.5 -21.6 -27.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.0 65.2 63.7 71.9 64.1 62.6 66.8 59.0 57.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.1 Leq EVENING= 72.9 Leq NIGHT= 67.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.8 CNEL= 76.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 122 263 567 CNEL: 133 287 618 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVDate: ADT 12,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 732 18 5 561 14 3 174 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.1 -18.2 -24.2 -3.3 -19.3 -25.3 -8.3 -24.4 -30.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.4 57.0 56.2 62.2 55.9 55.1 57.1 50.8 50.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.9 Leq EVENING= 63.7 Leq NIGHT= 58.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.6 CNEL= 67.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 30 64 138 CNEL: 32 70 151 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 11,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 684 17 4 525 13 3 163 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.4 -18.5 -24.5 -3.5 -19.6 -25.6 -8.6 -24.7 -30.7 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.1 56.7 55.9 61.9 55.6 54.8 56.8 50.5 49.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.6 Leq EVENING= 63.4 Leq NIGHT= 58.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.3 CNEL= 66.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 28 61 132 CNEL: 31 67 144 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 10,600 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 625 15 4 480 12 3 149 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.1 -18.2 -24.2 -3.3 -19.3 -25.4 -8.4 -24.4 -30.4 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.3 54.9 54.5 59.2 53.7 53.4 54.1 48.6 48.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.2 Leq EVENING= 61.1 Leq NIGHT= 56.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.9 CNEL= 64.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 20 43 92 CNEL: 22 46 100 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 10,300 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 608 15 4 466 12 3 144 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 -8.5 -24.5 -30.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.2 54.8 54.4 59.1 53.6 53.2 54.0 48.5 48.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.1 Leq EVENING= 61.0 Leq NIGHT= 55.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.8 CNEL= 64.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 19 42 90 CNEL: 21 46 98 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 10,800 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 637 16 4 489 12 3 151 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.0 -18.1 -24.1 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -8.3 -24.3 -30.4 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.4 55.0 54.6 59.3 53.8 53.4 54.2 48.7 48.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.3 Leq EVENING= 61.2 Leq NIGHT= 56.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.0 CNEL= 64.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 20 43 93 CNEL: 22 47 101 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 12,400 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 732 18 5 561 14 3 174 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.4 -17.5 -23.5 -2.6 -18.7 -24.7 -7.7 -23.7 -29.8 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.0 55.6 55.2 59.9 54.4 54.0 54.8 49.3 48.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.9 Leq EVENING= 61.8 Leq NIGHT= 56.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.6 CNEL= 65.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 22 47 102 CNEL: 24 52 111 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA ADate: ADT 9,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 584 14 4 448 11 3 139 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.4 -18.5 -24.5 -3.6 -19.6 -25.6 -8.7 -24.7 -30.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.0 54.6 54.2 58.9 53.4 53.1 53.8 48.3 48.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.9 Leq EVENING= 60.8 Leq NIGHT= 55.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.7 CNEL= 64.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 19 41 88 CNEL: 21 44 96 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GILBERT ST Analyst AN Segment: RHODES AVE TO CL @ HOUSTODate: ADT 700 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 41 1 0 32 1 0 10 0 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -13.9 -30.0 -36.0 -15.1 -31.1 -37.2 -20.2 -36.2 -42.2 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 48.5 43.1 42.7 47.4 41.9 41.5 42.3 36.8 36.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 50.4 Leq EVENING= 49.3 Leq NIGHT= 44.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 52.1 CNEL= 52.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 3 7 15 CNEL: 4 8 16 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GLASSELL ST Analyst AN Segment: SANTA ANA RIVER TO RIVERSIDDate: ADT 32,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1924 48 12 1476 37 9 457 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.3 65.5 64.0 72.1 64.4 62.9 67.1 59.3 57.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.4 Leq EVENING= 73.2 Leq NIGHT= 68.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.1 CNEL= 76.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 128 275 592 CNEL: 139 300 646 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GRAND AVE Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 4,600 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 271 7 2 208 5 1 64 2 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.7 -21.8 -27.8 -6.9 -23.0 -29.0 -12.0 -28.1 -34.1 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 56.7 51.3 50.9 55.6 50.1 49.7 50.5 45.0 44.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 58.6 Leq EVENING= 57.5 Leq NIGHT= 52.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 60.3 CNEL= 60.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 11 24 53 CNEL: 12 27 57 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GROVE ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA ADate: ADT 8,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 484 12 3 371 9 2 115 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -4.4 -20.4 -26.5 -9.5 -25.5 -31.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.2 53.8 53.4 58.1 52.6 52.2 53.0 47.5 47.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.1 Leq EVENING= 60.0 Leq NIGHT= 54.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.8 CNEL= 63.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 17 36 77 CNEL: 18 39 84 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: GYPSUM CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: SANTA ANA CYN RD TO RIVERSDate: ADT 26,400 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1558 39 10 1195 30 7 370 9 2 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.2 -20.2 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.3 58.8 58.5 63.2 57.7 57.3 58.1 52.6 52.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.2 Leq EVENING= 65.0 Leq NIGHT= 59.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.9 CNEL= 68.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 36 78 168 CNEL: 40 85 184 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HANCOCK ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO HUNTER AVEDate: ADT 3,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 177 4 1 136 3 1 42 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 -8.7 -24.8 -30.8 -13.8 -29.9 -35.9 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 54.9 49.4 49.0 53.7 48.2 47.9 48.6 43.1 42.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 56.7 Leq EVENING= 55.6 Leq NIGHT= 50.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 58.5 CNEL= 59.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 9 18 40 CNEL: 9 20 43 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CHAPMAN AVE TO WILKEN WAYDate: ADT 43,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2561 63 16 1965 49 12 608 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.2 -13.8 -19.8 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 -4.0 -20.1 -26.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.5 66.8 65.3 73.4 65.6 64.1 68.3 60.5 59.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.6 Leq EVENING= 74.5 Leq NIGHT= 69.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.3 CNEL= 77.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 154 333 717 CNEL: 168 363 782 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: WILKEN WAY TO ORANGEWOO Date: ADT 47,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2826 70 17 2168 54 13 671 17 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.7 -13.4 -19.4 1.5 -14.5 -20.6 -3.6 -19.6 -25.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.0 67.2 65.7 73.8 66.0 64.5 68.7 60.9 59.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.1 Leq EVENING= 74.9 Leq NIGHT= 69.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.8 CNEL= 78.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 165 355 766 CNEL: 180 388 835 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CONVEDate: ADT 45,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2655 66 16 2037 50 13 631 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.4 -13.7 -19.7 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 -3.8 -19.9 -25.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.7 66.9 65.4 73.5 65.8 64.3 68.5 60.7 59.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.8 Leq EVENING= 74.6 Leq NIGHT= 69.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.5 CNEL= 78.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 158 341 734 CNEL: 173 372 801 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CONVENTION WAY TO KATELLADate: ADT 53,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3151 78 19 2417 60 15 748 19 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -12.9 -18.9 2.0 -14.1 -20.1 -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.4 67.7 66.2 74.3 66.5 65.0 69.2 61.4 59.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.5 Leq EVENING= 75.4 Leq NIGHT= 70.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.2 CNEL= 78.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 177 382 823 CNEL: 193 417 898 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO DISNEY WAY Date: ADT 48,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2862 71 18 2195 54 14 680 17 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.7 -13.3 -19.4 1.6 -14.5 -20.5 -3.5 -19.6 -25.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.0 67.2 65.7 73.9 66.1 64.6 68.8 61.0 59.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.1 Leq EVENING= 75.0 Leq NIGHT= 69.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.8 CNEL= 78.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 166 358 772 CNEL: 181 391 842 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: DISNEY WAY TO MANCHESTER Date: ADT 47,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2779 69 17 2132 53 13 660 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.6 -13.5 -19.5 1.5 -14.6 -20.6 -3.6 -19.7 -25.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.9 67.1 65.6 73.7 66.0 64.5 68.7 60.9 59.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.0 Leq EVENING= 74.8 Leq NIGHT= 69.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.7 CNEL= 78.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 163 351 757 CNEL: 178 383 826 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: MANCHESTER AVE TO I-5 Date: ADT 57,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 90 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3375 84 21 2589 64 16 801 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.4 -12.6 -18.6 2.3 -13.8 -19.8 -2.8 -18.9 -24.9 Distance 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 78.1 70.3 68.8 76.9 69.2 67.7 71.8 64.1 62.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 79.2 Leq EVENING= 78.0 Leq NIGHT= 72.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 80.9 CNEL= 81.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: [PHONE REDACTED] CNEL: [PHONE REDACTED] RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: I-5 TO BALL RD Date: ADT 60,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3582 89 22 2748 68 17 850 21 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.7 -12.4 -18.4 2.6 -13.5 -19.5 -2.5 -18.6 -24.6 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO VERMONT ST Date: ADT 42,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2514 62 16 1928 48 12 597 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.2 -13.9 -19.9 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -4.1 -20.1 -26.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.5 66.7 65.2 73.3 65.5 64.0 68.2 60.4 58.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.5 Leq EVENING= 74.4 Leq NIGHT= 69.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.3 CNEL= 77.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 153 329 708 CNEL: 166 359 772 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: VERMONT ST TO SOUTH ST Date: ADT 37,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2236 55 14 1716 42 11 531 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.2 64.7 72.8 65.0 63.5 67.7 59.9 58.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.0 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 141 304 655 CNEL: 154 332 714 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH ST TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 38,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2266 56 14 1738 43 11 538 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.2 64.7 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 142 307 661 CNEL: 155 335 721 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 44,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2596 64 16 1992 49 12 616 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.3 -13.8 -19.8 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 -3.9 -20.0 -26.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.6 66.8 65.3 73.4 65.7 64.2 68.4 60.6 59.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.7 Leq EVENING= 74.5 Leq NIGHT= 69.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.4 CNEL= 78.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 156 336 723 CNEL: 170 366 789 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO SYCAMORE S Date: ADT 36,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2172 54 13 1666 41 10 516 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.5 -14.5 -20.6 0.4 -15.7 -21.7 -4.7 -20.8 -26.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.8 66.0 64.5 72.7 64.9 63.4 67.6 59.8 58.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.9 Leq EVENING= 73.8 Leq NIGHT= 68.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.6 CNEL= 77.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 138 298 642 CNEL: 151 325 701 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: SYCAMORE ST TO NORTH ST Date: ADT 38,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2266 56 14 1738 43 11 538 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.2 64.7 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 142 307 661 CNEL: 155 335 721 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: NORTH ST TO LA PALMA AVE Date: ADT 38,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2290 57 14 1756 43 11 544 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.3 -20.3 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.1 66.3 64.8 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 74.0 Leq NIGHT= 68.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.9 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 143 309 665 CNEL: 156 337 726 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ROMNEYA D Date: ADT 46,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2732 68 17 2096 52 13 649 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.5 -19.6 1.4 -14.7 -20.7 -3.7 -19.8 -25.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.8 67.0 65.5 73.7 65.9 64.4 68.6 60.8 59.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.9 Leq EVENING= 74.8 Leq NIGHT= 69.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.6 CNEL= 78.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 161 347 748 CNEL: 176 379 816 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HARBOR BLVD Analyst AN Segment: ROMNEYA DR TO RIVERSIDE FWDate: ADT 47,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2803 69 17 2150 53 13 666 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.6 -13.4 -19.4 1.5 -14.6 -20.6 -3.6 -19.7 -25.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.9 67.1 65.6 73.8 66.0 64.5 68.7 60.9 59.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.0 Leq EVENING= 74.9 Leq NIGHT= 69.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.7 CNEL= 78.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 164 353 761 CNEL: 179 386 831 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HASTER ST Analyst AN Segment: CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWODate: ADT 33,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1953 48 12 1498 37 9 464 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 -0.1 -16.1 -22.2 -5.2 -21.2 -27.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.4 65.6 64.1 72.2 64.4 62.9 67.1 59.3 57.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.4 Leq EVENING= 73.3 Leq NIGHT= 68.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 129 278 598 CNEL: 141 303 653 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HASTER ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLDate: ADT 36,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2148 53 13 1648 41 10 510 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.5 -14.6 -20.6 0.3 -15.7 -21.8 -4.8 -20.8 -26.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.8 66.0 64.5 72.6 64.8 63.3 67.5 59.7 58.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.9 Leq EVENING= 73.7 Leq NIGHT= 68.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.6 CNEL= 77.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 137 296 638 CNEL: 150 323 696 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: THE HIGHLANDS Analyst AN Segment: CANYON RIM RD TO SUNSET R Date: ADT 3,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 189 5 1 145 4 1 45 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.3 -23.4 -29.4 -8.5 -24.5 -30.6 -13.6 -29.6 -35.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 55.1 49.7 49.3 54.0 48.5 48.1 48.9 43.4 43.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 57.0 Leq EVENING= 55.9 Leq NIGHT= 50.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 58.7 CNEL= 59.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 9 19 41 CNEL: 10 21 45 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HOWELL AVE Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUN Date: ADT 15,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 903 22 6 693 17 4 214 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -2.3 -18.4 -24.4 -7.4 -23.5 -29.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.3 57.9 57.1 63.1 56.8 56.0 58.0 51.7 50.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.8 Leq EVENING= 64.7 Leq NIGHT= 59.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.5 CNEL= 68.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 34 74 159 CNEL: 37 80 173 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HOWELL AVE Analyst AN Segment: SUNKIST ST TO KATELLA AVE Date: ADT 13,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 791 20 5 607 15 4 188 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.8 -17.8 -23.9 -2.9 -19.0 -25.0 -8.0 -24.1 -30.1 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.7 57.3 56.5 62.5 56.2 55.4 57.4 51.1 50.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.2 Leq EVENING= 64.1 Leq NIGHT= 59.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.9 CNEL= 67.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 31 67 145 CNEL: 34 74 158 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HUNTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: HANCOCK ST TO KELLOGG DR Date: ADT 2,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 118 3 1 91 2 1 28 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -9.4 -25.4 -31.4 -10.5 -26.6 -32.6 -15.6 -31.7 -37.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 53.1 47.6 47.3 51.9 46.5 46.1 46.9 41.4 41.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 55.0 Leq EVENING= 53.8 Leq NIGHT= 48.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 56.7 CNEL= 57.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 6 14 30 CNEL: 7 15 33 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: HUNTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: KELLOGG DR TO BRASHER ST Date: ADT 2,100 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 124 3 1 95 2 1 29 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -9.1 -25.2 -31.2 -10.3 -26.4 -32.4 -15.4 -31.5 -37.5 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 53.3 47.8 47.5 52.2 46.7 46.3 47.1 41.6 41.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 55.2 Leq EVENING= 54.0 Leq NIGHT= 49.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 56.9 CNEL= 57.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 7 14 31 CNEL: 7 16 34 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: IMPERIAL HWY Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO NOHL RDate: ADT 27,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1635 40 10 1254 31 8 388 10 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -0.9 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.6 64.8 63.3 71.4 63.6 62.1 66.3 58.6 57.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.7 Leq EVENING= 72.5 Leq NIGHT= 67.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.4 CNEL= 76.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 114 247 531 CNEL: 125 269 580 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: IMPERIAL HWY Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTA ANDate: ADT 35,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2095 52 13 1607 40 10 497 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.4 -14.7 -20.7 0.2 -15.8 -21.9 -4.9 -20.9 -27.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.7 65.9 64.4 72.5 64.7 63.2 67.4 59.6 58.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.8 Leq EVENING= 73.6 Leq NIGHT= 68.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.5 CNEL= 77.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 135 291 627 CNEL: 147 317 684 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: IMPERIAL HWY Analyst AN Segment: SANTA ANA CYN RD TO RIVERSDate: ADT 58,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3464 86 21 2657 66 16 822 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.6 -12.5 -18.5 2.4 -13.7 -19.7 -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: IMPERIAL HWY Analyst AN Segment: RIVERSIDE FWY TO LA PALMA ADate: ADT 59,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3505 87 22 2689 67 17 832 21 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.6 -12.5 -18.5 2.5 -13.6 -19.6 -2.6 -18.7 -24.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.9 68.1 66.6 74.8 67.0 65.5 69.7 61.9 60.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 77.0 Leq EVENING= 75.8 Leq NIGHT= 70.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.7 CNEL= 79.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 190 410 884 CNEL: 208 447 964 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: IMPERIAL HWY Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHODate: ADT 56,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 90 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3322 82 21 2549 63 16 789 20 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.4 -12.7 -18.7 2.2 -13.8 -19.9 -2.9 -18.9 -25.0 Distance 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 78.0 70.2 68.7 76.9 69.1 67.6 71.8 64.0 62.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 79.1 Leq EVENING= 78.0 Leq NIGHT= 72.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 80.8 CNEL= 81.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: [PHONE REDACTED] CNEL: [PHONE REDACTED] RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: IMPERIAL HWY Analyst AN Segment: ORANGETHORPE AVE TO KELL Date: ADT 56,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3322 82 21 2549 63 16 789 20 5 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.9 -12.2 -18.2 2.7 -13.3 -19.3 -2.4 -18.4 -24.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.3 65.2 64.0 71.1 64.0 62.8 66.0 58.9 57.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.5 Leq EVENING= 72.4 Leq NIGHT= 67.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.3 CNEL= 75.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 112 242 521 CNEL: 122 264 568 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: JEFFERSON AVE Analyst AN Segment: TUSTIN AVE TO MIRALOMA AVEDate: ADT 8,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 478 12 3 367 9 2 113 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.0 -20.0 -26.0 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 -10.2 -26.3 -32.3 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.5 55.2 54.4 60.4 54.0 53.2 55.3 48.9 48.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.0 Leq EVENING= 61.9 Leq NIGHT= 56.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.8 CNEL= 65.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 22 48 104 CNEL: 24 53 113 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: JEFFERSON AVE Analyst AN Segment: MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETH Date: ADT 11,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 667 16 4 512 13 3 158 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.5 -18.6 -24.6 -3.7 -19.7 -25.7 -8.8 -24.8 -30.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.0 56.6 55.8 61.8 55.5 54.6 56.7 50.4 49.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.5 Leq EVENING= 63.3 Leq NIGHT= 58.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.2 CNEL= 66.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 28 60 130 CNEL: 30 66 141 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KAISER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: ROOSEVELT RD TO WEIR CYN RDate: ADT 3,200 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 189 5 1 145 4 1 45 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.3 -23.4 -29.4 -8.5 -24.5 -30.6 -13.6 -29.6 -35.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 55.1 49.7 49.3 54.0 48.5 48.1 48.9 43.4 43.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 57.0 Leq EVENING= 55.9 Leq NIGHT= 50.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 58.7 CNEL= 59.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 9 19 41 CNEL: 10 21 45 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 45,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2685 66 17 2060 51 13 638 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.6 -19.6 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 -3.8 -19.9 -25.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.7 67.0 65.5 73.6 65.8 64.3 68.5 60.7 59.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.8 Leq EVENING= 74.7 Leq NIGHT= 69.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.6 CNEL= 78.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 159 343 740 CNEL: 174 375 807 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO NUTWOO Date: ADT 38,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2290 57 14 1756 43 11 544 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.3 -20.3 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.1 66.3 64.8 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 74.0 Leq NIGHT= 68.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.9 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 143 309 665 CNEL: 156 337 726 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: NUTWOOD ST TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 51,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3027 75 19 2322 57 14 719 18 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.0 -13.1 -19.1 1.8 -14.2 -20.3 -3.3 -19.3 -25.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.3 67.5 66.0 74.1 66.3 64.8 69.0 61.2 59.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.4 Leq EVENING= 75.2 Leq NIGHT= 70.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.1 CNEL= 78.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 173 372 801 CNEL: 188 406 874 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO NINTH ST Date: ADT 45,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2685 66 17 2060 51 13 638 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.6 -19.6 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 -3.8 -19.9 -25.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.7 67.0 65.5 73.6 65.8 64.3 68.5 60.7 59.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.8 Leq EVENING= 74.7 Leq NIGHT= 69.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.6 CNEL= 78.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 159 343 740 CNEL: 174 375 807 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: NINTH ST TO WALNUT ST Date: ADT 44,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2632 65 16 2019 50 12 625 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.4 -13.7 -19.7 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 -3.9 -19.9 -26.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.7 66.9 65.4 73.5 65.7 64.2 68.4 60.6 59.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.7 Leq EVENING= 74.6 Leq NIGHT= 69.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.5 CNEL= 78.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 157 339 730 CNEL: 172 370 796 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: WALNUT ST TO DISNEYLAND D Date: ADT 55,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3269 81 20 2508 62 16 776 19 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.3 -12.8 -18.8 2.2 -13.9 -19.9 -2.9 -19.0 -25.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.6 67.8 66.3 74.4 66.7 65.2 69.4 61.6 60.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.7 Leq EVENING= 75.5 Leq NIGHT= 70.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.4 CNEL= 79.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 182 392 844 CNEL: 198 427 920 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: DISNEYLAND DR TO HARBOR BDate: ADT 71,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 4190 104 26 3214 80 20 995 25 6 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 4.4 -11.7 -17.7 3.2 -12.8 -18.9 -1.9 -17.9 -23.9 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO CLEMENTINEDate: ADT 62,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3688 91 23 2829 70 18 876 22 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.8 -12.2 -18.3 2.7 -13.4 -19.4 -2.4 -18.5 -24.5 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: CLEMENTINE ST TO ANAHEIM BDate: ADT 66,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3936 97 24 3019 75 19 935 23 6 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 4.1 -12.0 -18.0 3.0 -13.1 -19.1 -2.1 -18.2 -24.2 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO I-5 Date: ADT 78,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 4644 115 29 3562 88 22 1103 27 7 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 4.8 -11.2 -17.3 3.7 -12.4 -18.4 -1.4 -17.5 -23.5 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: I-5 TO LEWIS ST Date: ADT 95,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 5659 140 35 4341 107 27 1344 33 8 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 5.7 -10.4 -16.4 4.5 -11.5 -17.5 -0.6 -16.6 -22.6 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: LEWIS ST TO STATE COLLEGE Date: ADT 84,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 4986 123 31 3825 95 24 1184 29 7 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 5.1 -10.9 -16.9 4.0 -12.1 -18.1 -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO HOWDate: ADT 81,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 4803 119 30 3685 91 23 1141 28 7 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 5.0 -11.1 -17.1 3.8 -12.2 -18.3 -1.3 -17.3 -23.4 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: HOWELL AVE TO ORANGE FWYDate: ADT 90,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 5340 132 33 4097 101 25 1268 31 8 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 5.4 -10.6 -16.6 4.3 -11.8 -17.8 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 77.7 69.9 68.4 76.6 68.8 67.3 71.5 63.7 62.