Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 3 of 3 - Zoning Map Amendment 00-02 - Ordinance 3624 - RECEIVED MAY 0 2L003 VOLUME III - TECHNICAL APPENDIX DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL REPORT No. 00-01 LowE s HOME IMPROVEMENT v WAREHOUSE/NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND WARNER PROJECT �4 "rY City of Huntington Beach Wes-✓ " Y- - _ _ May 2003 VOLUME III - TECHNICAL APPENDIX No. 00-01 ,A LowE s HOME IMPROVEMENT Aa WAREHOUSE/NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND WARNER PROJECT City of Huntington Beach ,F, Prepared For: The City of Huntington Beach - 3 - Planning Department ; �� _ 2000 Main Street c-� Huntington Beach, California 92648 — Prepared By: PCR Services Corporation = - One Venture Suite 150 _ Irvine California 92618 - May 2003 US -= -_-- APPENDICES VOLUME III—TECHNICAL APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES F. Acoustical Analysis — G. Public Services and Utilities Letters H. Traffic Impact Analysis I. Water Analysis J. Wastewater Analysis City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project _. EIR No.00-01 May 2003 Page i PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT—Work in Progress E ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS '[U01 REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT _ WAREHOUSE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 (714) 374-1540 FAX LOWES 1530 Faraday, Suite 125 _ Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 804-5314 (760) 602-1018 FAX Prepared by: -- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES 26051 Via Concha Mission Viejo, California 92691 (949) 837-1195 (949) 837-3935 FAX lC-;'•7'X':;+""�y� � December 2001 REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 — (714) 374-1540 FAX LOWES 1530 Faraday, Suite 125 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 804-5314 (760) 602-1018 FAX Prepared by: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES 26051 Via Concha Mission Viejo, California 92691 - (949) 837-1195 (949) 837-3935 FAX December 2001 r Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Sections Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND 4 4.0 APPLICABLE PUBLIC POLICIES 5 4.1 Applicable Federal Noise Policies 5 4.2 Applicable Policies of the State of California 6 4.3 Applicable Policies of the City of Huntington Beach 6 5.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 9 5.1 Field Survey g 5.2 Computer-Generated Noise Projections for Existing Traffic Volumes 12 6.0 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 13 7.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 14 7.1 Impacts from Project Construction 14 7.2 Impacts from Project Operation 16 7.2.1 Impacts for the Introduction of Additional Project-Related Traffic 16 7.2.2 Impacts from On-Site Activities 16 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 24 9.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 25 9.1 Project Construction 25 9.2 Project Operations 25 9.2.1 Loading Dock Operations 26 9.2.2 Staging Area Operations 27 10.0 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 28 11.0 REFERENCES 28 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page i r-, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) List of Appendices Appendix A Noise Modeling for Field Measurement NR-3 - B Noise Modeling for Existing Traffic C Noise Modeling for Existing-Plus-Project Traffic D Noise Modeling for Cumulative without Project Traffic E Noise Modeling for Cumulative with Project Traffic F Noise Modeling for Northern Screening Wall G Noise Modeling for Residential Mitigation Wall H Noise Modeling for Staging Area Activities r List of Figures Figure Page 1 Proposed Site Plan 3 2 California Department of Health Services-Office of Noise Control Standards 7 3 Noise Monitoring Locations 10 r List of Tables Table 1 City of Huntington Beach- Exterior Noise Standards g 2 Noise Level Measurements 11 3 Existing Traffic and Resulting Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area 13 4 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment 14 5 Existing-Plus-Project Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area 17 6 Maximum Leq Noise Levels Generated by Customer Loading Activities 21 7 Build-Out-Plus-Project Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area 24 r Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page ii Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X 0'4 NO 'n-,F, ruc mg).46 dll ir Project Construction Noise Mitigation Measure N-1 in accordance with disturbances in those areas Section 8 40 090(Special Provisions)of the adjacent to project site can be Potentially Municipal Ordinance, construction shall not Less than expected during construction Significant take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and Significant due to site preparation and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or subsequent construction of on- at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. site structures The nearest Mitigation Measure N-2 During all project residential receptors to the site preparation, grading,and construction,the project site include those project contractor(s) shall equip all construc- located west of"B" Street, tion equipment,fixed or mobile,with properly those located north of the operating and maintained noise mufflers, Ocean View Channel, and consistent with manufacturers' standards those located along Minoru Mitigation Measure N-3 The project Lane All of these residents are contractor(s) shall place all stationary located about 50 feet or more construction equipment as far as feasible from from the nearest site boundary. near-site residential receptors and situated so At that distance, intermittent that emitted noise is directed away from those construction noise could be on sensitive receptors located to the south and the order of 89 dBA Leq. east of the project site. Residents situated across Mitigation Measure N-4. The construction Warner Avenue are located contractor shall locate equipment staging about 100 feet from the project areas in the central portion of the site to create site and noise, at that location, the greatest distance between construction- would be on the order of 83 related noise sources and sensitive