Document Anaheim_doc_f53b0f0163

January 2012 EIR Addendum Prepared for: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center ---PAGE BREAK--- Addendum to the Final EIR ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Anaheim, California Prepared for: City of Anaheim, Public Works 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: Kleinfelder 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 January 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page i of ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1-1 1.1.1 Background 1-1 1.1.2 Prior Environmental Review 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ADDENDUM 1-1 1.3 FORMAT OF THIS ADDENDUM 1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.2 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDRESSED IN ADDENDUM 2-1 2.2.1 Intermodal Terminal 2-5 2.2.2 Baggage Tunnel 2-5 2.2.3 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area 2-5 2.2.4 Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel 2-6 2.2.5 Tracks/Platforms 2-6 2.2.6 Douglass Road 2-6 2.2.7 Surface Parking/Access 2-9 2.2.8 Sponsorship and Signage Program 2-10 2.2.9 Bicycle Access 2-10 2.2.10 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities 2-10 2.2.11 Construction 2-11 2.3 COMPARISON OF APPROVED AND REVISED PROJECT 2-12 3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1 3.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3-1 3.2.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-1 3.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3-1 3.3.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-2 3.4 AIR QUALITY 3-2 3.4.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-2 3.5 NOISE 3-2 3.5.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-2 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3-3 3.6.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-3 3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3-3 3.7.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-3 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3-4 3.8.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-4 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3-4 3.9.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-4 3.10 AESTHETICS 3-4 3.10.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-5 3.11 CULTURAL 3-5 3.11.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-6 3.12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURES 3-6 3.12.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-6 3.13 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Chapter Page ii of ii 3.13.1 Cumulative Impacts 3-6 4.0 CONCLUSION 4-1 TABLES Table 2.3-1 Comparison of Differences between the Final EIR and the Addendum to the Final EIR FIGURES Figure 2.2-1b ARTIC Illustrated Site Plan Figure 2.2-2b ARTIC Project Limits Figure 2.2-3b ARTIC Exterior Elevations Figure 2.2-4b ARTIC Trackwork and Platform Typical Sections Figure 2.2-5b ARTIC Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A – Traffic Impact Assessment (on attached CD) ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED]) for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project and the associated General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480) that were approved by the City of Anaheim (City) council on September 28, 2010. This Addendum has been prepared because the City has proposed revisions to the original project description. This Addendum provides an evaluation of proposed revisions to the original ARTIC project description. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1.1.1 Background The City, in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), proposes to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as only minor improvements related to parking management are anticipated and the parking will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, Pedestrian Concourse Bridge, Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel, the Tracks/Platforms, Baggage Tunnel, and Surface Parking/Access. 1.1.2 Prior Environmental Review With the City as the lead agency, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the ARTIC project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was published on February 10, 2010 and circulated to the public, local, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties. In addition to the public and agency comment period, a public scoping meeting was conducted on February 24, 2010 in the City of Anaheim. The Draft EIR was published on July 21, 2010 and circulated for public and agency review until September 3, 2010. On September 13, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending City Council certification of the Final EIR and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00480. On September 28, 2010, the Anaheim City Council held a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Subsequently, the City Council certified the Final EIR, adopted CEQA findings, statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring plan and approved the General Plan Amendment. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ADDENDUM According to Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 1.0 Introduction 1-2 necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162. Section 15162 of the Guidelines lists the conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR rather than an addendum. These include the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If none of the above conditions are met, the lead agency may not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Rather, the lead agency can decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary or can require an Addendum be prepared. As revisions to the ARTIC project description do not meet the conditions listed in Section 15162, an Addendum is considered the appropriate document to discuss the environmental implications of the revised project. Consequently, a Subsequent EIR is not required. Nonetheless, CEQA requires that the lead agency support this determination with substantial evidence in the record. This Addendum serves as that vehicle, and a review of its contents substantiates the finding that the information provided herein merely updates, clarifies, and amplifies the information provided in the certified September 2010 Final EIR (Final EIR) for the ARTIC project. The rationale and the facts that support this finding are provided in the body of this Addendum. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 1.0 Introduction 1-3 1.3 FORMAT OF THIS ADDENDUM This Addendum has been organized into four chapters, as described below: Chapter 1.0 – Introduction: This chapter includes a description of the background of the project, prior environmental review, and purpose of this Addendum. Chapter 2.0 – Project Description: This chapter provides a description of the original project description that was approved in the Final EIR, the revised project description addressed in this Addendum, and a comparison of the two. Chapter 3.0 – Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: This chapter addresses project changes with the potential to have an effect on the environment and includes analyses of impacts of the revised project compared with impacts analyzed in the Final EIR. Chapter 4.0 – Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the information and findings developed in the previous chapters. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ARTIC will relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station to accommodate growing passenger demand and increased ridership expected with Metrolink, Amtrak, and other transportation services. The new location will be located approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad ROW. The Intermodal Terminal will be no more than a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. The tracks and platforms are envisioned to consist of two through-tracks and one single-ended siding track (stub-end track) with a platform as large as 86,000 square feet. ARTIC will also include a Bus Transit Center, Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, Public Hall/Waiting Area, Program Space, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, Stadium Pavilion, Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, and a pedestrian trail easement. Additionally, Douglass Road will be lowered approximately 8 feet from the existing road surface at its lowest point, and approximately 1,100 total linear feet will be re-graded. ARTIC is also envisioned to include approximately 960 (includes the existing 405 spaces) surface parking spaces. The existing surface parking spaces will be accessed by vehicles from Katella Avenue via Sportstown. The main vehicle access to the Bus Transit Center and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area would be via Douglass Road from Katella Avenue, which also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. A secondary right-in/right-out access would be provided to ARTIC from Katella Avenue. Additionally, Douglass Road between the Angel Stadium Parking Lot and the Railroad Bridge will consist of four lanes and Douglass Road from the Railroad Bridge to Katella Avenue would be widened to an eight-lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue and four lanes under the Railroad Bridge. A left-turn pocket from Douglass Road into the Bus Transit Center, and a southbound left turn pocket for the main entrance into ARTIC will be provided. Northbound lane configuration will have two left-turn lanes, one through-lane, one right-turn/through-lane and one right-turn lane for northbound traffic. Three lanes are proposed for southbound traffic. 2.2 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDRESSED IN ADDENDUM ARTIC will be approximately 0.25 miles east of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. This location is south of Katella Avenue, on an approximately 19-acre site which is owned by OCTA and the City (Figure 2.2-1b and Figure 2.2-2b). In addition to the two main parcels, improvements to approximately 2 acres of OCTA and City ROW and less than an acre of Caltrans ROW. ARTIC will include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, Pedestrian Concourse Bridge, Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel, Tracks/Platforms, Baggage Tunnel, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue Improvements, and Surface Parking/Access (Figure 2.2-3b). The project will also include improvements to Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- FILE NAME: 109528_Illustrated.dwg DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2.2-1b JP CC 7/12/10 123540 ARTIC ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN G:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpg SOURCE: PB/HOK 2011 INTERMODAL TERMINAL ---PAGE BREAK--- FILE NAME: 109528INTER1.dwg DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2.2-2b JP CC 9/9/10 123540 ARTIC PROJECT LIMITS G:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpg PARKING AREAS LEGEND STADIUM PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL PROJECT LIMITS CITY LIMITS ---PAGE BREAK--- FILE NAME: 109528_Ext_Elev.dwg DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2.2-3b JP CC 7/12/10 123540 ARTIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS G:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpg SOURCE: PB/HOK 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-5 2.2.1 Intermodal Terminal The Intermodal Terminal will be a three-level building of approximately 67,000 gross square feet. The design of the Intermodal Terminal is planned to accommodate near term and future transportation related services. The Intermodal Terminal will include the Bus Transit Center, Pedestrian Concourse Bridge, and Civic Space/Grand Hall. The Intermodal Terminal will be encased in a translucent glazing material and will rise to a maximum of 150 feet above the existing ground level. The Intermodal Terminal will be adjacent to the Tracks/Platforms and located north of the LOSSAN corridor. The at-grade and above-grade levels will include the Bus Transit Center, Civic Space/Grand Hall and access to the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge. Bus Transit Center The Bus Transit Center will include waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, on three sides of the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will contain 13 bus bay spaces and one straight curb space, four curbside bus spaces for OCTA bus staging and layover, 6 parking spaces for OCTA and service provider supervisors, and at-grade service dock space. Pedestrian Concourse Bridge The Pedestrian Concourse Bridge will connect the third level of the Terminal Building with the passenger platforms. The bridge will span the at-grade bus facility, the two tracks, and the two platforms. Civic Space/Grand Hall The Civic Space/Grand Hall will be located on the first level of the Intermodal Terminal. This space is designed to enhance the traveling public’s experience. The uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. This area has access to exterior Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area and public parking to the north. 2.2.2 Baggage Tunnel Near the east end of the rail platforms, there will be a tunnel under the tracks and platforms with ramps to the passenger platforms. Access to this tunnel will be via ramps either down to the tunnel or ramps up to the platforms. This tunnel will be used for moving baggage and providing access for maintenance activities. 2.2.3 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area ARTIC will include an exterior Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area with two traffic islands. The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue. The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area is intended to be used for taxi and private automobile Drop-Off, with a designated walkway from the Intermodal Terminal to the surface parking south of Katella Avenue. There will be one-way vehicle circulation around the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area with access from Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-6 2.2.4 Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel will be located northwest of SR-57, along the LOSSAN corridor, and will provide a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks and platforms. The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel will provide access to Angel Stadium, surface parking, and the Tracks/Platforms. The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel will include ramps and stairways. This tunnel is in addition to the existing tunnel associated with the current Amtrak/Metrolink station, which will continue to remain in place. 2.2.5 Tracks/Platforms The Tracks/Platforms construction work will be within OCTA ROW, Caltrans ROW, and Anaheim property that are bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east and Katella Avenue to the north. There will be no improvements to the existing Santa Ana River railroad bridge or the existing Katella Avenue railroad bridge. The current rail operations, the station operations, and related facilities operations will be maintained during construction. The two side platforms will be a minimum of 16 feet wide and a maximum of 38-feet wide with additional width at the east end for vertical circulation. The platforms will be approximately 1,000 feet in length. A replacement railroad bridge will be constructed over Douglass Road to accommodate the two- track/two-platform alignment (Figure 2.2-4b). Passengers are intended to access the platforms from the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge that connects the Intermodal Terminal to the station platforms. The platforms can also be accessed from the south surface parking (Lot B) and the existing surface parking (Lot C) (See Section 2.2.10 for a detailed description of parking). Canopies will be provided on the rail platforms per the requirements of Amtrak and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)/Metrolink. 2.2.6 Douglass Road Improvements Douglass Road Between Angel Stadium Parking Lot and the Railroad Bridge To maximize the capacity of the road within the physical constraints of the SR-57 overpass, it is proposed that Douglass Road be improved to allow a pedestrian sidewalk on one side of Douglass Road under the SR-57 overpass. The proposed roadway will consist of four reversible lanes beginning approximately 300 feet from the Angel Stadium parking booths to the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road from the Railroad Bridge to Katella Avenue Douglass Road will be four lanes wide under the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road will initially be widened to a seven-lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue and eventually widened to eight lanes as traffic warrants (Figure 2.2-5b). A left-turn pocket from Douglass Road into the Bus Transit Center is provided along Douglass Road just north of the Railroad Bridge. A southbound left-turn pocket will be provided for the main entrance into ARTIC. ---PAGE BREAK--- FILE NAME: 109528_Trackwork.dwg DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2.2-4b JP CC 7/12/10 123540 ARTIC TRACKWORK AND PLATFORM TYPICAL SECTIONS G:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpg SOURCE: PB/HOK 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- FILE NAME: 109528_Site_Plan.dwg DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2.2-5b JP CC 7/12/10 123540 ARTIC SITE PLAN G:\LIBRARY\Kleinfelder logos 2008\logos only\color_kf_logo_1.jpg SOURCE: PB/HOK 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-9 This configuration requires a total ROW width of approximately 120 feet, an increase from the existing 64 feet. This width will allow for Douglass Road ultimately having eight lanes south of the Katella Avenue intersection. The ultimate northbound lane configuration is proposed to have two left-turn lanes, one through lane, one right-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane for northbound traffic. There will be three lanes for southbound traffic. In order to reach the proposed Douglass Road width of approximately 120 feet, a total of approximately 24,145 square feet of ROW located along the east side of Douglass Road (22,477 square feet) and the south side of Katella Avenue (1,668 square feet) will be acquired from the retail center. The widening of Douglass Road will require reconfiguration of driveway access and parking areas on both sides of Douglass Road. One retail business and two vacant commercial spaces are located on the parcel that will be acquired. Douglass Road – Vertical Profile In the vicinity of the Railroad Bridge, Douglass Road will be lowered approximately five feet at its lowest point, from the existing road surface. Lowering Douglass Road is necessary to meet vertical clearance requirements for the new bridge. The proposed profile will meet the Metrolink vertical clearance standard of 15.5 feet for overcrossings. Approximately 1,100 total linear feet of Douglass Road will be re-graded. This re-grading will center north and south of the Railroad Bridge along Douglass Road to meet the grade requirements. A maximum vertical profile of six percent will be used in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Standards for Urban Highways. Katella Avenue Improvements Katella Avenue will require up to six feet of widening to accommodate a new eastbound through lane at the Douglass Road and Katella Avenue intersection. This through lane will feed a right- turn lane into ARTIC. The minimum width of curb lanes will be 13 feet and all other lanes will be 11 feet wide. The existing bus stop on Katella Avenue will be retained. 2.2.7 Surface Parking/Access ARTIC will have approximately 1,087 surface parking spaces. ARTIC parking will be located in four locations. These surface locations are the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak parking (existing surface parking, Lot the parking south of the Intermodal Terminal and the railroad tracks (south surface parking, Lot the parking north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue (north surface parking, Lot and supervisor parking at the Bus Transit Center. The existing surface parking, Lot C, will provide 405 spaces that are currently used for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms and the Intermodal Terminal through the Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel or the existing tunnel at the current Amtrak Station. The existing surface parking will be accessed by vehicles from Katella Avenue via Sportstown or from Douglass Road. The south surface parking, Lot B, will provide 221 spaces. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms using a ramp or stairs to the south platform and walk across the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge to the north platform and the Intermodal Terminal. Vehicles will access the south surface parking via Douglass Road. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-10 The north surface parking, Lot A, will provide 455 spaces. Patrons will access the Intermodal Terminal and the Tracks/Platforms through the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area. The north surface parking will be accessed by vehicles from Douglass Road or, to a lesser extent, Katella Avenue. In addition, six parking spaces will be provided at the Bus Transit Center for supervisors. The main vehicle access to the Bus Transit Center and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be via Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue, which also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. Traffic lights will be installed along Douglass Road to control circulation in this area at the main entry and at the bus entry from Douglass Road. A secondary right-in/right-out access will be provided to ARTIC from Katella Avenue. The access point will be immediately west of the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River Trail is used by bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians and is located along the east side of ARTIC. Pedestrian access will be provided by sidewalks along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, as well as through a gate located off of the Santa Ana River Trail and just north of the tracks. 2.2.8 Sponsorship and Signage Program The ARTIC project will have a project signage and sponsorship program. This signage program will include entry signs, directional signage and way finding. One type of directional signs is Changeable Message Signs (CMS) that display messages to motorists advising them of upcoming collisions, closures, detours, and traffic flow. The project will also include a sponsorship signage program that could include up to thirteen (13), approximately 85 feet high by 20 feet wide pylon signs with up to 760 square feet of advertising space per sign. 2.2.9 Bicycle Access Bicycle access will be along Douglass Road and via a direct at-grade connection to the Santa Ana River Trail just north of the rail corridor. Bicyclists will also be able to access ARTIC via the existing intersection of Katella Avenue and the Santa Ana River Trail. Bicycle parking (bicycle racks and lockers) will be located at the southeast corner of the Intermodal building. The existing bicycle lockers and bicycle racks at the existing surface parking (Lot C) will also remain. 2.2.10 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities Various utility tasks will be required to both accommodate the proposed improvements as well as supply utilities for operation of the proposed facility. ARTIC will require relocating existing utilities and the construction of new utilities. These utilities include electrical, water, sewer, gas, drainage, and ground water recharge system. Electrical Existing overhead electrical transmission lines located along Douglass Road will be undergrounded as part of the road improvements. Electrical service by the City of Anaheim will be provided via new underground ducts leading from the current service north of Katella Avenue on Douglass Road south under Douglass Road and into the facility. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels will be included on the project site to reduce the use of off-site generated electricity. PV panels will be provided on the Concourse Bridge and in the south surface parking (Lot A PV ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-11 array of up to 130 kilowatt (kW) (dc) will be considered for the site and could generate between 7 to 10 percent of site annual energy demands, dependent on location, orientation and cell type. Water The existing fire hydrants located on both sides of Douglass Road will be relocated according to the appropriate fire code for the proposed and existing uses. An existing 8-inch water line will be abandoned in lieu of a new 16-inch water line. The existing 8-inch water line will be retained where possible for future use as a reclaimed water line. Sewer The existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the west side of Douglass Road that serves the existing uses west of Douglass Road will remain. A new 15-inch sanitary sewer line will be installed from ARTIC to connect into the main 30-inch sanitary sewer line in Katella Avenue. This line will connect to the existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer main. Gas The 2-inch gas line will remain but may be relocated to accommodate construction. A gas line to the facility will be supplied from the existing 2-inch line located along Douglass Road. Drainage The storm drain will be reconfigured to reflect the change in Douglass Road elevation. The existing stormwater system will be replaced based on ARTIC components. Currently, there is a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe that conveys run off from SR-57 to an outfall at the Santa Ana River. Additionally, stormwater from Douglass Road drains into a pump station under the roadway, and is pumped into the existing 48-inch pipe. With the lowering of Douglass Road, this existing pump station will require replacement and the new installation will conform to the new lower street level. The above identified 48-inch pipe crosses the project site prior to reaching the river. This pipe will be relocated south of the railroad corridor to accommodate the drive access into the south surface parking (Lot No new discharge points will be created into the Santa Ana River. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed into the drainage system for ARTIC to comply with current regulations. ARTIC is being designed so no increases in runoff based on current site conditions will occur due to this new construction. Ground Water Recharge System The ARTIC project will have a 4-inch tap to the existing Ground Water Recharge System located adjacent to the site on the east boundary near the Santa Ana River. This system will provide reclaimed water use for the cooling towers, toilet flushing, and the on-site irrigation system. 2.2.11 Construction Construction of the proposed project and associated infrastructure improvements is anticipated to take approximately 26 months. The Air Quality Impact Analysis uses a 26-month construction ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-12 time frame as the “worst case” scenario. Generally, construction will occur during normal daylight hours but railroad connection activities and some street utility construction will require night construction activities. In particular, construction of the rail tracks and the new railroad bridge over Douglass Road and the platforms and tunnels construction will require nighttime construction. This construction requires that the railroad service be shut down on a short-term temporary basis. This shutdown of rail service can only be done at night and weekends to avoid shutdowns during peak operational hours. This construction was assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix D of the Final EIR). The approximate volume of cut and fill is anticipated to balance on the site. A small import quantity may be required. Excavated material from the building foundation and Douglass Road lowering will be used to raise the new rail platforms to match the existing main line track elevation, and to fill selected areas of the site to the desired grade. All construction workers will be required to park vehicles on-site without impacting either local businesses or local parking lots for the duration of construction. The staging areas for construction are assumed to be on site. All construction workers will be encouraged to carpool during construction as feasible. Material distribution to and from the site will occur through truck deliveries with the potential for rail deliveries of limited materials. Truck deliveries will access ARTIC by use of city of Anaheim streets during off-peak hours. 