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 78.8 Leq EVENING= 77.7 Leq NIGHT= 72.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 80.5 CNEL= 81.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: [PHONE REDACTED] CNEL: [PHONE REDACTED] RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KATELLA AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE FWY TO SANTA ANA FDate: ADT 65,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3865 96 24 2965 73 18 918 23 6 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 4.0 -12.0 -18.1 2.9 -13.2 -19.2 -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 76.3 68.5 67.0 75.2 67.4 65.9 70.1 62.3 60.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 77.4 Leq EVENING= 76.3 Leq NIGHT= 71.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 79.1 CNEL= 79.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 203 438 943 CNEL: [PHONE REDACTED] RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KELLOGG DR Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHODate: ADT 10,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 637 16 4 489 12 3 151 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.3 -19.3 -25.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 -9.5 -25.6 -31.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.1 58.0 56.8 63.9 56.8 55.7 58.9 51.7 50.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.4 Leq EVENING= 65.2 Leq NIGHT= 60.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.1 CNEL= 68.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 37 80 173 CNEL: 41 88 189 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KELLOGG DR Analyst AN Segment: ORANGETHORPE AVE TO CL N/Date: ADT 14,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 873 22 5 670 17 4 207 5 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.9 -18.0 -24.0 -3.1 -19.1 -25.2 -8.2 -24.2 -30.2 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.5 59.4 58.2 65.3 58.2 57.0 60.2 53.1 51.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.7 Leq EVENING= 66.6 Leq NIGHT= 61.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.5 CNEL= 70.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 46 99 214 CNEL: 50 108 233 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KNOTT AVE Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 24,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1428 35 9 1095 27 7 339 8 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.3 -16.4 -22.4 -1.4 -17.5 -23.5 -6.5 -22.6 -28.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.0 64.2 62.7 70.9 63.1 61.6 65.8 58.0 56.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.1 Leq EVENING= 71.9 Leq NIGHT= 66.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.8 CNEL= 75.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 105 225 486 CNEL: 114 246 530 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KNOTT AVE Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 30,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1788 44 11 1372 34 8 425 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.5 -22.6 -5.6 -21.6 -27.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.0 65.2 63.7 71.8 64.0 62.5 66.7 58.9 57.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.1 Leq EVENING= 72.9 Leq NIGHT= 67.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.8 CNEL= 76.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 122 262 564 CNEL: 133 286 615 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KNOTT AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 32,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1930 48 12 1480 37 9 458 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.0 -15.0 -21.1 -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.3 65.5 64.0 72.2 64.4 62.9 67.1 59.3 57.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.4 Leq EVENING= 73.2 Leq NIGHT= 68.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.1 CNEL= 76.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 128 276 594 CNEL: 140 301 648 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KRAEMER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: RIVERSIDE FWY TO LA PALMA ADate: ADT 53,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3145 78 19 2413 60 15 747 18 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -12.9 -18.9 2.0 -14.1 -20.1 -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.4 67.6 66.1 74.3 66.5 65.0 69.2 61.4 59.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.5 Leq EVENING= 75.4 Leq NIGHT= 70.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.2 CNEL= 78.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 177 382 822 CNEL: 193 416 897 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KRAEMER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO CORONADO Date: ADT 34,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2048 51 13 1571 39 10 486 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 0.1 -15.9 -22.0 -5.0 -21.0 -27.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.6 65.8 64.3 72.4 64.6 63.1 67.3 59.5 58.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.7 Leq EVENING= 73.5 Leq NIGHT= 68.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.4 CNEL= 76.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 133 287 618 CNEL: 145 313 674 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 1 Roadway: KRAEMER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CORONADO ST TO MIRALOMA ADate: ADT 33,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1977 49 12 1516 38 9 469 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -14.9 -21.0 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.4 65.6 64.1 72.3 64.5 63.0 67.2 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.5 Leq EVENING= 73.3 Leq NIGHT= 68.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 130 280 603 CNEL: 142 305 658 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: KRAEMER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: MIRALOMA AVE TO LA JOLLA STDate: ADT 33,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1947 48 12 1494 37 9 462 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.3 65.6 64.1 72.2 64.4 62.9 67.1 59.3 57.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.4 Leq EVENING= 73.3 Leq NIGHT= 68.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 129 277 597 CNEL: 140 302 651 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: KRAEMER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LA JOLLA ST TO ORANGETHOR Date: ADT 32,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1900 47 12 1458 36 9 451 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.1 -21.1 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.2 65.5 64.0 72.1 64.3 62.8 67.0 59.2 57.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.3 Leq EVENING= 73.2 Leq NIGHT= 68.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.1 CNEL= 76.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 127 273 587 CNEL: 138 297 641 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: KRAEMER BLVD Analyst AN Segment: ORANGETHORPE AVE TO CROWDate: ADT 23,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1398 35 9 1073 27 7 332 8 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.4 -16.4 -22.5 -1.5 -17.6 -23.6 -6.6 -22.7 -28.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.9 64.1 62.6 70.8 63.0 61.5 65.7 57.9 56.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.0 Leq EVENING= 71.8 Leq NIGHT= 66.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.7 CNEL= 75.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 103 222 479 CNEL: 113 243 522 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA JOLLA ST Analyst AN Segment: BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BL Date: ADT 5,400 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 319 8 2 244 6 2 76 2 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 -11.3 -27.4 -33.4 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.4 51.9 51.6 56.3 50.8 50.4 51.2 45.7 45.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.3 Leq EVENING= 58.1 Leq NIGHT= 53.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.0 CNEL= 61.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 13 27 58 CNEL: 14 30 64 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE Date: ADT 30,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1788 44 11 1372 34 8 425 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 0.0 -16.0 -22.0 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 62.5 61.3 68.4 61.3 60.1 63.3 56.2 55.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.7 Leq NIGHT= 64.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.6 CNEL= 73.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 74 160 345 CNEL: 81 175 376 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT STDate: ADT 23,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1375 34 9 1055 26 7 326 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.4 61.3 60.1 67.3 60.2 59.0 62.2 55.1 53.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.7 Leq EVENING= 68.6 Leq NIGHT= 63.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.4 CNEL= 72.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 62 134 289 CNEL: 68 146 316 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 26,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1576 39 10 1209 30 7 374 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -5.6 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.0 61.9 60.7 67.9 60.8 59.6 62.8 55.7 54.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.3 Leq EVENING= 69.2 Leq NIGHT= 64.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.0 CNEL= 72.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 68 147 317 CNEL: 74 160 346 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO ANAHEIM Date: ADT 23,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1363 34 8 1046 26 6 324 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.0 -16.0 -22.1 -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.4 61.3 60.1 67.2 60.1 59.0 62.2 55.0 53.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.7 Leq EVENING= 68.5 Leq NIGHT= 63.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.4 CNEL= 72.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 62 134 288 CNEL: 68 146 314 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM SHORES DR TO EUCLDate: ADT 21,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1286 32 8 987 24 6 305 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -1.4 -17.4 -23.5 -6.5 -22.5 -28.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.1 61.0 59.9 67.0 59.9 58.7 61.9 54.8 53.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.4 Leq EVENING= 68.3 Leq NIGHT= 63.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.1 CNEL= 71.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 60 128 277 CNEL: 65 140 302 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO WEST ST Date: ADT 24,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1469 36 9 1127 28 7 349 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.7 -21.7 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.7 61.6 60.4 67.6 60.5 59.3 62.5 55.4 54.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.0 Leq EVENING= 68.9 Leq NIGHT= 63.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.7 CNEL= 72.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 65 140 302 CNEL: 71 153 330 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD Date: ADT 25,600 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1511 37 9 1159 29 7 359 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -5.8 -21.8 -27.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.8 61.7 60.6 67.7 60.6 59.4 62.6 55.5 54.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.1 Leq EVENING= 69.0 Leq NIGHT= 63.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.8 CNEL= 72.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 66 143 308 CNEL: 72 156 336 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 27,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1623 40 10 1245 31 8 385 10 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -0.9 -17.0 -23.0 -6.0 -22.0 -28.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.6 64.8 63.3 71.4 63.6 62.1 66.3 58.5 57.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.6 Leq EVENING= 72.5 Leq NIGHT= 67.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.4 CNEL= 75.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 114 245 529 CNEL: 124 268 577 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST Date: ADT 24,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1458 36 9 1118 28 7 346 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.7 61.6 60.4 67.5 60.4 59.2 62.4 55.3 54.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.0 Leq EVENING= 68.8 Leq NIGHT= 63.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.7 CNEL= 72.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 65 140 301 CNEL: 71 152 328 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: OLIVE ST TO EAST ST Date: ADT 26,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1552 38 10 1191 29 7 368 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -0.6 -16.6 -22.7 -5.7 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.0 61.8 60.7 67.8 60.7 59.5 62.7 55.6 54.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.2 Leq EVENING= 69.1 Leq NIGHT= 64.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.0 CNEL= 72.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 68 146 314 CNEL: 74 159 342 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: EAST ST TO ACACIA ST Date: ADT 26,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1540 38 10 1181 29 7 366 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.5 -15.5 -21.5 -0.6 -16.7 -22.7 -5.7 -21.8 -27.8 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.9 61.8 60.6 67.8 60.7 59.5 62.7 55.6 54.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.2 Leq EVENING= 69.1 Leq NIGHT= 64.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.9 CNEL= 72.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 67 145 312 CNEL: 73 158 340 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: ACACIA ST TO STATE COLLEGEDate: ADT 23,000 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1357 34 8 1041 26 6 322 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -1.2 -17.2 -23.2 -6.2 -22.3 -28.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.4 61.3 60.1 67.2 60.1 58.9 62.1 55.0 53.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.7 Leq EVENING= 68.5 Leq NIGHT= 63.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.4 CNEL= 71.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 62 133 287 CNEL: 67 145 313 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUN Date: ADT 23,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1387 34 9 1064 26 7 329 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -1.1 -17.1 -23.1 -6.2 -22.2 -28.2 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.5 61.4 60.2 67.3 60.2 59.0 62.2 55.1 53.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.8 Leq EVENING= 68.6 Leq NIGHT= 63.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.5 CNEL= 72.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 63 135 291 CNEL: 68 147 317 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: SUNKIST ST TO BLUE GUM ST Date: ADT 18,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1068 26 7 819 20 5 254 6 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.0 -17.1 -23.1 -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -7.3 -23.4 -29.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.3 60.2 59.1 66.2 59.1 57.9 61.1 54.0 52.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.6 Leq EVENING= 67.5 Leq NIGHT= 62.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.3 CNEL= 70.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 53 113 244 CNEL: 57 124 267 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BL Date: ADT 20,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1204 30 7 923 23 6 286 7 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.0 -17.1 -23.1 -2.2 -18.2 -24.3 -7.3 -23.3 -29.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.3 63.5 62.0 70.1 62.3 60.8 65.0 57.2 55.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.3 Leq EVENING= 71.2 Leq NIGHT= 66.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.1 CNEL= 74.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 93 201 433 CNEL: 102 219 473 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: KRAEMER BLVD TO MILLER ST Date: ADT 28,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1682 42 10 1290 32 8 399 10 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.4 -15.6 -21.7 -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.7 64.9 63.4 71.6 63.8 62.3 66.5 58.7 57.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.8 Leq EVENING= 72.6 Leq NIGHT= 67.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.5 CNEL= 76.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 117 251 542 CNEL: 127 274 591 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: MILLER ST TO TUSTIN AVE Date: ADT 31,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1847 46 11 1417 35 9 439 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.2 -21.3 -0.3 -16.4 -22.4 -5.4 -21.5 -27.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.1 65.3 63.8 72.0 64.2 62.7 66.9 59.1 57.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.2 Leq EVENING= 73.1 Leq NIGHT= 68.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.9 CNEL= 76.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 124 268 576 CNEL: 135 292 629 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: TUSTIN AVE TO VAN BUREN ST Date: ADT 33,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1965 49 12 1507 37 9 467 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 -0.1 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.4 65.6 64.1 72.2 64.4 62.9 67.1 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.5 Leq EVENING= 73.3 Leq NIGHT= 68.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 129 279 601 CNEL: 141 304 655 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: VAN BUREN ST TO RICHFIELD RDate: ADT 27,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1646 41 10 1263 31 8 391 10 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.7 -21.8 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.6 64.8 63.3 71.5 63.7 62.2 66.4 58.6 57.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.7 Leq EVENING= 72.6 Leq NIGHT= 67.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.4 CNEL= 76.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 115 248 534 CNEL: 125 270 583 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: RICHFIELD RD TO LAKEVIEW AVDate: ADT 22,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1316 33 8 1009 25 6 312 8 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.6 -16.7 -22.7 -1.8 -17.9 -23.9 -6.9 -23.0 -29.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.6 63.9 62.4 70.5 62.7 61.2 65.4 57.6 56.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.7 Leq EVENING= 71.6 Leq NIGHT= 66.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.5 CNEL= 75.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 99 213 460 CNEL: 108 233 502 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: LAKEVIEW AVE TO KELLOGG D Date: ADT 25,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1493 37 9 1145 28 7 354 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.2 64.4 62.9 71.0 63.3 61.8 66.0 58.2 56.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.3 Leq EVENING= 72.1 Leq NIGHT= 67.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.0 CNEL= 75.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 108 232 500 CNEL: 118 253 546 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: KELLOGG DR TO IMPERIAL HWYDate: ADT 20,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1233 31 8 946 23 6 293 7 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.9 -17.0 -23.0 -2.1 -18.1 -24.2 -7.2 -23.2 -29.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.4 63.6 62.1 70.2 62.4 60.9 65.1 57.3 55.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.5 Leq EVENING= 71.3 Leq NIGHT= 66.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.2 CNEL= 74.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 95 204 440 CNEL: 104 223 480 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: IMPERIAL HWY TO FAIRMONT BDate: ADT 30,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1800 45 11 1381 34 9 427 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.8 -20.9 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.6 62.5 61.3 68.5 61.3 60.2 63.4 56.2 55.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.9 Leq EVENING= 69.7 Leq NIGHT= 64.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.6 CNEL= 73.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 75 161 346 CNEL: 81 175 378 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: FAIRMONT BLVD TO YORBA LINDate: ADT 15,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 909 22 6 697 17 4 216 5 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.7 -17.8 -23.8 -2.9 -19.0 -25.0 -8.0 -24.1 -30.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.6 59.5 58.3 65.5 58.4 57.2 60.4 53.3 52.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.9 Leq EVENING= 66.8 Leq NIGHT= 61.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.6 CNEL= 70.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 47 102 219 CNEL: 52 111 239 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: YORBA LINDA BLVD TO EAST C Date: ADT 25,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1493 37 9 1145 28 7 354 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.4 -15.7 -21.7 -0.7 -16.8 -22.8 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.8 61.7 60.5 67.6 60.5 59.4 62.5 55.4 54.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.1 Leq EVENING= 68.9 Leq NIGHT= 63.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.8 CNEL= 72.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 66 142 306 CNEL: 72 155 333 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LA PALMA PARK WY Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO HARBOR BLVDate: ADT 1,300 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 77 2 0 59 1 0 18 0 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -11.2 -27.3 -33.3 -12.4 -28.4 -34.5 -17.5 -33.5 -39.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 51.2 45.8 45.4 50.1 44.6 44.2 45.0 39.5 39.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 53.1 Leq EVENING= 52.0 Leq NIGHT= 46.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 54.8 CNEL= 55.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 5 11 23 CNEL: 5 11 25 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LAKEVIEW AVE Analyst AN Segment: SANTA ANA CYN RD TO LA PAL Date: ADT 38,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2260 56 14 1734 43 11 537 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.2 64.7 72.8 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 142 306 660 CNEL: 155 334 720 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LAKEVIEW AVE Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO ORANGETHODate: ADT 20,000 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1180 29 7 905 22 6 280 7 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.6 -16.7 -22.7 -1.8 -17.8 -23.8 -6.9 -22.9 -28.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.8 60.7 59.5 66.6 59.5 58.3 61.5 54.4 53.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.1 Leq EVENING= 67.9 Leq NIGHT= 62.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.8 CNEL= 71.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 56 121 261 CNEL: 61 132 285 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LAKEVIEW AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGETHORPE AVE TO NORTDate: ADT 41,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2425 60 15 1860 46 12 576 14 4 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.5 -19.6 1.4 -14.7 -20.7 -3.7 -19.8 -25.8 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 70.9 63.8 62.6 69.7 62.6 61.5 64.7 57.5 56.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.2 Leq EVENING= 71.0 Leq NIGHT= 65.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.9 CNEL= 74.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 91 196 422 CNEL: 99 214 461 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LANDON DR Analyst AN Segment: MANASSERO ST TO KELLOGG DDate: ADT 900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 53 1 0 41 1 0 13 0 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -12.8 -28.9 -34.9 -14.0 -30.0 -36.1 -19.1 -35.1 -41.2 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 49.6 44.2 43.8 48.5 43.0 42.6 43.4 37.9 37.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 51.5 Leq EVENING= 50.4 Leq NIGHT= 45.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 53.2 CNEL= 53.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 4 8 18 CNEL: 4 9 19 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LEWIS ST Analyst AN Segment: CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWODate: ADT 15,600 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 921 23 6 706 17 4 219 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 -2.3 -18.3 -24.3 -7.4 -23.4 -29.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.4 58.0 57.2 63.2 56.9 56.0 58.1 51.8 51.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.9 Leq EVENING= 64.7 Leq NIGHT= 59.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.6 CNEL= 68.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 35 75 161 CNEL: 38 81 175 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LEWIS ST Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM WAY TO KATELLA AVEDate: ADT 19,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1174 29 7 901 22 6 279 7 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.0 -16.1 -22.1 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.4 59.1 58.3 64.3 57.9 57.1 59.2 52.8 52.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.9 Leq EVENING= 65.8 Leq NIGHT= 60.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.7 CNEL= 69.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 41 88 189 CNEL: 44 96 206 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LEWIS ST Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVDate: ADT 24,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1440 36 9 1105 27 7 342 8 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.2 -21.2 -0.3 -16.4 -22.4 -5.4 -21.5 -27.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.3 59.9 59.1 65.1 58.8 58.0 60.0 53.7 52.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.8 Leq EVENING= 66.7 Leq NIGHT= 61.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.6 CNEL= 70.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 47 101 217 CNEL: 51 110 236 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LEWIS ST Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 15,800 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 932 23 6 715 18 4 221 5 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.6 -17.7 -23.7 -2.8 -18.8 -24.9 -7.9 -23.9 -30.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.7 59.6 58.5 65.6 58.5 57.3 60.5 53.4 52.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.0 Leq EVENING= 66.9 Leq NIGHT= 61.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.7 CNEL= 70.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 48 104 223 CNEL: 52 113 244 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE Date: ADT 37,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2236 55 14 1716 42 11 531 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.0 66.2 64.7 72.8 65.0 63.5 67.7 59.9 58.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.0 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.8 CNEL= 77.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 141 304 655 CNEL: 154 332 714 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: WESTERN AVE TO BEACH ADT 44,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2614 65 16 2005 50 12 621 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.3 -13.7 -19.8 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 -3.9 -20.0 -26.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.6 66.8 65.3 73.5 65.7 64.2 68.4 60.6 59.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.7 Leq EVENING= 74.6 Leq NIGHT= 69.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.4 CNEL= 78.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 157 337 727 CNEL: 171 368 793 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: BEACH BLVD TO DALE AVE Date: ADT 23,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1357 34 8 1041 26 6 322 8 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -1.7 -17.7 -23.7 -6.8 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.8 64.0 62.5 70.6 62.8 61.3 65.5 57.7 56.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.9 Leq EVENING= 71.7 Leq NIGHT= 66.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 74.6 CNEL= 75.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 101 218 469 CNEL: 110 238 512 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE Date: ADT 27,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1599 40 10 1227 30 8 380 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.2 -15.9 -21.9 -1.0 -17.0 -23.0 -6.0 -22.1 -28.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.5 64.7 63.2 71.3 63.6 62.1 66.2 58.5 57.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.6 Leq EVENING= 72.4 Leq NIGHT= 67.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.3 CNEL= 75.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 113 243 524 CNEL: 123 265 571 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: MAGNOLIA AVE TO GILBERT STDate: ADT 30,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1770 44 11 1358 34 8 420 10 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -5.6 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.9 65.1 63.6 71.8 64.0 62.5 66.7 58.9 57.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.0 Leq EVENING= 72.9 Leq NIGHT= 67.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.7 CNEL= 76.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 121 260 560 CNEL: 132 284 611 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: GILBERT ST TO BROOKHURST SDate: ADT 34,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2030 50 13 1557 39 10 482 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.8 -20.8 0.1 -16.0 -22.0 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.5 65.7 64.2 72.4 64.6 63.1 67.3 59.5 58.