receptors dBA Leq during all project site preparation, grading,and construction activities. A Opekatf6nallmp ts Ob 'k Project-Related Traffic.With the introduction of project- related traffic, noise levels along Warner Ave. (between Less than Less than Beach Blvd. and Newland Ave) Significant None required or recommended. Significant and Beach Blvd. (from Warner to north of Heil Aves)could increase by as much as one dBA Ldn Loading Dock Area Trucks, Mitigation Measure N-5A Off-Site Mitigation idling and unloading in the Alternative The Applicant shall construct, loading dock area located in reconstruct, or replace the existing walls at the the southeastern corner of the residential units immediately south of Warner major building,will produce Avenue extending for a distance of 125 feet to noise associated with those the east of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane activities The nearest existing with an 8-foot high wall.At a distance of 125 residence to this loading area Potentially feet,the wall shall step down to intercept the Less than (j.e, located south of Warner Significant existing wall The wall shall also curve Significant Avenue and directly west of southward at the intersection of Rotterdam Rotterdam Lane)is about 250 Lane and Warner Avenue until it parallels feet from the entrance to the Rotterdam Avenue. At this point it shall step loading docks Loading dock down to intercept the existing wall The wall noise would be atmospherically shall be of masonry construction (e.g., attenuated down to a level of concrete block) and shall be designed so as to about 59 dBA at that residential match the existing wall(s). property boundary. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page iii Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach,California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY eve _42 &%�z A"% 0 k Loading Dock Area Mitigation Measure N-5A(Continued). (Continued) Similarly, an 8-foot high wall shall be constructed along the south side of Warner Ave. proceeding for a distance of 250 feet west of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane This wall shall also curve southward at the intersection of Rotterdam Lane and Warner Ave. until it parallels Rotterdam Ave. stepping down smoothly to grade level If this wall is infeasible due to dwelling access and/or aesthetics,the City/Applicant may elect to provide sound rated windows for these residents As an added benefit, this measure would reduce vehicle noise from traffic along Warner Ave.for those residents receiving the wall(s) or sound rated windows and the daily Ldn noise level would be reduced from current ambient levels Modeling indicates that the noted wall(s) would provide in excess of 5 dBA of attenuation reducing noise levels to approximately 52 dBA at the nearest residents across Warner Ave. Therefore, loading operations during the night could still exceed the City's nighttime noise standard. As such, loading and/or unloading operations shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. These operations are to be inclusive of all outside forklift activities as well as truck deliveries and no trucks shall be allowed access to the site outside of these hours Furthermore,to avoid trucks idling along the curbside at the facility while waiting to unload,the City shall not allow on-street truck parking outside of these hours If upon project operations the Applicant can prove conclusively to the City that nighttime loading operations do not exceed noise ordinance levels,the City may elect to extend the operations so as to allow deliveries between 10-00 PM and 7 00 AM Alternative Mitigation Measure N-513. On- Site Reconfiguration Mitigation Alternative The site shall be reconfigured to move the truck well further from Warner Ave Based on a projected noise levels,truck noise would be reduced to the City's 55 dBA daytime standard at a distance of 400 feet from the residents, thus allowing for night operations if they were restricted to no more than 30 minutes in any hour Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page iv Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY »:Si-rtificani�e. >m t fi + 9 x,. T a�.C�`"" r?-i c. a . . a on-Measure; ° 9. ranonal Im cts�. :�ontin z,. P. Loading Dock Area Alternative Iternatiiva Mitigation Measure N_513 (Continued) (Continued). This 400-foot distance could be attained if the trucks loading area were moved to the area near the proposed"Appliance/ Electronic Storage,"at a distance of approximately 275 feet north of the property line along Warner Avenue. As an added benefit,the storage area could be moved closer to Warner Avenue and the physical presence of this structure would serve as an effective sound wall. If the structure obscured a view of the loading area, it could attain the 50 dBA nighttime standard allowing ' for unrestricted operation. Customer Loading Area.A customer loading area is proposed near the northwest corner of the main structure, at a distance of about 140 feet from residents north of the existing Ocean View Channel. At that distance,the maximum Less than t Less than projected noise levels from Significant None required or recommended. Significant these activities would be less than 61 dBA. The proposed 8- foot high screening wall along the northern perimeter extending both east and west from the main structure would ' further attenuate this noise. Staging Area Activities.A Mitigation Measure N-6A. Increased Wall staging area is proposed in the Height and Length Mitigation Alternative. In northeast portion of the site, lieu of the 8-foot wall now proposed by the about 140 feet from the units Applicant, modeling indicates that a 13-foot located to the north of the wall would provide in excess of 9 dBA of Ocean View Channel. With the attenuation reducing noise at the nearest ' 8-foot wall now proposed,the residences to less than 55 dBA meeting the resultant noise for a ground- City's daytime standard. Since the nighttime floor receptor is"estimated at standard would be exceeded if operations about 59 dBA.A portion of the continued for more than 30 minutes in any area in which the trucks Potentially hour, an operational restriction would be Less than maneuver is also used to Significant required to limit staging area operations Significant access the Ocean View School between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to not more District(OVSD) bus facility and than 30 minutes in any one-hour period. If the is located on OVSD property. Applicant does propose extended night This area is not currently deliveries or should operational restrictions be proposed to receive the screen deemed infeasible, an 18-foot high wall could wall and the residences reduce noise to less than 50 dBA. immediately north of this area could be subject to noise levels up to the noted 64 dBA. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page v Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 1 06hif,"Jifi ii Staging Area Activities Mitigation Measure N-6A(Continued). In (Continued) addition to increasing the walls height, in order to provide acoustical attenuation for vehicles utilizing the hammer-head turn- around on OVSD property,the screening wall would need to be extended from its proposed eastern terminus to a point not less than the access gate located at the northwest corner of the OVSD maintenance facility. This may require that the Applicant coordinate with OVSD representatives to ensure that those improvements are acceptable to the district. Environmental impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page vi i Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION Presented is an acoustical analysis of a proposed commercial development project located on the site of the former Rancho View Elementary School and athletic fields in the City of Huntington ' Beach, Orange County, California (City or Lead Agency). This analysis, conducted as a component of the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), codified in Section 21000 et seq. in the Public Resources Code(PRC), and the Guidelines i for the California Environmental Quality Act(State CEQA Guidelines), codified in Section 15000 et seq. in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), examines the potential noise impacts upon other near-site receptors resulting from the construction and subsequent operation of a new home improvement warehouse, garden center, and restaurant on an approximately 13.61-acre property generally located along the north side of Warner Avenue, east of "B" Street, west of Minoru Lane, and south of the Ocean View Channel and Lancaster Drive, in the northern portion of the City. Lowe's Home Improvement (Applicant) proposes to build and subsequently operate a 135,197 square foot home improvement store, with an attached 24,063 square foot primarily open-air garden center, identified as Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, in the western generally one- half portion of the subject property (identified as "Parcel A"). This portion of the site shall be separated from the Ocean View Flood Control Channel and those homes located to the north of the channel by an 8-foot high screening wall of masonry construction. The wall shall extend both east and west of the main structure terminating at the Ocean View School District Bus Maintenance Facility to the east and at "B" Street to the west. The proposed project also includes the construction and operation of a 9,000-square foot high- turnover sit-down restaurant on a separate parcel located east of the home improvement and i garden center along Warner Avenue(identified as"Parcel B")and comprising generally the western one-half of the southeastern one-quarter of the property. An unspecified future commercial use (identified as residual "Parcel C") is located adjacent to the restaurant along Warner Avenue and comprising the easterly one-half of the southeastern one-quarter of the subject property. Since no land use is currently specified for"Parcel C," any development assumptions associated i with that parcel would be speculative. In accordance with Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines, since no land use has been identified, the analysis of some future hypothetical use is beyond the scope of environmental review. At the discretion of the Lead Agency, any future land use located thereupon may, therefore, be subject to additional environmental review, particularly with respect to potential impacts upon those existing residential land uses located to the east and south of the project site. Located in the northeastern generally one-quarter portion of the subject property is the Ocean View School District Bus Maintenance Facility. Future uses on that site generally constitute the retention and/or expansion of those existing bus maintenance activities now evident thereupon. Any noise associated with the operation of the bus maintenance facility,therefore, constitutes a component of the existing ambient noise environment. Since ambient conditions constitute the "baseline" upon which this acoustical analysis has been derived and since that use is now in operation, no detailed assessment of the bus maintenance facility is included herein. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 iRevised Acoustical Analysis Page 1 r-, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California In the preparation of this acoustical analysis, extensive on-site and near-site noise measurements and monitoring was performed by Environmental Impact Sciences (EIS) to ascertain the existing noise environment upon which pre- and post-project conditions were to be modeled. Information concerning the project's traffic characteristics was based on information contained in"Lowe's Home Improvement Center, Huntington Beach"(Willdan/WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., November2000). Information concerning the City's applicable public policies was derived from a review of the"City of Huntington Beach General Plan" (General Plan) and "City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code" (Municipal Code). Additional information relevant to the preparation of this acoustical analysis has been derived from correspondence submitted to Mr. George Berger of EKN Engineering, Inc. (EKN) from Ms. Cindy Chie, Assistant Planner, dated October 26, 2000, and correspondence submitted to Mr. Paul Rothenberg of EKN from Ms. Jane James,Associate Planner, dated July 24, r, 2001. This acoustical study further incorporates comments submitted to EKN