2.3 COMPARISON OF APPROVED AND REVISED PROJECT Table 2.3-1 Comparison of Differences between the Final EIR and the Addendum to the Final EIR Project analyzed in the Final EIR Project Analyzed in the Addendum to the Final EIR Change Intermodal Terminal Building: approximately 310,000 square feet, comprised of 140,000 square feet at-grade or above, 170,000 square feet below grade Intermodal Terminal Building: approximately 67,000 square feet with at-grade and above grade levels1 Reduced building square footage Bus Transit Center: under the Intermodal Terminal Building with a 16-bay bus facility (two, eight bay islands) Bus Transit Facility: waiting areas on three sides of Terminal Building, 13 bus bay spaces and one straight curb space, four curbside bus spaces for OCTA bus staging and layover, and 6 parking spaces for supervisors Moved Bus Transit Facility from below- grade to above-grade and changed bus facilities from 16-bay to 13 bus bay spaces, one curbside space, and six parking spaces for supervisors Pedestrian Concourse Bridge New project element Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse Tunnel Removed from project ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-13 Public Hall Waiting Area Civic Space/Grand Hall Different name, but no change in physical improvement Program Space Removed from project Baggage Tunnel New project element Public Plaza/Drop-off Area Public Plaza/Drop-off Area No change Stadium Pavilion: a pedestrian bridge over the tracks and platforms Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel Changed from a bridge over the tracks to a tunnel underneath Stub-end track Removed from project Platforms: side platform between 21 and 40 feet wide, 1,200 feet long; center platform 38 feet wide, 1,200 long Platforms: two side platforms between 16 and 38 feet wide, 1,000 feet long Reduced width and length of side platforms, no center platform Douglass Road Bridge: to accommodate three track two platform design Douglass Road Bridge: to accommodate two track, two platform design Reduced width of Douglass Road Bridge Douglass Road between Angel Stadium Parking Lot and Railroad Bridge Douglass Road between Angel Stadium Parking Lot and Railroad Bridge No change ROW acquisition: 45,000 square feet ROW acquisition: 24,145 square feet Reduction of square footage Douglass Road between Railroad Bridge and Katella Avenue road improvements: four lanes wide under Railroad Bridge; widened to six and eventually eight lanes approaching Katella Avenue; north and southbound left turn pockets from Douglass Road; ROW width increase to 120 feet Douglass Road between Railroad Bridge and Katella Avenue road improvements: four lanes wide under Railroad Bridge; widened to seven and eventually eight lanes approaching Katella Avenue; north and southbound left turn pockets from Douglass Road; ROW width increase to 120 feet Changed initial Douglass Road lane widening from six lanes to seven Douglass Road – Vertical Profile changes: lowered approximately eight feet and regarded approximately 1,100 feet Douglass Road – Vertical Profile: lowered approximately five feet and regarded approximately 1,100 feet Reduced lowering of Douglass Road Katella Avenue Improvements: using an additional five feet of ROW Katella Avenue Improvements: using an additional six feet of ROW Changed Katella Avenue widening from five feet to six feet ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 2.0 Project Description 2-14 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Not included at opening, will be constructed at a future date when funding is secure ARTIC Pedestrian Trail Removed from project Surface Parking/Access: total parking 960, Existing Surface Parking lot 405 spaces; South Surface Parking lot 232 spaces, and North Surface Parking lot 323 spaces Surface Parking/Access: total parking 1,087 spaces, Lot C 405 Spaces (existing surface parking), Lot B 221 spaces (south surface parking), Lot A (north surface parking) 455 spaces, and six spaces in the Bus Transit Facility South surface parking reduced by 11 spaces, north surface parking increased by 132 spaces, and six spaces added to the Bus Transit Facility Sponsorship and Signage Program New project element Bicycle Access: via Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Bicycle Access: via Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, and directly to Santa Ana River Trail just north of the rail ROW Added a direct at-grade connection to the Santa Ana River Trail Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities: electrical, water, sewer, gas, and drainage Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities: electrical, water, sewer, gas, drainage and Ground Water Recharge System Included ground water extraction. Construction activity: export 80,000 cubic yards of material Construction activity: balanced site, no export of material No removal of 80,000 cubic feet of material ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1 3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Final EIR evaluated the following environmental issues: land use and planning, transportation and traffic, air quality, noise, geology and soils, utilities and service systems, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative effects. These issues are re- evaluated in this Addendum in light of the changes that have occurred to the original ARTIC project description. This evaluation determines whether, with these changes, implementation of the revised project would result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the Final EIR. The Final EIR (Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis) describes the criteria that were used to determine the significance of environmental impacts. All mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR were subsequently adopted by the City of Anaheim as conditions of project approval. All applicable measures also will apply to the revised project changes described in this Addendum. In the Final EIR, cumulative impacts were discussed individually in each environmental issue area section. Likewise, for this Addendum, cumulative impacts are discussed in each environmental issue area section. 3.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING Please refer to Section 3.1 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential land use and planning impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. No impacts were anticipated. The revised project would not change the nature of the development as previously proposed and evaluated in the Final EIR. Though the numbers of bus bays, platforms, parking spaces, and road improvements, as well as pedestrian access options, have changed, the revised project still serves as an intermodal transit center in compliance with existing land use policies. Therefore, the assessment of compatibility with existing land uses would not change and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.2.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR concluded that the project, as analyzed, would have no cumulative impact on land use. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to land use compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project would not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in new significant environmental impacts. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Please refer to Section 3.2 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. An updated Traffic Impact Assessment was prepared on January 26, 2012 to evaluate potential new impacts as a result of the revised project. See Appendix A for the complete report. This analysis found that access to ARTIC would be adequate under the revised project. Motorists entering and exiting ARTIC would still be able to do so comfortably, safely, ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-2 and without undue congestion. No additional impacts were found and no additional mitigation measures were required. Therefore, the revised project would not change the determination presented in the Final EIR. 3.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Since the revised project did not result in additional impacts that needed mitigating, the cumulative impacts analyzed in the Final EIR will suffice. 3.4 AIR QUALITY Please refer to Section 3.3 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were anticipated. The original ARTIC project analyzed in the Final EIR included a building that was larger than the revised project and mitigated for impacts that were greater. The revised project proposes a smaller building with less grading, without proposing a reduction in mitigation. The revised project would not create additional construction emissions or operational emissions beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR. The revised project would also not encourage additional vehicles to travel to ARTIC or otherwise change the number of vehicles on the roads surrounding ARTIC. Additionally, there would be no export of construction material as a result of the revised project (the Final EIR included the export of 80,000 cubic yards) and truck trips would not increase. Therefore, the air quality assessment would not change and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.4.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project, as analyzed, would have less than significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to air quality compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project would not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.5 NOISE Please refer to Section 3.4 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were anticipated. The revised project would not create the need for additional construction activities to occur. Additionally, the revised project would not encourage additional vehicles to travel to ARTIC or otherwise change the number of vehicles on the roads surrounding ARTIC. The noise conditions would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and mitigation measures presented in the Final EIR would continue to reduce potential impacts associated with construction to less than significant levels. Therefore, additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.5.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that construction for the project, as analyzed, would cause less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. The Final EIR found cumulative impacts for the ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-3 operation of ARTIC to be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to noise compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project would not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Please refer to Section 3.5 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential geology and soil impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The structures proposed in the revised project would be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the California Building Code, Orange County Building and Safety Department Code, National Engineering Handbook, current American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association guidance documents, and existing SCRRA standards. With these engineering and construction practices in place, the revised project would remain consistent with the original ARTIC project analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.6.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on geology and soils because they are site specific. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to geology and soils compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Please refer to Section 3.6 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The revised project would not change the type of use from the Final EIR since the nature of the development is consistent with the Final EIR. The revised project would also not result in additional visitors or features that would increase the demand of utilities and service systems, beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR, and no adverse changes to waste water, water supply, and solid waste would occur. Therefore, use of utilities and service systems would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.7.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on utilities and service systems. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-4 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Please refer to Section 3.7 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were anticipated. The revised project changes would not create or cause the need for hazardous materials that were not analyzed in the original Final EIR, nor would it expose people to new hazards. Therefore, the revised project would not affect hazards and hazardous materials and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.8.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Please refer to Section 3.8 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were anticipated. Structures added as a result of the revised project would be constructed within the developed and paved area that was analyzed in the Final EIR. The BMPs, and Water Quality Management Plan identified in the Final EIR would continue to minimize potential impacts as a result of the revised project. The revised project would also adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and remain consistent with applicable regulations. Ground water extraction would be added to supplement the water supply for the Intermodal Terminal. The ground water use would remain in compliance with regulations and is not expected to deplete resources. Therefore, the revised project would not change the effects previously analyzed and mitigated for and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.9.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project as analyzed would not have a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality. The majority of the Santa Ana River watershed is already developed and surface flows are not expected to increase significantly. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.10 AESTHETICS Please refer to Section 3.9 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The revised project changes in bus bays, parking spaces, road improvements, platforms, and utilities would not add ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-5 new features to the site that would affect the visual landscape of the area or add light, glare, or shadows. The Stadium Pedestrian Tunnel and the Baggage Tunnel would be constructed underneath the railroad tracks and the Pedestrian Concourse Bridge and would not add features to the visual landscape that would stand out from the existing structures. The Pedestrian Concourse Bridge would be consistent with the design and appearance of the project elements approved in the Final EIR, as well as with the planned architecture envisioned for the Platinum Triangle. The sponsorship and signage program elements would not impact sensitive receptors on the Santa Ana River Trail, as the Santiago Hills and San Bernardino Mountain range are to the east. For the Avalon Anaheim Stadium condominium residents, the view corridor of these scenic resources already includes SR-57, Angel Stadium, the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, billboards, telephone poles, high-voltage transmission lines, parking lots, street lights, and road signage. The sponsorship and signage elements would simply be structures added to an already developed visual landscape that are consistent with the planned uses of the area and contribute to the enhancement of aesthetic quality and overall visual character of the site vicinity. These additional changes as a result of the revised project would not add light, glare, and shadows separate from what was evaluated in the Final EIR. Therefore, the aesthetic conditions would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.10.1 Cumulative Impacts Less than significant cumulative impacts were anticipated in the Final EIR. Since the revised project would add features consistent with the features evaluated in the Final EIR, development in conjunction with related projects in the area would not cumulatively obstruct views of scenic resources. Furthermore, implementation of the revised project would continue to intensify urban uses in agreement with the vision described in the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Please refer to Section 3.10 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were anticipated. Changes as a result of the revised project would be located within the project area that was evaluated for cultural resources in the Final EIR. Construction activities would be consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR and would adhere to the mitigation measures presented in the Final EIR. Therefore, additional impacts to cultural resources, beyond what was studied in the Final EIR, would not occur as a result of the revised project. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-6 3.11.1 Cumulative Impacts Less than significant cumulative impacts were anticipated in the Final EIR. Potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of the original project would be localized and remain within the project area boundaries. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURES Please refer to Section 3.11 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were anticipated. Changes as a result of the revised project would be located within the project area that was evaluated for biological resources in the Final EIR. Construction activities for the revised project would be consistent with the Final EIR and would not remove additional habitat beyond what was previously analyzed. Since the biological conditions would remain consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR, additional impacts are not anticipated as a result of the revised project. 3.12.1 Cumulative Impacts Less than significant cumulative impacts were anticipated in the Final EIR. The original ARTIC project will not adversely impact federal or state listed species, protected natural plant communities, or waterbodies and the potential impacts to nesting migratory birds will be less than significant with mitigation. Based on the analysis and information presented above, there is no evidence that the revised project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources compared to those disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. 3.13 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Please refer to Section 3.12 of the Final EIR for an analysis of potential impacts associated with the original ARTIC project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated. The revised project would not create additional construction emissions or operational emissions beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR. The revised project would not encourage additional vehicles to travel to ARTIC or otherwise change the number of vehicles on the roads surrounding ARTIC. Additionally, there would be no export of construction material as a result of the revised project (the Final EIR included the export of 80,000 cubic yards) and truck trips would not increase. Therefore, the greenhouse gas evaluation would not change and additional impacts are not anticipated. 3.13.1 Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR found that the project, as analyzed, would have less than significant cumulative impacts on greenhouse gases. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 3.0 Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-7 evidence that project modifications would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to air quality compared to what was identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, the revised project does not require any major changes to the Final EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- EIR Addendum 4.0 Conclusion 4-1 4.0 CONCLUSION Based on information and analyses in this Addendum and pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined the following: 1. There are no substantial changes to the original project that would require major revisions to the Final EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR. 2. Substantial changes have not occurred in circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that would require major revisions of the Final EIR to disclose new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance not known at the time the Final EIR was certified that shows any of the following: • The project would have new significant effect not discussed in the Final EIR. • There are impacts determined significant in the Final EIR that would be substantially increased. • There are no additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the project that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the Final EIR. • There are no additional mitigation measures or alternatives that were rejected by the project proponent that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR that would substantially reduce any significant impacts identified in that EIR. Thus, since none of the above conditions are met by the revised project, this Addendum is sufficient. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Traffic Impact Assessment (on attached CD) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary xii 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Study Area 2 1.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios 4 1.3 Study Area - City of Orange 4 2.0 Project Description and Location 6 2.1 Site Access 6 3.0 Analysis Methodology 8 3.1 Existing Street Network 8 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 10 3.3 Capacity Analysis Methodologies 10 3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized 10 3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) 11 3.3.3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized 11 3.3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) 12 3.3.5 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points 13 3.3.6 Freeway Weaving Analysis 13 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds 13 3.4.1 Intersections 14 3.4.2 Arterial 14 3.4.3 Caltrans Facilities 15 4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology 23 5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics 24 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast 24 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 27 5.2.1 Existing Project Traffic Volumes 27 5.2.2 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes 27 6.0 Future Traffic Conditions 28 6.1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes 28 6.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Volumes 28 6.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Volumes 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 6.4 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Volumes 29 6.5 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes 30 7.0 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis 33 7.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis 33 7.1.1 Existing Traffic 33 7.1.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions 33 7.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis 36 7.2.1 Existing Traffic 36 7.2.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions 36 8.0 Year 2014 Traffic Impact Analysis 39 8.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis 39 8.1.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions 39 8.1.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 39 8.2 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis 42 8.2.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions 42 8.2.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 42 9.0 Year 2030 Traffic Impact Analysis 47 9.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis 47 9.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions 47 9.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions 47 9.2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis 51 9.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions 51 9.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions 51 10.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis 56 10.1 Existing With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis 56 10.2 Existing With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis 57 10.3 Year 2014 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis 61 10.4 Year 2014 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis 61 10.5 Year 2030 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis 65 10.6 Year 2030 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis 65 11.0 Year 2014 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM 70 11.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis 71 11.1.1 Existing Traffic 71 11.1.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions 71 11.1.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 11.2 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) 74 11.2.1 Existing Traffic 74 11.2.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions 74 11.2.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 74 11.3 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) 76 11.3.1 Existing Traffic 76 11.3.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions 76 11.3.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 76 11.4 Year 2014 Freeway Segment Analysis 79 11.4.1 Existing Traffic 79 11.4.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions 79 11.4.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 79 12.0 Year 2030 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM 82 12.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis 82 12.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions 82 12.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions 82 12.2 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) 84 12.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions 84 12.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions 84 12.3 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) 86 12.3.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions 86 12.3.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions 86 12.4 Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis 89 12.4.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions 89 12.4.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions 89 13.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Analysis 91 13.1 Site Access Evaluation 91 13.1.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 91 13.2 Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis 92 13.2.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions 92 13.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation 92 13.4 Intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Operations Analysis (HCM Methodology) 92 14.0 Proposed Mitigation And Improvement Strategies 95 14.1 Traffic Fee Program 95 14.2 Steps for Mitigation Measures 95 14.3 Existing With Project Improvements 96 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 14.3.1 Intersections Improvements 96 14.3.2 Roadway Segments Improvements 96 14.4 Year 2014 With Project Improvements 96 14.4.1 Intersections Improvements 97 14.4.2 Roadway Segments Improvements 97 14.4.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements 97 14.4.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) 97 14.4.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) 97 14.4.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements 97 14.5 Year 2030 With Project Improvements 100 14.5.1 Intersections Improvements 100 14.5.2 Roadway Segments Improvements 100 14.5.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements 100 14.5.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) 100 14.5.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) 101 14.5.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements 101 14.6 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements 103 14.6.1 Caltrans Freeway Segments 104 14.6.2 Caltrans Freeway Ramps and Weaving Segments 106 14.7 Other Mitigation Measures 107 14.7.1 Project Level Impact Analysis 107 14.7.2 Transportation Fee Program 107 14.8 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations 108 14.9 City of Orange Improvements 108 14.9.1 Intersections Improvements 108 14.9.2 Roadway Segments Improvements 108 15.0 Project Comparison to Prior Traffic Impact Analysis Report 109 16.0 Summary of Conclusions 118 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc v APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Existing Traffic Count Data A-I Intersection Count Data A-II Roadway Segment Count Data B. Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes C. Existing With Project Traffic Volumes C-I Intersection Traffic Volumes C-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes C-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes D. Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Volumes D-I Intersection Traffic Volumes D-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes D-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes E. Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes E-I Intersection Traffic Volumes E-II Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes E-III Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes F. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets F-I Existing Traffic Conditions G. Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets G-I Existing With Project Traffic Conditions G-II Existing With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions H. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets H-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions H-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions H-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions I. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets I-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions I-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions I-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc vi APPENDICES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX J. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) J-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) K. Existing Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) K-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) L. Existing Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) L-I Existing Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) M. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) M-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) N. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) N-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) O. Year 2014 Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-I Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-II Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) O-III Year 2014 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc vii APPENDICES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX P. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) P-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Intersection Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Freeway Ramp Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) Q-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Ramp Analysis (HCM Methodology) R. Year 2030 Traffic Conditions Freeway Segment Level of Service Calculation Worksheets – Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-I Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-II Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) R-III Year 2030 With Project With Mitigation Traffic Conditions – Caltrans Freeway Segment Analysis (HCM Methodology) S. Site Access and Project Driveway Level of Service Calculation Worksheets S-I Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions T. Project Related Fair-Share Calculation T-I Intersection Fair-Share Calculation T-II Roadway Segment Fair-Share Calculation T-III Caltrans Ramp Fair-Share Calculation (Merge/Diverge Analysis) T-IV Caltrans Ramp Fair-Share Calculation (Weaving Analysis) T-V Caltrans Freeway Segment Fair-Share Calculation ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc viii LIST OF FIGURES SECTION – FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1–1 Vicinity Map 5 1–2 Regional Map 5 2–1 Existing Site Plan 7 2–2 Proposed Site Plan 7 3–1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls 3–2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 3–3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 3–4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 15 5–1 Existing Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot C [Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot]) 5–2A Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot A [ARTIC North Parking Lot]) 5–2B Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot B [ARTIC South Parking Lot]) 5–2C Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (Lot C [Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot]) 5–2D Proposed Project Trip Distribution Pattern (ARTIC Bus Service) 5–3 AM Peak Hour Existing Project Traffic Volumes 27 5–4 PM Peak Hour Existing Project Traffic Volumes 27 5–5 Daily Existing Project Traffic Volumes 27 5–6 AM Peak Hour Proposed Project Traffic Volumes 27 5–7 PM Peak Hour Proposed Project Traffic Volumes 27 5–8 Daily Proposed Project Traffic Volumes 27 6–1 Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–2 Existing With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–3 Existing With Project Daily Traffic Volumes 32 6–4 Year 2014 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–5 Year 2014 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–6 Year 2014 Without Project Daily Traffic Volumes 32 6–7 Year 2014 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–8 Year 2014 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–9 Year 2014 With Project Daily Traffic Volumes 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc ix LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) SECTION – FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 6–10 Year 2030 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–11 Year 2030 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–12 Year 2030 Without Project Daily Traffic Volumes 32 6–13 Year 2030 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–14 Year 2030 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 32 6–15 Year 2030 With Project Daily Traffic Volumes 32 7–1 Existing Vs. Existing With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison 35 8-1 Year 2014 Without Project Vs. Year 2014 With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison 41 9–1 Year 2030 Without Project Vs. Year 2030 With Project Peak Hours Level of Service Results Comparison 50 13-1 Project Driveway Lane Configurations 94 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc x LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE# PAGE 3-1 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) 16 3-2 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) 17 3-3 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (HCM) 18 3-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities 19 3-5 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM) 20 3-6 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM) 21 3-7 Significant Impact Criteria 22 5-1 Project Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast 26 6-1 Related Projects Summary 31-32 7-1 Existing With Related Projects With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 34-35 7-2 Existing With Related Projects With Project Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 37-38 8-1 Year 2014 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 40-41 8-2 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 43-44 8-3 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary 45-46 9-1 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 49-50 9-2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 52-53 9-3 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary 54-55 10-1 Existing With Related Projects With Project Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 58 10-2 Existing With Related Projects With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 59-60 10-3 Year 2014 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 62 10-4 Year 2014 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 63-64 10-5 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 66 10-6 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 67-68 10-7 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xi LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) SECTION-TABLE# PAGE 11-1 Year 2014 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 73 11-2 Year 2014 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 75 11-3 Year 2014 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 78 11-4 Year 2014 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 81 12-1 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 83 12-2 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 85 12-3 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 88 12-4 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 90 13-1 Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary 94 14-1 Year 2014 with Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Fair-Share Percentage Summary 99 14-2 Year 2030 with Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Fair-Share Percentage Summary 102 15-1 Project Comparison To Prior Traffic Impact Analysis Report (July 16, 2010) 112-117 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This traffic impact analysis addendum evaluates the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, located in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. This addendum traffic impact analysis report assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in Project development totals, specifically the increase in parking spaces from 960 spaces to 1,087 spaces for a net increase of 127 parking spaces. Additionally, the Project now consists of the construction of a 67,000 square-feet (SF) regional transportation facility as compared to a 310,000 SF regional transportation facility (hereinafter referred to as Previous Project) as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010. It should be noted that a detailed list of the differences between the proposed Project and previous Project analyzed in this traffic impact analysis addendum is provided at the end of the Executive Summary. This addendum traffic impact analysis report is intended to support the preparation of an addendum to EIR No. 343, to be prepared by Kleinfelder, in conjunction with the discretionary review of the conditional use permit for the Project. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 1,087 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xiii Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) and Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), with a parking supply of approximately 461 parking spaces, 221 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and at the existing Sportstown access on Katella, west of the 57 Freeway.  The proposed Project is forecast generate 6,134 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 1,001 trips (772 inbound, 229 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 838 trips (207 inbound, 631 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.  The existing Project (Metrolink Station) generates 1,015 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.  After taking credit for the existing Metrolink land use, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 5,119 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 818 net trips (653 inbound, 165 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 615 net trips (121 inbound, 494 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.  The Project study area covers twelve (12) existing key study intersections and five future Project driveways. The key study intersections and Project driveways are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future) 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future) 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future) 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future) ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xiv 17. Driveway 5 at Katella Avenue (Future)  The Project study area covers eight key study roadway segments. The key roadway segments are: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City of Anaheim) 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim) 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City of Anaheim) 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City of Anaheim) 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim) 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim/Orange)1 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange) Existing Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections under the Existing peak hour service level calculations based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better.  All eight key study roadway segments under Existing service level calculations based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry are currently operating at acceptable LOS B or better. Existing With Project Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report.  All eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the key study intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. 1 The segment from the SR-57 Freeway to Santa Ana River is in the City of Anaheim and the segment from the Santa Ana River to Main Street is in the City of Orange. Since the roadway segment count was collected in the City of Anaheim, this segment has been analyzed as a City of Anaheim segment. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xv  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One key study intersection (Douglass Road at Katella Avenue) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis Existing With Project  All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations.  All eight CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. Year 2014 Conditions  All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS C or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  All eight of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 Conditions  All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  Three CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Daily Year 2030 Without Project and Daily Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. These three CMP segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xvi on these segments. All three CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, these three study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic. Caltrans Facilities Analysis Existing Conditions  All Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the four Caltrans ramp intersections operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 37.04 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 43.70 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 37.79 E 38.75 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  Two Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xvii and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 8,465 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 7,647 38.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One Caltrans study intersection will continue to operate at adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersection to acceptable Level of Service.  None of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 38.20 E ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xviii 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 40.79 E 38.63 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  One Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Site Access & On-Site Circulation  All the Project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable service level of LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely and without undue congestion.  The maximum number of inbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the inbound southbound left-turn movement from Douglass Road into Driveway 2 during the AM peak hour. The queue on Douglass Road is forecast to have a maximum queue of eight vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 176 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). The maximum number of outbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the outbound westbound right-turn movement from Driveway 2 onto Douglass Road during the AM and PM peak hours. The queue on Driveway 2 is forecast to have a maximum queue of three vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 66 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). All of the other Project driveways are forecast to operate with a maximum queue of two vehicles during the AM and/or PM peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xix  Based on the Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis, adequate vehicle storage is provided at all of the driveways and review of the proposed site plan indicates that all Project driveways have sufficient stacking to accommodate the forecast vehicle queues. Based on the above, no changes to the proposed configuration of the Project driveways are necessary.  The on-site circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the overall layout does not create any unsafe vehicle- pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throating is sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, buses, shuttles, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on-site circulation is very good based on our review of the proposed site plan, whereas the alignment, spacing and throating of the Project driveways is adequate. The circulation around the buildings is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles.  To supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to determine the appropriate northbound approach lane geometry for the Year 2014 Project opening condition without requiring the need for any roadway improvements to Douglass Road on the north side of the intersection. As a result of the HCM analysis, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue is recommended to consist of a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR lane for the Year 2014 Project opening condition. The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at acceptable LOS D or better based on the HCM 2000 Methodology and the lane configuration mentioned above. Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies Existing With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. Existing With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xx intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. Year 2014 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xxi Year 2030 With Project Intersection Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xxii Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements:  For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project.  With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations  Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will document why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation.  With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xxiii improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. City of Orange Improvements  As shown in the analysis, no intersections or roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. Proposed Project Comparison to Previous Project Traffic Impact Analysis Report  A brief comparison of the proposed Project’s development tabulation, trip generation characteristics, Project access and potential traffic impacts in comparison to those identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (Previous Project) is shown below. The July 16, 2010 traffic study evaluated the potential impacts associated with construction of ARTIC with 960 parking spaces:  Development Size: The proposed Project acreage is the same as the Previous Project.  Building Size: The proposed Project is 243,000 SF smaller than the Previous Project.  Land Use: The proposed Project’s land use is the same as the than the Previous Project. In addition, there is no change in Transit Service.  Building Accessory Uses: The proposed Project’s building accessory uses are for transit patrons only whereas for the Previous Project they were for both the transit patrons and outside patrons.  Parking Spaces: The proposed Project has 127 more parking spaces than the Previous Project.  Project Opening Year: The proposed Project is anticipated to be open in Year 2014 whereas the Previous Project was anticipated to be open in Year 2013.  Trip Generation: The proposed Project is expected to generate 1,420 more daily trips, 196 more AM peak hour trips and 176 more PM peak hour trips than the Previous Project. The impact of this change in trip generation is analyzed in this addendum traffic report. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xxiv  Project Access: The access to the proposed Project is the same as the Previous Project except Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), which will have access along Douglass Road for the proposed Project.  No. of Project Driveways: The proposed Project analyzed 2 less Project Driveways than the Previous Project.  No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study intersections as the Previous Project.  No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less intersection impact and one less roadway segment impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study intersections as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc xxv  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study ramp intersections as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study merge/diverge locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study weaving locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study freeway segments as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Caltrans study ramp intersections or Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. In addition, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less Caltrans study ramp intersection impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project. Additionally, there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Further, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Site Access Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Project Driveways for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 1 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT ADDENDUM ARTIC Anaheim, California January 25, 2012 (Update of the October 28, 2011 Report) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis addendum evaluates the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, located in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. This addendum traffic impact analysis report assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in Project development totals, specifically the increase in parking spaces from 960 spaces to 1,087 spaces for a net increase of 127 parking spaces. Additionally, the Project now consists of the construction of a 67,000 square-feet (SF) regional transportation facility as compared to a 310,000 SF regional transportation facility (hereinafter referred to as Previous Project) as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (July 2010 traffic impact analysis report). This addendum traffic impact analysis report is intended to support the preparation of an addendum to EIR No. 343, to be prepared by Kleinfelder, in conjunction with the discretionary review of the conditional use permit for the Project. It should be noted that a detailed list of the differences between the proposed Project and previous Project analyzed in this traffic impact analysis addendum is provided in Section 15.0. The scope of the Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 2 transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 1,087 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) and Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), with a parking supply of approximately 461 parking spaces, 221 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and at the existing Sportstown access on Katella, west of the 57 Freeway. This report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts the Project may have on the local and/or regional network in the vicinity of the Project site. The traffic impact analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at twelve (12) key study intersections within the Project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed Project and forecasts future (near-term and long-term) operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. It should be noted that five Project driveways were also analyzed for the near-term “with” Project scenarios. This traffic impact analysis report satisfies the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies and is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing (i.e. baseline) peak hours and daily traffic information has been collected at twelve (12) key study intersections and eight key study roadway segments, respectively, on a “typical” weekday for use in the preparation of intersection and roadway segment level of service calculations. This traffic report analyzes existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near-term and long-term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions for Existing (i.e. baseline), Year 2014 and Year 2030 traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project. Peak hour and daily traffic volumes for the Existing, Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions were provided by the City of Anaheim. 1.1 Study Area The study intersections listed below are locations that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. Twelve (12) existing key study intersections and five future Project driveways listed below were selected based on location of Project and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies as well as discussions with the City of Anaheim staff. The key study intersections are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 3 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City of Anaheim) 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange) 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future) 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future) 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future) 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future) 17. Driveway 5 at Katella Avenue (Future) In addition, the study roadway segments listed below are locations that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. The eight roadway segments listed below were selected based on the arterial network within the study area: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City of Anaheim) 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim) 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City of Anaheim) 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City of Anaheim) 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City of Anaheim) 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim) 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim/Orange)2 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. Figure 1-2 presents a Regional Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project, surrounding cities and the regional freeway system. The ICU/HCM Delay and Level of Service (LOS) calculations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, related projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service and/or addresses the impact of the Project. 2 The segment from the SR-57 Freeway to Santa Ana River is in the City of Anaheim and the segment from the Santa Ana River to Main Street is in the City of Orange. Since the roadway segment count was collected in the City of Anaheim, this segment has been analyzed as a City of Anaheim segment. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 4 Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are:  Existing traffic counts,  Estimated Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment for the Existing and proposed Project,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Existing (i.e. baseline) conditions,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Existing (i.e. baseline) conditions with Project traffic,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Near-Term (Year 2014) conditions without and with Project traffic,  AM and PM peak hours and Daily capacity analyses for Long-Term (Year 2030) conditions without and with Project traffic,  Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis,  Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology),  Site Access and On-Site Circulation Analysis, and  Project-Specific Traffic Improvements. 1.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which ICU/HCM Delay LOS and V/C calculations have been performed at the key intersections and key roadway segments and for Existing, Near-Term and Long-Term traffic conditions: A. Existing (i.e. baseline) Traffic Conditions, B. Existing (i.e. baseline) With Projects Traffic Conditions, C. Scenario B with Recommended Improvements, if any, D. Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions, E. Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions, F. Scenario E With Recommended Improvements, G. Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions, H. Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions, and I. Scenario H With Recommended Improvements. 1.3 Study Area - City of Orange The study area that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project was selected based on location of Project and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange uses the same methodology to determine intersections to be analyzed in Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange sent a letter requesting the analysis of 12 intersections within the City of Orange. In response, all 12 requested intersections were reviewed to see if they met the minimum peak hour trip threshold. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 5 Those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive 51 or more peak hour trips from the Project were further scrutinized to determine whether or not the Project-generated traffic created significant impacts in connection with the identified City of Orange intersections. For those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive less than 51 peak hour Project-generated trips, the Project will not create any significant impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION This traffic impact study addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site. The scope of the Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station, and will include a nominal amount of passenger-oriented retail uses. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre OCTA parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development. This study analyzes the relocation of the existing rail station to the ARTIC site with the facilities necessary to support existing transit services (rail and non-rail), as well as to accommodate future transit services such as the planned OCTA’s Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP) currently underway, OCTA’s proposed Bravo service and other fixed route services. ARTIC will also include passenger-oriented retail and civic space. A total parking supply of up to 1,087 parking spaces will be provided within three parking lots, Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) and Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), with a parking supply of approximately 461 parking spaces, 221 parking spaces and 405 parking spaces, respectively. Access to the Project site and parking lots would be provided via driveways located along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue and Sportstown. Figure 2-1 presents the existing site plan for the Project. Figure 2-2 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Kleinfelder. 2.1 Site Access As shown in Figure 2-2, vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via the existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue as well as via four driveways located on Douglass Road and one driveway located on Katella Avenue. The existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue is a full-access, signalized intersection that provides access to Lot C (existing Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot). Driveway 1 along Douglass ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 7 Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-in and left-out/right-out only driveway providing access to the Schmid Property. Driveway 2 along Douglass Road is a five-legged, full-access (only the northbound left is restricted), signalized intersection providing ingress/egress from Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) and egress for the buses. Driveway 3 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the buses only. Driveway 4 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, full-access driveway providing access to Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot). Driveway 5 along Katella Avenue is a one-way stop-controlled driveway that provides right- in/right-out only access to Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) as well as to the buses area. It should be noted that the ARTIC patrons parking in the Sportstown parking lot, which also has access from Douglass Road, would access the train platforms through the Stadium Pavilion which will be constructed on the west end of the platforms. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 8 3.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3.1 Existing Street Network The Orange Freeway (SR-57) provides primary regional access to the proposed Project. The SR-57 Freeway bisects the Project site. The principal local network of streets serving the Project site consists of Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Struck Avenue, Collins Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street, Manchester Avenue, Anaheim Way, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, Douglass Road, Eckhoff Street, Main Street and Batavia Street. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of the key area streets. Cerritos Avenue is an east-west roadway located north of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Cerritos Avenue is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Katella Avenue is an east-west roadway that borders the Project site on the north. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Katella Avenue is a six- lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). The intersections of Katella Avenue at Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Ramps, Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Sportstown, Howell Avenue, SR-57 SB Ramps, SR-57 NB Ramps, Douglass Road, Struck Avenue, Main Street and Batavia Street are controlled by traffic signals. Struck Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on the south side of the roadway, but is permitted on the north side of the roadway, within the Project vicinity. Struck Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a double-yellow line. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Collins Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of the Project site. West of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane undivided roadway with on-street parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. East of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. On-street parking is not permitted east of Main Street. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Orangewood Avenue is an east-west roadway located south of the Project site. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Orangewood Avenue is primarily a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median, with on-street parking restricted on both sides of the roadway. West of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). East of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On- street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. South of Katella Avenue, Haster Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 9 Katella Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Manchester Avenue is a one-way roadway located west of the Project site trending in a southeast direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Manchester Avenue is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Anaheim Way is a one-way roadway located west of the Project site trending in a northwest direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Anaheim Way is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Lewis Street is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the study area except between Katella Avenue and Anaheim Way where on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. North of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. South of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a two- lane undivided roadway. North of Anaheim Way, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. State College Boulevard is a north-south roadway located west of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. State College Boulevard is primarily a six-lane divided roadway. South of Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard is an eight-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Howell Avenue is an east-west roadway located north-west of the Project site. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Howell Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Douglass Road is a north-south roadway that borders the Project site on the west. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the Project vicinity. North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane, and south of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane undivided roadway. Eckhoff Street is a north-south roadway located south-east of the Project site. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. South of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). North of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Main Street is a north-south roadway located east of the Project site. South of Collins Street, on- street parking is not permitted on the west side of the roadway, but is permitted on the east side of the roadway, within the Project vicinity. North of Collins Avenue, on-street parking is generally permitted. Main Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 10 Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Batavia Street is a north-south roadway located east of the Project site. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway within the Project vicinity. Batavia Street is a four- lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions within the study area evaluated in this report. The number of travel lanes and intersection controls for the key area study intersections are identified. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve (12) key study intersections evaluated in this report, along with existing daily two-way traffic volumes for the eight key roadway segments, were provided by the City of Anaheim. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 present the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively, for the twelve (12) key study intersections. Figure 3-4 presents the existing daily traffic volumes for the eight key study roadway segments. Appendix A contains the raw existing intersection turning movement and roadway segment traffic count data which was collected by Transportation Studies Inc. in Year 2008 and 2009 and was provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix B contains the freeway segment and ramp existing traffic volumes. 3.3 Capacity Analysis Methodologies Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the twelve (12) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for unsignalized intersections. It should be noted that the methodology outlined in Chapter 16 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for signalized intersections was utilized for Caltrans controlled intersections. Freeway mainline, ramp merge and diverge and weaving segments are also analyzed using Chapters 22-25 of the HCM 2000. 3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) In conformance with the City of Anaheim requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 11 Per City of Anaheim requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. The analysis methodologies used by the City of Anaheim for signalized intersections are also consistent with the methodology used by the City of Orange, as are the LOS thresholds. Therefore, the same assumptions were applied for both jurisdictions. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1. 3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The 2000 HCM unsignalized methodology was utilized in the analysis of stop-controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, this methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. The HCM control delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 3-2. 3.3.3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HCM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 12 Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3-3. 3.3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for arterials. Although the arterial segment V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance, the performance is measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. To identify deficient arterial segments, the segments that are identified as deficient under daily conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour throughput. Arterial segments that operate deficiently under peak hour conditions are candidates for mitigation improvements. Note that the City of Orange does not provide provisions for peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine level of service under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. The peak hour link analysis determines directional AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for each link that exceeds the daily LOS threshold. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15-7 of the HCM, multiplying the mid-block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. The percentage of green time is estimated by dividing the directional V/C ratios by the total V/C ratio at signalized intersections along the arterial segment. The highest resulting percentage is the estimated percentage of green time for that arterial segment. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied for the arterial segments throughout the study area. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities for each jurisdiction as applied in the current General Plans for each City and Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991) as noted in Table 3-4. The capacities reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction. Note that the City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement for Smart Streets as designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority. For Katella Avenue, Orange increases daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that enhance throughput along these key corridors. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 13 3.3.5 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour HCM 2000 density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM 2000 and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing traffic count data was provided by Caltrans. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software (HCS), the electronic version of the HCM 2000 for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM 2000 methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influential area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps:  Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge;  Determination of the capacity for the segment; and  Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service. The level of service (LOS) for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM 2000. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 3-5 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. 3.3.6 Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Typically, weaving segments are formed when merge areas are followed by diverge areas within 2,500 feet of the merge area. Auxiliary lanes do not need to be present to be defined a weaving area. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM 2000 and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Freeway weaving analysis was carried out by applying HCS software to weaving areas. According to HCM 2000, the weaving analysis supersedes ramp merge/diverge analysis and therefore were not analyzed for identified weaving segments. Table 3-6 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds For intersections and arterial segments, significant impacts are determined using the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Under the General Plan Build-out scenarios, these locations are governed by the City’s Growth Management Element. All State owned facilities are analyzed consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for all scenarios. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 14 3.4.1 Intersections According to the City’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all City intersections. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for intersections. The relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project during the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay or volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in Table 3-7. As mentioned previously, LOS D 0.81 and ≤ 0.90 (signalized) & > 25.0 s/v and  35.0 s/v (unsignalized)] is an established level of service standard for intersections in the City of Anaheim. As indicated in Table 3-7, the Project-related increase in ICU value that defines a significant impact at signalized intersections varies with LOS. Per the City’s guidelines, a change in ICU value, within LOS C, equal to or greater than 0.05 is an impact and within LOS D, a change in ICU equal to or greater than 0.03 is also an impact. With LOS E or F, a change in ICU equal to or greater than 0.01 is considered an impact. For the unsignalized intersections, this report defines a significant impact as a decrease in LOS by one level or more for those locations operating at LOS D, E, or F (LOS delay values shown in Table 3-2). For General Plan Build-out analysis, consistent with the City’s Growth Management Element, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the LOS to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under without project conditions. Mitigation measures, discussed later in the report are required to bring deficient intersections and roadway segments to an acceptable LOS. 3.4.2 Arterial Segments In addition, the relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project on a daily basis was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key roadway segments. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each roadway segment. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS D, E, or F) coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) or causes an ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 15 increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. 3.4.3 Caltrans Facilities Caltrans District 12 has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined that all state owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Analysis of Caltrans facilities is conducted in Sections 11.0 and 12.0 of this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 16 TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU METHODOLOGY)3 Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A  0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue 3 Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 - Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 17 TABLE 3-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM) 4 Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description A  10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion 4 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 17 (Unsignalized Intersections). ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 18 TABLE 3-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM)5 Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle may also contribute to low delay. B > 10.0 and < 20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C > 20.0 and < 35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D > 35.0 and < 55.0 Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 55.0 and < 80.0 Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. -F  80.0 Severe congestion This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. 5 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections). ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 19 TABLE 3-4 DAILY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES6 Type of Arterial Lane Configuration LOS E Capacity (VPD) Major 6-Lanes Divided 56,300 Major 8-Lanes Divided 75,000 Notes:  VPD = Vehicles per day 6 Source: Orange County Highway Design Manual, September 1991. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 20 TABLE 3-5 CALTRANS FREEWAY MAINLINE AND RAMP LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (HCM)7 LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 7 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibits 23-2 and 25-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 21 TABLE 3-6 CALTRANS FREEWAY WEAVING LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (HCM)8 LOS Freeway Weaving Area Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 E ≤ 43.0 F >43.0 8 Source: HCM 2000 Exhibit 25-7. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 22 TABLE 3-7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA9 Level of Service (LOS) Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C > 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05 D > 0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01 9 Source: City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 23 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations and/or rates to the Project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway segments and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the Project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast Project traffic. If necessary, the need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 24 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast The daily trip generation rate for the Project was developed based on the estimation of the numbers of originating passengers at ARTIC and the necessary infrastructure required to meet that demand. The needs for ARTIC were first analyzed in the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Transit and Parking Facility Description Report (Carter and Burgess, October 2007). The Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum (Cordoba Corporation, August 2009) updated the analysis with updated information from the various providers of service at ARTIC. Originating passenger information was provided by the various service providers that will utilize ARTIC (Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA, etc). The analysis conducted for these reports considered all originating passengers for each service provider at ARTIC. The mode of access for each originating passenger was then determined from the planned service levels for each provider – some arrive by car (driver or passenger), others transferring from another transit mode, others walking or bicycling to ARTIC. The daily vehicle trips were then compiled by adding the parking vehicles, drop off vehicles, taxis, buses and shuttles. The daily trip generation rate was then calculated by taking these total vehicle trips and dividing by the number of parking spaces, as calculated in the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum. Trip Generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis and shuttles. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour Project traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday. Review of row of Table 5-1 shows that the development of the proposed Project is forecast to generate 6,134 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 1,001 trips (772 inbound, 229 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 838 trips (207 inbound, 631 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Review of row of Table 5-1 shows that the existing Project generates 1,015 daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As shown in row of Table 5-1, the Project upon completion is forecast to generate 5,119 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 818 net trips (653 inbound, 165 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 615 net trips (121 inbound, 494 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. It should be noted that the anticipated increase in ridership at this station based on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Metrolink Service Expansion Project (MSEP) report ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 25 was accounted for in the Needs Assessment report and that document was the basis for the trip generation. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 26 TABLE 5-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST Project Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors10:  ARTIC (TE/PS) 4.91 0.67 0.17 0.84 0.15 0.54 0.69 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast: Autos  Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) - (461 Spaces) 2,264 309 78 387 69 249 318  Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) - (221 Spaces) 1,085 148 38 186 33 119 152  Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) - (405 Spaces) 1,989 271 69 340 61 219 280 Autos Trip Generation Forecast: 5,338 728 185 913 163 587 750 Buses  ARTIC Bus Service 796 44 44 88 44 44 88 Buses Trip Generation Forecast: 796 44 44 88 44 44 88 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast 6,134 772 229 1,001 207 631 838 Existing Project Trip Generation10:  Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Existing Project Trip Generation 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Net Project Traffic Generation Forecast = - 5,119 653 165 818 121 494 615 Notes:  TE/PS = Trip ends per Parking Space 10 Source: City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 27 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional traffic distribution patterns at the key study intersections are presented in Figure 5-1 and Figures 5-2A through 5-2D. Figure 5-1 displays the traffic distribution pattern for the existing Project. Figures 5-2A through 5-2D display the traffic distribution patterns for the Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot), Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot), Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) and the ARTIC Bus Service, respectively. Traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:  Anaheim Metrolink Station Trip Access Distribution Survey,  the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. SR-57 Freeway, Katella Avenue, etc.),  expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals,  the traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the Project site,  existing intersection traffic volumes,  ingress/egress availability at the Project site and  input from City of Anaheim staff. The Project trip distribution pattern was submitted to the City staff for their review and approval prior to proceeding with further analyses. 5.2.1 Existing Project Traffic Volumes The directional traffic distribution pattern for the existing Project is presented in Figure 5-1. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour existing Project trips at the key study intersections are presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-5 presents the Daily existing Project trips at the key study roadway segments. The existing Project trips assignment presented in the above mentioned figures reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the existing Project trips forecast presented in the row portion of Table 5-1. It should be noted that the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and Daily existing Project trips presented in Figures 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5, respectively, are shown as negative values since these volumes were “removed” from the street system in conjunction with the Project development. 5.2.2 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes The directional traffic distribution patterns for the proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-2A through 5-2D. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour proposed Project trips at the key study intersections and future Project driveways are presented in Figures 5-6 and 5-7, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-8 presents the Daily proposed Project trips at the key study roadway segments. The proposed Project trips assignment presented in the above mentioned figures reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figures 5-2A through 5-2D and the proposed Project trips forecast presented in the row portion of Table 5-1. Consequently, the net ARTIC Project trips, as shown in row are reflected in the future traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 28 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes The estimates of Project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Existing traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Existing With Project traffic conditions. The anticipated Existing With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and five Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-3 presents the Daily Existing With Project traffic volumes at the eight key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by City of Anaheim. Appendix C contains the detailed Existing With Project traffic volume data. 6.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Volumes In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, anticipated Year 2014 traffic volumes are calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 With Project volumes. The status of other known development projects (related projects) in the area has been researched at the City of Anaheim, and have been included as part of the cumulative background settings for the near-term (Year 2014) traffic conditions. Based on information provided by the City of Anaheim, there are twenty-five (25) related projects located in the City of Anaheim that have either been built, but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These twenty-five (25) related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background settings. Table 6-1 provides a brief description for each of the twenty-five (25) related projects. These related projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections and roadway links. The anticipated Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections are presented in Figures 6-4 and 6-5, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-6 presents the Daily Year 2014 Without Project traffic volumes at the eight key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix D contains the detailed Year 2014 Without Project traffic volume data. 6.