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.6 Leq EVENING= 73.5 Leq NIGHT= 68.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.3 CNEL= 76.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 132 285 614 CNEL: 144 311 670 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROOKHURST ST TO MULLER SDate: ADT 30,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1788 44 11 1372 34 8 425 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.5 -22.6 -5.6 -21.6 -27.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.0 65.2 63.7 71.8 64.0 62.5 66.7 58.9 57.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.1 Leq EVENING= 72.9 Leq NIGHT= 67.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.8 CNEL= 76.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 122 262 564 CNEL: 133 286 615 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: MULLER ST TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 41,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2431 60 15 1865 46 12 577 14 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.0 -14.0 -20.1 0.9 -15.2 -21.2 -4.2 -20.3 -26.3 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.3 66.5 65.0 73.2 65.4 63.9 68.1 60.3 58.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.4 Leq EVENING= 74.2 Leq NIGHT= 69.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.1 CNEL= 77.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 149 321 692 CNEL: 163 351 755 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: EUCLID ST TO MANCHESTER AVDate: ADT 39,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2343 58 14 1797 44 11 556 14 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.2 66.4 64.9 73.0 65.2 63.7 67.9 60.1 58.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.2 Leq EVENING= 74.1 Leq NIGHT= 69.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.0 CNEL= 77.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 146 314 675 CNEL: 159 342 737 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: MANCHESTER AVE TO WEST STDate: ADT 37,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2219 55 14 1702 42 11 527 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.6 -14.4 -20.5 0.5 -15.6 -21.6 -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.9 66.1 64.6 72.8 65.0 63.5 67.7 59.9 58.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.0 Leq EVENING= 73.9 Leq NIGHT= 68.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.7 CNEL= 77.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 140 302 651 CNEL: 153 330 711 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD Date: ADT 31,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1882 47 12 1444 36 9 447 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.2 -21.2 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.2 65.4 63.9 72.1 64.3 62.8 67.0 59.2 57.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.3 Leq EVENING= 73.1 Leq NIGHT= 68.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.0 CNEL= 76.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 126 271 584 CNEL: 137 296 637 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 31,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1829 45 11 1403 35 9 434 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.3 -21.3 -0.4 -16.4 -22.5 -5.5 -21.5 -27.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.1 65.3 63.8 71.9 64.1 62.6 66.8 59.0 57.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.2 Leq EVENING= 73.0 Leq NIGHT= 67.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.9 CNEL= 76.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 123 266 573 CNEL: 135 290 625 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST Date: ADT 26,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1587 39 10 1218 30 8 377 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.2 -15.9 -21.9 -1.0 -17.0 -23.1 -6.1 -22.1 -28.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.5 64.7 63.2 71.3 63.5 62.0 66.2 58.4 56.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.5 Leq EVENING= 72.4 Leq NIGHT= 67.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.3 CNEL= 75.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 112 242 521 CNEL: 122 264 569 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: OLIVE ST TO EAST ST Date: ADT 25,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1505 37 9 1154 29 7 357 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.1 -22.1 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.2 64.4 62.9 71.1 63.3 61.8 66.0 58.2 56.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.3 Leq EVENING= 72.2 Leq NIGHT= 67.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.0 CNEL= 75.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 108 233 503 CNEL: 118 255 549 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BDate: ADT 35,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2065 51 13 1584 39 10 490 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 0.2 -15.9 -21.9 -4.9 -21.0 -27.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.6 65.8 64.3 72.5 64.7 63.2 67.4 59.6 58.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.7 Leq EVENING= 73.5 Leq NIGHT= 68.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.4 CNEL= 77.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 134 288 621 CNEL: 146 314 678 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUN Date: ADT 38,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2295 57 14 1761 44 11 545 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.3 -20.3 0.6 -15.4 -21.5 -4.5 -20.5 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.1 66.3 64.8 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.2 Leq EVENING= 74.0 Leq NIGHT= 68.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.9 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 144 309 666 CNEL: 157 337 727 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: SUNKIST ST TO ORANGE FWY Date: ADT 49,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2945 73 18 2259 56 14 699 17 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.9 -13.2 -19.2 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.1 67.4 65.9 74.0 66.2 64.7 68.9 61.1 59.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.2 Leq EVENING= 75.1 Leq NIGHT= 70.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 78.0 CNEL= 78.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 169 365 787 CNEL: 185 398 858 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE FWY TO RIO VISTA STDate: ADT 49,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2921 72 18 2241 55 14 694 17 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.8 -13.2 -19.3 1.7 -14.4 -20.4 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 75.1 67.3 65.8 74.0 66.2 64.7 68.9 61.1 59.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 76.2 Leq EVENING= 75.0 Leq NIGHT= 70.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.9 CNEL= 78.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 169 363 783 CNEL: 184 396 854 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LINCOLN AVE Analyst AN Segment: RIO VISTA ST TO EAST CITY LIMDate: ADT 39,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2349 58 15 1802 45 11 558 14 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 0.7 -15.3 -21.4 -4.4 -20.4 -26.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.2 66.4 64.9 73.0 65.2 63.7 67.9 60.1 58.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.2 Leq EVENING= 74.1 Leq NIGHT= 69.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.0 CNEL= 77.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 146 314 677 CNEL: 159 343 738 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LOARA ST Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 8,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 472 12 3 362 9 2 112 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.3 -19.4 -25.4 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 -9.6 -25.6 -31.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.1 53.7 53.3 58.0 52.5 52.1 52.9 47.4 47.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.0 Leq EVENING= 59.9 Leq NIGHT= 54.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.7 CNEL= 63.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 16 35 76 CNEL: 18 38 83 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LOARA ST Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO MANCHESTER CDate: ADT 8,800 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 519 13 3 398 10 2 123 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.9 -19.0 -25.0 -4.1 -20.1 -26.2 -9.2 -25.2 -31.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.5 54.1 53.7 58.4 52.9 52.5 53.3 47.8 47.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.4 Leq EVENING= 60.3 Leq NIGHT= 55.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.1 CNEL= 63.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 17 38 81 CNEL: 19 41 88 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: LOARA ST Analyst AN Segment: WILSHIRE AVE TO NORTH ST Date: ADT 11,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 649 16 4 498 12 3 154 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.0 -18.0 -24.0 -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 -8.2 -24.3 -30.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.5 55.0 54.7 59.3 53.9 53.5 54.3 48.8 48.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.4 Leq EVENING= 61.2 Leq NIGHT= 56.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.1 CNEL= 64.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 20 44 94 CNEL: 22 48 103 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGIC WAY Analyst AN Segment: WALNUT ST TO DISNEYLAND DDate: ADT 22,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1304 32 8 1000 25 6 310 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.2 -16.2 -22.3 -1.3 -17.4 -23.4 -6.4 -22.5 -28.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.2 61.1 59.9 67.1 59.9 58.8 62.0 54.8 53.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.5 Leq EVENING= 68.3 Leq NIGHT= 63.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.2 CNEL= 71.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 60 130 279 CNEL: 66 141 305 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 24,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1446 36 9 1109 27 7 343 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -0.9 -16.9 -23.0 -6.0 -22.0 -28.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.7 61.5 60.4 67.5 60.4 59.2 62.4 55.3 54.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.9 Leq EVENING= 68.8 Leq NIGHT= 63.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.7 CNEL= 72.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 64 139 299 CNEL: 70 151 326 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO ORANGE AVE Date: ADT 24,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1446 36 9 1109 27 7 343 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -0.9 -16.9 -23.0 -6.0 -22.0 -28.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.7 61.5 60.4 67.5 60.4 59.2 62.4 55.3 54.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.9 Leq EVENING= 68.8 Leq NIGHT= 63.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.7 CNEL= 72.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 64 139 299 CNEL: 70 151 326 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGE AVE TO BROADWAY Date: ADT 28,700 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1694 42 10 1299 32 8 402 10 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.0 -15.1 -21.1 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.3 -27.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.3 62.2 61.1 68.2 61.1 59.9 63.1 56.0 54.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.6 Leq EVENING= 69.5 Leq NIGHT= 64.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.3 CNEL= 72.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 72 154 332 CNEL: 78 168 363 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: BROADWAY TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 31,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1882 47 12 1444 36 9 447 11 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.4 -14.6 -20.7 0.3 -15.8 -21.8 -4.8 -20.9 -26.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.8 62.7 61.5 68.6 61.5 60.4 63.6 56.4 55.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.1 Leq EVENING= 69.9 Leq NIGHT= 64.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.8 CNEL= 73.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 77 166 357 CNEL: 84 181 389 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 30,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1817 45 11 1394 34 9 432 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.3 -21.3 -0.4 -16.5 -22.5 -5.5 -21.6 -27.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.0 65.3 63.8 71.9 64.1 62.6 66.8 59.0 57.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.1 Leq EVENING= 73.0 Leq NIGHT= 67.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.9 CNEL= 76.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 123 265 570 CNEL: 134 289 622 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: CRESCENT AVE TO LA PALMA ADate: ADT 38,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2290 57 14 1756 43 11 544 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.3 -20.3 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.1 66.3 64.8 72.9 65.1 63.6 67.8 60.0 58.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.1 Leq EVENING= 74.0 Leq NIGHT= 68.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.9 CNEL= 77.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 143 309 665 CNEL: 156 337 726 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MAGNOLIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO I-5 Date: ADT 45,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2691 67 17 2064 51 13 639 16 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.5 -13.6 -19.6 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 -3.8 -19.8 -25.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.8 67.0 65.5 73.6 65.8 64.3 68.5 60.7 59.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.8 Leq EVENING= 74.7 Leq NIGHT= 69.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.6 CNEL= 78.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 160 344 741 CNEL: 174 375 808 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANASSERO ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO HUNTER AVEDate: ADT 2,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 171 4 1 131 3 1 41 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.7 -23.8 -29.8 -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 -14.0 -30.1 -36.1 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 54.7 49.2 48.9 53.6 48.1 47.7 48.5 43.0 42.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 56.6 Leq EVENING= 55.4 Leq NIGHT= 50.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 58.3 CNEL= 58.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 8 18 39 CNEL: 9 20 42 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANCHESTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: COMPTON AVE TO ORANGEWODate: ADT 15,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 42 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 885 22 5 679 17 4 210 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.3 -17.3 -23.4 -2.4 -18.5 -24.5 -7.5 -23.6 -29.6 Distance 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.4 58.0 57.2 63.2 56.9 56.1 58.1 51.8 51.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.9 Leq EVENING= 64.7 Leq NIGHT= 59.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.6 CNEL= 68.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 35 75 161 CNEL: 38 82 176 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANCHESTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLDate: ADT 24,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 42 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1469 36 9 1127 28 7 349 9 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.1 -21.2 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.6 60.2 59.4 65.4 59.1 58.3 60.3 54.0 53.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.1 Leq EVENING= 66.9 Leq NIGHT= 61.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.8 CNEL= 70.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 49 105 226 CNEL: 53 114 246 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANCHESTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO ANAHEIM BLVDate: ADT 13,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 42 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 785 19 5 602 15 4 186 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.8 -17.9 -23.9 -3.0 -19.0 -25.0 -8.0 -24.1 -30.1 Distance 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.8 57.5 56.7 62.7 56.3 55.5 57.6 51.2 50.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.4 Leq EVENING= 64.2 Leq NIGHT= 59.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.1 CNEL= 67.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 32 69 149 CNEL: 35 75 162 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANCHESTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: CLEMENTINE ST TO HARBOUR Date: ADT 16,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 997 25 6 765 19 5 237 6 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.8 -16.8 -22.8 -1.9 -18.0 -24.0 -7.0 -23.1 -29.1 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.7 58.4 57.5 63.5 57.2 56.4 58.5 52.1 51.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.2 Leq EVENING= 65.1 Leq NIGHT= 60.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.0 CNEL= 68.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 37 79 170 CNEL: 40 86 185 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANCHESTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: DISNEYLAND DR TO SANTA ANADate: ADT 10,800 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 637 16 4 489 12 3 151 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 -3.9 -19.9 -25.9 -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.8 56.4 55.6 61.6 55.3 54.5 56.5 50.2 49.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.3 Leq EVENING= 63.1 Leq NIGHT= 58.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.0 CNEL= 66.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 27 58 126 CNEL: 30 64 137 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MANCHESTER AVE Analyst AN Segment: SANTA ANA ST TO LINCOLN AV Date: ADT 15,500 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 915 23 6 702 17 4 217 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.1 -17.2 -23.2 -2.3 -18.4 -24.4 -7.4 -23.4 -29.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.3 58.0 57.2 63.2 56.8 56.0 58.1 51.7 50.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.9 Leq EVENING= 64.7 Leq NIGHT= 59.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.6 CNEL= 68.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 34 74 160 CNEL: 38 81 175 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MEATS AVE Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO NOHL RDate: ADT 6,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 360 9 2 276 7 2 85 2 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.8 -21.8 -27.9 -6.9 -23.0 -29.0 -12.0 -28.1 -34.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.6 55.5 54.3 61.5 54.3 53.2 56.4 49.3 48.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.9 Leq EVENING= 62.7 Leq NIGHT= 57.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.6 CNEL= 66.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 26 55 118 CNEL: 28 60 129 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MEDICAL CENTER DR Analyst AN Segment: CORONET AVE TO EUCLID ST Date: ADT 3,600 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 212 5 1 163 4 1 50 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.8 -22.9 -28.9 -8.0 -24.0 -30.0 -13.0 -29.1 -35.1 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 55.6 50.2 49.8 54.5 49.0 48.7 49.4 43.9 43.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 57.5 Leq EVENING= 56.4 Leq NIGHT= 51.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 59.3 CNEL= 59.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 10 21 45 CNEL: 10 23 49 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MILLER ST Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO MIRALOMA ADate: ADT 4,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 254 6 2 195 5 1 60 1 0 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 -7.9 -23.9 -29.9 -12.9 -29.0 -35.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.8 52.4 51.6 57.6 51.3 50.5 52.5 46.2 45.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.3 Leq EVENING= 59.1 Leq NIGHT= 54.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.0 CNEL= 62.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 15 32 68 CNEL: 16 34 74 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MILLER ST Analyst AN Segment: MIRALOMA AVE TO ORANGETH Date: ADT 6,900 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 407 10 3 312 8 2 97 2 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.6 -20.7 -26.7 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 -10.9 -27.0 -33.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.8 54.5 53.7 59.7 53.3 52.5 54.6 48.2 47.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.3 Leq EVENING= 61.2 Leq NIGHT= 56.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.1 CNEL= 64.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 20 43 93 CNEL: 22 47 102 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MIRALOMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO BLUE GUM SDate: ADT 12,500 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 738 18 5 566 14 4 175 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.1 -18.1 -24.2 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -8.3 -24.4 -30.4 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.4 57.0 56.2 62.2 55.9 55.1 57.1 50.8 50.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.9 Leq EVENING= 63.8 Leq NIGHT= 58.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.6 CNEL= 67.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 30 64 139 CNEL: 33 70 151 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MIRALOMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: BLUE GUM ST TO KRAEMER BL Date: ADT 10,900 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 643 16 4 493 12 3 153 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 -9.5 -25.6 -31.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.1 58.0 56.8 64.0 56.9 55.7 58.9 51.8 50.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.4 Leq EVENING= 65.3 Leq NIGHT= 60.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.1 CNEL= 68.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 81 174 CNEL: 41 88 190 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MIRALOMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: KRAEMER BLVD TO MILLER ST Date: ADT 9,700 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 572 14 4 439 11 3 136 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.2 -19.2 -25.3 -4.3 -20.4 -26.4 -9.4 -25.5 -31.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.3 55.9 55.1 61.1 54.8 54.0 56.0 49.7 48.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.8 Leq EVENING= 62.7 Leq NIGHT= 57.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.5 CNEL= 66.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 25 54 117 CNEL: 28 59 128 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MIRALOMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: MILLER ST TO TUSTIN AVE Date: ADT 12,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 732 18 5 561 14 3 174 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.7 -18.7 -24.8 -3.8 -19.9 -25.9 -8.9 -25.0 -31.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.7 58.6 57.4 64.5 57.4 56.3 59.5 52.3 51.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 67.0 Leq EVENING= 65.8 Leq NIGHT= 60.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.7 CNEL= 69.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 41 88 190 CNEL: 45 96 207 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MIRALOMA AVE Analyst AN Segment: TUSTIN AVE TO VAN BUREN ST Date: ADT 6,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 378 9 2 290 7 2 90 2 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.6 -21.6 -27.6 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 -11.8 -27.9 -33.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.8 55.7 54.5 61.7 54.6 53.4 56.6 49.5 48.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.1 Leq EVENING= 63.0 Leq NIGHT= 57.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.8 CNEL= 66.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 26 57 122 CNEL: 29 62 133 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MONTE VISTA RD Analyst AN Segment: ROOSEVELT RD TO WEIR CYN RDate: ADT 13,400 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 791 20 5 607 15 4 188 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.8 -17.8 -23.9 -2.9 -19.0 -25.0 -8.0 -24.1 -30.1 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.7 57.3 56.5 62.5 56.2 55.4 57.4 51.1 50.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.2 Leq EVENING= 64.1 Leq NIGHT= 59.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.9 CNEL= 67.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 31 67 145 CNEL: 34 74 158 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: MULLER ST Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO CRESCENT AVDate: ADT 6,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 407 10 3 312 8 2 97 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.0 -20.0 -26.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 -10.2 -26.3 -32.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.5 53.0 52.6 57.3 51.9 51.5 52.2 46.8 46.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.4 Leq EVENING= 59.2 Leq NIGHT= 54.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.1 CNEL= 62.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 15 32 69 CNEL: 16 35 75 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NINTH ST Analyst AN Segment: CHAPMAN AVE TO ORANGEWODate: ADT 12,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 714 18 4 548 14 3 170 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -3.4 -19.4 -25.4 -8.5 -24.5 -30.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.2 56.9 56.1 62.1 55.7 54.9 57.0 50.7 49.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.8 Leq EVENING= 63.6 Leq NIGHT= 58.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.5 CNEL= 67.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 29 63 136 CNEL: 32 69 148 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NINTH ST Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO KATELLDate: ADT 9,300 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 549 14 3 421 10 3 130 3 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.4 -19.4 -25.4 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 -9.6 -25.7 -31.7 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.1 55.8 55.0 61.0 54.6 53.8 55.9 49.5 48.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.6 Leq EVENING= 62.5 Leq NIGHT= 57.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.4 CNEL= 65.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 25 53 114 CNEL: 27 58 124 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NINTH ST Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO CERRITOS AVDate: ADT 6,300 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 372 9 2 285 7 2 88 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.4 -20.4 -26.5 -5.5 -21.6 -27.6 -10.6 -26.7 -32.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.1 52.6 52.2 56.9 51.5 51.1 51.8 46.4 46.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.0 Leq EVENING= 58.8 Leq NIGHT= 53.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.7 CNEL= 62.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 14 30 65 CNEL: 15 33 71 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL CANYON RD Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTIAGODate: ADT 1,100 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 65 2 0 50 1 0 15 0 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -12.0 -28.0 -34.0 -13.1 -29.2 -35.2 -18.2 -34.3 -40.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 50.5 45.0 44.7 49.3 43.9 43.5 44.3 38.8 38.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 52.4 Leq EVENING= 51.2 Leq NIGHT= 46.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 54.1 CNEL= 54.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 4 9 20 CNEL: 5 10 22 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL RANCH RD Analyst AN Segment: NOHL CANYON RD TO MEATS ADate: ADT 8,600 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 507 13 3 389 10 2 120 3 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.3 -20.3 -26.4 -5.4 -21.5 -27.5 -10.5 -26.6 -32.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.1 57.0 55.8 63.0 55.8 54.7 57.9 50.7 49.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.4 Leq EVENING= 64.2 Leq NIGHT= 59.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.1 CNEL= 67.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 32 69 149 CNEL: 35 75 162 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL RANCH RD Analyst AN Segment: MEATS AVE TO ROYAL OAK RD Date: ADT 10,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 596 15 4 457 11 3 142 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.6 -19.6 -25.7 -4.7 -20.8 -26.8 -9.8 -25.9 -31.9 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.8 57.7 56.5 63.7 56.5 55.4 58.6 51.4 50.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.1 Leq EVENING= 64.9 Leq NIGHT= 59.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.8 CNEL= 68.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 36 77 166 CNEL: 39 84 181 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL RANCH RD Analyst AN Segment: ROYAL OAK RD TO IMPERIAL HWDate: ADT 10,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 620 15 4 475 12 3 147 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 -4.6 -20.6 -26.6 -9.6 -25.7 -31.7 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.0 57.9 56.7 63.8 56.7 55.5 58.7 51.6 50.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.3 Leq EVENING= 65.1 Leq NIGHT= 60.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.0 CNEL= 68.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 37 79 170 CNEL: 40 86 186 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL RANCH RD Analyst AN Segment: IMPERIAL HWY TO ANAHEIM HILDate: ADT 17,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1021 25 6 783 19 5 242 6 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -2.4 -18.5 -24.5 -7.5 -23.5 -29.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.1 60.0 58.9 66.0 58.9 57.7 60.9 53.8 52.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.4 Leq EVENING= 67.3 Leq NIGHT= 62.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.1 CNEL= 70.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 51 110 237 CNEL: 56 120 259 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL RANCH RD Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM HILLS RD TO CANYONDate: ADT 19,000 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1121 28 7 860 21 5 266 7 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -2.0 -18.0 -24.1 -7.1 -23.1 -29.2 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.5 60.4 59.3 66.4 59.3 58.1 61.3 54.2 53.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.8 Leq EVENING= 67.7 Leq NIGHT= 62.