by the City's Planning Department in response to two earlier draft analyses conducted by EIS in response to two previous versions of the current site plan. Although prepared on behalf of the Applicant, this study was reviewed by the Lead Agency and the report's findings reflect the independent judgment of the City with regards to the potential short-term and long-term noise impacts resulting from the project's construction and subsequent operation. As a result, the information, analysis, conclusions, and recommended mitigation measures contained herein can be utilized by the City as partial fulfillment of the Lead Agency's analytical and disclosure obligations under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This technical document is intended for inclusion as a technical appendix in that project-level environmental impact report (EIR) now being prepared for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse project by the City. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS As illustrated, in part, in Figure 1 (Proposed Site Plan), "B" Street lies to the immediate west of the project site. The Southern California Edison (SCE) Oceanview Substation lies at the northwest corner of"B"Street and Warner Avenue. Four single-family dwelling units are located to the north of the substation, along the west side of"B"Street. The area on the south side of Warner Avenue, across from the project site, includes both single-family and multi-family dwellings. Multi-family units are located between"B"Street and Rotterdam Lane. Those dwellings situated immediately to the east of"B" Street are two-story units and include a 7-foot high, perimeter masonry block wall located along that roadway. Further to the east, the existing dwellings are single-story units with little or no perimeter walls installed along the perimeter for protection. Single-family dwellings are located south of the property, to the east of Rotterdam Lane. These dwelling units have an existing 6-foot high masonry block wall. Some of the residences have added wood planking atop the block wall to extend the wall height to up to about eight feet. To the east, the project site is bounded by existing multi-family units that front onto Minoru Lane. These units are separated from.the subject property by an alley. Additionally,these units have rear garages that provide additional site separation. The Ocean View Channel lies immediately north of the project site and divides the property from those residential units located further to the north. Two-story, single-family units lie to the north of the channel and are separated from that drainage facility by a 6-foot high masonry block wall located along the perimeter of those dwellings. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 2 r i i i � i i i i i. i i Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California •RIaTINO OE[n»VIEw FLOW CO»TROI C»�»»El ��� _ 1 , RoslDoux DRIVE ���� -�_- .�...•._�l "_� .. r� �.M. L— _ ALLEY - z R, , 11. 11. Ilh,ll k' ^ » 'V'"'� OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT I BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY �� ,3� I I` I I •11� LEASEHOLD �1fI F PARCEL A = I �, , I I l i I I I M jYYY ,V✓ l�!,� i8.� I lTl I I.I I I I,I.IT Ize .I,i I I i. obi p E I I II i III ri , LOWES 'W �u z ' uro F 71k, I LE IS, D� If, , ;, C•Irol •I�—RI.I(_•`J�I,II .I I �fli.� _`'�f �����____. �e I_ ,�,r' •} I �, I z II �i I�G it I'5:1 IF JJ w° �Ma•! r-- Jd�,�rpJ ti Fin � :T'�—: — '-----C -- m WARNER AVENUEJ/ 0 ROTTERDAM aN LL E%laTl»G MULTIFI»RIIY RE91OE»TInL LANE ERunnG uaiGE»Tine ii U L Y U IORING CURFOR—CE IInTRIR i�-i[ 1 •SD ; Q 10 u.i�i. .• •....a. ii�.. . e. .•.. r ... �i i. �w-..nn.... ...... -_-1_ �2. 10 »O 99-105 .�.�..�.... i. ...�,,.. .... i.. .�. n . .....,.-.. .,...... OF 2 SHEETS Figure 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Source EKN Engineering, Inc Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 3 r� Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California r-, 3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary by over one trillion times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity in a process called "A- weighting," written as dBA or dB(A). The human ear can detect changes in sound levels of approximately three dBA under normal conditions. Changes of one to three dBA are typically discernable under controlled, quiet conditions whereas changes of less than one dBA are usually not discernable. Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Due to spreading losses, noise attenuates or decreases with distance. The typical atmospheric attenuation rate for point source noise is six dBA per doubling of the distance, as predicted by the equation: Attenuated dBA = 20 (log) r (measured distance/reference distance). A line source will also attenuate with distance. The rate of attenuation is a function of both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Over"hard" sites, such as developed areas with paving, noise attenuates at a rate of three dBA per doubling of the distance, as predicted by the equation: Attenuated dBA = 10(log)(measured distance/reference distance). Over"soft"sites, such as undeveloped open space, vegetated, or landscaped areas, noise attenuates more rapidly at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance, as predicted by the equation: Attenuated dBA = 15 (log) (measured distance/reference distance). r, These conditions represent the extremes and most areas will actually contain a combination of both "hard" and "soft" elements, with the noise attenuation placed somewhere in between these two attenuation factors. For example, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency emphasizes the use of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance for traffic-generated noise. Objects that block the line-of-sight attenuate the noise source if the receptor is located within the "shadow"of the blockage, such as behind a sound wall. If a receptor is located behind the wall but still has a view of the source, the wall will do very little to attenuate the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may actually experience an increase in the perceived noise level as the wall reflects noise back to the receptor, thereby compounding the noise. Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of the average energy over time (Leq), or alternatively, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 4 '— Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level ' that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, 1-08i and L25 represent the noise levels that are ' exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These "L"values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with the City' Noise Ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second, respectively. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State guidelines requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise ' Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day/night average noise level (Ldn). In calculation of the CNEL, noise produced between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM is penalized by 5 dBA and noise produced between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM is penalized by 10 dBA. It should be noted that the night period also includes a portion of the morning rush hour. The penalty added to the night and morning rush hours raise the CNEL to a level that is equivalent to or greater than the peak traffic hour's noise. 1 The Ldn is calculated in the same manner as the CNEL but no penalty is added to the period between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both the CNEL and Ldn produce roughly the same noise level value, with the CNEL typically being less than one dBA greater. 4.0 APPLICABLE PUBLIC POLICIES Many government agencies have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. Applicable standards and guidelines for this project are discussed below. 1 4.1 Applicable Federal Noise Policies The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires 1 employers to assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment(PPE). If such hazards are present, or are likely to be present, the employer shall select and have each affected employee use the types 1 of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment. The PPE must properly fit the affected employee and must be maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition. Occupational noise exposure is addressed through a facility's"Health and Safety Plan" (HASP)or "Personal Protective Equipment Hazard Assessment Program"(PPE-HAP). Any construction will, ' therefore, be required to be conducted in accordance with an approved HASP or PPE-HAP. Since certain operations conducted within and adjacent to the proposed facility, such as the use of power Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 5 r-, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California r-, saws, would require that the Applicant specify the appropriate PPEs, such as hearing protection, when engaged in such operations. Similar requirements are imposed in California by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Cal/OSHA has jurisdiction over every employment r and place of employment in California which is necessary to adequately enforce and administer all occupational safety and health standards and regulations. As a result of this federal oversight, occupational noise is not relevant to this study and is not further addressed herein. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)has set a goal of 45 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for HUD-assisted residential units. This same level is also generally accepted within the State of California. While HUD does not specify acceptable exterior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provide 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this attenuation, the exterior Ldn should not exceed 65 dBA. 4.2 Applicable Policies of the State of California r, The California Department of Health Services' (SDHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, the SDHS has established four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses. The types of land uses addressed by the SDHS and "acceptable" noise, by category are presented in Figure 2 (California Department of Health Services — Office of Noise Control Standards). As indicated therein, noise in the "normally acceptable" category is generally acceptable with no mitigation necessary. Noise in the"conditionally acceptable"category may require some mitigation as established through a noise study. The "normally unacceptable" category would require substantial mitigation while the"clearly unacceptable"category is probably not mitigable to a level of less than significant. As noted in Figure 2 (California Department of Health Services—Office of Noise Control Standards), there is some overlap between categories. Applicable interior standards for new residential dwellings are governed by Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards require that acoustical studies be performed prior to — construction in areas that exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Such studies are required to establish measures that will limit interior noise to no more than 45 dBA Ldn. This level has been applied to many communities in California, including the City of Huntington Beach. 4.3 Applicable Policies of the City of Huntington Beach r- As required under Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code, each community shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development containing seven mandatory elements, including a noise element. The noise element shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community, shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control, and shall analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. r The City's General Plan includes a Noise Element establishing a set of local noise standards. The Noise Element identifies goals, policies, and implementation programs. Basically, the General Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 6 r` ' Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn or CNEL, dB LAND USE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 so ....................... ....................... Residential-Low density Single Family,Duplex,Mobile Homes ....... ....................... ........... ....................I.............. ................................... ' Residential-Multiple Family ...... ...... ... .. .... . . ............................... ... ................................... ................................... Transient Lodging-Motels.Hotels ------------------------------------------------------I----------------- ........................ ............................... ........................ ....-....-......................,...-..'.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.....-...-.-.-.. ' Schools.Libraries,Churches,Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums,Concert Hags, Amphitheaters Sports Arena,Outdoor Spectator Sports .............. R.us.8M.RiUREEMN ' ------------ ------------------ ---------Ei ------- --------•----- Playgrounds,Neighborhood Parks God Courses,Riding Stables,Water Recreation,Cemetaries Office Buildings,Business.Commercial :::..................:::::. ::::: ... ......... ............. ------ Industrial,Manufacturing,Utilities, Agriculture a>:�:<:::::•>.<':? 55 60 65 70 75 so 1 LEGEND NormNormallyAcceptable Normans Unacceptable C ��,'-`�`Ile ae b W.M.0 based g1011 fh NIaI Now anstWbn a dwlakpnrM ahaAd peMrah b. Sr- A I Ytlotled we d roal omrrbnd amtw,ue , auraped. /my am&ud m a d-okprera dom plo W.a WdhMA ally tprW lobe b WYkn nanpilrarnra lb• d.I&W wAksb or to uobe N&VIan rewA wlu craw,•be made ft nedad eab.bsorrkw Maewee indudd b rr tleaipn. fr• Condmonaly AcceptableahbkLd- >''>,�'• -- Mm aorrrw- or d. bpa-- shoal be Indenaa.n o*,leer rn a deu4d elWp I der now m&c*n agv&w*o b mode aril- Cleary Unacceptable ew w m ded ro Ybn Yet. t+ an pr ch h M dwDR Now Wu0m a demb w W%Wd penenfr nol W mjd - c4mwemr aarlr+rrrt I bW u t cb d wda.s vW Mth ell btea. Condneton moan b mate dle b I elrtom m "Ppir I—or I*arlabntlp wd mmrp allrm. Outloa s=.Oabb r oW be pl 4*" wW M our k c errawnery emialmW we ww nebr. w.W nal be uaahb. Figure 2 ' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL STANDARDS Source: California Department of Health Services Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 7 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Plan states that residential development shall conform to the current State standards and sets a residential exterior goal of 60 dBA Ldn for outdoor living areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor living areas Exterior living areas are typically defined as rear yards and do not include the front of a dwelling unit. Interior living areas typically do not Include bathrooms, closets, or hallways. In addition to residential units, the General Plan defines health-care facilities, schools, libraries, and ' places of worship as "sensitive" receptors. The General Plan also notes that new industrial and commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses shall not cause ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior level of 65 dBA Ldn at noise sensitive land uses. The implementation programs outlined therein are designed to achieve the City's long-range goals and policies concerning noise in the urban environment. The City's policy regarding acceptable noise levels are codified In Chapter 8.40(Noise Control) in the Municipal Code. The City's exterior noise standards are shown in Table 1 (City of Huntington Beach—Exterior Noise Standards) and represent the noise levels that should not be exceeded during each of the time periods specified ' therein These standards are Intended for enforcement of short-term noise violations. Table 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH — EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS z..a-Ffk:6'"'' :" a- 2`9—" a--Yi'w''=r �. 'l —• u.,�-irTc� a, s;LAnrate 3f� _�i�•r„ � -,.,,.�"4e%i,•--`au=-- ;.�';;,;✓''-s• '.s,� .?:',�'�e s,,•:'�"5 FS�`).+-,'-'thn:'��'E 7�,,. _�F€s+' '��� 3p '(i -�" 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 Residential Properties 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50 Professional Office and Public Institutional Properties Anytime 55 Commercial Properties with the Exception of Professional Office and Public Institutional Anytime 60 , Industrial Anytime 70 Source City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code The specified levels identified In Table 1 (City of Huntington Beach—Exterior Noise Standards) do , not apply to "pre-empted" noise sources, such as traffic, where noise standards are dictated by federal, State, and regional entities. The above levels represent an average and provides for allowances for short-term noise generation Noise that exceeds these levels is subject to the following additional criteria: (1) no exceedance of the standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; (2) the noise standard plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; and (3) the noise standard plus ten dBA for a five-minute period; (4)the noise standard plus 15 dBA for a , one-minute period, and (5) the noise standard plus 20 dBA or the maximum measured ambient level for any period of time. These levels then represent the L50, L25i L08, L02i and Lmax descriptors discussed previously Note that these levels are as measured at the nearest receptor property and not at the protect site boundary. The noise ordinance recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24- hour community noise standard. Section 8 40.090 (Special Provisions) of the Municipal Code ' states that noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 8 ' Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California property are exempt from the City mandated noise criteria provided a permit has been obtained ' from the City and said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. The Municipal Code also exempts activities or equipment to the extent that design regulation thereof has been pre- empted by State or federal laws. This latter provision would include the operation of licensed vehicles operating on public thoroughfares. 5.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The most significant and common source of noise in the City is related to the movement of vehicles over City roadways. Noise in the project area is dominated by traffic traveling on Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. 