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Volumes The estimates of Project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The anticipated Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and five Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 29 and 6-8, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-9 presents the Daily Year 2014 With Project traffic volumes at the eight key study roadway segments. 6.4 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Volumes The Year 2030 traffic volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM is the traffic forecasting tool for the City of Anaheim and has been certified by the Orange County Transportation Authority to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). ATAM relies upon OCTAM for the regional traffic component. OCTAM is based on and is consistent with the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) regional transportation model, incorporating adopted regional growth projections. In addition, the General Plan Buildout highway network is assumed in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange for Year 2030 analysis and all other facilities are consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) buildout. As a subarea model, ATAM incorporates the City of Anaheim General Plan within the City limits. As General Plan Amendments are processed, ATAM is updated to reflect any changes to the General Plan. Therefore ATAM contains every adopted project within the City’s limits. There are also a number of projects which are currently under various stages of analysis, and have been incorporated into ATAM for the purposes of this project. The following projects listed below are some of the projects relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need and regulatory requirements. A complete list of all projects included in ATAM is included in the ARTIC EIR Section 6.2. Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing their own separate project clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and NEPA and are included in the long-term cumulative analysis of this study. These projects are:  Anaheim Rapid Connection  California High-Speed Rail  California-Nevada Super Speed Train  Desert Express  Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion  Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan  City of Orange General Plan Update  Orange Center Specific Plan It should be noted that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion includes ARTIC. As a result, the Year 2030 forecast volumes from ATAM are considered the Year 2030 With Project volumes. Therefore, to obtain the without Project volumes, the Project trips were subtracted from the “with” Project volumes. The anticipated Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections are presented in Figures 6-10 and 6-11, respectively. In ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 30 addition, Figure 6-12 presents the Daily Year 2030 Without Project traffic volumes at the eight key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. 6.5 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes The anticipated Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections were generated from the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) for the City of Anaheim General Plan Buildout and includes related projects that are listed in Section 6.4 of this report. The anticipated Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twelve (12) key study intersections and five Project driveways are presented in Figures 6-13 and 6-14, respectively. In addition, Figure 6-15 presents the Daily Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes at the eight key study roadway segments. The traffic volumes presented in the above mentioned figures were provided by the City of Anaheim. Appendix E contains the detailed Year 2030 With Project traffic volume data. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 31 TABLE 6-1 RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY11,12 Related Project Description Units/Square Footage City of Anaheim 1. Trendwest Resorts Timeshare Timeshare 275 Rooms 2. Anaheim GardenWalk Retail, Restaurants, Entertainment Hotel 569,750 SF 1,628 Rooms 3. Grand Californian Hotel Expansion Hotel 280 Rooms 4. Springhill Suites Hotel 120 Rooms 5. Manchester/Orangewood Affordable Apartments 68 DU 6. Walnut Manor Retirement Community Skilled Nursing Facility 156 DU 99 Beds 7. Avalon Bay “2100 at Platinum Triangle” Apartments Commercial 251 DU 11,807 SF 8. The Hanover Company “Element” Apartments 265 DU 9. Integral Partners “Anavia” Apartments 250 DU 10. Gateway” Apartments 884 DU 11. Platinum Triangle Condominiums Condominiums Commercial 336 DU 1,248 SF 12. BRE Properties “Stadium Park” & “Stadium Club” Apartments Condominiums 320 DU 534 DU 13. Lennar “A-Town Metro” Residential Commercial 2,681 SF 229,800 SF 14. Platinum Tower Office Commercial 590,000 SF 10,000 SF 15. Orangewood Condominiums Condominiums 341 DU 16. Lennar “A-Town Stadium” Condominiums 878 DU 17. Platinum Vista/Mr. Stox Condominiums Quality Restaurant 315 DU 9,500 SF Notes  DU = Dwelling Units  SF = Square-Feet 11 Source: City of Anaheim, Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department. 12 This list of related projects was compiled at the time the counts were conducted. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 32 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED) RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY13,14 Related Project Description Units/Square Footage 18. “Gene Autry Experience” Condominiums Office Commercial 1,208 DU 100,000 SF 50,000 SF 19. “Alexan Orangewood” Apartments 690 DU 20. “Platinum Gateway” Apartments Office Hotel 328 DU 207,275 SF 138 Rooms 21. Convention Center Hotel Convention Space Retail 795 Rooms 200,000 SF 20,000 SF 22. Stadium Lofts Mixed Use Development 23. D.R. Horton Mixed Use Apartments Retail Restaurant 261 DU 2,740 SF 10,000 SF 24. Integral Partners Apartments 1818 S. State College Boulevard Apartments 266 DU 25. Integral Partners Apartments 2045 S. State College Boulevard Apartments 265 DU Notes  DU = Dwelling Units  SF = Square-Feet 13 Source: City of Anaheim, Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department. 14 This list of related projects was compiled at the time the counts were conducted. ---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--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 33 7.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The existing conditions analysis establishes the basis for the future forecasts for the Project. This analysis was based on existing intersection and roadway segment counts collected in Year 2008 and provided by the City of Anaheim. The existing conditions analysis reflects these counts as well as existing lane configurations for all analyzed intersections and roadway segments. 7.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 7-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for existing traffic conditions with and without the Project. The first column of ICU/LOS values in Table 7-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column in Table 7-1 presents forecast Existing With Project traffic conditions. The third column of Table 7-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column of Table 7-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of traffic mitigation improvements, if necessary. 7.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of Column of Table 7-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing traffic conditions. Appendix F presents the ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for the key study intersections for the Existing Traffic Conditions. 7.1.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 7-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 7-1, Figure 7-1 graphically represents the comparison between Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix G contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Existing With Project Traffic Conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 34 TABLE 7-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY15 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact16 Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.507 A 0.014 No Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.500 A 0.004 No 3. Lewis St at AM 0.484 A 0.488 A 0.004 No Katella Ave PM 0.646 B 0.657 B 0.011 No 4. State College Blvd at AM 0.426 A 0.456 A 0.030 No Katella Ave PM 0.531 A 0.547 A 0.016 No 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.341 A 0.008 No Katella Ave PM 0.461 A 0.466 A 0.005 No 6. Howell Ave at AM 0.377 A 0.384 A 0.007 No Katella Ave PM 0.551 A 0.559 A 0.008 No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.451 A 0.049 No Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.436 A 0.029 No Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 15 Appendices F and G contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 16 See Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 35 TABLE 7-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY17 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact18 Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.449 A 0.086 No Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.439 A 0.038 No 9. Douglass Rd at AM 0.408 A 0.422 A 0.014 No Katella Ave19 PM 0.492 A 0.557 A 0.065 No 10. Struck Ave at AM 0.280 A 0.287 A 0.007 No Katella Ave PM 0.344 A 0.354 A 0.010 No 11. Main St at AM 0.501 A 0.517 A 0.016 No Katella Ave PM 0.495 A 0.507 A 0.012 No 12. Batavia St at AM 0.534 A 0.547 A 0.013 No Katella Ave PM 0.500 A 0.509 A 0.009 No Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 17 Appendices F and G contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 18 See Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 19 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 36 7.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 7-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the existing traffic conditions with and without the Project. The first column of LOS E Capacity values in Table 7-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column lists the number of travel lanes and the third column indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column in Table 7-2 forecasts the Existing With Project traffic conditions. 7.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 7-2 shows that all eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 7.2.2 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 7-2 shows that all eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 37 TABLE 7-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,629 0.633 B 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,714 0.634 B 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,934 0.549 A 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 34,026 0.604 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 35,137 0.624 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 38 TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,887 0.691 B 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,713 0.546 A 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11520 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,900 0.523 A Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 20 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 39 8.0 YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, anticipated Year 2014 traffic volumes are calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 With Project volumes. 8.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column of ICU/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 7-1). The second column lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column in Table 8-1 presents forecast Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column of Table 8-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column of Table 8-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 8.1.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 8-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. 8.1.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 8-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 8-1, Figure 8-1 graphically represents the comparison between Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix H contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Year 2014 Traffic Conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 40 TABLE 8-1 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY21 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact22 Year 2014 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.686 B 0.688 B 0.002 No Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.662 B 0.667 B 0.005 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.592 A 0.607 B 0.015 No Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.699 B 0.703 C 0.004 No 3. Lewis St at AM 0.484 A 0.658 B 0.663 B 0.005 No Katella Ave PM 0.646 B 0.831 D 0.835 D 0.004 No 4. State College Blvd at AM 0.426 A 0.640 B 0.656 B 0.016 No Katella Ave PM 0.531 A 0.806 D 0.817 D 0.011 No 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.434 A 0.442 A 0.008 No Katella Ave PM 0.461 A 0.613 B 0.618 B 0.005 No 6. Howell Ave at AM 0.377 A 0.467 A 0.482 A 0.015 No Katella Ave PM 0.551 A 0.702 C 0.710 C 0.008 No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.498 A 0.556 A 0.058 No Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.591 A 0.636 B 0.045 No Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 21 Appendices F and H contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 22 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 41 TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 23 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact24 Year 2014 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.415 A 0.501 A 0.086 No Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.477 A 0.515 A 0.038 No 9. Douglass Rd at AM 0.408 A 0.444 A 0.448 A 0.004 No Katella Ave25 PM 0.492 A 0.526 A 0.601 B 0.075 No 10. Struck Ave at AM 0.280 A 0.306 A 0.313 A 0.007 No Katella Ave PM 0.344 A 0.382 A 0.391 A 0.009 No 11. Main St at AM 0.501 A 0.526 A 0.541 A 0.015 No Katella Ave PM 0.495 A 0.522 A 0.533 A 0.011 No 12. Batavia St at AM 0.534 A 0.563 A 0.576 A 0.013 No Katella Ave PM 0.500 A 0.526 A 0.534 A 0.008 No Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 23 Appendices F and H contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 24 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 25 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 42 8.2 Year 2014 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 8-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column of LOS E Capacity values in Table 8-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column lists the number of travel lanes and the third column indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column forecasts Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The fifth column in Table 8-2 forecasts the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. 8.2.1 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 8-2 shows that five of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 8.2.2 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 8-2 shows that six key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. To determine if the Project creates a significant impact, these segments are analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any peak hour deficiencies. As presented in Table 8-3, these study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, the study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2014 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 43 TABLE 8-2 YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 54,165 0.962 E 54,754 0.973 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 54,142 0.962 E 54,816 0.974 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 45,770 0.813 D 46,444 0.825 D 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 44,058 0.783 C 45,284 0.804 D 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 48,007 0.853 D 48,904 0.869 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 44 TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 53,148 0.944 E 54,045 0.960 E 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 40,009 0.711 C 41,112 0.730 C 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11526 6D 30,280 0.512 A 36,869 0.624 B 37,489 0.634 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 26 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 45 TABLE 8-3 YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 1,751 0.549 A WB 3 2,736 1,736 0.635 B PM EB 3 3,249 1,841 0.567 A WB 3 3,363 2,526 0.751 C 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,098 0.657 B WB 3 2,964 1,337 0.451 A PM EB 3 3,249 1,830 0.563 A WB 3 3,192 2,293 0.718 C 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major AM EB 3 3,705 1,592 0.430 A WB 3 2,679 1,147 0.428 A PM EB 3 2,679 1,586 0.592 A WB 3 2,964 1,931 0.651 B Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 46 TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major AM EB 3 3,825 1,820 0.476 A WB 3 2,550 1,214 0.476 A PM EB 3 2,467 1,570 0.636 B WB 3 3,290 2,229 0.678 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,318 0.340 A WB 3 4,218 1,218 0.289 A PM EB 3 3,762 1,493 0.397 A WB 3 3,648 1,759 0.482 A 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,475 0.381 A WB 3 4,218 1,698 0.403 A PM EB 3 3,933 1,838 0.467 A WB 3 3,933 2,050 0.521 A Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 47 9.0 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This analysis was performed with the application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to obtain Year 2030 traffic volumes. Future trip activity is estimated and assigned throughout the study area. It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 9.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the key study intersections for Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column of ICU/LOS values in Table 9-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 7-1). The second column lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column in Table 9-1 presents forecast Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column of Table 9-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column of Table 9-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 9.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 9-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. 9.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 9-1 indicates that all of the twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better for the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report. The intersection of Sportstown/Katella Avenue has improved level of service with the Project due to the redistribution of Project traffic. One key study intersection (Douglass Road at Katella Avenue) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 48 To supplement the level of service results as presented in Table 9-1, Figure 9-1 graphically represents the comparison between Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service results for the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix I contains the ICU/LOS level of service calculation worksheets for the Year 2030 Traffic Conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 49 TABLE 9-1 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY27 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions28 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions28 Significant Impact29 Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.761 C 0.768 C 0.007 No Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.708 C 0.710 C 0.002 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.804 D 0.815 D 0.011 No Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.771 C 0.776 C 0.005 No 3. Lewis St at AM 0.484 A 0.692 B 0.699 B 0.007 No Katella Ave PM 0.646 B 0.828 D 0.831 D 0.003 No 4. State College Blvd at AM 0.426 A 0.896 D 0.900 D 0.004 No Katella Ave PM 0.531 A 0.840 D 0.852 D 0.012 No 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.637 B 0.654 B 0.017 No Katella Ave PM 0.461 A 0.740 C 0.737 C -0.003 No 6. Howell Ave at AM 0.377 A 0.607 B 0.622 B 0.015 No Katella Ave PM 0.551 A 0.837 D 0.845 D 0.008 No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.694 B 0.712 C 0.018 No Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.685 B 0.691 B 0.006 No Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 27 Appendices F and I contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 28 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 29 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 50 TABLE 9-1 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY30 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions31 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions31 Significant Impact32 Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.593 A 0.679 B 0.086 No Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.688 B 0.726 C 0.038 No 9. Douglass Rd at AM 0.408 A 0.776 C 0.840 D 0.064 Yes 0.840 D Katella Ave33,34 PM 0.492 A 0.779 C 0.868 D 0.089 Yes 0.868 D 10. Struck Ave at AM 0.280 A 0.665 B 0.673 B 0.008 No Katella Ave PM 0.344 A 0.803 D 0.809 D 0.006 No 11. Main St at AM 0.501 A 0.787 C 0.803 D 0.016 No Katella Ave PM 0.495 A 0.801 D 0.815 D 0.014 No 12. Batavia St at AM 0.534 A 0.754 C 0.766 C 0.012 No Katella Ave PM 0.500 A 0.762 C 0.771 C 0.009 No Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 30 Appendices F and I contain ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 31 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 32 Please refer to Table 3-7 for significant impact criteria. 33 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL, two NBT and one NBR for the Year 2030 Conditions. 34 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 51 9.2 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 9-2 summarizes the Daily level of service results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column of LOS E Capacity values in Table 9-2 presents the daily roadway segment capacities from the Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991). The second column lists the number of travel lanes and the third column indicates the Existing Daily traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and LOS. The fourth column forecasts Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The fifth column in Table 9-2 forecasts the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 9.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 9-2 shows that six of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. 9.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 9-2 shows that the same six key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. However, as presented in Table 9-3, these study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, the study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required. . ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 52 TABLE 9-2 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes35 Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio36 LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.467 A 70,501 0.940 E 71,090 0.948 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.622 B 70,416 0.939 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 75,000 8D 30,260 0.537 A 57,186 0.762 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 32,800 0.583 A 50,694 0.676 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 61,413 1.091 F 62,310 1.107 F Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 35 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 36 V/C ratio based on existing number of lanes and LOS E capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 53 TABLE 9-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes37 Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio38 LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 70,293 1.249 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 61,797 1.098 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11539 6D 30,280 0.512 A 50,950 0.862 D 51,570 0.872 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 37 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 38 V/C ratio based on existing number of lanes and LOS E capacity. 39 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 54 TABLE 9-3 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes40 Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 4 4256 2,720 0.639 B WB 4 3648 2,620 0.718 C PM EB 4 4332 3,580 0.826 D WB 4 4484 3,690 0.823 D 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major AM EB 4 4,256 3,310 0.778 C WB 4 3,952 2,350 0.595 A PM EB 4 4,332 3,730 0.861 D WB 4 4,256 3,780 0.888 D 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio 40 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 55 TABLE 9-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes41 Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major AM EB 3 2,793 1,750 0.627 B WB 3 2,451 2,160 0.881 D PM EB 3 2,907 2,520 0.867 D WB 3 2,394 2,020 0.844 D Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio 41 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 56 10.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ANALYSIS The goals of 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion; provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy; and determine gas tax fund eligibility. To meet these goals, the CMP contains a number of policies designed to monitor and address system performance issues. OCTA developed the policies that makeup Orange County’s CMP with local jurisdictions, the California Department of Transportation, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As Orange County’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) is responsible for the administration of the CMP, as well as providing data and models that are consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, and developing the deficiency plan processes. The 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) stipulates the requirements for maintaining LOS E at CMP intersections and roadway segments. The following four Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections are located within the study area: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue The following eight study area arterial segments are included in the CMP network 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 10.1 Existing With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-1 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-1, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 57 10.2 Existing With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-2 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-2, all eight CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing With Project traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 58 TABLE 10-1 EXISTING WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY42 Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A Katella Ave PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.507 A Katella Ave PM 0.496 A 0.500 A 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.451 A Katella Ave PM 0.407 A 0.436 A 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.449 A Katella Ave PM 0.401 A 0.439 A Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 42 Appendix G contains ICU/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 59 TABLE 10-2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,629 0.633 B 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,714 0.634 B 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,934 0.549 A 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 34,026 0.604 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 35,137 0.624 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 60 TABLE 10-2 (CONTINUED) EXISTING WITH PROJECT CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,887 0.691 B 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,713 0.546 A 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11543 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,900 0.523 A Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 43 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 61 10.3 Year 2014 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-3 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-3, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS C or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. 