Full Text
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.