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.5 CNEL= 71.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 54 117 252 CNEL: 59 128 275 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NOHL RANCH RD Analyst AN Segment: CANYON RIM RD TO SERRANO Date: ADT 9,000 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 531 13 3 407 10 3 126 3 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.1 -20.1 -26.2 -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 -10.3 -26.4 -32.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.3 57.2 56.0 63.2 56.0 54.9 58.1 50.9 49.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.6 Leq EVENING= 64.4 Leq NIGHT= 59.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.3 CNEL= 67.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 33 71 153 CNEL: 36 78 167 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NORTH ST Analyst AN Segment: LOARA ST TO WEST ST Date: ADT 6,400 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 378 9 2 290 7 2 90 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.3 -20.4 -26.4 -5.5 -21.5 -27.5 -10.6 -26.6 -32.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.1 52.7 52.3 57.0 51.5 51.2 51.9 46.4 46.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.0 Leq EVENING= 58.9 Leq NIGHT= 53.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.8 CNEL= 62.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 14 30 65 CNEL: 15 33 71 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NORTH ST Analyst AN Segment: WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD Date: ADT 6,500 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 384 9 2 294 7 2 91 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.2 -20.3 -26.3 -5.4 -21.5 -27.5 -10.5 -26.5 -32.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.2 52.8 52.4 57.1 51.6 51.2 52.0 46.5 46.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.1 Leq EVENING= 59.0 Leq NIGHT= 53.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.8 CNEL= 62.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 14 31 66 CNEL: 16 34 72 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NORTH ST Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 6,100 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 360 9 2 276 7 2 85 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 -5.7 -21.7 -27.8 -10.8 -26.8 -32.8 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.9 52.5 52.1 56.8 51.3 51.0 51.7 46.2 45.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.8 Leq EVENING= 58.7 Leq NIGHT= 53.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.6 CNEL= 62.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 14 29 63 CNEL: 15 32 69 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 2 Roadway: NORTH ST Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST Date: ADT 3,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 177 4 1 136 3 1 42 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 -8.7 -24.8 -30.8 -13.8 -29.9 -35.9 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 54.9 49.4 49.0 53.7 48.2 47.9 48.6 43.1 42.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 56.7 Leq EVENING= 55.6 Leq NIGHT= 50.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 58.5 CNEL= 59.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 9 18 40 CNEL: 9 20 43 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: ROOSEVELT RD Analyst AN Segment: MONTE VISTA RD TO SANTA ANDate: ADT 27,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1599 40 10 1227 30 8 380 9 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.8 -20.8 0.1 -15.9 -21.9 -5.0 -21.0 -27.0 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.7 60.4 59.6 65.6 59.3 58.4 60.5 54.2 53.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.3 Leq EVENING= 67.1 Leq NIGHT= 62.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.0 CNEL= 70.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 50 108 232 CNEL: 55 118 253 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: ROYAL OAK RD Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO SANTA ANDate: ADT 4,800 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 283 7 2 217 5 1 67 2 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.6 -21.6 -27.6 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 -11.8 -27.9 -33.9 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 56.9 51.4 51.1 55.7 50.3 49.9 50.7 45.2 44.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 58.8 Leq EVENING= 57.6 Leq NIGHT= 52.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 60.5 CNEL= 61.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 12 25 54 CNEL: 13 27 59 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO LAKEVIEWDate: ADT 11,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 679 17 4 521 13 3 161 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.0 -19.1 -25.1 -4.2 -20.2 -26.2 -9.3 -25.3 -31.3 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.4 58.3 57.1 64.2 57.1 55.9 59.1 52.0 50.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.6 Leq EVENING= 65.5 Leq NIGHT= 60.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.4 CNEL= 68.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 39 84 181 CNEL: 42 91 197 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: LAKEVIEW AVE TO ROYAL OAK Date: ADT 19,600 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1157 29 7 887 22 5 275 7 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -2.4 -18.4 -24.4 -7.5 -23.5 -29.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 71.1 63.3 61.8 69.9 62.1 60.6 64.8 57.1 55.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 72.2 Leq EVENING= 71.0 Leq NIGHT= 65.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.9 CNEL= 74.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 91 196 422 CNEL: 99 214 460 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: ROYAL OAK RD TO IMPERIAL HWDate: ADT 18,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1062 26 7 815 20 5 252 6 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.6 -17.6 -23.7 -2.7 -18.8 -24.8 -7.8 -23.9 -29.9 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 70.7 62.9 61.4 69.6 61.8 60.3 64.5 56.7 55.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.8 Leq EVENING= 70.7 Leq NIGHT= 65.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.5 CNEL= 74.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 86 185 399 CNEL: 94 202 435 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: IMPERIAL HWY TO ANAHEIM HILDate: ADT 35,500 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2095 52 13 1607 40 10 497 12 3 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 0.7 -15.3 -21.4 -4.4 -20.4 -26.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 70.3 63.1 62.0 69.1 62.0 60.8 64.0 56.9 55.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.5 Leq EVENING= 70.4 Leq NIGHT= 65.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.3 CNEL= 73.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 83 178 383 CNEL: 90 194 418 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM HILLS RD TO FAIRMO Date: ADT 28,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1658 41 10 1272 31 8 394 10 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.2 -21.2 -0.3 -16.3 -22.4 -5.4 -21.4 -27.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.2 62.1 61.0 68.1 61.0 59.8 63.0 55.9 54.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.5 Leq EVENING= 69.4 Leq NIGHT= 64.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.2 CNEL= 72.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 71 152 328 CNEL: 77 166 358 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: FAIRMONT BLVD TO ADT 22,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1316 33 8 1009 25 6 312 8 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -1.3 -17.4 -23.4 -6.4 -22.4 -28.5 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 68.2 61.1 60.0 67.1 60.0 58.8 62.0 54.9 53.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 69.5 Leq EVENING= 68.4 Leq NIGHT= 63.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 71.2 CNEL= 71.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 61 130 281 CNEL: 66 142 306 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: EUCALYPTUS DR TO FESTIVAL Date: ADT 27,400 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1617 40 10 1240 31 8 384 9 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.8 -15.3 -21.3 -0.4 -16.5 -22.5 -5.5 -21.5 -27.6 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 69.1 62.0 60.9 68.0 60.9 59.7 62.9 55.8 54.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 70.4 Leq EVENING= 69.3 Leq NIGHT= 64.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 72.1 CNEL= 72.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 69 150 322 CNEL: 76 163 352 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: FESTIVAL TO WEIR CYN RD Date: ADT 28,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1652 41 10 1267 31 8 392 10 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.3 -15.7 -21.7 -0.8 -16.9 -22.9 -5.9 -22.0 -28.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.6 64.8 63.3 71.5 63.7 62.2 66.4 58.6 57.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.7 Leq EVENING= 72.6 Leq NIGHT= 67.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.4 CNEL= 76.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 115 248 535 CNEL: 126 271 584 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: WEIR CYN RD TO WOODCREEKDate: ADT 16,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 950 24 6 729 18 5 226 6 1 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.1 -18.1 -24.1 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 -8.3 -24.4 -30.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 70.2 62.4 60.9 69.1 61.3 59.8 64.0 56.2 54.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 71.3 Leq EVENING= 70.2 Leq NIGHT= 65.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 73.0 CNEL= 73.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 80 172 370 CNEL: 87 187 404 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA CYN RD Analyst AN Segment: WOODCREEK LN TO GYPSUM CDate: ADT 18,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1068 26 7 819 20 5 254 6 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.0 -17.1 -23.1 -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -7.3 -23.4 -29.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.3 60.2 59.1 66.2 59.1 57.9 61.1 54.0 52.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.6 Leq EVENING= 67.5 Leq NIGHT= 62.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.3 CNEL= 70.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 53 113 244 CNEL: 57 124 267 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA ST Analyst AN Segment: MANCHESTER AVE TO HARBORDate: ADT 10,600 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 625 15 4 480 12 3 149 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.1 -18.2 -24.2 -3.3 -19.3 -25.4 -8.4 -24.4 -30.4 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.3 54.9 54.5 59.2 53.7 53.4 54.1 48.6 48.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.2 Leq EVENING= 61.1 Leq NIGHT= 56.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.9 CNEL= 64.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 20 43 92 CNEL: 22 46 100 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA ST Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 6,300 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 372 9 2 285 7 2 88 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.4 -20.4 -26.5 -5.5 -21.6 -27.6 -10.6 -26.7 -32.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.1 52.6 52.2 56.9 51.5 51.1 51.8 46.4 46.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.0 Leq EVENING= 58.8 Leq NIGHT= 53.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.7 CNEL= 62.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 14 30 65 CNEL: 15 33 71 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA ST Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST Date: ADT 7,100 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 419 10 3 321 8 2 99 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.9 -19.9 -25.9 -5.0 -21.1 -27.1 -10.1 -26.2 -32.2 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.6 53.1 52.8 57.4 52.0 51.6 52.4 46.9 46.5 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.5 Leq EVENING= 59.3 Leq NIGHT= 54.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.2 CNEL= 62.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 15 33 70 CNEL: 16 36 77 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA ST Analyst AN Segment: OLIVE ST TO EAST ST Date: ADT 6,800 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 401 10 2 308 8 2 95 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.0 -20.1 -26.1 -5.2 -21.3 -27.3 -10.3 -26.4 -32.4 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 58.4 52.9 52.6 57.3 51.8 51.4 52.2 46.7 46.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 60.3 Leq EVENING= 59.1 Leq NIGHT= 54.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.0 CNEL= 62.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 15 32 68 CNEL: 16 35 74 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SANTA ANA ST Analyst AN Segment: EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BDate: ADT 5,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 348 9 2 267 7 2 83 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.7 -20.7 -26.7 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 -10.9 -27.0 -33.0 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.8 52.3 52.0 56.6 51.2 50.8 51.6 46.1 45.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.7 Leq EVENING= 58.5 Leq NIGHT= 53.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.4 CNEL= 62.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 13 29 62 CNEL: 15 31 68 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SEQUOIA AVE Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO BROOKHURSDate: ADT 2,000 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 118 3 1 91 2 1 28 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -9.4 -25.4 -31.4 -10.5 -26.6 -32.6 -15.6 -31.7 -37.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 53.1 47.6 47.3 51.9 46.5 46.1 46.9 41.4 41.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 55.0 Leq EVENING= 53.8 Leq NIGHT= 48.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 56.7 CNEL= 57.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 6 14 30 CNEL: 7 15 33 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SERRANO AVE Analyst AN Segment: WEST CITY LIMIT TO NOHL RANDate: ADT 12,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 714 18 4 548 14 3 170 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.8 -18.9 -24.9 -3.9 -20.0 -26.0 -9.0 -25.1 -31.1 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.6 58.5 57.3 64.4 57.3 56.2 59.3 52.2 51.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.9 Leq EVENING= 65.7 Leq NIGHT= 60.6 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.6 CNEL= 69.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 40 87 187 CNEL: 44 95 204 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SERRANO AVE Analyst AN Segment: NOHL RANCH RD TO CANYON Date: ADT 11,300 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 667 16 4 512 13 3 158 4 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.1 -19.2 -25.2 -4.2 -20.3 -26.3 -9.3 -25.4 -31.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.3 58.2 57.0 64.1 57.0 55.9 59.0 51.9 50.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.6 Leq EVENING= 65.4 Leq NIGHT= 60.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.3 CNEL= 68.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 83 179 CNEL: 42 90 195 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SERRANO AVE Analyst AN Segment: CANYON RIM RD TO OAK CANY Date: ADT 15,600 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 921 23 6 706 17 4 219 5 1 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.7 -17.8 -23.8 -2.8 -18.9 -24.9 -7.9 -24.0 -30.0 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 66.7 59.6 58.4 65.5 58.4 57.3 60.4 53.3 52.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.0 Leq EVENING= 66.8 Leq NIGHT= 61.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 69.7 CNEL= 70.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 48 103 221 CNEL: 52 112 242 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SERRANO AVE Analyst AN Segment: OAK CANYON DR TO WEIR CYNDate: ADT 18,100 SPEED (mph) 40 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 54 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1068 26 7 819 20 5 254 6 2 Speed in MPH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 67.4 76.3 81.2 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.0 -17.1 -23.1 -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -7.3 -23.4 -29.4 Distance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 67.3 60.2 59.1 66.2 59.1 57.9 61.1 54.0 52.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 68.6 Leq EVENING= 67.5 Leq NIGHT= 62.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 70.3 CNEL= 70.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 53 113 244 CNEL: 57 124 267 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: BELLEVUE DR TO HARBOR BLVDate: ADT 5,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 348 9 2 267 7 2 83 2 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -4.7 -20.7 -26.7 -5.8 -21.9 -27.9 -10.9 -27.0 -33.0 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.8 52.3 52.0 56.6 51.2 50.8 51.6 46.1 45.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.7 Leq EVENING= 58.5 Leq NIGHT= 53.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.4 CNEL= 62.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 13 29 62 CNEL: 15 31 68 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: HARBOR BLVD TO ANAHEIM BL Date: ADT 8,700 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 513 13 3 394 10 2 122 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.0 -19.0 -25.1 -4.1 -20.2 -26.2 -9.2 -25.3 -31.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.5 54.0 53.6 58.3 52.9 52.5 53.2 47.8 47.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.4 Leq EVENING= 60.2 Leq NIGHT= 55.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.1 CNEL= 63.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 17 37 80 CNEL: 19 41 88 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: ANAHEIM BLVD TO OLIVE ST Date: ADT 15,800 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 932 23 6 715 18 4 221 5 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.4 -16.4 -22.5 -1.5 -17.6 -23.6 -6.6 -22.7 -28.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 62.1 56.6 56.2 60.9 55.5 55.1 55.8 50.4 50.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.0 Leq EVENING= 62.8 Leq NIGHT= 57.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 65.7 CNEL= 66.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 26 56 120 CNEL: 28 61 131 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: OLIVE ST TO EAST ST Date: ADT 10,300 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 608 15 4 466 12 3 144 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 -8.5 -24.5 -30.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 60.2 54.8 54.4 59.1 53.6 53.2 54.0 48.5 48.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 62.1 Leq EVENING= 61.0 Leq NIGHT= 55.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 63.8 CNEL= 64.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 19 42 90 CNEL: 21 46 98 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: EAST ST TO STATE COLLEGE BDate: ADT 8,100 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 478 12 3 367 9 2 113 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.3 -19.3 -25.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 -9.5 -25.6 -31.6 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.2 53.7 53.3 58.0 52.6 52.2 52.9 47.5 47.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.1 Leq EVENING= 59.9 Leq NIGHT= 54.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.8 CNEL= 63.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 17 36 77 CNEL: 18 39 84 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: STATE COLLEGE BLVD TO SUN Date: ADT 12,600 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 744 18 5 570 14 4 177 4 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.4 -17.4 -23.5 -2.5 -18.6 -24.6 -7.6 -23.7 -29.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 61.1 55.6 55.3 59.9 54.5 54.1 54.8 49.4 49.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 63.0 Leq EVENING= 61.8 Leq NIGHT= 56.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 64.7 CNEL= 65.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 22 48 103 CNEL: 24 52 112 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SOUTH ST Analyst AN Segment: SUNKIST ST TO RIO VISTA ST Date: ADT 7,900 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 466 12 3 358 9 2 111 3 1 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 -4.5 -20.6 -26.6 -9.6 -25.7 -31.7 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 59.1 53.6 53.2 57.9 52.4 52.1 52.8 47.4 47.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 61.0 Leq EVENING= 59.8 Leq NIGHT= 54.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 62.7 CNEL= 63.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 16 35 75 CNEL: 18 38 82 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: I-5 TO ORANGEWOOD AVE Date: ADT 52,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3086 76 19 2367 59 15 733 18 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.1 -13.0 -19.0 1.9 -14.2 -20.2 -3.2 -19.3 -25.3 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE TO GENE ADate: ADT 62,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 102 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 3682 91 23 2825 70 17 874 22 5 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 3.8 -12.2 -18.3 2.7 -13.4 -19.4 -2.4 -18.5 -24.5 Distance #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= #NUM! Leq EVENING= #NUM! Leq NIGHT= #NUM! Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= #NUM! CNEL= #NUM! NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! CNEL: #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: GENE AUTRY WAY TO KATELLADate: ADT 43,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2579 64 16 1978 49 12 612 15 4 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 2.3 -13.8 -19.8 1.1 -14.9 -21.0 -4.0 -20.0 -26.1 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.6 66.8 65.3 73.4 65.6 64.1 68.3 60.5 59.0 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.7 Leq EVENING= 74.5 Leq NIGHT= 69.4 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 77.4 CNEL= 77.9 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 155 334 720 CNEL: 169 365 786 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: KATELLA AVE TO HOWELL AVE Date: ADT 39,400 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2325 58 14 1784 44 11 552 14 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.8 -14.2 -20.3 0.7 -15.4 -21.4 -4.4 -20.5 -26.5 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 74.1 66.3 64.8 73.0 65.2 63.7 67.9 60.1 58.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 75.2 Leq EVENING= 74.1 Leq NIGHT= 69.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.9 CNEL= 77.5 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 145 312 672 CNEL: 158 340 733 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: HOWELL AVE TO CERRITOS AV Date: ADT 35,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2077 51 13 1593 39 10 493 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.3 -14.7 -20.7 0.2 -15.9 -21.9 -4.9 -21.0 -27.0 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.6 65.8 64.3 72.5 64.7 63.2 67.4 59.6 58.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.7 Leq EVENING= 73.6 Leq NIGHT= 68.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.4 CNEL= 77.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 134 289 623 CNEL: 147 316 680 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 36,800 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2172 54 13 1666 41 10 516 13 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.5 -14.5 -20.6 0.4 -15.7 -21.7 -4.7 -20.8 -26.8 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.8 66.0 64.5 72.7 64.9 63.4 67.6 59.8 58.3 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.9 Leq EVENING= 73.8 Leq NIGHT= 68.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.6 CNEL= 77.2 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 138 298 642 CNEL: 151 325 701 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO WAGNER AVE Date: ADT 33,900 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 2000 49 12 1535 38 9 475 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.2 -14.9 -20.9 0.0 -16.0 -22.1 -5.1 -21.1 -27.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.5 65.7 64.2 72.3 64.5 63.0 67.2 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.6 Leq EVENING= 73.4 Leq NIGHT= 68.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.3 CNEL= 76.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 131 282 608 CNEL: 143 308 663 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: WAGNER AVE TO SOUTH ST Date: ADT 29,700 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1753 43 11 1344 33 8 416 10 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.5 -21.5 -0.6 -16.6 -22.6 -5.6 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.9 65.1 63.6 71.7 64.0 62.5 66.6 58.9 57.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.0 Leq EVENING= 72.8 Leq NIGHT= 67.7 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.7 CNEL= 76.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 120 258 557 CNEL: 131 282 607 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH ST TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 25,500 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1505 37 9 1154 29 7 357 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.1 -22.1 -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -6.3 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.2 64.4 62.9 71.1 63.3 61.8 66.0 58.2 56.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.3 Leq EVENING= 72.2 Leq NIGHT= 67.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.0 CNEL= 75.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 108 233 503 CNEL: 118 255 549 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO LA PALMA AVEDate: ADT 33,300 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1965 49 12 1507 37 9 467 12 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 1.1 -15.0 -21.0 -0.1 -16.1 -22.1 -5.1 -21.2 -27.2 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.4 65.6 64.1 72.2 64.4 62.9 67.1 59.4 57.9 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.5 Leq EVENING= 73.3 Leq NIGHT= 68.2 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.2 CNEL= 76.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 129 279 601 CNEL: 141 304 655 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: LA PALMA AVE TO PLACENTIA ADate: ADT 32,100 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1894 47 12 1453 36 9 450 11 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.9 -15.1 -21.1 -0.2 -16.3 -22.3 -5.3 -21.4 -27.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 73.2 65.4 63.9 72.1 64.3 62.8 67.0 59.2 57.7 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.3 Leq EVENING= 73.2 Leq NIGHT= 68.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 76.0 CNEL= 76.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 126 272 586 CNEL: 138 297 640 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: PLACENTIA AVE TO RIVERSIDE Date: ADT 25,200 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1487 37 9 1141 28 7 353 9 2 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.1 -16.2 -22.2 -1.3 -17.3 -23.4 -6.4 -22.4 -28.4 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.2 64.4 62.9 71.0 63.2 61.7 65.9 58.1 56.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 73.3 Leq EVENING= 72.1 Leq NIGHT= 67.0 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.0 CNEL= 75.6 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 107 232 499 CNEL: 117 253 544 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: STATE COLLEGE BLVD Analyst AN Segment: RIVERSIDE FWY TO ORANGETHDate: ADT 30,000 SPEED (mph) 45 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 78 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1770 44 11 1358 34 8 420 10 3 Speed in MPH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 69.3 77.6 82.1 ADJUSTMENTS Flow 0.6 -15.4 -21.4 -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -5.6 -21.7 -27.7 Distance 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 72.9 65.1 63.6 71.8 64.0 62.5 66.7 58.9 57.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 74.0 Leq EVENING= 72.9 Leq NIGHT= 67.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 75.7 CNEL= 76.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 121 260 560 CNEL: 132 284 611 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNKIST ST Analyst AN Segment: HOWELL AVE TO CERRITOS AV Date: ADT 13,100 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 773 19 5 593 15 4 184 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.9 -17.9 -24.0 -3.0 -19.1 -25.1 -8.1 -24.2 -30.2 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.6 57.2 56.4 62.4 56.1 55.3 57.3 51.0 50.2 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.1 Leq EVENING= 64.0 Leq NIGHT= 58.9 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.9 CNEL= 67.4 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 31 66 143 CNEL: 34 72 156 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNKIST ST Analyst AN Segment: CERRITOS AVE TO BALL RD Date: ADT 12,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 708 18 4 543 13 3 168 4 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -2.2 -18.3 -24.3 -3.4 -19.5 -25.5 -8.5 -24.6 -30.6 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 63.2 56.9 56.1 62.1 55.7 54.9 57.0 50.6 49.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 64.7 Leq EVENING= 63.6 Leq NIGHT= 58.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 66.5 CNEL= 67.0 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 29 63 135 CNEL: 32 68 147 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNKIST ST Analyst AN Segment: BALL RD TO WAGNER AVE Date: ADT 18,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1062 26 7 815 20 5 252 6 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -1.6 -17.7 -23.7 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.0 58.6 57.8 63.8 57.5 56.7 58.7 52.4 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.5 Leq EVENING= 65.4 Leq NIGHT= 60.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.2 CNEL= 68.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 82 177 CNEL: 42 90 193 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNKIST ST Analyst AN Segment: WAGNER AVE TO SOUTH ST Date: ADT 16,200 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 956 24 6 733 18 5 227 6 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.9 -17.0 -23.0 -2.1 -18.2 -24.2 -7.2 -23.3 -29.3 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.5 58.2 57.4 63.4 57.0 56.2 58.3 51.9 51.1 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.1 Leq EVENING= 64.9 Leq NIGHT= 59.8 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.8 CNEL= 68.3 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 36 77 165 CNEL: 39 83 180 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNKIST ST Analyst AN Segment: SOUTH ST TO LINCOLN AVE Date: ADT 15,200 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 897 22 6 688 17 4 213 5 1 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -1.2 -17.3 -23.3 -2.4 -18.4 -24.5 -7.5 -23.5 -29.5 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 64.2 57.9 57.1 63.1 56.7 55.9 58.0 51.6 50.