5.1 Field Survey A field study was conducted on July 26, 2000 to determine the locations of potentially sensitive receptors and ascertain existing noise levels within the project area. Single-family residential land uses are located to the west(across"B"Street), to the north (immediately north of the Ocean View Channel), and to the south (across Warner Avenue east of Rotterdam Lane). Multi-family units are ' also located across Warner Avenue between"B"Street and Rotterdam Lane and to the east(west of Minoru Lane). These latter units are separated from the project site by an alley. These units have their garages in the back, further separating the living quarters from the site. Noise monitoring was conducted using a Quest Technologies Model 2900 Type 2 Integrating/ Logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.4-1983 for Type 2, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2, and IEC Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The unit was calibrated at 1:40 PM, immediately prior to the first set of readings, using a Quest Technologies ' QC-10 calibrator. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer and traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of ANSI Standard S1.4-1984 and the IEC Standard 942:1988 for Class 1 equipment. Noise measurement locations are depicted in Figure 3 (Noise Monitoring Locations). The findings of the field measurements for each noise reading (NR) location are separately discussed below. Results of the field surveys are included in Table 2 (Noise Level Measurements). ' While all readings were obtained on the project site, the measurement locations were specifically selected in order to encompass both on-site and off-site noise sources. For example, NR-1, obtained along "B" Street, would also be indicative of a measurement that would be taken across "B"Street at the location of the existing dwelling units. NR-2, obtained at the northern border of the site, would also be indicative of readings taken on the north side of the Oceanview Channel at the rear of the existing dwelling units at that location. Finally, NR-3 was used to assess traffic noise along Warner Avenue and would be indicative of both on-site noise as well as noise levels that would be obtained at the residential units located along the south side of the street, if those residences did not have perimeter walls to attenuation noise transmission. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 ' Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 9 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California cameo RRelocenRL (�-1 - EXISTING OCEAN VIEW FLOW CONTROL CNRNNEL 1 -I ROBIDOU% DRIVE 0000co ooaoolooe 00000u0000000 -- ••---._ ____ _.--___—_ ALLEY `+L_— .-- _____ J1ReOlF•R14wI�eRR_ - ••!•.__,—� f - QI I{yI I} OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT I ..i �. �,I`I 114. I,�-1 I I • I k BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY i LEASEHOLD Lin II ' PARCEL A I:�;C�i' i. Lam S _ :I.�.i.�.i�.lb cF.se.ewx L A>r N d E �? A - R 'I y \_-- Yk7Ai7 i W I — 7 ��� � �� Z m. WARNER AVENU / r',YI, �R" 4-�-1 a Q mow z a 'fiE`sr..R LLl w z if � O - ROTTERDAM ¢w LL emm�eo NULrnunlLr Rsameenu - LANE ERunno RREmennu p U ZONING CONFORIIRNCE NRTRIR: 5-.f I •p' >o w; Q «JS F z Z Z .... ....,....�..:,,.. f o .I, ..w�n.o,..�... - •i ' . ... I 99-105 ..... r..�.i ...�....i"..�. ...,. ' ....... .. .. .... SHEET Figure 3 NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS Source: Environmental Impact Sciences Environmental impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 10 -- Lowm»'m Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Table MEASUREMENTSNOISE LEVEL d , WE- 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that, over the given period of time, transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time- varying sound level.The L02,L08, L25,and L50 are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15,and 30 minutes during a one-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root- mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of one second. Source: Environmental Impact Sciences Because traffic patterns along Warner Avenue are fairly uniform between Beach Boulevard and Newland Stnaet, any reading obtained between "B" Street and Minoru Street would be generally N� representative of traffic-generated noise oor000 the entire length of the project site. w NR-1: On-Site Across from 16871 ^^B" Street. Four single-family dwelling units are located across from the project oiteon ''B^GtnaeLAninida|ottennptvvosmadetoobtainthio reading curbside in front of the single-family residential unit located at 16871 ''B^ Street. Due to the proximity of the passing vehicles (including o heavy truck\, hovvever, it was reasoned that such o reading would not truly be representative of the noise that would be measured at the dwellings which are set back approximately 50feet from the centerline of thermad. The meter was moved on-site across from this unit at a distance of about 50 feet, N� a distance representative of that mf the dwelling. Noise on either side of the street would be comparable. This 15-minute reading was obtained from 1:47 F'YW. During this period, nine automobiles passed the metered location. VVhi|a, the dominant noise source would be expected to be that of passing vehicles and vehicles on Warner Avenue, a street sweeper passed by during the reading and substantially raised the Loq value. This etra�� sweeping occurs twice o month and is n�� o regular daily 000urnance . Note that the introduction of this noise source naou|tad in the elevated Lnnax. In the absence of this street sweeping, the Leq would be on the order of one dBA greater than the L,v or about 54 dBA. � [AR-2: On-Site at Central Northern Fence Lime. The Ocean View Channel is located to the immediate north of the project site. Single-family residential units are located beyond the channel and separated from the channel by block wall fences. While no readings were actually taken in the rear yards of these homes, this noise reading noise (which was taken N� at the northern site boundory\xvou|dapproximate that obtained at the homes if they did not ' -- have the existing block walls to attenuate noise. The 15-nminute reading was obtained from 2:25 PM. Ambient noise consisted almost entirely of vehicle traffic along Warner Avenue. f4R-3: On-Site Along Warner Avenue. This measurement