10.4 Year 2014 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-4 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-4, all eight of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2014 Without Project and Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 62 TABLE 10-3 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY44 Key Intersection Time Period Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.686 B 0.688 B Katella Ave PM 0.662 B 0.667 B 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.592 A 0.607 A Katella Ave PM 0.699 B 0.703 C 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.498 A 0.556 A Katella Ave PM 0.591 A 0.636 B 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.415 A 0.501 A Katella Ave PM 0.477 A 0.515 A Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 44 Appendix H contains ICU/LOS calculation sheets for all study intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 63 TABLE 10-4 YEAR 2014 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 54,165 0.962 E 54,754 0.973 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 56,300 6D 54,142 0.962 E 54,816 0.974 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 56,300 6D 45,770 0.813 D 46,444 0.825 D 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 44,058 0.783 C 45,284 0.804 D 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 48,007 0.853 D 48,904 0.869 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 64 TABLE 10-4 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2014 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 53,148 0.944 E 54,045 0.960 E 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 40,009 0.711 C 41,112 0.730 C 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11545 6D 36,869 0.624 B 37,489 0.634 B Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 45 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 65 10.5 Year 2030 With Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Table 10-5 provides a comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-5, none of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of the Project traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 10.6 Year 2030 With Project CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Table 10-6 provides a comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As presented in Table 10-6, three CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Year 2030 Without Project and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. These three CMP segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies on these segments. As presented in Table 10-7, all three CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, these three study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 With Project traffic and therefore no improvements are required at these locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 66 TABLE 10-5 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR CMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY46 Key Intersection Time Period Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions47 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions47 Year 2030 With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.761 C 0.768 C Katella Ave PM 0.708 C 0.710 C 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.804 D 0.815 D Katella Ave PM 0.771 C 0.776 C 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.694 B 0.712 C Katella Ave PM 0.685 B 0.691 B 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.593 A 0.679 B Katella Ave PM 0.688 B 0.726 C Notes:  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-1 for the LOS definitions. 46 Appendix I contains ICU/LOS calculation sheets for all study intersections. 47 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 67 TABLE 10-6 YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes48 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way Major 75,000 8D 70,501 0.940 E 71,090 0.948 E 2. Katella Ave between I-5 Freeway and Lewis St Major 75,000 8D 70,416 0.939 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Ave between Lewis St and State College Blvd Major 75,000 8D 57,186 0.762 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Ave between State College Blvd and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 50,694 0.676 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major 56,300 6D 61,413 1.091 F 62,310 1.107 F Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 48 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 68 TABLE 10-6 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes49 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 70,293 1.249 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major 56,300 6D 61,797 1.098 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Ave between Main St and Batavia St Major 59,11550 6D 50,950 0.862 D 51,570 0.872 D Notes:  VPD = Vehicles Per Day  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio  D = Divided 49 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 50 City of Orange uses 5% capacity increase for Smart Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 69 TABLE 10-7 YEAR 2030 CMP ROADWAY SEGMENT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes51 Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 5. Katella Ave between Sportstown and Howell Ave Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Ave between Howell Ave and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D 7. Katella Ave between SR-57 Freeway and Main St Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D Notes:  VPH = Vehicles Per Hour  V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio 51 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 70 11.0 YEAR 2014 CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS (HCM METHODOLOGY) While the City of Anaheim requires the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for analyzing Project impacts, Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four intersections listed below are Caltrans’ ramp intersections and have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) Methodology: 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Ave 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Ave 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Ave 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Ave It is expected that the results obtained from using the ICU methodology and the HCM methodology will be compatible and lead to similar conclusions. However, the two methods measure and analyze different travel flow characteristics, which leads to results that are not identical. The minimum required level of service to be maintained at Caltrans ramp intersections is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. In addition, Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following eight Caltrans ramps: Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Ave 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Ave/Orangewood Ave 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Ave 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Ave Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp Similarly, Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following four Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 71 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave Caltrans currently does not have any additional improvements identified or planned for the identified impacted and deficient segments. Outside of the additional northbound lane which will be constructed on the Northbound SR-57 freeway in the next few years, there are not planned or programmed improvements to the surrounding freeways. In addition, the City does not have jurisdiction over the State Highway System and, therefore, cannot directly implement mitigation measures associated with project related impacts on mainline segments. Section 14.0 will discuss State Highway System impacts and mitigation strategies in further detail, including the potential for inclusion in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Since freeway merge, diverge and weaving segment operations are dependent upon mainline and ramp capacities, reducing congestion on these facilities contributes to higher speeds and could lead to an improved LOS. Improving merge, diverge and weaving facilities through the addition of auxiliary lanes within the area could provide additional capacity and reduce the segment density. Operational improvements through improved signage or other ITS measures may also be developed in consultation with Caltrans in order to improve the LOS. 11.1 Year 2014 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 11-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans study intersections for Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column of HCM Delay/LOS values in Table 11-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column of Table 11-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column of Table 11-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that all Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 11.1.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that all Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 72 11.1.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 11-1 shows that all Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. Appendices J and M contain the HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for Existing and Year 2014 Traffic Conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 73 TABLE 11-1 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY52 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 22.5 C 21.8 C No Katella Ave PM 15.2 B 19.6 B 19.2 B No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 14.6 B 13.0 B No Katella Ave PM 17.8 B 24.5 C 24.6 C No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 10.6 B 13.5 B No Katella Ave PM 8.1 A 16.0 B 16.6 B No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.1 B 15.4 B No Katella Ave PM 10.4 B 11.1 B 13.2 B No Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-3 for the LOS definitions.  Bold HCM Delay values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 52 Appendices J and M contain HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 74 11.2 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Table 11-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column of Table 11- 2 identifies the type of analysis, i.e., merge or diverge. The second column lists time period. The third column lists Existing traffic conditions. The fourth column lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and the fifth column presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The sixth column of Table 11-2 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. 11.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that none of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Existing traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. 11.2.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that none of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. 11.2.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 11-2 shows that none of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. Appendices K and N contain the Merge and Diverge Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Existing and Year 2014 traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 75 TABLE 11-2 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – MERGE/DIVERGE ANALYSIS53 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 4,852 215 19.4 B 4,852 220 19.4 B No Katella Ave PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 7,519 311 27.6 C 7,519 329 27.6 C No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 5,765 643 2.8 A 5,765 667 3.0 A No Katella Ave/Orangewood Ave PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,159 256 2.1 A 7,159 259 2.1 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,103 330 17.6 B 4,103 319 17.6 B No Eastbound Katella Ave PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 7,552 466 27.9 C 7,552 456 27.9 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 6,008 236 23.4 C 6,008 269 23.4 C No Westbound Katella Ave PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 6,930 445 26.1 C 6,930 549 26.0 C No Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 53 Appendices K and N contain the merge/diverge and calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 76 11.3 Year 2014 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) Table 11-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column of Table 11-3 lists time period. The second column lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column of Table 11-3 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column of Table 11-3 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that two of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Existing traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 11.3.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that three of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 6,972 23 762 351 36.15 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 7,410 15 739 256 42.14 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,397 30 843 611 35.70 E 6,414 30 683 514 38.51 E 11.3.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 11-2 shows that three of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 77 Caltrans criteria. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 6,972 23 762 449 37.04 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 7,410 15 739 419 43.70 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,397 30 1,063 611 37.79 E 6,414 30 710 514 38.75 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. Appendices K and N contain the Weaving Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Existing and Year 2014 traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 78 TABLE 11-3 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – WEAVING ANALYSIS54 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 3,906 13 754 196 19.32 B 3,906 13 887 196 20.23 C No On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,175 15 597 376 32.65 D 7,175 15 614 376 32.78 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 5,885 10 744 148 28.80 D 5,885 10 744 175 29.02 D No 4,904 8 620 146 23.24 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp55 PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 6,972 23 762 351 36.15 E 6,972 23 762 449 37.04 E Yes 5,810 19 635 374 29.43 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 3,709 10 856 153 23.58 C 3,709 10 856 195 23.92 C No 3,709 10 856 195 18.62 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 7,410 15 739 256 42.14 E 7,410 15 739 419 43.70 F Yes 7,410 15 739 419 33.92 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 5,397 30 843 611 35.70 E 5,397 30 1,063 611 37.79 E Yes 5,397 30 1,063 611 29.18 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 6,414 30 683 514 38.51 E 6,414 30 710 514 38.75 E Yes 6,414 30 710 514 30.11 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 54 Appendices K and N contain the weaving analysis calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. 55 HCM software allows a maximum input of 5 lanes. The volumes have been manually adjusted to account for 6 lanes with the recommended improvements. The Year 2014 With Project traffic volumes have been multiplied by a factor of 5/6 to obtain the Year 2014 With Project With Improvements traffic volumes. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 79 11.4 Year 2014 Freeway Segment Analysis Table 11-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2014 traffic conditions. The first column lists time period. The second column lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column lists Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column presents forecast Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column of Table 11-4 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column of Table 11-4 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 11.4.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that two Caltrans freeway segments operate at an adverse service level under the Existing traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 7,950 42.7 E 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 7,380 36.1 E 11.4.2 Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 8,302 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 7,620 38.6 E 11.4.3 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 11-4 shows that two Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 80 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 8,465 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 7,647 38.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Appendices L and O contain the Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Calculation worksheets for all freeway segments for the Existing and Year 2014 traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 81 TABLE 11-4 YEAR 2014 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY56 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Segment Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2014 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 4,772 16.1 B 4,905 16.6 B No Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave PM 7,790 27.4 D 8,152 29.2 D 8,169 29.3 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 6,769 23.1 C 6,795 23.2 C No Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave PM 7,750 27.2 D 8,037 28.6 D 8,135 29.1 D No 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 4,697 19.9 C 4,740 20.1 C No 4,740 16.0 B Katella Ave to Ball Rd PM 7,950 42.7 E 8,302 OVRFL F 8,465 OVRFL F Yes 8,465 30.9 D 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 6,722 30.6 D 6,941 32.2 D No 6,941 23.8 C Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 7,380 36.1 E 7,620 38.6 E 7,647 38.9 E Yes 7,647 26.7 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria.  OVRFL = Exceeds analysis model capabilities (Overflow conditions). 56 Appendices L and O contain the HCM Density/LOS calculation worksheets for all study freeway segments. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 82 12.0 YEAR 2030 CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS (HCM METHODOLOGY) 12.1 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 12-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans study intersections for Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column of HCM Delay/LOS values in Table 12-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The third column presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column of Table 12-1 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column of Table 12-1 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. 12.1.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that one Caltrans study intersection is forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining three Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.5 E 12.1.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 12-1 shows that the same one Caltrans study intersection will continue to operate at adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersection to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix P contains the HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for Year 2030 Traffic Conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 83 TABLE 12-1 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY57 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions58 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions58 Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) Yes/No Delay (s/v) Yes/No Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 55.5 E 55.9 E Yes 40.9 D Katella Ave PM 15.2 B 39.4 D 39.9 D No 37.9 D 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 22.6 C 16.4 B No Katella Ave PM 17.8 B 53.1 D 53.8 D No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 13.8 B 15.1 B No Katella Ave PM 8.1 A 13.0 B 12.9 B No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.5 B 14.3 B No Katella Ave PM 10.4 B 15.5 B 13.6 B No Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Table 3-3 for the LOS definitions.  Bold HCM Delay values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 57 Appendices J and P contain HCM Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. 58 It should be noted that the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 84 12.2 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Table 12-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column of Table 12- 2 identifies the type of analysis, i.e., merge or diverge. The second column lists time period. The third column lists Existing traffic conditions. The fourth column lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fifth column presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The sixth column of Table 11-2 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. 12.2.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that none of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. 12.2.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 12-2 shows that none of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Appendix Q contains the Merge and Diverge Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 85 TABLE 12-2 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – MERGE/DIVERGE ANALYSIS59 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 5,230 255 19.7 B 5,230 260 19.8 B No Katella Ave PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 8,290 392 28.5 D 8,290 410 28.5 D No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 6,230 916 4.8 A 6,230 940 5.0 A No Katella Ave/Orangewood Ave PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,770 407 3.5 A 7,770 410 3.5 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,350 411 14.8 B 4,350 400 14.8 B No Eastbound Katella Ave PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 8,410 510 22.3 C 8,410 500 22.3 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 7,390 227 25.8 C 7,390 260 25.8 C No Westbound Katella Ave PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 7,570 406 26.2 C 7,570 510 26.1 C No Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 59 Appendices K and Q contain the merge/diverge and calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 86 12.3 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) Table 12-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column of Table 12-3 lists time period. The second column lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column of Table 12-3 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column of Table 12-3 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.3.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that three of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse service levels under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 7,750 30 900 382 37.37 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 8,370 30 950 327 35.08 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 850 640 38.86 E 7,010 30 743 550 38.41 E 12.3.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 12-3 shows that three of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 87 It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix Q contains the Weaving Analysis Calculation worksheets for all ramp locations for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 88 TABLE 12-3 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS SUMMARY – WEAVING ANALYSIS60 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Ramp Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 4,030 20 817 320 19.10 B 4,030 20 950 320 19.95 B No On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,750 30 723 660 34.67 D 7,750 30 740 660 34.79 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 6,940 10 860 143 31.30 D 6,940 10 860 170 31.50 D No 5,783 8 717 142 25.19 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp61 PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 7,750 30 900 382 37.37 E 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E Yes 6,458 25 750 400 30.33 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 4,000 10 900 188 18.10 B 4,000 10 900 230 18.34 B No 3,333 8 750 192 15.00 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp61 PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 8,370 30 950 327 35.08 E 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E Yes 6,975 25 792 408 29.44 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 6,750 30 850 640 38.86 E 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E Yes 6,750 30 1,070 640 31.54 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 7,010 30 743 550 38.41 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Yes 7,010 30 770 550 30.02 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 60 Appendices K and Q contain the weaving analysis calculation worksheets for all ramp locations. 61 HCM software allows a maximum input of 5 lanes. The volumes have been manually adjusted to account for 6 lanes with the recommended improvements. The Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes have been multiplied by a factor of 5/6 to obtain the Year 2030 With Project With Improvements traffic volumes. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 89 12.4 Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis Table 12-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the four Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. The first column lists time period. The second column lists Existing traffic conditions. The third column lists Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions and the fourth column presents forecast Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fifth column of Table 12-4 shows whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. The sixth column of Table 12-4 presents the Level of Service with the implementation of improvements, if necessary. 12.4.1 Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column indicates that one Caltrans freeway segment is forecast to operate at an adverse service level under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The location operating at adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,271 38.1 E 8,333 38.7 E 12.4.2 Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column of Table 12-4 shows that one Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14.0 of this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Appendix R contains the Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Calculation worksheets for all freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 90 TABLE 12-4 YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY62 (CALTRANS FACILITIES ANALYSIS) Key Freeway Segment Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 5,187 16.1 B 5,320 16.5 B No Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave PM 7,790 27.4 D 9,163 30.5 D 9,180 30.6 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 7,954 25.1 C 7,980 25.2 C No Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave PM 7,750 27.2 D 9,062 30.0 D 9,160 30.5 D No 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 5,097 15.8 B 5,140 15.9 B No Katella Ave to Ball Rd PM 7,950 42.7 E 9,677 33.4 D 9,840 35.4 D No 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 8,271 38.1 E 8,490 40.4 E Yes 8,490 27.3 D Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 7,380 36.1 E 8,333 38.7 E 8,360 39.0 E Yes 8,360 26.8 D Notes:  pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Volume/Density/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS Criteria. 62 Appendices L and R contain the HCM Density/LOS calculation worksheets for all study freeway segments. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 91 13.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 13.1 Site Access Evaluation As shown in Figure 13-1, vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via the existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue as well as via four driveways located on Douglass Road and one driveway located on Katella Avenue. The existing intersection of Sportstown and Katella Avenue is a full-access, signalized intersection that provides access to Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot). Driveway 1 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, right-in and left-out/right-out only driveway providing access to the Schmid Property. Driveway 2 along Douglass Road is a five-legged, full-access (only the northbound left is restricted), signalized intersection providing ingress/egress from Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) and egress for the buses. Driveway 3 along Douglass Road is a signalized intersection that provides inbound-only access to the buses only. Driveway 4 along Douglass Road is a one-way stop-controlled, full-access driveway providing access to Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot). Driveway 5 along Katella Avenue is a one-way stop-controlled driveway that provides right- in/right-out only access to Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) as well as to the buses area. It should be noted that the ARTIC patrons parking in the Sportstown parking lot, which also has access from Douglass Road, would access the train platforms through the Stadium Pavilion which will be constructed on the west end of the platforms. 13.1.