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 65.8 Leq EVENING= 64.6 Leq NIGHT= 59.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 67.5 CNEL= 68.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 34 73 158 CNEL: 37 80 172 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNKIST ST Analyst AN Segment: LINCOLN AVE TO LA PALMA AVEDate: ADT 18,000 SPEED (mph) 35 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 36 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 1062 26 7 815 20 5 252 6 2 Speed in MPH 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 65.1 74.8 80.0 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -0.5 -16.6 -22.6 -1.6 -17.7 -23.7 -6.7 -22.8 -28.8 Distance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 65.0 58.6 57.8 63.8 57.5 56.7 58.7 52.4 51.6 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 66.5 Leq EVENING= 65.4 Leq NIGHT= 60.3 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 68.2 CNEL= 68.8 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 38 82 177 CNEL: 42 90 193 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SUNSET RIDGE RD Analyst AN Segment: CANYON CREEK RD TO SERRA Date: ADT 3,800 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 224 6 1 172 4 1 53 1 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -6.6 -22.6 -28.7 -7.7 -23.8 -29.8 -12.8 -28.9 -34.9 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 55.9 50.4 50.0 54.7 49.3 48.9 49.6 44.2 43.8 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 57.8 Leq EVENING= 56.6 Leq NIGHT= 51.5 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 59.5 CNEL= 60.1 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 10 21 46 CNEL: 11 23 50 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- FHWA RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Scenario: Project: ANAHEIM GP (SEGMENTS 3 Roadway: SYCAMORE ST Analyst AN Segment: WEST ST TO HARBOR BLVD Date: ADT 5,500 SPEED (mph) 30 ROAD NEAR-FAR LN. DIST. 12 DAILY HOURLY DISTANCE ROAD CL (ft) 50 % A 97.0% DAY 73.0% SOFT/HARD CONDITIONS Soft % MT 2.4% EVENING 14.0% GRADE 0% % HT 0.6% NIGHT 13.0% LEFT VIEW -90 RIGHT VIEW 90 DAYTIME EVENING NIGHT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT AUTOS MT HT Vehicles per hour 325 8 2 249 6 2 77 2 0 Speed in MPH 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Left angle -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 Right angle 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Reference levels (dBA) 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 ADJUSTMENTS Flow -5.0 -21.0 -27.1 -6.1 -22.2 -28.2 -11.2 -27.3 -33.3 Distance -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Finite Roadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEQ 57.5 52.0 51.7 56.3 50.9 50.5 51.2 45.8 45.4 VEHICULAR NOISE DAY= 59.4 Leq EVENING= 58.2 Leq NIGHT= 53.1 Leq NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (dBA): Ldn= 61.1 CNEL= 61.7 NOISE CONTOUR: 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA ROAD CENTERLINE DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOUR (FEET): Ldn: 13 27 59 CNEL: 14 30 65 RESULTS 11-Jul-13 ROADWAY INPUTS VEHICLE MIX INPUTS CALCULATION AREA 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES REZONING PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO. 346 TECHNICAL TRAFFIC STUDY Submitted to: City of Anaheim July 2013 16-J11-1662 Submitted by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page ii City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Proposed Project 3 3.0 Methodology 3 3.1 CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC MODEL 3 3.2 COMPARISON OF THE ATAM (2000) AND THE ATAM (2012) MODEL INTERSECTION ANALYSES 5 3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA (SED) SUMMARY 5 3.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 6 3.5 CEQA BASELINE 7 4.0 Environmental Setting/CEQA Baseline 7 4.1 FUTURE (2025) PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS FOR THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT 7 5.0 Environmental Impacts 8 5.1 INTERSECTION-LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SUMMARY 8 5.2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS 13 5.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SUMMARY 13 6.0 Mitigation Measures 14 6.1 APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2004 CERTIFIED EIR 14 6.2 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES 16 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA (SED) SUMMARY 6 TABLE 2 – INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 TABLE 3 – SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA 7 TABLE 4 – 2004 APPROVED PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY FOR YEAR 2025 8 TABLE 5 – VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SUMMARY 14 TABLE 6 – PROPOSED INTERSECTION MITIGATION 17 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON ATAM 2000 AND ATAM 2012 A1 APPENDIX B: CITY OF ANAHEIM FUTURE 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR LOS SUMMARY A11 APPENDIX C: CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTERIAL SEGMENT DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE A21 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 1 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of a traffic analysis that was conducted for the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project (the “Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements: 1. Implementation of Housing Element, Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites, 2. Facilitation use of the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption, and 3. An Update of the General Plan Land Use Build-Out Tables The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 (“2004 Certified EIR”) as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update. As part of these actions, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 was adopted for the General Plan Update and Ordinance No. 5920 was introduced to amend the Zoning Code in its entirety. On June 8, 2004, the Anaheim City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 5920 for the Zoning Code Update. Together, these actions are referred to as the “2004 Approved Project.” Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have occurred including: 1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted; 2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012; 3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be analyzed in a CEQA document; and 4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects. As a result, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is required to update the 2004 Certified EIR and provide CEQA clearance for the Proposed Project. The City of Anaheim Circulation Element, which is part of the City’s adopted General Plan, is the primary resource for circulation decisions. In addition to the City’s Circulation Element, the Orange County Transportation Authority Master Plan of Arterial Highways defines the City’s build-out circulation system. Anaheim has several arterial highways and freeways within its local boundaries and, therefore, must also coordinate with other transportation agencies such as the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 2 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study In relation to the Proposed Project, the Circulation Element of the General Plan now requires review and analysis due to several factors including the following: 1. A new City of Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was developed in 2012 and that model includes revised and updated input data and assumptions such as socioeconomic forecasts and other model components which were updated and revised to match the most current conditions in the City as well as to match regional modeling guidelines and standards 2. The prior version of ATAM (ATAM 2000) had a forecast year of 2025 while the new version (ATAM 2012) has a 2035 future forecast year and that forecast year now matches the regional forecasts of OCTA and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 3. The Proposed Project will add an overlay zone to designated Housing Opportunity Sites that allow residential development consistent with the property’s General Plan land use designation. Since the General Plan has been modified since the 2004 Approved Project, this study assesses the most current General Plan land use as the proposed land use for the Proposed Project. As noted, because there is a new traffic model (ATAM 2012) and also because there have been changes to socioeconomic data forecasts as part of the General Plan, it was necessary to create new future year traffic forecasts and re-evaluate future conditions on the City’s roadway network. This report describes the updates to the traffic analysis that were conducted as part of the 2004 Adopted Project and the Proposed Project and compares the data to the adopted 2004 traffic forecast information. In summary, this document compares the findings from the 2004 Certified EIR to the new 2035 traffic forecasts associated with the Proposed Project to assess how they differ from the 2004 Approved Project and adopted General Plan future year 2025 forecasts. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 3 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The Proposed Project analyzed in this traffic study is comprised of three main elements: 1. The City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element. The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each property’s existing General Plan designation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased residential densities beyond those anticipated by the City’s adopted General Plan. In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development “by-right” on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. 2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. 3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan Amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004. The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC MODEL The Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) has been developed as a tool to help the City forecast future traffic volumes and estimate the traffic effects of changes in land use and roadway facilities. A prior version of ATAM (ATAM 2000) was used for the 2004 Approved Project while this analysis uses the new updated version of ATAM (ATAM 2012). ATAM 2012 has been developed in accordance with the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (December 2010) published by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to ensure consistency between local models and the Countywide model. The ATAM 2012 city-wide traffic model was developed using the TRANPLAN transportation modeling software. TRANPLAN is a commercially available modeling software package platform that enables four- step travel demand modeling. The model's network and zone system were developed to provide an appropriate level of detail for local circulation system planning, while incorporating the influences of ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 4 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study regional through traffic on the City arterial system; this was accomplished by developing a focused model. The model produces separate assignments of total daily traffic, morning peak period traffic, and afternoon peak period traffic, reflecting traffic volumes on an average day in the City. Forecasts were developed for the existing and updated General Plan build-out scenario. The following section provides a brief overview of the modeling process. ATAM 2012 uses the existing conditions base year of OCTAM 3.3. All elements of the OCTAM regional model were carefully reviewed and updated for purposes of developing a refined citywide model. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) were finely disaggregated to enable more precise traffic forecasting for major event centers, schools, and other uses throughout the City. ATAM 2000 was a tiered subarea model consistent with OCTAM 3.1 and it included 493 TAZs within the City. ATAM 2012 includes a total of 1,268 TAZs within the City to allow for more refined consideration of alternative modes and mixed use trip interactions. Like most local models, ATAM 2012 uses land use as the basis for generating trips. To achieve consistency with OCTAM, ATAM 2012 converts land uses into socioeconomic data (dwelling units and employment) prior to calculating trip generation. ATAM 2012 uses the trip generation rates recommended in the subarea modeling guidelines. ATAM 2012 includes a post-processing function to improve the usefulness of its forecasts, providing peak hour turning movement forecasts and level of service calculations at signalized intersections throughout the City. The post processor applies the model’s estimate of future growth to the existing traffic counts to forecast future intersection peak hour turning volumes. As noted, the model was updated in 2012 and has been used to reassess the 2035 traffic conditions at study intersections. The ATAM 2012 model includes changes to land use forecasts related to the general plan amendments completed since 2004 and the Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project as well as other changes to future land use assumptions. ATAM 2000 had a horizon year of 2025 rather than 2035. The updated network for ATAM 2012 differs from the existing General Plan system in a few key areas. The changes noted below have been analyzed in various technical studies since the adoption of the 2004 General Plan Update. These changes include:  Deletion of Jamboree Road south of Weir Canyon Road  Downgrade of Weir Canyon Road to Primary Arterial south of Oak Canyon Road  Grade separations and connector roads parallel to Orangethorpe Avenue at Tustin Avenue, Lakeview Avenue, and Imperial Highway  Upgrade of Tustin Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard to 8-lane Major Arterial between La Palma Avenue and SR-91  Extension of Fairmont Blvd from La Palma Avenue to SR-91 with a new interchange at SR-91. No connection is made to Santa Ana Canyon Road  Upgrade of Katella Avenue to an 8-lane Stadium between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way  Upgrade of Lewis Street to Primary Arterial between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue  Upgrade of Douglass Road to Primary Arterial between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue  Upgrade of Cerritos Avenue to Primary Arterial between State College Boulevard and Douglass Road ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 5 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study 3.2 COMPARISON OF THE ATAM (2000) AND THE ATAM (2012) MODEL INTERSECTION ANALYSES Iteris performed a comparison of the study intersections from the two versions of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model - ATAM 2000 and ATAM 2012. The purpose of the comparison was to identify the locations of the intersections and roadway segments for which the forecasted Level of Service (LOS) significantly improved or worsened based on the comparison of the two models and their associated future land use forecasts. The ATAM 2000 model included 250 study intersections whereas the ATAM 2012 model now includes 431 study intersections within the City of Anaheim plus some other locations in the cities of Orange, Fullerton, Garden Grove and Placentia. Note the locations outside of the City of Anaheim are not the focus of the analysis covered by this report; they are included in the model as these locations are frequently requested for analysis by neighboring jurisdictions. After comparing the common study intersections in both models, LOS analysis was also performed for the additional intersections with the ATAM 2012 model. Out of the additional study intersections from the ATAM 2012 model, two intersections were found to be performing at a LOS E or F during the 2035 AM period and six intersections were found to be performing at LOS E or F during the 2035 PM period. A comparison of the common locations is described in the following section. Appendix A shows the LOS comparison for the common study intersections for the ATAM 2000 and the ATAM 2012 models during the AM and PM peak hour periods. As shown by the data in Appendix A for the AM peak hour, five intersections from the ATAM 2000 model run that were performing either a LOS E or F condition improved to LOS or better based on the ATAM 2012 model results. Also during the AM peak hour, six intersections that were performing LOS or better in the ATAM 2000 model run worsened to either LOS E or F based on the ATAM 2012 results. During the PM peak hour, 15 intersections from the ATAM 2000 model run that were performing either a LOS E or F improved to LOS or better based on the ATAM 2012 model results. Also during the AM peak hour, ten intersections that were performing LOS or better in the ATAM 2000 model run worsened to either LOS E or F based on the ATAM 2012 results. Also, the ‘Harbor/Ball’ intersection worsened from LOS E to LOS F during the AM peak hour and remained at LOS F during the PM peak hour based on a comparison on ATAM 2000 and ATAM 2012 results. Appendix B shows the intersection LOS results based on ATAM 2012 for all study intersections, including the common intersections with ATAM 2000 plus added locations for ATAM 2012. 3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA (SED) SUMMARY Table 1 below shows the 2004 Approved Project population and employment, projected 2035 (Proposed Project horizon year) population and employment, and the difference (raw and percent change) for the City of Anaheim and the region as a whole (Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Ventura County). These socioeconomic data were derived from ATAM 2000 (for the 2004 data) and ATAM 2012 (for the proposed project data). This information is used within ATAM for purposes of generating vehicle trips that are then used for the traffic forecasts and associated traffic analyses. As shown, the population in the City of Anaheim is projected to increase 37 percent from 354,400 people to 485,900 people, and employment is projected to increase 27 percent from 249,700 jobs to 317,800 jobs between existing/CEQA baseline and future 2035 conditions. On average, ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 6 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study population and employment in the City of Anaheim is projected to increase 12 percent faster and two percent slower, respectively, than the region as a whole. TABLE 1 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA (SED) SUMMARY 2004 Approved Project Proposed Project Horizon Year Difference Difference Percent Change Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment City of Anaheim 354,400 249,700 485,900 317,800 131,500 68,100 37% 27% Total Region (including Anaheim) 17,063,000 7,445,500 21,261,700 9,618,900 4,198,700 2,173,400 25% 29% 3.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.00, or LOS E as the lowest acceptable level of service at designated CMP intersections, and 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable level of service for all other intersections. The City requires all study area intersections LOS be evaluated using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology. This methodology compares forecast peak hour traffic volumes by direction and critical moves to available intersection capacity based on actual configuration. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05, and lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was used for the ICU calculations. Table 2 presents the ICU level of service thresholds utilized in this traffic study. TABLE 2 – INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service Interpretation Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio A There are no cycles that are fully loaded, and few are close to loaded. No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. < 0.60 B Represents stable operation. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. 0.61 – 0.70 C Stable operation continues. Full signal cycle loading is still intermittent, but more frequent. Occasional drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal intersection, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. 0.71 – 0.80 D Encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks with the peak period, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. 0.81 – 0.90 E Represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. At capacity (V/C = 1.00), there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection and delays may be great (up to several signal cycles). 0.91 – 1.00 F Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration; hence, volumes carried are not predictable. V/C values are highly variable because full utilization of the approach may be prevented by outside conditions. > 1.00 Source: City of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 7 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Furthermore, within the City of Anaheim, an intersection impact is considered significant if the Project resulting V/C compared to the No Project V/C shows the project related increases meet criteria outlined in Table 3. For purposes of this calculation, the “Final V/C Ratio” includes the future v/c ratio at an intersection, considering traffic from existing conditions, ambient growth, approved/related projects, and the proposed project, but without any proposed mitigation. Mitigation measures sufficient to bring the level of service to a less than significant level are identified later in the report where measures are deemed feasible. TABLE 3 – SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA LOS Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C >0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.050 D >0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.030 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.010 Source: City of Anaheim 3.5 CEQA BASELINE Ordinarily, the existing environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from a development project. However, CEQA and supporting case law provide that the baseline for a supplemental environmental impact report is the previously approved project, not the existing conditions at the time that the environmental documentation is prepared. Therefore, because this traffic study is being used as part of a Supplemental EIR that supplements the 2004 Certified EIR, the baseline used for the analyses in this traffic study is the 2004 Approved Project. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/CEQA BASELINE The ATAM 2000 model was used to forecast traffic volumes associated with buildout of the 2004 Approved Project, with a forecast year of 2025. At the time of that analysis, this scenario represented the future conditions, including all elements of the updated General Plan network. 4.1 FUTURE (2025) PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS FOR THE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT The distribution of LOS grades for AM and PM peak hour for the 2004 Approved Project can be seen in Table 4. Twenty (20) of the study intersections were projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F) during at least one of the peak periods. Four of the intersections were forecast by ATAM 2000 to operate at unacceptable levels in the AM and PM. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 8 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study TABLE 4 – 2004 APPROVED PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY FOR YEAR 2025 AM PM # of Intersections LOS # of Intersections LOS 3 F 3 F 3 E 15 E 15 D 21 D 26 C 52 C 51 B 58 B 152 A 101 A The twenty (20) intersections forecast by ATAM 2000 to operate at LOS E or F in 2025 are:  Tustin Avenue / La Palma Avenue  Imperial Highway / SR-91 East Bound Ramps  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue  Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road (AM and PM)  Imperial Highway / Santa Ana Canyon Road (AM and PM)  Manchester I-5 South Bound / Katella Avenue (AM and PM)  Tustin Avenue / SR-91 East Bound Ramps (AM and PM)  Kraemer Boulevard / La Palma Avenue  Harbor Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  Weir Canyon Road / Santa Ana Canyon Road  Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue  Dale Street / Lincoln Avenue  Imperial Highway / Nohl Ranch Road  Imperial Highway / La Palma Avenue  Imperial Highway / Orangethorpe Avenue  East Street / Lincoln Avenue  Beach Boulevard / Lincoln Avenue  East Street / Orangethorpe Avenue  Weir Canyon Road / SR-91 East Bound Ramps  Euclid Street / Katella Avenue 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following analysis compares the impacts of the 2004 Approved Project identified in the 2004 Certified EIR with the impacts of the Proposed Project using the City’s updated ATAM 2012 model. The methodology used for this analysis is described above in Section 4.0. 5.1 INTERSECTION-LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SUMMARY As shown in Appendix B, according to the results of the ATAM 2012 model, the following locations are forecast to operate at LOS E or F in 2035 with the Proposed Project (see Figure  Euclid Street / Lincoln Avenue (AM)  Euclid Street / Cerritos Avenue (AM and PM)  Euclid Street / Katella Avenue (PM) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 9 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study  Disneyland Drive / Ball Road (PM)  Disneyland Drive / Katella Avenue (PM)  Harbor Boulevard / La Palma Avenue (PM)  Harbor Boulevard / Lincoln Avenue (AM)  Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road (AM and PM)  Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue (AM)  East Street / Lincoln Avenue (PM)  Lewis Street / Ball Road (PM)  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue (PM)  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (PM)  Sunkist Street / Miraloma Avenue / La Palma Avenue (PM)  SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Avenue (PM)  Rio Vista Street / Lincoln Avenue (AM)  Tustin Avenue / SR-91 WB Ramps (AM)  Fairmont Boulevard / La Palma Avenue (PM)  Lemon Street / Orangethorpe Avenue (PM)  Haster Street / Gene Autry Way (PM) The number of intersections that are forecast to operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour worsened from six to seven with the Proposed Project using the ATAM 2012 model. However, the number of intersections that are forecast to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour improved from 18 to 13 with the Proposed Project based on the ATAM 2012 model results. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 10 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( < ( 5 Iþ 91 Iþ 90 Iþ 90 Iþ 57 Iþ 55 Iþ 91 Iþ 241 405 5 5 Iþ 22 Iþ 22 Iþ 39 Iþ 39 La Palma Ave Lincoln Ave Ball Rd Katella Ave Chapman Ave Garden Grove Blvd Orangethorpe Ave Commonwealth Ave Chapman Ave Magnolia Ave Brookhurst St Euclid St Harbor Blvd East St State College Blvd Glassell St Tustin Ave Tustin Ave Santa Ana Canyon Rd Fairmont Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Weir Canyon Rd Serrano Ave Santiago Canyon Rd Hewes Ave Newport Ave Cannon St Crescent Ave Orange Ave Cerritos Ave Orangewood Ave Lampson Ave Limestone Canyon Regional Park Chino Hills State Park Chino Hills State Park L o s L o s A n g e l e s A n g e l e s C o u n t y C o u n t y O r a n g e O r a n g e C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n S a n B e r n a r d i n o B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y C o u n t y City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Legend AM/PM Peak Hour LOS LOS A-D LOS E LOS F City of Anaheim ± Figure 1 Future 2035 With Proposed Project Intersections with LOS E or F ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 12 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 13 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study 5.2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS The traffic analysis in the 2004 Certified EIR included General Plan Update Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) for 2035. Daily traffic forecasts are used for noise and air quality analysis, among other purposes. Those daily traffic forecasts were based on the traffic model used at that time. Because there is a new traffic model (ATAM 2012) with a new set of input data and assumptions, there are updated 2035 ADT forecasts based on ATAM 2012 results. Appendix C shows the comparison of the Average Daily Traffic Forecasts for the buildout year of 2025 from ATAM 2000 for the 2004 Approved Project to the most current forecasts generated by ATAM 2012 for the buildout year 2035 for the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project. The values in Appendix C compare arterial segments for which ADT data are available from the 2004 study only (City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report No. 330, Figure 5.15- 10). 5.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SUMMARY Table 5 below shows the 2004 Approved Project vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the Proposed Project projected 2035 (Project horizon year) VMT, and the VMT difference (raw and percent change) for trips within the City of Anaheim, and for trips with either an origin or destination in the City of Anaheim. The VMT matrix also summarizes trips for the remainder of Orange County, as well as other counties, including Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Ventura County. As shown, under the 2004 Approved Project conditions, the VMT of trips traveling within the City of Anaheim is 889,600, the VMT of trips originating in the City of Anaheim is 7,608,300, and the VMT of trips with a final destination within the City of Anaheim is 7,794,900. Under projected 2035 conditions (project horizon year), the VMT of trips traveling within the City of Anaheim is 1,311,200, the VMT of trips originating in the City of Anaheim is 9,567,900, and the VMT of trips with a final destination within the City of Anaheim is 9,772,400. Based on the 2004 Approved Project VMT and the Proposed Project 2035 (Project horizon year) VMT projections, VMT within the City of Anaheim is projected to increase 47 percent, the VMT of trips originating in the City of Anaheim is projected to increase 26 percent, and the VMT of trips with a final destination within the City of Anaheim is projected to increase 25 percent. When compared to the remainder of Orange County and other counties in Southern California, the VMT within the City of Anaheim is projected to increase 30 percent faster than the remaining portions of Orange County, and 10 percent faster than other counties in Southern California. The VMT of trips originating in the City of Anaheim is projected to increase eight percent faster than the remaining portions of Orange County, and ten percent slower than other counties in Southern California, and the VMT of trips with a final destination in the City of Anaheim is projected to increase seven percent faster than the remaining portions of Orange County, and 11 percent slower than other counties in Southern California. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 14 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study TABLE 5 – VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SUMMARY City of Anaheim Remainder of Orange County Other Counties TOTAL ORIGIN DESTINATION 2004 Approved Project VMT City of Anaheim 889,600 3,489,100 3,229,600 7,608,300 Remainder of Orange County 3,566,100 34,521,800 17,929,000 56,016,900 Other Counties 3,339,200 17,989,700 259,658,400 280,987,300 TOTAL 7,794,900 56,000,600 280,817,000 344,612,500 Proposed Project Horizon Year VMT City of Anaheim 1,311,200 4,314,100 3,942,600 9,567,900 Remainder of Orange County 4,394,700 40,412,400 21,428,600 66,235,700 Other Counties 4,066,500 21,482,400 356,606,800 382,155,700 TOTAL 9,772,400 66,208,900 381,978,000 457,959,300 Raw Difference City of Anaheim 421,600 825,000 713,000 1,959,600 Remainder of Orange County 828,600 5,890,600 3,499,600 10,218,800 Other Counties 727,300 3,492,700 96,948,400 101,168,400 TOTAL 1,977,500 10,208,300 101,161,000 113,346,800 Percent Change City of Anaheim 47% 24% 22% 26% Remainder of Orange County 23% 17% 20% 18% Other Counties 22% 19% 37% 36% TOTAL 25% 18% 36% 33% 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1 APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2004 CERTIFIED EIR The following mitigation measures were included in the 2004 Certified EIR. These mitigation measures are also included in the Proposed Project, and additional mitigation measures have been added for the purposes of this DSEIR. This DSEIR proposes to make certain modifications to the mitigation measures adopted by the City for the 2004 Approved Project. Modifications to the original mitigation measure are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify additions. 5.15-1 The City shall continue to coordinate with Caltrans (designated as lead agency) and the City of Yorba Linda to implement the planned grade separation at the intersection of Imperial Highway/Orangethorpe Avenue. 5.15-2 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the following improvements will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan:  Intersection of Dale Ave/Lincoln Ave; add an additional EB right turn lane  Intersection of Harbor Blvd/Ball Rd; add a 4th WB through lane  Intersection of Sportstown Way/Katella Ave; change NB lane configuration from 1/1/2 to 1.5/.5/2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 15 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study  Intersection of Tustin Ave/La Palma Ave; change SB lane configuration from 2/3/1 to 2/4/0 (would require triple left turn lanes, and add a third left turn lane on the NB or WB approach to mitigate to LOS D  Intersection of Tustin Ave/SR-91 WB ramps; add a second NB left turn lane  Intersection of Imperial Hwy/Santa Ana Canyon Road; add a NB right turn lane (would require triple lefts SB or EB or a 4th through lane NB to mitigate PM peak hour to LOS D)  Intersection of Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 EB ramps; add a 4th SB through lane 5.15-3 The City shall pursue all available funding, including Measure M2 funding, necessary to implement the circulation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. Implementation of transportation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2 shall be conducted in coordination with Caltrans, the County of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and surrounding jurisdictions. To qualify for Measure M2 funds, the City of Anaheim must comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component requirements and have an established policy framework for the required Growth Management Program through the adoption of a Growth Management Element. The updated Growth Management Element will maintain provisions of the existing Growth Management element which: 1) establishes policy statements that identify acceptable traffic levels of service (LOS); 2) commits the City to implement a development mitigation program; and 3) commits the City to implement a development phasing and monitoring program. 5.15-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all costs associated with updating the applicable Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS or depending on the location), the property owner/developer shall be responsible for constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. 5.15-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and TrafficTransportation Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. 5.15-6 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 16 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study 5.15-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer of projects anticipated to employ 250 or more employees shall join and participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association. 6.2 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES As stated in section 6.1, according to the results of the ATAM 2012 model, 20 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F in 2035 with the Proposed Project. For these intersections, a preliminary set of additional mitigation measures have been identified. With implementation of these measures, the significant project related or cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be fully mitigated. Table 6 describes the mitigation measures for those locations. Although every effort was made to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high project costs, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be proposed. These reasons are discussed in the following section. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 17 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study TABLE 6 – PROPOSED INTERSECTION MITIGATION Intersection Add Right Turn Lane Add Thru Lane Add Left Turn Lane Override Impacts Comments Euclid St / Lincoln Ave EB Euclid St / Cerritos Ave SB Euclid St / Katella Ave WB YES Restripe WBR to WBT. Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd WB YES Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave WB YES Restripe WBR to WBT. Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave SB Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave EB Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd EB SB NB YES Lemon St / Orangethorpe Ave NB & SB Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave EB Haster St / Gene Autry Way EB East St / Lincoln Ave NB Lewis St / Ball Rd NB & EB YES Consider realignment of Lewis St to East St State College Blvd / Katella Ave EB YES State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave NB WB YES Sunkist St/Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave NB SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave EB 2.5 EBT, 1.5 EBR Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave NB & SB Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps SB Restripe to 3.5 SBT, 1.5 SBR Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave NB & WB The following intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Euclid Street / Katella Avenue—Restripe westbound right turn lane to westbound through lane The improvement at Euclid Street and Katella Avenue is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing and newly constructed businesses, which support economic development for the City of Anaheim. The potential right-of-way required for receiving lane on the northwest corner of the intersection would significantly impact businesses and parking on the north side of Katella Avenue. Disneyland Drive / Ball Road—Add westbound right turn lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. In order to accommodate the proposed improvement, the intersection would likely need to be expanded. The City has invested heavily in supporting The Anaheim Resort and altering the street system in ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 18 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue— Restripe westbound right turn lane to westbound through lane and add 4th westbound lane to the Simba parking lot entrance The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. This access to the Disneyland Resort has been significantly reconfigured in recent years to accommodate new development at the parks and adjacent parking areas. The addition of lane capacity at this intersection would require substantial right-of-way and negatively affect the attractive gateway that the Disneyland Resort has created through extensive landscaping. Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road—Add northbound left turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn lane The improvements are infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be substantially expanded impacting the right-of-way of several hotel buildings including the Days Inn Suites and Hotel Menage. Altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. Lewis Street / Ball Road—Add northbound right turn lane, eastbound right turn lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent existing structures, including several industrial and high-density office buildings within close proximity to the public right of way. The additional right-of-way necessary for these improvements would increase the cost of the proposed railroad grade separation on Ball Road immediately west of this intersection, potentially making this railroad safety improvement infeasible. Also, having a northbound dual-right turn lane in close proximity to East Street, a signalized intersection less than 600 feet to the east, would negate much of the operational improvements typically expected from dual right turn lanes. It should be noted that a realignment of Lewis Street eastward to line up with East Street is an improvement that should be considered and studied. Since East Street is clear of the grade separation elevation changes, the cost to realign the street may be significantly less than the cost to implement the identified improvements. State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue—Add eastbound left turn lane The addition of a third eastbound left turn lane will significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. This widening will also make Katella Avenue difficult for pedestrians to cross, as with this improvement, pedestrian traffic would have to cross 12 lanes, which is not consistent with the goals of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue—Add northbound right turn lane and westbound through lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent structures, including several high-density office buildings within close proximity to the public right of way. These types of higher density buildings are consistent with the goals of the Platinum Triangle of internal trip capture and promotion of transit use. Additionally, State ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 19 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study College Boulevard is a designated BRT corridor. Improvements to the circulation system in this area should be consistent with the goals of promoting transit use and limiting increased auto trips to this area. All of these intersections have a project related impact under the 2035 General Plan Buildout. As set forth above, there are numerous physical constraints associated with the proposed improvements, including private properties, extensive circulation landscaping and mature trees, and a variety of hotels and other businesses that would likely be impacted. These physical constraints limit the ability to ensure that the improvements necessary to mitigate the project impacts at these locations can be mitigated to less than significant levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page 20 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 1 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study APPENDIX A: PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON 2004 APPROVED PROJECT (ATAM 2000) COMPARED TO 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (ATAM 2012) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 2 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Appendix A – AM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Knott Ave / Lincoln Ave B 0.66 D 0.90 2 Knott Ave / Orange Ave B 0.64 C 0.79 3 Knott Ave / Ball Rd A 0.53 D 0.84 4 Western Ave / Lincoln Ave B 0.62 D 0.83 5 Western Ave / Orange Ave B 0.64 B 0.62 6 Western Ave / Ball Rd B 0.67 C 0.79 7 Beach Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.82 D 0.81 8 Beach Blvd / Orange Ave D 0.82 D 0.82 9 Beach Blvd / Ball Rd C 0.78 C 0.74 10 Beach Blvd / Cerritos Ave D 0.86 C 0.79 11 Dale Ave / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 C 0.71 12 Dale Ave / Broadway A 0.31 A 0.53 13 Dale Ave / Orange Ave A 0.49 C 0.72 14 Dale Ave / Ball Rd A 0.54 B 0.63 15 Dale Ave / Cerritos Ave A 0.53 A 0.50 16 Magnolia St / La Palma Ave A 0.53 C 0.76 17 Magnolia St / Crescent Ave A 0.50 B 0.66 18 Magnolia St / Lincoln Ave A 0.52 C 0.78 19 Magnolia St / Broadway A 0.53 B 0.64 20 Magnolia St / Orange Ave A 0.52 C 0.77 21 Magnolia St / Ball Rd A 0.54 B 0.69 22 Magnolia St / Cerritos Ave B 0.69 A 0.48 23 Gilbert St / La Palma Ave A 0.42 B 0.63 24 Gilbert St / Crescent Ave A 0.31 A 0.51 25 Gilbert St / Lincoln Ave A 0.43 A 0.59 26 Gilbert St / Broadway A 0.38 A 0.42 27 Gilbert St / Orange Ave A 0.44 A 0.36 28 Gilbert St / Ball Rd A 0.42 B 0.63 29 Gilbert St / Cerritos Ave A 0.53 A 0.42 30 Brookhurst St / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.64 C 0.77 31 Brookhurst St / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.69 D 0.81 32 Brookhurst St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 C 0.78 33 Brookhurst St / I-5 SB Ramps B 0.64 C 0.71 34 Brookhurst St / Crescent Ave C 0.73 C 0.71 35 Brookhurst St / Lincoln Ave B 0.65 C 0.78 36 Brookhurst St / Broadway A 0.60 B 0.66 37 Brookhurst St / Orange Ave A 0.56 A 0.49 38 Brookhurst St / Ball Rd A 0.60 B 0.66 39 Brookhurst St / Cerritos Ave A 0.59 D 0.84 40 Brookhurst St / Katella Ave D 0.88 D 0.87 41 Nutwood St / Ball Rd A 0.37 A 0.55 42 Nutwood St / Cerritos Ave A 0.47 B 0.61 43 Nutwood St / Katella Ave C 0.76 C 0.71 44 Crescent Way / Lincoln Ave A 0.53 B 0.65 45 Euclid St / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.62 46 Euclid St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.79 B 0.65 47 Euclid St / Romneya Dr A 0.53 C 0.74 48 Euclid St / La Palma Ave B 0.67 B 0.67 49 Euclid St / Crescent Ave B 0.69 C 0.80 50 Euclid St / Anaheim Shopping Center A 0.54 B 0.66 51 Euclid St / I-5 NB and SB Ramps A 0.51 C 0.74 52 Euclid St / Lincoln Ave B 0.66 E 0.91 53 Euclid St / Broadway C 0.72 D 0.83 54 Euclid St / Orange Ave A 0.41 A 0.55 55 Euclid St / Ball Rd A 0.45 C 0.75 56 Euclid St / Cerritos Ave B 0.71 E 0.92 57 Euclid St / Katella Ave B 0.71 D 0.87 58 Loara St / Crescent Ave A 0.29 B 0.61 59 Loara St / Lincoln Ave A 0.49 D 0.90 60 Loara St / Broadway A 0.43 B 0.62 61 Walnut St / Ball Rd A 0.41 D 0.88 62 Walnut St / Cerritos Ave A 0.46 C 0.72 63 Walnut St / Katella Ave D 0.90 C 0.77 64 I-5 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.37 B 0.61 65 I-5 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.26 C 0.72 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 3 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 66 Manchester Ave / Broadway A 0.60 B 0.65 67 West St / La Palma Ave A 0.41 A 0.49 68 West St / Lincoln Ave A 0.56 B 0.62 69 West St / Broadway A 0.54 A 0.53 70 Manchester / I-5 SB Ramps A 0.52 A 0.52 71 Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd C 0.76 D 0.87 72 Disneyland Dr / Magic Way A 0.47 A 0.45 73 Disneyland Dr / Paradise A 0.29 A 0.30 74 Disneyland Dr / Simba A 0.40 A 0.52 75 Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave A 0.59 D 0.86 76 West St / Convention Way A 0.17 A 0.37 77 Ox Rd / Ball Rd B 0.64 B 0.68 78 Convention Center / Katella Ave A 0.55 A 0.55 79 Citron St / La Palma Ave A 0.41 A 0.48 80 Citron St / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 A 0.48 81 Citron St / Broadway A 0.42 A 0.42 82 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.54 A 0.56 83 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps A 0.58 A 0.58 84 Harbor Blvd / Romneya Dr B 0.61 C 0.74 85 Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave B 0.61 D 0.83 86 Harbor Blvd / North St A 0.50 C 0.76 87 Harbor Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.49 C 0.75 88 Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.84 E 0.92 89 Harbor Blvd / Broadway B 0.65 D 0.84 90 Harbor Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.51 D 0.89 91 Harbor Blvd / South St A 0.60 B 0.70 92 Harbor Blvd / Vermont Ave A 0.60 C 0.78 93 Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd E 0.97 F 1.10 94 Harbor Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps A 0.56 D 0.87 95 Harbor Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps C 0.71 A 0.59 96 Harbor Blvd / Manchester Ave A 0.38 D 0.90 97 Harbor Blvd / East Shuttle Area A 0.55 A 0.43 98 Harbor Blvd / Disney Way A 0.43 A 0.40 99 Harbor Blvd / Katella Ave C 0.78 C 0.80 100 Harbor Blvd / Convention Way A 0.59 C 0.74 101 Harbor Blvd / Orangewood Ave D 0.82 C 0.73 102 Harbor Blvd / Chapman Ave A 0.53 B 0.63 103 Anaheim Blvd / Lemon St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 B 0.66 104 Lemon St / Lincoln Ave A 0.36 A 0.40 105 Lemon St / Ball Rd A 0.42 A 0.51 106 Clementine St / Disney Way A 0.22 A 0.57 107 Clementine St / Katella Ave A 0.59 B 0.65 108 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way A 0.26 A 0.47 109 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.60 C 0.71 110 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.66 B 0.62 111 Anaheim Blvd / La Palma Ave A 0.37 C 0.71 112 Anaheim Blvd / North St A 0.38 A 0.59 113 Anaheim Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.51 A 0.54 114 Anaheim Blvd / Lincoln Ave B 0.61 B 0.69 115 Anaheim Blvd / Broadway B 0.64 C 0.77 116 Anaheim Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.46 B 0.66 117 Anaheim Blvd / South St A 0.57 C 0.79 118 Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave B 0.65 F 1.04 119 Anaheim Blvd / Ball Rd A 0.59 C 0.74 120 Anaheim Blvd / Cerritos Ave A 0.50 C 0.74 121 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps A 0.52 A 0.50 122 Anaheim Blvd / Disney Way A 0.36 B 0.61 123 Anaheim Blvd / Katella Ave C 0.78 D 0.90 124 Haster St / Orangewood Ave A 0.43 C 0.79 125 Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps / Katella Ave F 1.06 D 0.83 126 Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps / Katella Ave A 0.58 D 0.90 127 Olive St / La Palma Ave A 0.31 A 0.51 128 Olive St / Lincoln Ave A 0.39 A 0.50 129 Raymond Ave / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.74 B 0.68 130 East St/Raymond Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.65 B 0.67 131 East St / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.64 B 0.68 132 East St / Romneya Dr A 0.36 A 0.45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 4 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 133 East St / La Palma Ave A 0.57 D 0.82 134 East St / Sycamore St A 0.55 B 0.69 135 East St / Lincoln Ave B 0.66 D 0.84 136 East St / Broadway A 0.51 D 0.87 137 East St / Santa Ana St A 0.42 A 0.60 138 East St / South St A 0.54 C 0.78 139 East St / Vermont Ave B 0.66 C 0.79 140 East St / Ball Rd B 0.68 D 0.81 141 Lewis St / Ball Rd A 0.46 C 0.72 142 Lewis St / Cerritos Ave A 0.42 D 0.88 143 Lewis St / Katella Ave A 0.49 D 0.81 144 Manchester Ave / Orangewood Ave D 0.83 D 0.89 145 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Ave A 0.15 A 0.50 146 Acacia St / La Palma Ave A 0.28 C 0.77 147 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.75 C 0.75 148 State College Blvd / Via Burton St A 0.59 A 0.59 149 State College Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.53 A 0.59 150 State College Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.65 A 0.54 151 State College Blvd / Romneya Dr B 0.66 B 0.61 152 State College Blvd / La Palma Ave B 0.63 B 0.70 153 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave C 0.78 C 0.80 154 State College Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.52 A 0.41 155 State College Blvd / South St A 0.55 C 0.71 156 State College Blvd / Vermont Ave A 0.58 B 0.65 157 State College Blvd / Ball Rd B 0.64 D 0.87 158 State College Blvd / Winston Rd A 0.59 A 0.57 159 State College Blvd / Cerritos Ave B 0.69 C 0.74 160 State College Blvd / Katella Ave D 0.82 D 0.89 161 State College / Sportstown A 0.58 C 0.73 162 State College Blvd / Gene Autry Way C 0.77 B 0.70 163 State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave D 0.86 D 0.82 164 Peregrine St / Lincoln Ave A 0.52 A 0.57 165 Sunkist St / Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave A 0.57 C 0.80 166 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave B 0.61 D 0.85 167 Sunkist St / South St B 0.69 C 0.72 168 Sunkist St / Ball Rd C 0.73 D 0.89 169 Sunkist St / Cerritos Ave B 0.64 D 0.83 170 Howell Ave / Katella Ave B 0.62 D 0.86 171 Sportstown / Katella Ave A 0.48 D 0.82 172 Rampart St / Orangewood Ave A 0.51 B 0.69 173 SR-57 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave B 0.64 B 0.69 174 SR-57 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 A 0.55 175 SR-57 SB Ramps / Ball Rd B 0.62 D 0.82 176 SR-57 NB Ramps / Ball Rd B 0.66 C 0.76 177 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Ave A 0.47 D 0.85 178 SR-57 NB Ramps / Katella Ave A 0.48 B 0.69 179 SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave A 0.56 D 0.87 180 SR-57 NB Ramps / Orangewood Ave A 0.44 B 0.64 181 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 E 0.94 182 Phoenix Club Dr / Ball Rd A 0.58 D 0.83 183 Douglass Rd / Katella Ave D 0.90 D 0.82 184 Blue Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.45 A 0.43 185 Blue Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.45 A 0.60 186 Red Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.18 A 0.26 187 Red Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.34 A 0.38 188 Kraemer Blvd / Crowther Ave A 0.58 D 0.84 189 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.79 D 0.85 190 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave A 0.52 D 0.81 191 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave D 0.82 D 0.81 192 Kraemer Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.62 B 0.66 193 Kraemer Blvd / Frontera St B 0.65 D 0.82 194 Miller St / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.42 A 0.41 195 Miller St / Miraloma St A 0.40 B 0.61 196 Miller St / La Palma Ave A 0.39 B 0.64 197 Orangethorpe Ave / Tustin Connector D 0.89 B 0.64 198 Tustin Ave / Miraloma Ave C 0.74 D 0.83 199 Tustin Ave / La Palma Ave F 1.01 D 0.87 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 5 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study # Intersection AM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 200 Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.79 E 0.96 201 Tustin Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps F 1.22 D 0.81 202 Tustin Ave / Riverdale Ave C 0.76 C 0.71 203 Van Buren St / La Palma Ave A 0.46 A 0.53 204 Orangethorpe Ave / Lakeview Connector A 0.49 A 0.52 205 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave A 0.50 B 0.66 206 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave B 0.64 B 0.66 207 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.67 C 0.73 208 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.80 D 0.84 209 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 EB Off Ramp A 0.50 A 0.58 210 Meats Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.60 A 0.54 211 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.56 B 0.66 212 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.46 C 0.77 213 Kellogg Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.46 A 0.59 214 Royal Oak Rd/Pinney Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.46 B 0.69 215 Royal Oak Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd B 0.64 A 0.50 216 Corporate Cont / La Palma A 0.34 A 0.35 217 Cinema City / La Palma Ave A 0.42 A 0.40 218 Avenida Margarita / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.36 A 0.46 219 Imperial Hwy / Orangethorpe Connector B 0.63 A 0.54 220 Imperial Hwy / La Palma Ave D 0.88 D 0.83 221 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.73 B 0.62 222 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 EB Ramps E 0.93 C 0.76 223 Imperial Hwy / Santa Ana Canyon Rd E 0.91 D 0.85 224 Imperial Hwy / Ave Bernardo N A 0.60 C 0.71 225 Imperial Hwy / Nohl Ranch Rd D 0.86 D 0.83 226 Imperial Hwy / Big Sky Ln/River Valley Trail A 0.58 B 0.64 227 Chrisden St / La Palma Ave A 0.42 A 0.40 228 Via Cortez / Santa Ana Canyon Rd B 0.62 B 0.64 229 Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave A 0.52 C 0.76 230 Anaheim Hills Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.58 D 0.84 231 Anaheim Hills Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd C 0.71 B 0.63 232 Canyon Rim Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.52 A 0.50 233 Fairmont Blvd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.43 B 0.62 234 Mohler Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.41 A 0.58 235 Festival Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.33 A 0.29 236 Roosevelt Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.32 A 0.38 237 Weir Canyon Rd / La Palma Ave C 0.79 C 0.75 238 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.68 239 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.66 C 0.73 240 Weir Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.76 C 0.78 241 Weir Canyon Rd / Monte Vista Rd A 0.57 A 0.51 242 Weir Canyon Rd / Serrano Ave C 0.72 C 0.74 243 Weir Canyon Rd / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.28 A 0.28 244 Serrano Ave / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.46 A 0.48 245 Serrano Ave / Canyon Rim Rd A 0.40 A 0.50 246 Serrano Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.40 A 0.48 247 Placentia Ave / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.51 A 0.57 248 Romneya Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.32 A 0.50 249 Loara St / Ball Rd A 0.45 C 0.71 250 Ninth St / Katella Ave A 0.56 C 0.78 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 6 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Appendix A – PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison (2004 Approved Project vs. Proposed Project) # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Knott Ave / Lincoln Ave D 0.83 D 0.87 2 Knott Ave / Orange Ave C 0.78 C 0.73 3 Knott Ave / Ball Rd C 0.73 D 0.87 4 Western Ave / Lincoln Ave C 0.71 D 0.82 5 Western Ave / Orange Ave B 0.69 A 0.59 6 Western Ave / Ball Rd B 0.70 C 0.80 7 Beach Blvd / Lincoln Ave E 0.93 D 0.89 8 Beach Blvd / Orange Ave D 0.84 C 0.75 9 Beach Blvd / Ball Rd C 0.75 D 0.82 10 Beach Blvd / Cerritos Ave C 0.79 C 0.78 11 Dale Ave / Lincoln Ave E 0.95 D 0.81 12 Dale Ave / Broadway A 0.49 A 0.59 13 Dale Ave / Orange Ave A 0.55 A 0.59 14 Dale Ave / Ball Rd B 0.63 C 0.72 15 Dale Ave / Cerritos Ave B 0.61 A 0.53 16 Magnolia St / La Palma Ave C 0.75 C 0.77 17 Magnolia St / Crescent Ave B 0.63 D 0.87 18 Magnolia St / Lincoln Ave C 0.73 C 0.77 19 Magnolia St / Broadway A 0.60 B 0.62 20 Magnolia St / Orange Ave B 0.63 D 0.90 21 Magnolia St / Ball Rd C 0.73 C 0.74 22 Magnolia St / Cerritos Ave C 0.78 A 0.60 23 Gilbert St / La Palma Ave A 0.47 A 0.58 24 Gilbert St / Crescent Ave A 0.33 A 0.43 25 Gilbert St / Lincoln Ave B 0.63 B 0.66 26 Gilbert St / Broadway A 0.52 A 0.53 27 Gilbert St / Orange Ave B 0.61 A 0.46 28 Gilbert St / Ball Rd A 0.56 B 0.68 29 Gilbert St / Cerritos Ave A 0.56 A 0.44 30 Brookhurst St / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.66 B 0.68 31 Brookhurst St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.78 C 0.77 32 Brookhurst St / La Palma Ave B 0.68 D 0.81 33 Brookhurst St / I-5 SB Ramps C 0.71 D 0.84 34 Brookhurst St / Crescent Ave C 0.72 C 0.76 35 Brookhurst St / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 D 0.81 36 Brookhurst St / Broadway B 0.67 C 0.76 37 Brookhurst St / Orange Ave B 0.66 A 0.58 38 Brookhurst St / Ball Rd C 0.73 D 0.81 39 Brookhurst St / Cerritos Ave B 0.63 D 0.83 40 Brookhurst St / Katella Ave D 0.85 D 0.89 41 Nutwood St / Ball Rd A 0.46 A 0.60 42 Nutwood St / Cerritos Ave A 0.49 A 0.54 43 Nutwood St / Katella Ave C 0.76 B 0.70 44 Crescent Way / Lincoln Ave A 0.56 B 0.65 45 Euclid St / SR-91 WB Ramps D 0.84 D 0.85 46 Euclid St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.71 B 0.65 47 Euclid St / Romneya Dr A 0.59 C 0.73 48 Euclid St / La Palma Ave D 0.87 C 0.79 49 Euclid St / Crescent Ave D 0.83 D 0.87 50 Euclid St / Anaheim Shopping Center B 0.68 B 0.69 51 Euclid St / I-5 NB and SB Ramps C 0.76 D 0.85 52 Euclid St / Lincoln Ave C 0.78 D 0.87 53 Euclid St / Broadway C 0.78 D 0.84 54 Euclid St / Orange Ave A 0.49 A 0.51 55 Euclid St / Ball Rd B 0.63 C 0.79 56 Euclid St / Cerritos Ave C 0.73 E 0.96 57 Euclid St / Katella Ave E 0.91 E 0.91 58 Loara St / Crescent Ave B 0.65 B 0.69 59 Loara St / Lincoln Ave A 0.54 B 0.65 60 Loara St / Broadway A 0.49 B 0.65 61 Walnut St / Ball Rd A 0.45 D 0.82 62 Walnut St / Cerritos Ave A 0.47 C 0.78 63 Walnut St / Katella Ave B 0.61 C 0.77 64 I-5 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 D 0.82 65 I-5 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.44 D 0.88 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 7 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 66 Manchester Ave / Broadway A 0.57 B 0.65 67 West St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 A 0.52 68 West St / Lincoln Ave B 0.68 B 0.66 69 West St / Broadway A 0.52 A 0.54 70 Manchester / I-5 SB Ramps A 0.31 A 0.35 71 Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd B 0.68 E 0.92 72 Disneyland Dr / Magic Way A 0.59 A 0.55 73 Disneyland Dr / Paradise A 0.38 A 0.37 74 Disneyland Dr / Simba A 0.33 B 0.70 75 Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave C 0.79 E 0.95 76 West St / Convention Way A 0.30 A 0.35 77 Ox Rd / Ball Rd C 0.74 C 0.76 78 Convention Center / Katella Ave A 0.57 B 0.65 79 Citron St / La Palma Ave A 0.38 A 0.50 80 Citron St / Lincoln Ave A 0.52 A 0.51 81 Citron St / Broadway A 0.49 A 0.46 82 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.71 C 0.77 83 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.64 84 Harbor Blvd / Romneya Dr C 0.71 B 0.67 85 Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave C 0.77 E 0.96 86 Harbor Blvd / North St A 0.49 B 0.66 87 Harbor Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.38 B 0.68 88 Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.90 D 0.88 89 Harbor Blvd / Broadway B 0.67 D 0.86 90 Harbor Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.58 C 0.77 91 Harbor Blvd / South St A 0.56 C 0.72 92 Harbor Blvd / Vermont Ave B 0.65 B 0.70 93 Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd F 1.12 F 1.11 94 Harbor Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps C 0.74 D 0.85 95 Harbor Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps B 0.63 A 0.42 96 Harbor Blvd / Manchester Ave A 0.57 A 0.59 97 Harbor Blvd / East Shuttle Area A 0.56 A 0.37 98 Harbor Blvd / Disney Way A 0.56 A 0.43 99 Harbor Blvd / Katella Ave E 0.96 D 0.89 100 Harbor Blvd / Convention Way D 0.82 C 0.73 101 Harbor Blvd / Orangewood Ave E 0.96 D 0.85 102 Harbor Blvd / Chapman Ave B 0.69 C 0.75 103 Anaheim Blvd / Lemon St / La Palma Ave A 0.48 C 0.78 104 Lemon St / Lincoln Ave A 0.47 A 0.45 105 Lemon St / Ball Rd A 0.39 A 0.47 106 Clementine St / Disney Way A 0.27 A 0.57 107 Clementine St / Katella Ave B 0.63 D 0.82 108 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way A 0.25 A 0.44 109 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.62 C 0.77 110 