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Table 13-1 summarizes the intersection operations at the five Project driveways for Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions for the proposed Project. The operations analysis for the Project driveways is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Review of Table 13-1 shows that all the Project driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable service level of LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely and without undue congestion. Appendix S presents the Year 2014 With Project Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the five Project driveways. A driveway analysis was not performed for Year 2030. Between Year 2014 and Year 2030, several new services will be provided at ARTIC, as stated in Section 6.4. The access and parking requirements for these services have not been defined. It is uncertain how many of these services will use the proposed ARTIC access points, and if the parking lot will be expanded or modified to serve the future uses at ARTIC. As stated in Section 6.4, the projects that will utilize ARTIC will be undergoing their own environmental analyses and these projects will do their own site access evaluation based on their project proposals. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 92 13.2 Driveway Stacking/Storage and Queuing Analysis A stacking/storage analysis was performed at all five Project driveways. The queuing evaluation was conducted based on projected Year 2014 With Project peak hour driveway traffic volumes and the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) signalized and unsignalized methodology. 13.2.1 Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Based on the HCM service level calculations, which calculates a critical (95th percentile) queue value in number of vehicles per lane, the maximum number of inbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the inbound southbound left-turn movement from Douglass Road into Driveway 2 during the AM peak hour. The queue on Douglass Road is forecast to have a maximum queue of eight vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 176 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). The maximum number of outbound vehicle queue calculated during the Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions occurs on the outbound westbound right-turn movement from Driveway 2 onto Douglass Road during the AM and PM peak hours. The queue on Driveway 2 is forecast to have a maximum queue of three vehicles. This vehicle queue length translates to 66 feet in queuing (assuming an average car length of 22 feet). All of the other Project driveways are forecast to operate with a maximum queue of two vehicles during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Based on the analysis, adequate vehicle storage is provided at all of the driveways and review of the proposed site plan indicates that all Project driveways have sufficient stacking to accommodate the forecast vehicle queues. Based on the above, no changes to the proposed configuration of the Project driveways are necessary. 13.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation The on-site circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the overall layout does not create any unsafe vehicle-pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throating is sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, buses, shuttles, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on-site circulation is very good based on our review of the proposed site plan, whereas the alignment, spacing and throating of the Project driveways is adequate. The circulation around the buildings is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles. 13.4 Intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue Operations Analysis (HCM Methodology) To supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to determine the appropriate northbound approach lane geometry for the Year 2014 Project opening condition without ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 93 requiring the need for any roadway improvements to Douglass Road on the north side of the intersection. As a result of the HCM analysis, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue is recommended to consist of a northbound lane configuration of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR lane for the Year 2014 Project opening condition. As presented in Table 13-1, the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at acceptable LOS D or better based on the HCM 2000 Methodology and the lane configuration mentioned above. Appendix S presents the Year 2014 With Project Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 94 TABLE 13-1 DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY63 Key Driveway Control Type Time Period Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Delay (s/v) LOS A. Douglass Rd at One-Way AM 8.7 A Driveway 1 Stop PM 9.3 A B. Douglass Rd at 5 Traffic AM 11.8 B Driveway 2 Signal PM 15.0 B C. Douglass Rd at 3 Traffic AM 6.1 A Driveway 3 Signal PM 7.6 A D. Douglass Rd at One-Way AM 8.7 A Driveway 4 Stop PM 9.7 A E. Douglass Rd at One-Way AM 10.8 B Driveway 5 Stop PM 11.4 B 9. Douglass Rd at 6  Traffic AM 34.9 C Katella Ave64 Signal PM 36.5 D Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)  LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-2 and 3-3 for the LOS definitions.  Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Anaheim LOS standards. 63 Appendix S contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all Project Driveways and the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue. 64 The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue has been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology to supplement the operations analysis for the site access evaluation. The intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes northbound lane configurations of two NBL turn lanes, one NBTR lane and one NBR turn lane for the operations analysis for the Year 2014 Project opening condition. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 95 14.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 14.1 Traffic Fee Program The City of Anaheim has historically utilized a variety of strategies to provide improvements to the citywide circulation system. The City currently has a traffic fee program in place to fund General Plan improvements required under 2030 No Project and With Project conditions. The City has a long-standing policy that as development occurs throughout the City, traffic studies are prepared to demonstrate the need for implementation of the improvements identified in the General Plan and developer fees and other local dedicated taxes will contribute to those improvements as needed. The fee, initially developed in 1993 and updated periodically provides a proper nexus between increased development in the City and associated traffic impacts to the citywide circulation system. Developers contribute fees to the City, which uses the fund to implement circulation improvements in the City or as the City of Anaheim’s local match for leveraging funding from OCTA and Caltrans for circulation system improvements. Hence, the improvements assumed in the build-out of the General Plan, prior to the approval of the Proposed Project are expected to be paid for and implemented through the City’s existing traffic impact fee program. Additionally, the City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle including transportation. The City has proposed improvement strategies that return all intersections to an acceptable LOS under the 2030 With Project scenario. The fair-share calculations, presented later on in the report, identify the proposed Project’s fair-share percentage based on Project trips to study area intersections. The proposed Project would be expected to contribute that percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. Intersection and arterial segment improvements in the City of Orange, in addition to State Highway System facility improvements throughout the study area will have fees contributed to them by the proposed Project, commensurate with the fair-share analysis. Although these improvements will be overridden in the EIR as Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the facilities, the project will be responsible for contributions for the appropriate fair-share toward the recommended improvements. Those specific improvements and fair-shares for facilities in the City of Orange and Caltrans facilities are discussed later in this chapter. 14.2 Steps for Mitigation Measures As a general rule, mitigation measures for intersections or arterials begin with identification of any measures that might have been recommended as part of other traffic studies in the area, particularly those contained in the traffic study prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339). These mitigation measures are then applied to determine whether they result in intersection or roadway segment operation within acceptable thresholds. If mitigation measures were not previously identified either as part of a traffic study or planned future improvements, mitigation is achieved by identifying new improvements that will provide ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 96 adequate capacity for the critical movement for an intersection or for arterial segments. Critical movements are conflicting intersection turning movements that are identified to have the highest ICU for opposing movements; i.e. each of the approaches at a four-legged intersection will contain a critical movement that conflicts with an opposing movement. Since the combination of the ICU values for each critical movement defines the ICU, providing additional through lanes or turning lanes is dependent upon whether the critical movement is a through or turn (left or right) movement. The decision of whether additional lanes should be auxiliary lanes that just add capacity to the intersection without widening the street segment or extended to adjacent intersections is dependent upon the performance, proximity and improvement needs of adjacent intersections. Mitigation measures are further analyzed for feasibility. A preliminary feasibility assessment is reliant upon potential cost-effectiveness and right-of-way acquisition. Right-of-way acquisitions are least preferred as they incur relocation and compensation cost for displaced residences and businesses which are additional burdens to the community, hence wherever feasible additional capacity for through movements or turn movements are facilitated through re-striping or widening, provided the intersection has sufficient receiving lanes as vehicles pass through the intersection. For those intersections, roadway segments, freeway ramps and freeway segments where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions, this report recommends traffic mitigation improvements that change the intersection and/or roadway geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re-striping to reconfigure (add lanes) roadways to specific approaches of a key intersection. The identified improvements are expected to:  Address the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non-project (ambient traffic growth and related projects) traffic and  Improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions. 14.3 Existing With Project Improvements 14.3.1 Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. 14.3.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4 Year 2014 With Project Improvements Table 14-1 presents a summary of the Year 2014 With Project improvements with the resulting levels of service. In addition, it also lists the Project related fair-share percentages for the impacted locations for the worse impacted time period. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 97 Appendix T contains the Project Related Fair-Share Calculation Tables for all the intersections, roadway segments, Caltrans ramp locations and Caltrans freeway segments analyzed in this report. 14.4.1 Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. 14.4.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.4.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact three of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 14.4.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic: ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 98  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 99 TABLE 14-1 YEAR 2014 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS, IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT RELATED FAIR-SHARE PERCENTAGE SUMMARY Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2014 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2014 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2014 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage Density LOS Density LOS W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 29.02 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 23.24 p/m/l C 7.55% and Orangewood Off-Ramp PM 37.04 p/m/l E 29.43 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 23.92 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 18.62 p/m/l B 9.85% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 43.70 p/m/l F 33.92 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 37.79 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 29.18 p/m/l D 10.90% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.75 p/m/l E 30.11 p/m/l D F-3. SR-57 Northbound from Freeway Segment AM 20.1 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 16.0 p/m/l B 9.85% Katella Ave to Ball Rd PM OVRFL F 30.9 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 32.2 p/m/l D Add a 5th lane. 23.8 p/m/l C 4.35% Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 38.9 p/m/l E 26.7 p/m/l D Notes:  p/m/l = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Delay/Density values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS Criteria outlined in this report.  OVRFL = Exceeds analysis model capabilities (Overflow conditions). ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 100 14.5 Year 2030 With Project Improvements Table 14-2 presents a summary of the Year 2030 With Project improvements with the resulting levels of service. In addition, it also lists the Project related fair-share percentages for the impacted locations for the worse impacted time period. Appendix T contains the Project Related Fair-Share Calculation Tables for all the intersections, roadway segments, Caltrans ramp locations and Caltrans freeway segments analyzed in this report 14.5.1 Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one of the of the twelve (12) key study intersections. While mitigation measures are required for Project related significant impacts, the Project will also contribute fair share costs for cumulative impacts under buildout conditions. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. 14.5.2 Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. 14.5.3 Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. 14.5.4 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 101 14.5.5 Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact three of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 14.5.6 Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one of the of the four key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 102 TABLE 14-2 YEAR 2030 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS, IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT RELATED FAIR-SHARE PERCENTAGE SUMMARY Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage ICU/Delay/ Density LOS ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS I-9. Douglass Rd at Intersection AM 0.840 D The installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. 0.840 D 16.43% Katella Ave PM 0.868 D 0.868 D I-1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Ramp Intersection AM 55.9 s/v E Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Modify signal and install EB right-turn overlap phase. 40.9 s/v D 3.41% Katella Ave PM 39.9 s/v D 37.9 s/v D W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 31.50 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 25.19 p/m/l C 7.55% and Orangewood Off-Ramp PM 38.20 p/m/l E 30.33 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 18.34 p/m/l B Add a 6th lane. 15.00 p/m/l B 9.85% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 36.17 p/m/l E 29.44 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 40.79 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 31.54 p/m/l D 10.90% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 38.63 p/m/l E 30.02 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 40.4 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 27.3 p/m/l D 10.85% Ball Rd to Katella Ave PM 39.0 p/m/l E 26.8 p/m/l D Notes:  s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay).  p/m/l = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density).  LOS = Level of Service.  Bold Delay/Density values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS Criteria outlined in this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 103 14.6 Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements As identified in the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, there are three freeway ramp locations (weaving segments) and two freeway mainline segment deficiencies. For the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, there are three freeway ramp locations (weaving segments) and one freeway mainline segment deficiencies. For the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, the traffic volume on all freeway segments within the study area increases when compared with Existing traffic conditions. The proposed Project forecast volumes are generally consistent with the No Project scenario forecast volumes, with some segments and ramps experiencing a slight increase in the peak hour. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements will be required to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the addition of one lane to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not feasible improvement options. The rationale is that Caltrans has not identified any further improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the build-out analysis for SR-57 and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments would involve significant right-of- way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses. It is not a legal prerogative or policy of the City to support further freeway widening when such widening would have negative impacts on adjacent businesses and residences. State facilities located within the City have been significantly expanded over the past several years and City businesses and areas which were subject to an acquisition or which were located near acquisitions have not fully recovered from the acquisition activities. As an example, remnant residential and commercial parcels exist along I-5 at the Euclid Street exit. Other examples also exist. In addition, bringing State facilities closer to residences and businesses is also not a social or legal prerogative of the City. The City does not desire to further exacerbate these land use and air quality incompatibility issues by encouraging the expansion of freeway facilities adjacent to suburban-style tract houses. As a result of these policy prerogatives and identified constraints, the Project is not expected to mitigate the freeway mainline segments to an acceptable LOS. As part of the proposed Project approval and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City will develop a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the capacity improvements of freeway weaving, ramp merge and diverge, and mainline facilities. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high forecast volumes on the ramps themselves coupled with high forecast volumes on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramp facilities. The utilization of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and signage improvements could potentially improve the flow and operational capacity of Caltrans facilities, but would not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Since the major freeway facilities within the study area, I-5 and SR-57 have reached their design capacity or will have reached it by Year 2030 and the required physical improvements are largely the result of background regional traffic, consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 104 necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures. The improvement measures could consist of ITS improvements, enhanced signage, or other operational improvements. The City of Anaheim has no jurisdiction to implement the physical improvements on the Caltrans facilities and a statement of overriding considerations will be discussed in the EIR identifying the potential operational improvements to Caltrans facilities. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002), consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of traffic increases related to implementation of the proposed Project. 14.6.1 Caltrans Freeway Segments State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Rather, those improvements are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and OCTA. In California, most State Highway System improvements are programmed through two documents, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). State and federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. The STIP is developed from Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) proposed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs/MPOs) throughout California and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) proposed by Caltrans. Of the funds made available by the CTC for the STIP, 25 percent is made available for Caltrans to propose expansion and capacity-enhancing improvements on the statutorily designated Interregional Road System while 75 percent of the funds are made available to the RTPAs/MPOs to propose all types of improvements on all other State Highway System Roads, other non-State highway roads eligible to use federal funds, and on the Interregional Road System. Transportation funds generally come from a variety of sources including National Highway System funds; State fuel taxes; federal fuel taxes; sales taxes on fuel; truck weight fees; roadway and bridge tolls; user fares; local sales tax measures; development fees, where applicable; bond revenues; and State and local general and matching funds. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern. On the federal level, the City, through its Congressional delegation, has aggressively sought federal monies for regional roadway improvements. Within the study area, relatively recent projects have provided improvements to the freeway facilities. Interstate 5 within the study area was ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 105 widened in the late 1990’s under the OCTA Measure M. Additionally, the I-5 and SR-57 interchange to the south of the study area was recently upgraded to improve flow on all facilities. The State Highway System I-5 freeway and ramps that are cumulatively deficient under 2030 conditions are at their recommended build-out, according to the Route Concept Report (RCR) for the Interstate 5 facility approved by Caltrans in Year 2000. On I-5, the RCR identifies a concept facility of eight general-purpose lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the segment between the SR-22/57 interchange, south of the Study Area, to SR-91, north of the Study Area. On SR-57, the RCR identifies an eight-lane existing facility with two HOV lanes for the segment between the I-5/SR-22 interchange, south of the study area to SR- 91, north of the study area. For the 2030 analysis, the concept build-out facility of five general- purpose lanes and two HOV lanes was assumed, although there is still ongoing study for the funding and timeline for implementation of these improvements. State and local funding sources, including Renewed Measure M funding through OCTA, is currently assessing improvements on SR-57. In an attempt to further increase capacity and reduce congestion on SR-57, a feasibility study was conducted by OCTA to examine alternatives for adding an additional lane in each direction between the Los Angeles County line and the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange. This study concluded that due of extensive right-of-way impacts and expanded traffic at the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange, any consideration of capacity improvements should be deferred until the SR-57 is extended southward to the I-405 freeway. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program.  SR-57 Northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road: Addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall Year 2010).  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue Off-Ramp to Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp: Addition of auxiliary lane capacity (entered the environmental phase in Year 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late Year 2010 if project is approved) (Source: OCTA). For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project. The City of Anaheim has already taken steps to alleviate most of the impacts of increased development of the Platinum Triangle. The Gene Autry Extension Project and recent capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 106 improvements to State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue are just some of the examples of the City of Anaheim’s commitment to an effective circulation system within the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim has an existing CFD program that outlines its strategy toward implementing many of the improvements necessitated by increased development in the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. 14.6.2 Caltrans Freeway Ramps and Weaving Segments Neither the State or any other agency, such as OCTA, currently has a program in place for construction of the mainline, ramp, and weaving segment improvements at the Year 2030 time horizon to satisfy baseline congested conditions; nor is there currently any mechanism in place that would ensure that funds contributed to Caltrans or to the State to ameliorate impacts on freeway mainlines will be used for their intended purpose. In addition, because the I-5 and SR-57 are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to I-5 or SR-57. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the deficient Caltrans facilities in the Environmental Documentation. Proposed Project fair-share percentages have been computed for all the Caltrans Facilities under Year 2030 With Project conditions. The fair-share percentages have been computed per the methodology outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix of the guidelines directs users to use a formula to calculate equitable share responsibility for the traffic impacts of proposed Project. The guidelines are not intended to establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility, but rather to provide a starting point for discussions with Caltrans to address the traffic mitigation and fair-share responsibilities. The traffic on the State Highway System is regional in nature and the deficiencies are the result of expected regional growth. Caltrans has not entered into an agreement with the City and Caltrans has not adopted a program by which Caltrans can ensure that developer fair-share will assist in the funding of potential capacity or operational improvements on the study area State Highway System. Because I-5 is at its Conceptual Buildout, and OCTA and State funding is committed to the planned ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 107 widening of SR-57, there is no guarantee that impact fees from the proposed Project will be dedicated to the improvements of the study area State Highway System. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. The weaving analysis revealed that several weaving areas operate at deficient levels of service under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative growth. Potential improvements include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and adjacent mainline segment. 14.7 Other Mitigation Measures In order to address the proposed measures in the previous sections, a series of mitigation measures will be drafted and incorporated into the EIR. These mitigation measures, once finalized, will apply to any owner or developer of real property within the boundaries of the ARTIC. This section will generally describe the mitigation measures that will be developed for the EIR in regards to transportation and traffic. 14.7.1 Project Level Impact Analysis The payment of transportation impact fees is required per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the implementation of improvements addressed by the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. As set forth below, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements:  Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair- share responsibility identified in the traffic analysis for this project as determined by the City.  Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. 14.7.2 Transportation Fee Program The payment of transportation impact fees is required per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the implementation of improvements addressed by the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. As set forth below, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements: ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 108  Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established. 