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.73 C 0.71 111 Anaheim Blvd / La Palma Ave B 0.68 D 0.85 112 Anaheim Blvd / North St A 0.46 B 0.67 113 Anaheim Blvd / Sycamore St A 0.52 B 0.65 114 Anaheim Blvd / Lincoln Ave B 0.70 C 0.77 115 Anaheim Blvd / Broadway C 0.79 D 0.83 116 Anaheim Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.58 C 0.77 117 Anaheim Blvd / South St C 0.79 D 0.81 118 Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave B 0.63 D 0.85 119 Anaheim Blvd / Ball Rd D 0.81 D 0.89 120 Anaheim Blvd / Cerritos Ave C 0.73 D 0.89 121 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps C 0.76 D 0.83 122 Anaheim Blvd / Disney Way A 0.48 D 0.85 123 Anaheim Blvd / Katella Ave D 0.87 D 0.89 124 Haster St / Orangewood Ave C 0.74 C 0.75 125 Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps / Katella Ave E 0.98 C 0.73 126 Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps / Katella Ave B 0.68 D 0.86 127 Olive St / La Palma Ave A 0.40 A 0.48 128 Olive St / Lincoln Ave A 0.48 A 0.50 129 Raymond Ave / Orangethorpe Ave E 0.93 D 0.86 130 East St/Raymond Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.80 C 0.71 131 East St / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.76 C 0.80 132 East St / Romneya Dr A 0.43 B 0.62 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 8 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 133 East St / La Palma Ave B 0.69 D 0.81 134 East St / Sycamore St A 0.57 B 0.65 135 East St / Lincoln Ave E 0.94 E 0.91 136 East St / Broadway A 0.50 C 0.74 137 East St / Santa Ana St A 0.42 A 0.59 138 East St / South St A 0.41 C 0.71 139 East St / Vermont Ave A 0.49 C 0.79 140 East St / Ball Rd B 0.66 C 0.79 141 Lewis St / Ball Rd B 0.68 E 0.97 142 Lewis St / Cerritos Ave A 0.54 C 0.78 143 Lewis St / Katella Ave B 0.64 D 0.81 144 Manchester Ave / Orangewood Ave B 0.61 C 0.80 145 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Ave A 0.34 B 0.68 146 Acacia St / La Palma Ave A 0.37 A 0.56 147 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave C 0.78 C 0.74 148 State College Blvd / Via Burton St C 0.79 B 0.65 149 State College Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.68 C 0.73 150 State College Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps B 0.63 B 0.62 151 State College Blvd / Romneya Dr D 0.86 C 0.74 152 State College Blvd / La Palma Ave C 0.76 D 0.81 153 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave D 0.82 C 0.80 154 State College Blvd / Santa Ana St A 0.56 A 0.46 155 State College Blvd / South St A 0.52 B 0.67 156 State College Blvd / Vermont Ave A 0.57 A 0.50 157 State College Blvd / Ball Rd C 0.77 D 0.84 158 State College Blvd / Winston Rd B 0.66 B 0.61 159 State College Blvd / Cerritos Ave B 0.61 C 0.71 160 State College Blvd / Katella Ave D 0.90 E 0.95 161 State College Blvd / Sportstown A 0.55 D 0.82 162 State College Blvd / Gene Autry Way A 0.41 D 0.86 163 State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave C 0.73 F 1.05 164 Peregrine St / Lincoln Ave B 0.62 A 0.58 165 Sunkist St / Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave C 0.75 E 0.91 166 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave C 0.76 D 0.82 167 Sunkist St / South St A 0.56 B 0.67 168 Sunkist St / Ball Rd D 0.84 D 0.85 169 Sunkist St / Cerritos Ave B 0.66 D 0.88 170 Howell Ave / Katella Ave D 0.87 D 0.83 171 Sportstown / Katella Ave C 0.74 D 0.90 172 Rampart St / Orangewood Ave A 0.60 D 0.85 173 SR-57 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave A 0.58 B 0.63 174 SR-57 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave B 0.67 B 0.69 175 SR-57 SB Ramps / Ball Rd B 0.62 B 0.64 176 SR-57 NB Ramps / Ball Rd C 0.77 C 0.80 177 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Ave B 0.69 C 0.75 178 SR-57 NB Ramps / Katella Ave B 0.69 B 0.70 179 SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave C 0.76 E 0.91 180 SR-57 NB Ramps / Orangewood Ave A 0.47 B 0.69 181 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave D 0.87 D 0.86 182 Phoenix Club Dr / Ball Rd B 0.68 D 0.88 183 Douglass Rd / Katella Ave F 1.12 C 0.78 184 Blue Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.48 B 0.62 185 Blue Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.58 C 0.79 186 Red Gum St / Miraloma Ave A 0.24 A 0.30 187 Red Gum St / La Palma Ave A 0.42 A 0.53 188 Kraemer Blvd / Crowther Ave B 0.65 B 0.68 189 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave D 0.84 C 0.80 190 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave B 0.68 D 0.89 191 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave E 0.97 D 0.84 192 Kraemer Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps A 0.58 B 0.70 193 Kraemer Blvd / Frontera St B 0.67 B 0.69 194 Miller St / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.48 A 0.50 195 Miller St / Miraloma St A 0.29 A 0.56 196 Miller St / La Palma Ave A 0.50 C 0.73 197 Orangethorpe Ave / Tustin Connector C 0.80 B 0.62 198 Tustin Ave / Miraloma Ave B 0.67 D 0.87 199 Tustin Ave / La Palma Ave C 0.77 D 0.88 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 9 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study # Intersection PM Peak Hour 2004 Approved Project (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout (ATAM 2012) ICU LOS ICU LOS 200 Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps D 0.85 D 0.90 201 Tustin Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps E 0.98 D 0.81 202 Tustin Ave / Riverdale Ave D 0.88 D 0.81 203 Van Buren St / La Palma Ave A 0.56 A 0.60 204 Orangethorpe Ave / Lakeview Connector B 0.67 A 0.47 205 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave A 0.55 D 0.82 206 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave D 0.84 D 0.83 207 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps B 0.66 A 0.57 208 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.71 C 0.77 209 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 EB Off Ramp A 0.58 A 0.45 210 Meats Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.29 A 0.32 211 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.58 C 0.72 212 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave B 0.67 B 0.69 213 Kellogg Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.50 B 0.62 214 Royal Oak Rd/Pinney Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.60 A 0.49 215 Royal Oak Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.36 A 0.31 216 Corporate Cont / La Palma A 0.37 A 0.41 217 Cinema City / La Palma Ave A 0.57 A 0.47 218 Avenida Margarita / Santa Ana Canyon Rd B 0.63 A 0.54 219 Imperial Hwy / Orangethorpe Connector E 0.94 A 0.50 220 Imperial Hwy / La Palma Ave E 0.95 D 0.82 221 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.72 B 0.67 222 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 EB Ramps C 0.76 C 0.79 223 Imperial Hwy / Santa Ana Canyon Rd F 1.01 D 0.85 224 Imperial Hwy / Ave Bernardo N A 0.49 A 0.55 225 Imperial Hwy / Nohl Ranch Rd E 0.95 C 0.79 226 Imperial Hwy / Big Sky Ln/River Valley Trail A 0.49 A 0.49 227 Chrisden St / La Palma Ave A 0.54 B 0.61 228 Via Cortez / Santa Ana Canyon Rd B 0.67 D 0.84 229 Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave A 0.58 E 0.99 230 Anaheim Hills Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd C 0.76 D 0.86 231 Anaheim Hills Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd B 0.66 A 0.57 232 Canyon Rim Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.56 A 0.54 233 Fairmont Blvd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.57 B 0.69 234 Mohler Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.51 A 0.60 235 Festival Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.43 A 0.42 236 Roosevelt Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd A 0.53 C 0.71 237 Weir Canyon Rd / La Palma Ave D 0.84 D 0.85 238 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 WB Ramps C 0.78 B 0.70 239 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 EB Ramps E 0.92 D 0.89 240 Weir Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd E 0.96 C 0.79 241 Weir Canyon Rd / Monte Vista Rd C 0.75 C 0.76 242 Weir Canyon Rd / Serrano Ave C 0.73 A 0.48 243 Weir Canyon Rd / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.36 A 0.26 244 Serrano Ave / Oak Canyon Dr A 0.58 A 0.37 245 Serrano Ave / Canyon Rim Rd A 0.45 A 0.37 246 Serrano Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd A 0.33 A 0.30 247 Placentia Ave / Orangethorpe Ave A 0.60 B 0.64 248 Romneya Dr / La Palma Ave A 0.57 A 0.56 249 Loara St / Ball Rd A 0.52 C 0.76 250 Ninth St / Katella Ave A 0.55 C 0.61 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 10 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 11 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study APPENDIX B: CITY OF ANAHEIM FUTURE 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR LOS SUMMARY (ATAM 2012) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 12 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Appendix B – Future 2035 (ATAM 2012) Peak Hour LOS Summary Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Knott Ave / Lincoln Ave 0.90 D 0.87 D 2 Knott Ave / Danbrook Ave 0.34 A 0.36 A 3 Knott Ave / Orange Ave 0.79 C 0.73 C 4 Knott Ave / Savanna St 0.48 A 0.39 A 5 Knott Ave / Ball Rd 0.84 D 0.87 D 6 Knott Ave / Cerritos Ave 0.75 C 0.75 C 7 Western Ave / Lincoln Ave 0.83 D 0.82 D 8 Western Ave / Orange Ave 0.62 B 0.59 A 9 Western Ave / Ball Rd 0.79 C 0.80 C 10 Western Ave / Cerritos Ave 0.72 C 0.64 B 11 Grand Ave / Lincoln Ave 0.48 A 0.55 A 12 Beach Blvd / Anacapa Way 0.55 A 0.57 A 13 Beach Blvd / Lincoln Ave 0.81 D 0.89 D 14 Beach Blvd / Youth Center 0.52 A 0.50 A 15 Beach Blvd / Orange Ave 0.82 D 0.75 C 16 Beach Blvd / Ball Rd 0.74 C 0.82 D 17 Beach Blvd / Cerritos Ave 0.79 C 0.78 C 18 Laxore St / Lincoln Ave 0.48 A 0.50 A 19 Gaymont St / Ball Rd 0.47 A 0.46 A 20 Dale Ave / Crescent Ave 0.67 B 0.61 B 21 Dale Ave / Lincoln Ave 0.71 C 0.81 D 22 Dale Ave / Broadway 0.53 A 0.59 A 23 Dale Ave / Orange Ave 0.72 C 0.59 A 24 Dale Ave / Ball Rd 0.63 B 0.72 C 25 Dale Ave / Cerritos Ave 0.50 A 0.53 A 26 Magnolia St / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.85 D 0.68 B 27 Magnolia St / I-5 NB Off-Ramp/Buckingham St 0.87 D 0.85 D 28 Magnolia St / SR-91 EB / I-5 SB Ramps 0.71 C 0.54 A 29 Magnolia St / Northgate 0.48 A 0.47 A 30 Magnolia St / Woodland Dr 0.65 B 0.60 A 31 Magnolia St / La Palma Ave 0.76 C 0.77 C 32 Magnolia St / Greenleaf Ave 0.39 A 0.36 A 33 Magnolia St / Crescent Ave 0.66 B 0.87 D 34 Magnolia St / Lincoln Ave 0.78 C 0.77 C 35 Magnolia St / Broadway 0.64 B 0.62 B 36 Magnolia St / Orange Ave 0.77 C 0.90 D 37 Magnolia St / Ball Rd 0.69 B 0.74 C 38 Magnolia St / Cerritos Ave 0.48 A 0.60 A 39 Woodland Dr / La Palma Ave 0.33 A 0.56 A 40 Webster St / Ball Rd 0.49 A 0.49 A 41 Gilbert St / La Palma Ave 0.63 B 0.58 A 42 Gilbert St / Crescent Ave 0.51 A 0.43 A 43 Gilbert St / Lincoln Ave 0.59 A 0.66 B 44 Gilbert St / Broadway 0.42 A 0.53 A 45 Gilbert St / Orange Ave 0.36 A 0.46 A 46 Gilbert St / Ball Rd 0.63 B 0.68 B 47 Gilbert St / Cerritos Ave 0.42 A 0.44 A 48 Gilbert St / Katella Ave 0.70 B 0.77 C 49 Belinda Cir / Lincoln Ave 0.41 A 0.54 A 50 Monterey St / Lincoln Ave 0.43 A 0.41 A 51 Perdido St / Ball Rd 0.48 A 0.48 A 52 Brookhurst St / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.77 C 0.68 B 53 Brookhurst St / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.81 D 0.77 C 54 Brookhurst St / Huntington Ave 0.88 D 0.58 A 55 Brookhurst St / Falmouth Ave 0.67 B 0.58 A 56 Brookhurst St / La Palma Ave 0.78 C 0.81 D 57 Brookhurst St / I-5 SB Ramps 0.71 C 0.84 D 58 Brookhurst St / Sequoia Ave 0.59 A 0.52 A 59 Brookhurst St / Crescent Ave 0.71 C 0.76 C 60 Brookhurst St / Catalina Ave 0.76 C 0.59 A 61 Brookhurst St / Lincoln Ave 0.78 C 0.81 D 62 Brookhurst St / Broadway 0.66 B 0.76 C 63 Brookhurst St / Orange Ave 0.49 A 0.58 A 64 Brookhurst St / Brookmore Ave 0.49 A 0.47 A 65 Brookhurst St / Ball Rd 0.66 B 0.81 D ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 13 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 66 Brookhurst St / Cerritos Ave 0.84 D 0.83 D 67 Brookhurst St / Katella Ave 0.87 D 0.89 D 68 Columbine St / La Palma Ave 0.49 A 0.49 A 69 Anaheim Shores Dr / Fairview St / La Palma Ave 0.50 A 0.56 A 70 Muller St / Crescent Ave 0.29 A 0.33 A 71 Muller St / Lincoln Ave 0.64 B 0.55 A 72 Crescent Way / Lincoln Ave 0.65 B 0.65 B 73 Agate St / Broadway 0.45 A 0.41 A 74 Empire St / Ball Rd 0.55 A 0.45 A 75 Nutwood St / Broadway 0.46 A 0.42 A 76 Nutwood St / Orange Ave 0.25 A 0.12 A 77 Nutwood St / Orange Ave 0.24 A 0.14 A 78 Nutwood St / Ball Rd 0.55 A 0.60 A 79 Nutwood St / Cerritos Ave 0.61 B 0.54 A 80 Nutwood St / Katella Ave 0.71 C 0.70 B 81 Trident St / Ball Rd 0.56 A 0.49 A 82 Euclid St / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.62 B 0.85 D 83 Euclid St / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.65 B 0.65 B 84 Euclid St / Medical Center Dr 0.56 A 0.64 B 85 Euclid St / Romneya Dr 0.74 C 0.73 C 86 Euclid St / La Palma Ave 0.67 B 0.79 C 87 Euclid St / Glenoaks Ave 0.62 B 0.64 B 88 Euclid St / Crescent Ave 0.80 C 0.87 D 89 Euclid St / Anaheim Shopping Center 0.66 B 0.69 B 90 Euclid St / I-5 NB and SB Ramps 0.74 C 0.85 D 91 Euclid St / Lincoln Ave 0.91 E 0.87 D 92 Euclid St / Target Driveway 0.40 A 0.48 A 93 Euclid St / Broadway 0.83 D 0.84 D 94 Euclid St / Orange Ave 0.55 A 0.51 A 95 Euclid St / Crone Ave 0.59 A 0.55 A 96 Euclid St / Ball Rd 0.75 C 0.79 C 97 Euclid St / Palais Rd 0.45 A 0.43 A 98 Euclid St / Cerritos Ave 0.92 E 0.96 E 99 Euclid St / Katella Ave 0.87 D 0.91 E 100 Euclid St / Orangewood Ave 0.68 B 0.79 C 101 Loara St / North St 0.37 A 0.43 A 102 Loara St / Crescent Ave 0.61 B 0.69 B 103 Loara St / Westmont Dr 0.50 A 0.62 B 104 Loara St / Lincoln Ave 0.90 D 0.65 B 105 Loara St / Broadway 0.62 B 0.65 B 106 Loara St / Ball Rd 0.71 C 0.76 C 107 Loara St / Orangewood Ave 0.43 A 0.39 A 108 I-5 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave 0.61 B 0.82 D 109 Manchester Ave / Lincoln Ave 0.63 B 0.66 B 110 I-5 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave 0.72 C 0.88 D 111 9th St / Cerritos Ave 0.51 A 0.42 A 112 9th St / Katella Ave 0.78 C 0.61 B 113 9th St / Orangewood Ave 0.72 C 0.61 B 114 Manchester Ave / Broadway 0.65 B 0.65 B 115 Manchester Ave / Santa Ana St 0.48 A 0.60 A 116 Walnut St / Ball Rd 0.88 D 0.82 D 117 Walnut St / Cerritos Ave 0.72 C 0.78 C 118 Walnut St / Katella Ave 0.77 C 0.77 C 119 Flore St/West Pl / Ball Rd 0.65 B 0.54 A 120 West St / La Palma Ave (West side) 0.41 A 0.57 A 121 West St / La Palma Ave (East side) 0.49 A 0.52 A 122 West St / Lincoln Ave 0.62 B 0.66 B 123 West St / Broadway 0.53 A 0.54 A 124 West St / Santa Ana St 0.44 A 0.43 A 125 Disneyland Dr / I-5 Ramps 0.52 A 0.35 A 126 Disneyland Dr / Ball Rd 0.87 D 0.92 E 127 Disneyland Dr / Magic Way 0.45 A 0.55 A 128 Disneyland Dr / Paradise 0.30 A 0.37 A 129 Disneyland Dr / Simba 0.52 A 0.70 B 130 Disneyland Dr / Katella Ave 0.86 D 0.95 E 131 West St / Convention Way 0.37 A 0.35 A 132 West St / Orangewood Ave 0.60 A 0.64 B ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 14 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 133 Ox Rd / Ball Rd 0.68 B 0.76 C 134 Convention Center / Katella Ave 0.55 A 0.65 B 135 Hotel Way / Katella Ave 0.66 B 0.75 C 136 Hotel Way / Convention Way 0.52 A 0.51 A 137 Citron St / La Palma Ave 0.48 A 0.50 A 138 Citron St / Lincoln Ave 0.48 A 0.51 A 139 Citron St / Broadway 0.42 A 0.46 A 140 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.56 A 0.77 C 141 Harbor Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.58 A 0.64 B 142 Harbor Blvd / Romneya Dr 0.74 C 0.67 B 143 Harbor Blvd / La Palma Ave 0.83 D 0.96 E 144 Harbor Blvd / North St 0.76 C 0.66 B 145 Harbor Blvd / Sycamore St 0.75 C 0.68 B 146 Harbor Blvd / Lincoln Ave 0.92 E 0.88 D 147 Harbor Blvd / Broadway 0.84 D 0.86 D 148 Harbor Blvd / Santa Ana St 0.89 D 0.77 C 149 Harbor Blvd / Water St 0.62 B 0.51 A 150 Harbor Blvd / South St 0.70 B 0.72 C 151 Harbor Blvd / Vermont Ave 0.78 C 0.70 B 152 Harbor Blvd / Ball Rd 1.10 F 1.11 F 153 Harbor Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps 0.87 D 0.85 D 154 Harbor Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps 0.59 A 0.42 A 155 Harbor Blvd / Manchester Ave 0.90 D 0.59 A 156 Harbor Blvd / East Shuttle Area 0.43 A 0.37 A 157 Harbor Blvd / Disney Way 0.40 A 0.43 A 158 Harbor Blvd / Katella Ave 0.80 C 0.89 D 159 Harbor Blvd / Convention Way 0.74 C 0.73 C 160 Harbor Blvd / Orangewood Ave 0.73 C 0.85 D 161 Harbor Blvd / Wilken Way 0.35 A 0.54 A 162 Harbor Blvd / Chapman Ave 0.63 B 0.75 C 163 Lemon St / Orangethorpe Ave 0.70 B 1.01 F 164 Lemon St / Orangefair Ave 0.61 B 0.74 C 165 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.71 C 0.77 C 166 Lemon St/Anaheim Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.62 B 0.71 C 167 Anaheim Blvd / Commercial St 0.33 A 0.44 A 168 Lemon St / Lincoln Ave 0.40 A 0.45 A 169 Lemon St / Broadway 0.42 A 0.50 A 170 Lemon St / Ball Rd 0.51 A 0.47 A 171 Clementine St / Lincoln Ave 0.73 C 0.73 C 172 Clementine St / Broadway 0.44 A 0.40 A 173 Clementine St / Disney Way 0.57 A 0.57 A 174 Clementine St / Katella Ave 0.65 B 0.82 D 175 Clementine St / Gene Autry Way 0.41 A 0.60 A 176 Clementine St / Orangewood Ave 0.53 A 0.45 A 177 Willowbrook Ln / Chapman Ave 0.50 A 0.50 A 178 Anaheim Blvd / Carl Karcher Way 0.33 A 0.44 A 179 Anaheim Blvd / La Palma Ave W 0.66 B 0.78 C 180 Anaheim Blvd / La Palma Ave E 0.71 C 0.85 D 181 Anaheim Blvd / North St 0.59 A 0.67 B 182 Anaheim Blvd / Sycamore St 0.54 A 0.65 B 183 Anaheim Blvd / Lincoln Ave 0.69 B 0.77 C 184 Anaheim Blvd / Center St 0.47 A 0.48 A 185 Anaheim Blvd / Center St Promenade 0.48 A 0.36 A 186 Anaheim Blvd / Broadway 0.77 C 0.83 D 187 Anaheim Blvd / Santa Ana St 0.66 B 0.77 C 188 Anaheim Blvd / Water St 0.54 A 0.65 B 189 Anaheim Blvd / South St 0.79 C 0.81 D 190 Anaheim Blvd / Vermont Ave 1.04 F 0.85 D 191 Anaheim Blvd / Ball Rd 0.74 C 0.89 D 192 Anaheim Blvd / Palais Rd 0.49 A 0.63 B 193 Anaheim Blvd / Cerritos Ave 0.74 C 0.89 D 194 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps 0.50 A 0.83 D 195 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps 0.61 B 0.85 D 196 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way 0.47 A 0.44 A 197 Anaheim Blvd / Katella Ave 0.90 D 0.89 D 198 Haster St / Gene Autry Way 0.62 B 0.93 E 199 Haster St / Orangewood Ave 0.79 C 0.75 C ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 15 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 200 Haster St / Wilken Way 0.52 A 0.50 A 201 Haster St / Chapman Ave 0.64 B 0.70 B 202 Olive St / La Palma Ave 0.51 A 0.48 A 203 Olive St / Lincoln Ave 0.50 A 0.50 A 204 Olive St / Broadway 0.54 A 0.47 A 205 Olive St / Vermont Ave 0.45 A 0.43 A 206 Claudina St / Ball Rd 0.60 A 0.68 B 207 Allec St / Ball Rd 0.60 A 0.65 B 208 Allec St / Cerritos Ave 0.48 A 0.61 B 209 Mountain View Ave / Orangewood Ave 0.37 A 0.42 A 210 Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps / Katella Ave 0.83 D 0.73 C 211 Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps / Katella Ave 0.90 D 0.86 D 212 Raymond Ave / Orangethorpe Ave 0.68 B 0.86 D 213 East St/Raymond Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.67 B 0.71 C 214 East St / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.68 B 0.80 C 215 East St / Romneya Dr 0.45 A 0.62 B 216 East St / La Palma Ave 0.82 D 0.81 D 217 East St / Sycamore St 0.69 B 0.65 B 218 East St / Lincoln Ave 0.84 D 0.91 E 219 East St / Broadway 0.87 D 0.74 C 220 East St / Santa Ana St 0.60 A 0.59 A 221 East St / South St 0.78 C 0.71 C 222 East St / Vermont Ave 0.79 C 0.79 C 223 East St / Ball Rd 0.81 D 0.79 C 224 Lewis St / Ball Rd 0.72 C 0.97 E 225 Lewis St / Cerritos Ave 0.88 D 0.78 C 226 Lewis St / North Connector Rd 0.38 A 0.41 A 227 Lewis St / Katella Ave 0.81 D 0.81 D 228 Lewis St / Anaheim Way 0.13 A 0.45 A 229 Lewis St / Lewis/Anaheim Connector 0.52 A 0.63 B 230 Lewis St / Gene Autry Way 0.44 A 0.50 A 231 Lewis St / Orangewood Ave 0.57 A 0.79 C 232 Acacia St / Romneya Dr 0.44 A 0.47 A 233 Acacia St / La Palma Ave 0.77 C 0.56 A 234 Baxter St / La Palma Ave 0.44 A 0.47 A 235 La Plaza / Lincoln Ave 0.62 B 0.53 A 236 Vernon St / Cerritos Ave 0.52 A 0.56 A 237 Market St / Katella Ave 0.55 A 0.58 A 238 Market St / Gene Autry Way 0.48 A 0.50 A 239 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 0.38 A 0.32 A 240 Manchester Ave / Orangewood Ave 0.89 D 0.80 C 241 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Ave 0.50 A 0.68 B 242 Orange Center Dr / Orangewood Ave 0.53 A 0.67 B 243 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave 0.75 C 0.74 C 244 State College Blvd / Via Burton St 0.59 A 0.65 B 245 State College Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.59 A 0.73 C 246 State College Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.54 A 0.62 B 247 State College Blvd / Romneya Dr 0.61 B 0.74 C 248 State College Blvd / Sycamore Plaza 0.40 A 0.53 A 249 State College Blvd / La Palma Ave 0.70 B 0.81 D 250 State College Blvd / Underhill Ave 0.44 A 0.51 A 251 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave 0.80 C 0.80 C 252 State College Blvd / Anaheim Town Center 0.32 A 0.45 A 253 State College Blvd / Santa Ana St 0.41 A 0.46 A 254 State College Blvd / South St N 0.71 C 0.67 B 255 State College Blvd / South St S 0.58 A 0.63 B 256 State College Blvd / Vermont Ave 0.65 B 0.50 A 257 State College Blvd / Wagner Ave 0.58 A 0.55 A 258 State College Blvd / Ball Rd 0.87 D 0.84 D 259 State College Blvd / Winston Rd 0.57 A 0.61 B 260 State College Blvd / Cerritos Ave 0.74 C 0.71 C 261 State College Blvd / Howell Ave 0.56 A 0.63 B 262 State College Blvd / Katella Ave 0.89 D 0.95 E 263 State College Blvd / Gateway 0.73 C 0.82 D 264 State College Blvd / Gene Autry Way 0.70 B 0.86 D 265 State College Blvd / Artisan Ct 0.48 A 0.59 A 266 State College Blvd / Orangewood Ave 0.82 D 1.05 F ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 16 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 267 State College Blvd / Orange Center Dr 0.43 A 0.62 B 268 State College Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps 0.70 B 0.73 C 269 State College Blvd / I-5 SB Ramps 0.60 A 0.56 A 270 State College Blvd / Chapman Ave 0.71 C 0.81 D 271 Placentia Ave / Orangethorpe Ave 0.57 A 0.64 B 272 Placentia Ave / Via Burton St 0.22 A 0.37 A 273 Placentia Ave / La Jolla St 0.28 A 0.42 A 274 Anaheim Town Center / Lincoln Ave 0.57 A 0.51 A 275 Peregrine St / Lincoln Ave 0.57 A 0.58 A 276 Sunkist St / Howell Ave 0.62 B 0.74 C 277 Howell Ave / Katella Ave 0.86 D 0.83 D 278 Sportstown / Katella Ave 0.82 D 0.90 D 279 Sunkist St/Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave 0.80 C 0.91 E 280 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave 0.85 D 0.82 D 281 Sunkist St / South St 0.72 C 0.67 B 282 Sunkist St / Wagner Ave 0.80 C 0.49 A 283 Sunkist St / Ball Rd 0.89 D 0.85 D 284 Sunkist St / Winston Rd 0.52 A 0.43 A 285 Sunkist St / Cerritos Ave 0.83 D 0.88 D 286 SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangethorpe Ave 0.55 A 0.54 A 287 SR-57 NB Ramps / Orangethorpe Ave 0.63 B 0.70 B 288 SR-57 SB Ramps / Lincoln Ave 0.69 B 0.63 B 289 SR-57 NB Ramps / Lincoln Ave 0.55 A 0.69 B 290 SR-57 SB Ramps / Ball Rd 0.82 D 0.64 B 291 SR-57 NB Ramps / Ball Rd 0.76 C 0.80 C 292 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Ave 0.85 D 0.75 C 293 SR-57 NB Ramps / Katella Ave 0.69 B 0.70 B 294 Phoenix Club Dr / Ball Rd 0.83 D 0.88 D 295 Douglass Rd / Katella Ave 0.82 D 0.78 C 296 Dupont Dr / Orangewood Ave 0.67 B 0.82 D 297 Rampart St / Orangewood Ave 0.69 B 0.85 D 298 SR-57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Ave 0.87 D 0.91 E 299 SR-57 NB Ramps / Orangewood Ave 0.64 B 0.69 B 300 Chantilly St/Frontera St / La Palma Ave 0.60 A 0.56 A 301 Rio Vista St / Frontera St 0.36 A 0.30 A 302 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave 0.94 E 0.86 D 303 Rio Vista St / South St 0.37 A 0.33 A 304 Kingsley St / Lincoln Ave 0.59 A 0.58 A 305 Melrose St / Orangethorpe Ave 0.58 A 0.69 B 306 Melrose St / La Jolla St 0.46 A 0.54 A 307 Blue Gum St / Miraloma Ave 0.43 A 0.62 B 308 Blue Gum St / Coronado St 0.19 A 0.23 A 309 Blue Gum St / La Palma Ave 0.60 A 0.79 C 310 Sunshine Way / Miraloma Ave 0.36 A 0.36 A 311 White Star Ave / La Palma Ave 0.20 A 0.28 A 312 Red Gum St / Miraloma Ave 0.26 A 0.30 A 313 Red Gum St / La Palma Ave 0.38 A 0.53 A 314 Kraemer Blvd / Crowther Ave 0.84 D 0.68 B 315 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave 0.85 D 0.80 C 316 Kraemer Blvd / La Jolla St 0.64 B 0.52 A 317 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave 0.81 D 0.89 D 318 Kraemer Blvd / Coronado St 0.52 A 0.52 A 319 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave 0.81 D 0.84 D 320 Kraemer Blvd / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.66 B 0.70 B 321 Kraemer Blvd / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.57 A 0.86 D 322 Glassell St / Frontera St 0.82 D 0.69 B 323 Shepard St / La Palma Ave 0.40 A 0.56 A 324 Miller St / Orangethorpe Ave 0.41 A 0.50 A 325 Miller St / Miraloma St 0.61 B 0.56 A 326 Miller St / Autonetics Way 0.21 A 0.20 A 327 Miller St / La Palma Ave 0.64 B 0.73 C 328 Ocean Cir / La Palma Ave 0.25 A 0.37 A 329 Chapman Ave / Orangethorpe Ave 0.44 A 0.68 B 330 Grove St / Miraloma Ave 0.30 A 0.43 A 331 Grove St / La Palma Ave 0.60 A 0.59 A 332 Cosby Way / La Palma Ave 0.42 A 0.53 A 333 Tustin Ave / Orangethorpe Connector 0.68 B 0.87 D ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 17 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 334 Orangethorpe Ave / Tustin Connector 0.64 B 0.62 B 335 Tustin Ave / Miraloma Ave 0.83 D 0.87 D 336 Tustin Ave / Jefferson St 0.78 C 0.65 B 337 Tustin Ave / La Palma Ave 0.87 D 0.88 D 338 Tustin Ave / Pacificenter Dr 0.64 B 0.69 B 339 Tustin Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.96 E 0.90 D 340 Tustin Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.81 D 0.81 D 341 Tustin Ave / Riverdale Ave 0.71 C 0.81 D 342 Tustin Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.38 A 0.37 A 343 Pacificenter Dr / La Palma Ave 0.36 A 0.31 A 344 Jefferson St / Orangethorpe Ave 0.43 A 0.48 A 345 Jefferson St / Miraloma Ave 0.40 A 0.31 A 346 Van Buren St / Orangethorpe Ave 0.41 A 0.37 A 347 Van Buren St / Miraloma Ave 0.29 A 0.30 A 348 Van Buren St / La Palma Ave 0.53 A 0.60 A 349 Richfield Rd / Orangethorpe Ave 0.62 B 0.68 B 350 Richfield Rd / Miraloma Ave 0.45 A 0.55 A 351 Richfield Rd / La Palma Ave 0.69 B 0.70 B 352 Finch St / Riverdale Ave 0.37 A 0.37 A 353 Deerfield St / Riverdale Ave 0.39 A 0.33 A 354 Lakeview Ave / Orangethorpe Connector 0.39 A 0.48 A 355 Orangethorpe Ave / Lakeview Connector 0.52 A 0.47 A 356 Lakeview Ave / Miraloma Ave 0.53 A 0.48 A 357 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave 0.66 B 0.82 D 358 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave 0.66 B 0.83 D 359 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.73 C 0.57 A 360 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.84 D 0.77 C 361 Lakeview Ave / SR-91 EB Off Ramp 0.58 A 0.45 A 362 Villa Real Dr / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.28 A 0.24 A 363 Meats Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.54 A 0.32 A 364 Hancock St / La Palma Ave 0.38 A 0.40 A 365 Manassero St / La Palma Ave 0.31 A 0.28 A 366 Brasher St / La Palma Ave 0.29 A 0.29 A 367 Wescom Center / La Palma Ave 0.35 A 0.41 A 368 Cinema City / La Palma Ave 0.40 A 0.47 A 369 Kellogg Dr / SR-90 WB Ramps 0.41 A 0.45 A 370 Kellogg Dr / SR-90 EB Ramps 0.37 A 0.45 A 371 Kellogg Dr / Glenview Ave 0.45 A 0.29 A 372 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave 0.66 B 0.72 C 373 Kellogg Dr / Orangethorpe Ave 0.77 C 0.69 B 374 Kellogg Dr / La Palma Ave 0.59 A 0.62 B 375 Royal Oak Rd/Pinney Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.69 B 0.49 A 376 Royal Oak Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.50 A 0.31 A 377 Avd Margarita / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.46 A 0.54 A 378 Rural Ridge Dr / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.31 A 0.28 A 379 SR-90 Connector / Orangethorpe Ave 0.67 B 0.54 A 380 Imperial Highway / Orangethorpe Connector 0.54 A 0.50 A 381 SR-90 WB On Ramp / Orangethorpe Ave 0.38 A 0.36 A 382 Imperial Hwy / La Palma Ave 0.83 D 0.82 D 383 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.62 B 0.67 B 384 Imperial Hwy / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.76 C 0.79 C 385 Imperial Hwy / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.85 D 0.85 D 386 Imperial Hwy / Ave Bernardo N 0.71 C 0.55 A 387 Imperial Hwy / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.83 D 0.79 C 388 Imperial Hwy / Big Sky Ln/River Valley Trail 0.64 B 0.49 A 389 Chrisden St / La Palma Ave 0.40 A 0.61 B 390 Fairmont Blvd / La Palma Ave 0.76 C 0.99 E 391 Emogene St / La Palma Ave 0.52 A 0.39 A 392 Jenifer Dr / La Palma Ave 0.46 A 0.35 A 393 Via Cortez / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.64 B 0.84 D 394 Solomon Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.74 C 0.78 C 395 Anaheim Hills Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.84 D 0.86 D 396 Fairmont Blvd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.62 B 0.69 B 397 Mohler Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.58 A 0.60 A 398 Eucalyptus Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.31 A 0.26 A 399 Deer Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.39 A 0.46 A 400 Festival Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.29 A 0.42 A ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 18 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 401 Festival Center / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.22 A 0.28 A 402 Roosevelt Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.38 A 0.71 C 403 Riverview Dr / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.42 A 0.50 A 404 Woodcreek Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.31 A 0.43 A 405 Roosevelt Rd / Festival Dr/Monta Vista Ave 0.25 A 0.37 A 406 Scout Trail / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.60 A 0.56 A 407 Anaheim Hills Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.63 B 0.57 A 408 Canyon Rim Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.50 A 0.54 A 409 Stage Coach Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.33 A 0.28 A 410 Walnut Canyon Rd / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.22 A 0.21 A 411 Camino Grande / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.23 A 0.21 A 412 Serrano Ave / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.48 A 0.30 A 413 Fairmont Blvd / Canyon Rim Rd 0.44 A 0.24 A 414 Weir Canyon Rd / La Palma Ave 0.75 C 0.85 D 415 Weir Canyon Rd / Savi Ranch Pkwy 0.46 A 0.75 C 416 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.68 B 0.70 B 417 Weir Canyon Rd / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.73 C 0.89 D 418 Weir Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.78 C 0.79 C 419 Weir Canyon Rd / Monte Vista Rd 0.51 A 0.76 C 420 Weir Canyon Rd / Serrano Ave 0.74 C 0.48 A 421 Weir Canyon Rd / Running Springs Rd 0.25 A 0.21 A 422 Weir Canyon Rd / Oak Canyon Dr 0.28 A 0.26 A 423 Weir Canyon Rd / Mountain Park Dr 0.25 A 0.22 A 424 Serrano Ave / Canyon Creek Rd 0.35 A 0.42 A 425 Serrano Ave / Oak Canyon Dr 0.48 A 0.37 A 426 Serrano Ave / Sunset Ridge Rd 0.45 A 0.36 A 427 Serrano Ave / Highcrest Dr 0.41 A 0.31 A 428 Serrano Ave / Canyon Rim Rd 0.50 A 0.37 A 429 Gypsum Canyon Rd / SR-91 WB Ramps 0.42 A 0.48 A 430 Gypsum Canyon Rd / SR-91 EB Ramps 0.31 A 0.24 A 431 Gypsum Canyon Rd / Santa Ana Canyon Rd 0.48 A 0.63 B 432 SR-22 WB Ramps / Metropolitan Dr 0.39 A 0.38 A 433 The City Dr / Metropolitan Dr 0.39 A 0.31 A 434 The City Dr / SR-22 EB Ramps 0.59 A 0.61 B 435 The City Dr / Garden Grove Blvd 0.60 A 0.76 C 436 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Ave 0.45 A 0.54 A 437 Rampart St / Chapman Ave 0.35 A 0.42 A 438 SR-57 SB Ramps / Chapman Ave 0.76 C 0.74 C 439 SR-57 NB Ramps / Chapman Ave 0.56 A 0.51 A 440 Flower St / Chapman Ave 0.47 A 0.70 B 441 Struck Ave / Katella Ave 0.45 A 0.57 A 442 Eckhoff St / Collins Ave 0.74 C 0.79 C 443 Eckhoff St / Orangewood Ave 0.59 A 0.51 A 444 Main St / Taft Ave 0.85 D 1.00 E 445 Main St / Katella Ave 0.70 B 0.78 C 446 Main St / Struck Ave 0.66 B 0.60 A 447 Main St / Collins St 0.74 C 0.89 D 448 Main St / Orangewood Ave 0.52 A 0.65 B 449 Main St / Chapman Ave 0.57 A 0.74 C 450 Batavia St / Lincoln Ave 0.95 E 0.70 B 451 Batavia St / Taft Ave 0.81 D 0.84 D 452 Batavia St / Katella Ave 0.82 D 0.81 D 453 Batavia St / Collins St 0.49 A 0.48 A 454 Batavia St / Walnut Ave 0.59 A 0.58 A 455 Glassell St / Riverdale Ave 0.69 B 0.76 C 456 Glassell St / Lincoln Ave 0.70 B 0.66 B 457 Glassell St / Taft Ave 0.85 D 0.63 B 458 Glassell St / Katella Ave 0.73 C 0.64 B 459 Glassell St / Collins St 0.54 A 0.58 A 460 Glassell St / Walnut Ave 0.56 A 0.55 A 461 Cambridge St / Taft Ave 0.93 E 1.11 F 462 Cambridge St / Katella Ave 0.78 C 0.80 C 463 Tustin Ave / SR-55 SB Off Ramp 0.77 C 0.69 B 464 Tustin Ave / Lincoln Ave 0.71 C 0.68 B 465 Tustin Ave / SR-55 On Ramp 0.54 A 0.72 C 466 Tustin Ave / Meats Ave 0.53 A 0.73 C 467 Tustin Ave / Taft Ave 0.60 A 0.69 B ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 19 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Int # (new ATAM 2012 # scheme) Intersection Future 2035 General Plan Buildout ( ATAM 2012) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 468 Tustin Ave / Taft Ave 0.86 D 0.71 C 469 Tustin Ave / Katella Ave 0.63 B 0.86 D 470 SR-55 SB Ramps / Katella Ave 0.89 D 0.91 E 471 SR-55 NB Ramps / Katella Ave 0.73 C 0.72 C 472 Santiago Blvd / Nohl Ranch Rd 0.49 A 0.56 A 473 Santiago Blvd / SR-55 NB Ramps 0.80 C 0.94 E 474 Santiago Blvd / Meats Ave 0.74 C 0.50 A 475 Cannon St / Via Escola 0.57 A 0.54 A Note: - Indicates intersection located outside of City of Anaheim yet included in ATAM 2012 post processor. These locations shown for informational purposes only. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 20 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Rezoning Project Technical Traffic Study Page A- 21 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study APPENDIX C: CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTERIAL SEGMENT DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE 2004 APPROVED PROJECT (2025 FUTURE YEAR) AND PROPOSED PROJECT (2035) AADT SUMMARY ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Page A- 22 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Street From Location To Location 2004 General Plan ADT Year 2025 (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout ADT (ATAM 2012) AADT Mid-Block Lanes AADT Mid-Block Lanes ANAHEIM BLVD SYCAMORE ST NORTH ST 23,000 4D 25,700 4D BALL RD NUTWOOD ST EUCLID ST 29,000 4D 30,900 4D BALL RD HARBOR BLVD ANAHEIM BLVD 43,000 6D 50,700 6D BALL RD STATE COLLEGE BLVD SUNKIST ST 47,000 6D 53,300 6D BEACH BLVD BALL RD ORANGE AVE 57,000 8D 61,400 8D BROADWAY MANCHESTER AVE HARBOR BLVD 18,000 4U 17,100 4U BROOKHURST ST KATELLA AVE CERRITOS AVE 36,000 6D 36,600 6D BROOKHURST ST ORANGE AVE BROADWAY 37,000 6D 35,900 6D BROOKHURST ST LA PALMA AVE RIVERSIDE FWY 43,000 6D 50,700 6D CANYON RIM RD FAIRMONT BLVD SERRANO AVE 8,000 4D 8,000 4D CERRITOS AVE NUTWOOD ST EUCLID ST 8,000 4U 24,000 4U EUCLID ST CHAPMAN AVE ORANGEWOOD AVE 36,000 6D 34,000 6D EUCLID ST LA PALMA AVE ROMNEYA DR 50,000 6D 52,400 6D GILBERT ST BROADWAY LINCOLN AVE 5,000 2U 10,800 2U HARBOR BLVD CHAPMAN AVE WILKEN WAY 42,000 6D 43,400 6D HARBOR BLVD LA PALMA AVE ROMNEYA DR 34,000 6D 46,300 6D HASTER ST CHAPMAN AVE ORANGEWOOD AVE 28,000 6D 33,100 6D IMPERIAL HWY SOUTH CITY LIMITS NOHL RANCH RD 30,000 6D 27,700 6D IMPERIAL HWY LA PALMA AVE ORANGETHORPE AVE 57,000 8D 56,300 8D KATELLA AVE NUTWOOD ST EUCLID ST 38,000 6D 51,300 6D KATELLA AVE HARBOR BLVD CLEMENTINE ST 47,000 8D 62,500 8D KATELLA AVE LEWIS ST STATE COLLEGE BLVD 63,000 8D 84,500 8D KNOTT AVE ORANGE AVE LINCOLN AVE 34,000 6D 32,700 6D KRAEMER BLVD LA PALMA AVE CORONADO ST 34,000 6D 34,700 6D LA PALMA AVE DALE AVE MAGNOLIA AVE 23,000 4D 30,300 4D LA PALMA AVE ANAHEIM SHORES DR EUCLID ST 21,000 4D 21,800 4D LA PALMA AVE KELLOGG DR IMPERIAL HWY 32,000 6D 20,900 6D LAKEVIEW AVE LA PALMA AVE ORANGETHORPE AVE 23,000 4D 20,000 4D LEWIS ST CERRITOS AVE BALL RD 10,000 4D 15,800 4D LINCOLN AVE GILBERT ST BROOKHURST ST 32,000 6D 34,400 6D LINCOLN AVE OLIVE ST EAST ST 27,000 6D 25,500 6D LINCOLN AVE ORANGE FWY RIO VISTA ST 33,000 6D 49,500 6D MAGNOLIA AVE KATELLA AVE CERRITOS AVE 25,000 4D 24,500 4D MAGNOLIA AVE LA PALMA AVE I-5 44,000 6D 45,600 6D MIRALOMA AVE MILLER ST TUSTIN AVE 13,000 4D 12,400 4D NOHL RANCH RD IMPERIAL HWY ANAHEIM HILLS RD 22,000 4U 17,300 4U ORANGETHORPE AVE LEMON ST RAYMOND AVE 36,000 6D 28,000 6D ORANGETHORPE AVE KRAEMER BLVD MILLER ST 14,000 6D 15,600 6D ORANGETHORPE AVE LAKEVIEW AVE KELLOGG DR 17,000 6D 16,100 6D ORANGEWOOD AVE HARBOR BLVD HASTER ST 24,000 4U 21,600 4U ORANGEWOOD AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD RAMPART ST 35,000 6D 60,000 6D RIVERDALE AVE TUSTIN AVE LAKEVIEW AVE 8,000 4U 8,800 4U SANTA ANA CYN RD NOHL RANCH RD LAKEVIEW AVE 10,000 4D 11,500 4D SANTA ANA CYN RD ROYAL OAK RD IMPERIAL HWY 17,000 6D 18,000 6D SANTA ANA CYN RD FAIRMONT BLVD EUCALYPTUS DR 29,000 4D 22,300 4D SANTA ANA ST MANCHESTER AVE HARBOR BLVD 2,000 2U 10,600 2U SERRANO AVE CANYON RIM RD OAK CANYON DR 19,000 4D 15,600 4D STATE COLLEGE BLVD CERRITOS AVE BALL RD 35,000 6D 36,800 6D STATE COLLEGE BLVD LINCOLN AVE LA PALMA AVE 46,000 6D 33,300 6D ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Page A- 23 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Street From Location To Location 2004 General Plan ADT Year 2025 (ATAM 2000) 2035 General Plan Buildout ADT (ATAM 2012) AADT Mid-Block Lanes AADT Mid-Block Lanes SUNKIST ST SOUTH ST LINCOLN AVE 17,000 4U 15,200 4U TUSTIN AVE JEFFERSON ST MIRALOMA AVE 38,000 6D 38,300 6D WEIR CYN RD LA PALMA AVE SHWY 91 47,000 6D 50,300 6D WEIR CYN RD SERRANO AVE OAK CANYON DR 12,000 6D 10,400 6D ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study Page A- 24 City of Anaheim Draft City of Anaheim General Plan Technical Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix G Draft Code Amendment ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Appendix G Zoning Code Amendment No. 2013-00110 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment No. 2013-00110 would revise Chapter 18.32 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Mixed Use Overlay Zone) as shown in the draft ordinance below. Deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 18.32 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE). (ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2012-00110) (DEV2012-00118) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 18.32.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: 18.32.030 Uses. .010 Primary Uses. Table 32-A (Primary Residential Uses: Mixed Use Overlay Zone) identifies allowable primary uses, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Sections 18.36.030 and 18.36.040 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .020 Accessory Uses. Table 32-B (Accessory Uses and Structures: Mixed Use Overlay Zone) identifies allowable accessory uses and structures, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Section 18.36.050 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .030 Temporary Uses. Table 32-C (Temporary Uses and Structures: Mixed Use Overlay Zone) identifies allowable temporary uses and structures, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Section 18.36.060 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .040 Designations. The allowable uses in Table 32-A are established by letter designations as follows: .0401 designates classes of uses permitted by right; ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 .0402 designates classes of uses permitted with a conditional use permit; and .0403 designates classes of uses that are prohibited. .050 Interpreting Classes of Uses. The provisions for interpreting the classes of uses in Tables 32-A, 32-B and 32-C are set forth in Section 18.36.020 (Classification of Uses) in Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .060 Prohibited Uses. Any class of use that is not listed in Tables 32-A, 32-B and 32-C is prohibited, unless a determination is made by the Planning Director to allow the submission of an application for a conditional use permit to approve the use. .070 Ground-Floor Uses. In order to encourage an active street life while accommodating market demand, the ground floor facing the street shall be used for commercial uses, which may include the non-residential portion of live/work units. The requirements of this section may be modified by conditional use permit. .080 Live/Work Units. A commercial land use may be combined with a residential land use within one unit to create a space that contains both a residence and commercial area such as an office. Live/work units shall not resemble a residence. The number of permitted live/work units shall be specified and determined through the conditional use permit process. .090 Sites Formerly Used for Service Stations. Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 32-A, any use of a building on a site that was formerly used as an automobile service station shall require a conditional use permit. .100 Destroyed Homes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 32-A, a legally established single-family residence, existing on the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this subsection, that is damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, wind, flood, explosion or other disaster, casualty or Act of God, or of a public enemy, may be reconstructed subject to development standards contained within either the "RS-2" or "RS-3" Zone, based on lot size; provided that a complete and proper application for a building permit is filed with the Building Division, within two years of the date of the event that caused the damage or destruction. .110 Accessory Structures. Accessory structures permitted by Table 32-B, other than parking lots and garages and signs, shall not be located in, or be a part of, a detached structure. .120 Conditional Use Permit Required. All mixed-use projects require the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits). .130 Special Provisions. Special provisions related to a use are referenced in the "Special Provisions" column of Tables 32-A, 32-B and 32-C. Such provisions may include references to other applicable code sections, or limitations to the specified land use. .140 Housing Opportunity Sites. Dwellings-Multiple-Family and Dwellings-Single-Family Attached without a non-residential (commercial) component shall be permitted by right on ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 properties designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the most current certified General Plan Housing Element. Development shall meet all of the requirements of this Chapter, unless otherwise permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Variance, and shall comply with all all mitigation measures in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122A. SECTION 2. That Table 32-A (Primary Uses: Mixed Use Overlay Zone) of Section 18.32.030 (Uses) of 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: Table 32-A PRIMARY USES: MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited MU Special Provisions Residential Classes of Uses Dwellings–Multiple- Family C Permitted by right on designated Housing Opportunity Sites subject to subsection 18.32.030.140. 24-hour on-site management is required. Dwellings–Single- Family Attached C Permitted by right on designated Housing Opportunity Sites subject to subsection 18.32.030.140. Senior Citizen Housing C Subject to Chapter 18.50 Non-Residential Classes of Uses Alcoholic Beverage Sales–Off-Sale C Alcoholic Beverage Sales–On-Sale C Antennas– Telecommunications C Shall be fully screened by the building to which they are ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 attached; subject to § 18.38.060 Bars & C Business & Financial Services P Computer Internet & Amusement Facilities C Convenience Stores C Subject to § 18.38.110 Dance & Fitness Studios–Large C Dance & Fitness Studios–Small P Educational Institutions–Business C Entertainment Venue C Markets–Large C Subject to § 18.38.155 Markets–Small C Subject to § 18.38.155 Medical & Dental Offices P Offices P Personnel Services– General P Personnel Services– Restricted C Recreation– Commercial Indoor C Recreation–Low- Impact P Allowed only as an accessory use to a primary use Repair Services– Limited P ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Restaurants–General P Subject to § 18.38.220 Restaurants–Outdoor Dining P Subject to § 18.38.220 Retail Sales–General P Retail Sales–Kiosks C Transit Facilities C Utilities–Major P Allowed only as an accessory use to a primary use SECTION 3. That Section 18.32.100 (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: 18.32.100 PARKING AND LOADING. .010 Parking Demand Study. The parking standards in Section18.42.030 (Residential Parking Requirements) shall apply to all residential development that is not a part of a mixed use project. Due to variations in parking demand and needs of mixed use projects, vehicle parking requirements and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and egress, shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit process, by the Planning Services Manager of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee, based upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by a California-licensed, independent traffic engineer, as approved by the Planning Services Manager of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee. The parking demand study shall be prepared at the developer’s expense at the time of application for the use. .020 Parking Area Design. Parking spaces specifically designated for non-residential and residential uses shall be marked by the use of posting, pavement markings, and/or physical separation. The parking area design may include the use of alternative parking techniques, such as tandem parking in conjunction with a valet, subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and Planning Commission. Separate entrances and exits, or a designated lane, shall be provided for residents so that residents are not waiting in line behind non-residential customers. .030 Parking Structures. Parking structures shall be architecturally integrated with the project design, and shall be screened from view at street level by architectural detailing, facade treatment, artwork, landscaping or similar visual features to enhance the street facade. Screening of floors above street level is required, through the use of vines or architectural screening detail ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 that is compatible with the project. Parking structures should be designed to provide parking for a range of entertainment, retail, office, and residential uses. Parking structures should also be designed to include retail, office and similar uses on the ground floor. .040 Loading Areas. Off-street loading spaces shall be provided as follows: .01 Non-residential uses off-street loading requirements shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.42.100 (Loading Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). .02 Residential Uses. Residential uses shall have one off-street loading space or moving plaza for every one hundred and fifty (150) units. Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be located near entries and/or elevators. Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be incorporated into the design of vehicular access areas. Decorative paving, removable bollards and potted plants are permitted and encouraged to enhance loading spaces or moving plazas. Loading spaces or moving plazas may be located on a local or connector street, with the approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. The adjacent parkway and setback landscape treatment shall be designed to allow for loading and unloading. SECTION 4. That Section 18.32.110 (Signs) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: .010 Coordinated Program. A coordinated sign program for each mixed use project is required to shall be submitted to the Planning Department, per the requirements of for approval for each mixed-use project per subsection 18.44.060.040 (Coordinated Sign Program), prior to the issuance of the first sign permit. A mixed use project may include projecting signs, identifying commercial uses, as part of the coordinated sign program. .020 Applicability of Other Regulations. The provisions in Chapter 18.44 (Signs) shall apply to all non-mixed use projects within the MU Overlay Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 SECTION 5. That Section 18.32.130 (Compatibility Standards) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: 18.32.130 COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. .030 Noise Standards. Residential portions of the project shall be designed to limit the interior noise caused by the commercial and parking portions of the project, to a maximum of forty-five (45) decibels (db) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) on an annual basis in any habitable room with windows closed. Proper design may include, but shall not be limited to, building orientation, double or extra-strength windows, wall and ceiling insulation, and orientation and insulation of vents. Where it is necessary that windows be closed in order to achieve the required level, means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling to provide a habitable environment. SECTION 6. That Section 18.32.140 (Design Principles) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: 18.32.140 DESIGN PRINCIPALS STANDARDS. The following design principals standards are to be used as a guide for mixed use development and shall be used as criteria for project approvals. .010 Facades. Street wall facades should shall be architecturally enhanced. This may be accomplished through the use of arcades, colonnades, recessed entrances, window details, bays, variation in building materials, and other details such as cornices and color. Maximum total blank wall area (without windows or entrances) shouldshall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the first-story wall. .020 Public Amenities. Street wall facades may be divided by public plazas, urban pocket parks, outdoor dining, and other pedestrian-oriented amenities. The use of public art is encouraged. .030 Design Features. Projecting features, such as balconies, porches, bays, and dormer windows, are encouraged to create visual interest and distinction between units. Trim detail on rooflines, porches, windows and doors on street-facing elevations are encouraged. .040 Architectural Theme. Building design shouldshall incorporate an architectural theme that is compatible with nearby uses, provided such uses are similar to uses permitted by this chapter. Architectural details may draw upon locally historic buildings or other nearby features that contribute to the aesthetic ambiance of the immediate area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 .050 Siding Materials. Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet pressboard, vinyl, and similar siding materials are strongly discouraged. .060 Corner Buildings. Buildings at corners of intersections shouldshall receive special treatment to enhance the pedestrian experience, such as building cut-offs and corner entrances with additional architectural detail. .070 Entrances. All primary ground-floor common entries or individual dwelling unit entries fronting on streets shouldshall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. .080 Pedestrian Circulation. On-site pedestrian circulation shouldshall be continuous and connect various on-site uses, as well as connect to off-site transit stops and parking. .090 Windows in Residential Units. Residential windows should face away from loading areas, docks and trash storage areas. To the extent windows of residential units face each other, the windows should be offset to maximize privacy. .100 Storage Areas. General storage cabinets with a minimum size of one hundred (100) cubic feet capacity shall be required for each dwelling unit, and may be provided adjacent to private recreational-leisure areas, or located in close proximity to the unit. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance, hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed and adopted all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 8. SAVINGS CLAUSE Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 SECTION 9. PENALTY Except as may otherwise be expressly provided, any person who violates any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished in the manner provided in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the day of 2013, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of 2013, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ANAHEIM By: MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim Appendix H Revised Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Appendix H General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00488 Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00488 would revise the text on page LU-33 of the General Plan Land Use Element as shown below. Deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline. Tables LU-5 and LU-6 are proposed to amended as shown on the “Existing” and “Proposed” tables on the following pages. Land Use Buildout Analysis Providing a blueprint for the future development of Anaheim is one of the primary purposes of the General Plan. The Land Use Plan, which includes areas within Anaheim’s sphere-of- influence, identifies 16,449 16,519 acres of residential land uses, 614 659 acres of residential mixed-use land uses, and 5,619 acres of other employment-generating land uses. Assuming a probable intensity for each of the land use designations, the land use plan provides for 129,308 137,954 dwelling units (see Table LU-5). Based on a factor of 3.3 persons per household (1.5 per household in mixed-use areas), the estimated build-out population of the Land Use Plan would be 404,263 407,463 persons. Of the employment-generating land uses, the land use plan provides for a total of 1,150 1,121 acres of Neighborhood, Regional and General Commercial uses, 625 532 acres of office uses, and 2,677 2,684 acres of industrial uses and 707 acres of residential and non- residential mixed use. Combined with the office and retail employment generated by the Mixed-Use designation, the Land Use Plan these land use designations would generate approximately 251,495 228,470 jobs using the probable intensity factors (FARs) for each non-residential land use designation (see Table LU-6). Additional employment opportunities will also be provided by the implementation of the Commercial Recreation land use designation through the Anaheim Resort, Disneyland Resort and Hotel Circle Specific Plans. While the Land Use Plan reflects a reduction in previously established residential densities for certain areas of the City such as The Colony and the Mountain Park Specific Plan area, introduction of mixed-use development throughout the City, including Downtown and The Platinum Triangle, as well as opportunities to redevelop underutilized mid-block commercial areas with residential land uses, will serve to expand future housing opportunities in Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 TABLE LU-5: RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT ESTIMATES (EXISTING) Land Use Designation Probable Density Acres Dwelling Units Persons per Household Population RESIDENTIAL Estate (0-1.5 du/ac) 1.0 1,248 1,550 3.3 5,116 Low Density (0-6.5 du/ac) 4.0 10,221 40,173 3.3 132,571 Hillside Low-Medium Density (0-6.0 du/ac) 5.0 861 3,614 3.3 11,927 Low-Medium Density (0-18.0 du/ac) 13.0 2,058 24,130 3.3 79,629 Medium Density (0-36.0 du/ac) 24.0 1,946 46,704 3.3 154,123 Corridor Residential (0-13.0 du/ac) 13.0 185 2,405 3.3 7,937 Subtotal 16,519 118,577 391,303 MIXED USE Mixed Use 40.0 581 12,808 1.5 19,213 Subtotal 581 12,808 19,213 TOTALS 17,100 131,385 410,515 Notes: The number of dwelling units for each designation is calculated by adding the number of existing dwelling units in areas of the City that are not anticipated to change to the number of units that are calculated by multiplying the gross acres of areas that are most likely to change by the probable residential densities, then by adding the assumed number of dwelling units for the Mountain Park Specific Plan described below. Dwelling units in areas not anticipated to change are the number of dwelling units in areas that are not likely to be further subdivided or areas that have a fixed buildout capacity through a specific plan. These are determined by: 1) adding the number of parcels in areas that are not likely to further subdivide; or 2) by referencing the number of units expected at buildout for areas addressed through specific plans (see Table LU-1). The Mountain Park Specific Plan area assumes a total buildout of 2,500 dwelling units - 485 units of Low Medium Hillside Density and 2,015 units of Low Medium Density. Mixed-Use densities and buildout projections for The Platinum Triangle are identified separately in Table LU-4. Acreages identified in this table are approximate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 TABLE LU-6: NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT ESTIMATES (EXISTING) Land Use Designation Probable Intensity Acres Square Footage Square Feet per Employee COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Center (0.35-0.45 FAR) 0.35 231 2,641,370 400 Regional Commercial (0.30-0.50 FAR) 0.40 230 3,005,640 400 General Commercial (0.25-0.50 FAR) 0.30 686 6,723,486 400 Commercial Recreation See Table LU-4 1,077 See Table LU-4 See Table LU-4 Office-Low (0.40-0.50 FAR) 0.40 377 4,930,939 285 Office-High (0.50-2.00 FAR) 1.00 37 1,219,634 285 Platinum Triangle Office See Table LU-4 199 See Table LU-4 See Table LU-4 Subtotal 2,838 20,256,068 INDUSTRIAL Industrial (0.35-0.50 FAR) 0.35 2,682 30,667,329 364-700 Subtotal 2,682 30,667,329 MIXED USE Mixed Use (1.5-3.0 FAR) 1.50 630 10,396,623 285-400 Subtotal 630 10,396,623 OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Parks (golf courses) 378 Up to 1 employee per acre Parks 1,070 Up to 1 employee per acre Open Space 4,944 Water Uses 1,226 Up to 1 employee per acre Subtotal 7,617 INSTITUTIONAL Institutional (0-3.00) 243 Varies by specific use Subtotal 243 SCHOOLS Schools 1,015 Subtotal 1,015 TOTALS 15,025 61,320,020 Notes: Building intensities in The Anaheim Resort are specified in The Anaheim Resort, the Disneyland Resort and the Hotel Circle Specific Plans. School employees were projected based on ratios of school employees per capita population in 2003. Mixed-Use building intensities and buildout projections for The Platinum Triangle are identified separately in Table LU-4. Acreages identified in this table are approximate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 TABLE LU-5: RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT ESTIMATES (PROPOSED) Land Use Designation Probable Density Acres Dwelling Units Persons per Household Population RESIDENTIAL Estate (0-1.5 du/ac) 1.0 1,246 1,548 3.3 5,108 Low Density (0-6.5 du/ac) 4.0 9,905 38,909 3.3 128,400 Hillside Low-Medium Density (0-6.0 du/ac) 5.0 456 1,589 3.3 5,244 Low-Medium Density (0-18.0 du/ac) 13.0 1,530 17,266 3.3 56,978 Medium Density (0-36.0 du/ac) 24.0 1,960 47,040 3.3 155,232 Corridor Residential (0-13.0 du/ac) 13.0 183 2,379 3.3 7,851 Areas of the City with Special Density Limitations N/a 3,050 2,675 3.3 8,828 Subtotal 18,330 111,406 367,641 MIXED USE Mixed Use (0-100) 40.0 189 7,560 1.5 11,340 Mixed Use – Platinum Triangle N/a 470 18,988 1.5 28,482 Subtotal 659 26,548 39,822 TOTALS 18,989 137,954 407,463 Notes: The number of dwelling units for each designation is calculated by adding the number of existing dwelling units in areas of the City that are not anticipated to change to the number of units that are calculated by multiplying the gross acres of areas that are most likely to change by the probable residential densities. Dwelling units in areas not anticipated to change are the number of dwelling units in areas that are not likely to be further subdivided or areas that have a fixed buildout capacity through a specific plan. These are determined by: 1) adding the number of parcels in areas that are not likely to further subdivide; or 2) by referencing the number of units expected at buildout for areas addressed through specific plans (see Table LU-1 for a list of the City’s specific plans). The Areas of the City with Special Density Limitations, as shown on Figure LU-5 and described in Table LU-4, that are planned for residential development are shown as a separate category on the table and include the following: Area Acres Dwelling Units Low Density Hillside Low-Medium Density Low-Medium Density Mountain Park 3,001 485 2,015 Area A 16 140 Stonegate 33 35 Total 3,050 35 485 2,155 Residential units in the Platinum Triangle, a mixed use area of the City which is also included in the “Areas of the City with Special Density Limitations,” is shown separately in the Mixed Use calculations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 TABLE LU-6: NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT ESTIMATES (PROPOSED) Land Use Designation Probable FAR Acres Square Footage Square Feet per Employee Estimated Employees COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Center (0.35-0.45 FAR) 0.35 229 2,610,878 400 6,527 Regional Commercial (0.30-0.50 FAR) 0.40 231 3,023,064 400 7,558 General Commercial (0.25-0.50 FAR) 0.30 661 6,396,786 400 15,992 Office-Low (0.40-0.50 FAR) 0.40 402 5,366,539 285 18,830 Office-High (0.50-2.00 FAR) 1.00 9 392,040 285 1,376 Subtotal 1,532 17,789,307 50,283 INDUSTRIAL Industrial (0.35-0.50 FAR) 0.35 2,550 28,654,857 364-700 53,863 Subtotal 2,550 28,654,857 53,863 MIXED USE Mixed Use (1.5-3.0 FAR) 1.50 237 15,485,580 285-400 45,279 Subtotal 237 15,485,580 45,279 PLATINUM TRIANGLE Mixed Use – Commercial N/a 470 4,795,111 400 11,988 Mixed Use – Office N/a 9,652,747 285 33,869 Mixed Use - Institutional N/a 1,500,000 Varies Office High 2.0 50 4,478,356 285 15,714 Office Low 0.5 71 5,486 Industrial 0.5 134 2,918,520 364-700 11,988 Subtotal 812 23,344,734 79,045 THE ANAHEIM RESORT Commercial Recreation 1,078 Subtotal 1,078 OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Parks (golf courses) 293 Parks 1,133 Open Space 1,836 Platinum Triangle Open Space 84 Water Uses 1,208 Subtotal 7,617 INSTITUTIONAL Institutional (0-3.00) 211 Varies Platinum Triangle Institutional (0-3.00) 3 Varies Subtotal 211 SCHOOLS Schools 1,010 Subtotal 1,010 Notes: The estimated square feet for each designation is calculated by adding the existing building square feet in areas of the City that are not anticipated to change to the gross acres of areas that are most likely to change multiplied by the probable Floor Area Ratios (FAR). For The Anaheim Resort/Commercial Recreation land use designation, please refer to the Disneyland Resort, Anaheim Resort and Hotel Circle Specific Plans. Build-out intensities for the Platinum Triangle are based on the maximum intensities described in Table LU-4.