14.8 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will document why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. 14.9 City of Orange Improvements 14.9.1 Intersections Improvements As shown in the analysis, no intersections in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. 14.9.2 Roadway Segments Improvements As shown in the analysis, no roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 109 15.0 PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT This section of the report provides a brief comparison of the proposed Project’s development tabulation, trip generation characteristics, Project access and potential traffic impacts in comparison to those identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (Previous Project). The July 16, 2010 traffic study evaluated the potential impacts associated with construction of ARTIC with 960 parking spaces. Table 15-1 provides a comparison of the findings of this addendum traffic impact analysis report and the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report. This table compares the development sizes, building size, land use, number of parking spaces, Project opening year, the net trip generation, Project access, the number of study intersections analyzed, the number of study roadway segments analyzed Existing Plus Project impacts, Near-Term (Year 2013/214) Project impacts and Long-Term (Year 2030) Project impacts (see rows one through forty-two (42), respectively) of the Previous Project and the proposed Project. Column one presents the findings for the Previous Project as included in the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report, column two presents the findings for the proposed Project and column summarizes the differences between the two projects. Below is a brief summary of the differences:  Development Size: Review of row 1 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project acreage is the same as the Previous Project.  Building Size: Review of row 2 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project is 243,000 SF smaller than the Previous Project.  Land Use: Review of row 3 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project’s land use is the same as the than the Previous Project. In addition, there is no change in Transit Service.  Building Accessory Uses: Review of row 4 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project’s building accessory uses are for transit patrons only whereas for the Previous Project they were for both the transit patrons and outside patrons.  Parking Spaces: Review of row 5 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project has 127 more parking spaces than the Previous Project.  Project Opening Year: Review of row 6 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project is anticipated to be open in Year 2014 whereas the Previous Project was anticipated to be open in Year 2013.  Trip Generation: Review of row 7 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project is expected to generate 1,420 more daily trips, 196 more AM peak hour trips and 176 more PM peak hour trips than the Previous Project. The impact of this change in trip generation is analyzed in this addendum traffic report. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 110  Project Access: Review of rows 8 through row 12 and column 3 shows that the access to the proposed Project is the same as the Previous Project except Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), which will have access along Douglass Road for the proposed Project.  No. of Project Driveways: Review of row 13 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed 2 less Project Driveways than the Previous Project.  No. of Study Intersections: Review of row 14 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of study intersections as the Previous Project.  No. of Study Roadway Segments: Review of row 15 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  Existing Plus Project Impacts: Review of rows 16 and 17 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of rows 18 and 19 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: Review of rows 20 and 21 and column 3 shows that there is one less intersection impact and one less roadway segment impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections: Review of row 22 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study intersections as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments: Review of row 23 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Existing Plus Project Impacts: Review of rows 24 and 25 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of rows 26 and 27 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: Review of rows 28 and 29 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 111  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Intersections: Review of row 30 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study ramp intersections as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations: Review of row 31 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study merge/diverge locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations: Review of row 32 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study weaving locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments: Review of row 33 and column 3 shows that the proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study freeway segments as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of rows 34 and 35 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans study ramp intersections or Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Review of rows 36 and 37 and column 3 shows that there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: Review of row 38 and column 3 shows that there is one less Caltrans study ramp intersection impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project. Review of row 39 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Review of rows 40 and 41 and column 3 shows that there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Site Access Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: Review of row 42 and column 3 shows that there are no impacts at any of the Project Driveways for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 112 TABLE 15-1 PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description Previous Project Proposed Project Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 1) Development Size 15.78 Acre  13.58 Acre owned by OCTA  2.20 Acre owned by City of Anaheim 15.78 Acre  13.58 Acre owned by OCTA  2.2 Acre owned by City of Anaheim No Change 2) Building Size  310,000 SF  67,000 SF  243,000 SF Less 3) Land Use  Regional Transportation Facility  Regional Transportation Facility No Change (No Change in Transit Service) 4) Building Accessory Uses Intended For  Transit Patrons  Outside Patrons  Transit Patrons Transit Patrons Only 5) Parking Spaces 960 Parking Spaces  Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) – 323 Spaces  Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) – 232 Spaces  Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) – 405 Spaces 1,087 Parking Spaces  Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) – 461 Spaces  Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) – 221 Spaces  Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) – 405 Spaces +127 Parking Spaces  Lot A – +138 Spaces  Lot B – -11 Spaces  Lot C – 0 Spaces 6) Project Opening Year  2013  2014  1 Additional Year 7) Net Trip Generation  Daily = 3,699  AM Peak Hour = 622  PM Peak Hour = 439  Daily = 5,11965  AM Peak Hour = 818  PM Peak Hour = 615  Daily = +1,42066  AM Peak Hour = +196  PM Peak Hour = +176 8) Lot A (ARTIC North Parking Lot) Proposed Access  Douglass Rd  Katella Ave  Douglass Rd  Katella Ave No Change 9) Lot B (ARTIC South Parking Lot) Proposed Access  Douglass Rd  Douglass Rd No Change 65 It should be noted that while the bus trip generation has always been included in the Project trip generation, the current traffic impact analysis report shows the bus trip generation separately because they have a different trip distribution and the trip generation was based on actual service data, not a trip generation rate. 66 The increase in trips is due to the increase of parking spaces. The trip generation rates are based on the number of parking spaces, which is the most reliable means of determining trip generation for transit stations. While trip generation for the retail components are fixed based on a square-foot ratio, transit stations have more variables, including vehicle occupancy rates. The current parking studies assume a 1.2 vehicle occupancy rate, which is higher than existing conditions. As a result, more people are ridesharing because fewer spaces are being provided per passenger, when future Metrolink expanded service is considered. The result is that the trip rate would be the same, but there would be a different number of people per car. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 113 TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description Previous Project Proposed Project Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 10) Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) Proposed Access  Sportstown  Sportstown  Douglass Rd Proposed Access Along Douglass Rd 11) Bus Service Proposed Access  Douglass Rd  Douglass Rd No Change 12) Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot) Existing Access  Sportstown  Sportstown No Change 13) No. of Project Driveways 7 5 2 Less 14) No. of Study Intersections 12 12 No Change 15 No. of Study Roadway Segments 8 8 No Change 16) Existing Plus Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 17) Existing Plus Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change 18) Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 19) Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 114 TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description Previous Project Proposed Project Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 20) Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Intersections)67 2 of 12 Intersections  2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Ave  9. Douglass Road at Katella Ave 1 of 12 Intersections68  9. Douglass Rd at Katella Ave 1 Less 21) Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) 1 of 8 Roadway Segments  1. Katella Ave between Manchester Ave and Anaheim Way None68 1 Less 22) CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections 4 4 No Change 23) CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments 8 8 No Change 24) CMP Analysis Existing Plus Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 25) CMP Analysis Existing Plus Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change 26) CMP Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Intersections) None None No Change 67 It should be noted that the LOS results for the Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions are the same for both the current traffic impact analysis report and the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report and only the Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions is different between these two reports. This is because the Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). Since the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion includes buildout of ARTIC, which does not change, the Year 2030 forecast volumes from ATAM are considered the Year 2030 With Project volumes. Therefore, to obtain the without Project volumes, the Project trips were subtracted from the “with” Project volumes. Therefore, since the Project trips changed between this current traffic impact analysis report and the July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report, the Year 2030 Without Project traffic volumes changed, while the Year 2030 With Project traffic volumes remained constant. 68 It should be noted that for the current traffic impact analysis report the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. The July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report did not have all these mitigation measures. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 115 TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description Previous Project Proposed Project Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 27) CMP Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None None No Change 28) CMP Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Intersections) None69 None No Change 29) CMP Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Roadway Segments) None69 None No Change 30) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Ramp Intersections 4 4 No Change 31) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations 4 4 No Change 32) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations 4 4 No Change 33) Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments 4 4 No Change 34) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Ramp Intersections) None None No Change 69 After the implementation of recommended improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 116 TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description Previous Project Proposed Project Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 35) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Merge/Diverge Locations) None None No Change 36) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Weaving Locations) 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp No Change 37) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Freeway Segments) 2 of 4 Freeway Segments  3. SR-57 NB from Katella Ave to Ball Rd  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 2 of 4 Freeway Segments  3. SR-57 NB from Katella Ave to Ball Rd  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave No Change 38) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Ramp Intersections) 2 of 4 Intersections  1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave  2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Ave 1 of 4 Intersections  1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 1 Less70 39) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Merge/Diverge Locations) None None No Change 70 It should be noted that for the current traffic impact analysis report the lane configurations utilized for the Year 2030 conditions analyses were provided by the City of Anaheim and are based on the adopted and certified Platinum Triangle Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SEIR 339). These lane configurations were assumed for the Year 2030 Conditions since all of the Platinum Triangle mitigation measures are now part of the Circulation Element. The July 16, 2010 traffic impact analysis report did not have all these mitigation measures. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 117 TABLE 15-1 (CONTINUED) PROJECT COMPARISON TO PRIOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 16, 2010) Description Previous Project Proposed Project Difference (Proposed vs. Previous) 40) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Weaving Locations) 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 3 of 4 Weaving Locations  2. SR-57 SB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp  3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp  4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp No Change 41) Caltrans Facilities Analysis Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts (Freeway Segments) 1 of 4 Freeway Segments  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 1 of 4 Freeway Segments  4. SR-57 SB from Ball Rd to Katella Ave No Change 42) Site Access Analysis Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts (Project Driveways) None None No Change ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 118 16.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS  This traffic impact analysis addendum evaluates the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Anaheim, California, located in an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle. This addendum traffic impact analysis report assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in Project development totals, specifically the increase in parking spaces from 960 spaces to 1,087 spaces for a net increase of 127 parking spaces. Additionally, the Project now consists of the construction of a 67,000 square-feet (SF) regional transportation facility as compared to a 310,000 SF regional transportation facility (hereinafter referred to as Previous Project) as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (July 2010 traffic study). It should be noted that a detailed list of the differences between the proposed Project and previous Project analyzed in this traffic impact analysis addendum is provided at the end of the Summary of Conclusions. This addendum traffic impact analysis report is intended to support the preparation of an addendum to EIR No. 343, to be prepared by Kleinfelder, in conjunction with the discretionary review of the conditional use permit for the Project. The Project site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Douglass Road to the west, with the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor bisecting the site.  The Project is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station and will include a nominal amount of commercial/mixed use development to serve visitors of the transit facility. Construction of ARTIC is estimated to be completed in 2014. The Project would provide improvements to convert the site from a former County of Orange maintenance facility to a fully functioning regional transportation facility. Along with the Metrolink Service Expansion Program currently underway, the site would accommodate existing transit services and future services such as Bus Rapid Transit and other rubber-tired fixed route and shuttle services. The proposed ARTIC site includes the 13.58-acre Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) parcel and an adjacent 2.2-acre parcel owned by the City of Anaheim. The proposed Project will replace the existing Metrolink station located to the west of the Project site along the northern edge of the Anaheim Angels Stadium parking area. While there are industrial buildings on the proposed Project site, the buildings are vacant and will be demolished as part of the Project development.  After taking credit for the existing Metrolink land use, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 5,119 net daily trips (one half arriving and one half departing), with 818 net trips (653 inbound, 165 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 615 net trips (121 inbound, 494 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 119 Existing Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections under the Existing peak hour service level calculations based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better.  All eight key study roadway segments under Existing service level calculations based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry are currently operating at acceptable LOS B or better. Existing With Project Conditions  All twelve (12) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better for the Existing With Project traffic conditions when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report.  All eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B on a daily basis under Existing With Project traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the key study intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One key study intersection (Douglass Road at Katella Avenue) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the key study roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the addition of Project traffic per the impact criteria outlined in this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 120 Caltrans Facilities Analysis Existing Conditions  All Caltrans intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2014 With Project Conditions  None of the four Caltrans ramp intersections operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  None of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions.  Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 37.04 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 43.70 F 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 37.79 E 38.75 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  Two Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse levels of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 121 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Ave to Ball Rd 8,465 OVRFL F 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 7,647 38.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Year 2030 With Project Conditions  One Caltrans study intersection will continue to operate at adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The location operating at an adverse LOS is listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.9 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impacts of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted intersection to acceptable Level of Service.  None of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.  Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations (Weaving Analysis) operate at adverse levels of service with the addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining one Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 38.20 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 36.17 E ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 122 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 40.79 E 38.63 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted ramp locations to acceptable Level of Service.  One Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse level of service with addition of the Project traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Freeway Segment Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Rd to Katella Ave 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted freeway segments to acceptable Level of Service. Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies Existing With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. Existing With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Intersection Improvements:  Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of two NBL, one NBTR and one NBR for the “with” Project scenario as identified in the Project Description of the ARTIC EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 123 Year 2014 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp intersections under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2014 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2014 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2014 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed in Year 2014.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Intersection Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS, but exceeds ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 124 the minimum required threshold, thus creating a significant impact. However, it is important to note that there is no capacity deficiency, but only an operational deficiency and therefore, the installation of Changeable Message Signs (CMS), which is a Project design feature, will provide operational improvements that improve operational capacity of the roadways surrounding the Project site. Hence, this Project design feature will offset the impact of the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Year 2030 With Project Roadway Segments Improvements:  Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Improvements:  Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Ramp Locations (Weaving Analysis) Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 With Project Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements:  The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 With Project traffic: ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 125  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Ramps and Freeway Improvements:  For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project.  With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations  Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high Project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will document why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation.  With implementation of the improvements presented previously, the significant Project related or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 126 the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. City of Orange Improvements  As shown in the analysis, no intersections or roadway segments in the City of Orange are impacted by ARTIC; no improvements have been recommended. Proposed Project Comparison to Previous Project Traffic Impact Analysis Report  A brief comparison of the proposed Project’s development tabulation, trip generation characteristics, Project access and potential traffic impacts in comparison to those identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for ARTIC, Anaheim, dated July 16, 2010 (Previous Project) is shown below. The July 16, 2010 traffic study evaluated the potential impacts associated with construction of ARTIC with 960 parking spaces:  Development Size: The proposed Project acreage is the same as the Previous Project.  Building Size: The proposed Project is 243,000 SF smaller than the Previous Project.  Land Use: The proposed Project’s land use is the same as the than the Previous Project. In addition, there is no change in Transit Service.  Building Accessory Uses: The proposed Project’s building accessory uses are for transit patrons only whereas for the Previous Project they were for both the transit patrons and outside patrons.  Parking Spaces: The proposed Project has 127 more parking spaces than the Previous Project.  Project Opening Year: The proposed Project is anticipated to be open in Year 2014 whereas the Previous Project was anticipated to be open in Year 2013.  Trip Generation: The proposed Project is expected to generate 1,420 more daily trips, 196 more AM peak hour trips and 176 more PM peak hour trips than the Previous Project. The impact of this change in trip generation is analyzed in this addendum traffic report.  Project Access: The access to the proposed Project is the same as the Previous Project except Lot C (Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot), which will have access along Douglass Road for the proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 127  No. of Project Driveways: The proposed Project analyzed 2 less Project Driveways than the Previous Project.  No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study intersections as the Previous Project.  No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less intersection impact and one less roadway segment impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study intersections as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis No. of Study Roadway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of CMP study roadway segments as the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Existing Plus Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  CMP Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the CMP study intersections or roadway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Study Intersections: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study ramp intersections as the Previous Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-10-3123-1 ARTIC, Anaheim N:\3100\2103123 - ARTIC, Anaheim\- July 2011 Update -\Report\3123 ARTIC, Anaheim TIA 01-25-12 (Update of 10-28-11 Report).doc 128  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Merge/Diverge Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study merge/diverge locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Weaving Locations: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study weaving locations as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis No. of Freeway Segments: The proposed Project analyzed the same number of Caltrans study freeway segments as the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Caltrans study ramp intersections or Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. In addition, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Caltrans Facilities Analysis - Long-Term (Year 2030) Project Impacts: There is one less Caltrans study ramp intersection impact for the proposed Project when compared to the Previous Project. Additionally, there are no impacts at any of the Caltrans merge/diverge locations for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. Further, there are the same number of impacts for the Caltrans weaving locations and Caltrans freeway segments for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project.  Site Access Analysis - Near-Term (Year 2013/2014) Project Impacts: There are no impacts at any of the Project Driveways for both the proposed Project and the Previous Project. ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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--- ---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---