was obtained on the project site 8|OnQ Warner Avenue,just east of Rotterdam Lane. The meter was placed along the Environmental impact Sciences December2O01 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page11 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California rI north side of the road at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the near lane. Single- family residential units were located across Warner Avenue. These units are protected from 'road noise by a 6-foot high perimeter block wall. A 15-minute reading was obtained from 2:53 PM. During the survey 278 automobiles, two medium trucks, and three heavy trucks were observed to pass by in a westbound direction. Eastbound traffic included 283 automobiles, nine medium trucks, and six heavy trucks. Average speed was estimated in the field at 40 miles per hour (mph). As expected, the dominant noise source during the survey was that of passing vehicles on Warner Avenue. 5.2 Computer-Generated Noise Projections for Existing Traffic Volumes The noise levels were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO emissions) for the vehicle counts noted in the field survey The purpose of this exercise is to determine the accuracy of the model based on field data. Using an (- average speed of 40 mph as observed in the field study, the volume of traffic noted during NR-3 was modeled using the FHWA model and the projected Leq noise was determined to be 67 dBA for "soft" site modeling. Based on a measured value of 66.7 dBA Leq in the field study, the model appears to be quite accurate in its projections. Note that these values reflect one-hour Leq values and do not address the Ldn. The Ldn values for traffic on Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard were also modeled using the FHWA noise prediction model. The number of vehicles used in the model was based on PM intersection turning movements provided in the traffic study. Average daily traffic(ADT)volumes were assumed to be 10 times the volume observed during the PM peak-hour period. The ratio of automobiles and trucks on Warner Avenue were based on the field observations. The ratios along Beach Boulevard were based on data collected by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and included in "1997 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System" (Caltrans, December 1998). Both routes were modeled at the posted speed limit of 45 mph. Note that this value differs slightly with that observed in the field and used to validate the FHWA model. However, the average speed noted in the field study is only accurate for the time period monitored. Other times of the day could realize higher traffic speeds and the use of the 45-mph speed limit represents a reasonable assessment of the 24-hour traffic average speed. r- Because the Ldn represents a 24-hour measurement based on traffic volumes, some explanation as to how the traffic volumes are apportioned over a 24-hour period is in order. The following methodology was developed through discussions with Caltrans and is deemed reasonable for typical urban roadways: (1)the nighttime period (i.e., 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM is assigned 10 percent of the total volume split equally among the eight-hour period; and (2) the AM and PM rush hours are set from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, respectively, and each hour of these rush-hour periods includes twice the volume of"off-hour" (i.e., non-rush and non-nighttime)traffic. The results of this analysis are included in Table 3 (Existing Traffic and Resulting Noise Levels Along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area). Model runs are included in Appendix A(Computer Model Runs) of this report. Note that the presented values are based on a clear line of sight to the traffic. Objects that obstruct this line-of-sight would serve as noise barriers and actual noise levels observed at receptor locations could, therefore, be considerably less than the presented values. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 12 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Table 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC AND RESULTING NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA (45 mph traffic speed) .__.,_..... .. .».,_.....-a.... .........:.n.::.:.a....._._,.._._..a... _ .c.,,,,-. .tea:, .a;aWrv�-aw. ..._Y.r;�:y:...__ _�.i,:.:u�=.��as;��f• ir«—j.5'^:?r-.< - �,��-.a +�},',�,.`sai "'4�^.a^, .-,.: .x....._ .... __ .:•.'x"- ..v-._. .......-._._..c._....:p?i4"—�.ts�.hP_»4 �Ri_.:a.,.:ei1'.0.?:: � _ a_�li'wie�l �k-N�'v .,a. j.:gra�'_".-z-rr_`-r:: :.:i.� _ r'.d. =•_yeetF*. `.ay.��.°4 'j� :a y _ _ .. _'�. RJUA sixes NIMBI }�. vF. e_ a==?24=cie?$:!..��'k''tc4:e ' Warner Avenue West of Golden West Street 30,290 73 171 368 Golden West Street—Gothard Street 29,510 73 171 368 ' Gothard Street-Beach Boulevard 29,105 73 171 368 Beach Boulevard—Rotterdam Lane 34,285 73 171 368 Rotterdam Lane- Newland Avenue 33,360 73 171 368 Newland Avenue—Magnolia Street 29,015 73 171 368 East of Magnolia Street 29,980 73 171 368 ' Beach Boulevard South of Warner Avenue 65,330 76 271 583 Warner Avenue- Heil Avenue 67,705 76 271 583 North of Heil Avenue 68,590 76 271 583 Source: Environmental Impact Sciences 6.0 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA As indicated under Section 21001(b) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "take all actions ' necessary to provide the people of this State with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetics, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise." In accordance with the standards included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will ' normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if the project will: (1)expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (2) produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; and/or (3) produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. ' The applicable noise standards governing the project site are contained in the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. For the purposes of this analysis, trucks operating on the project site are considered as a stationary noise source subject to City's noise ordinance standards. Mobile sources of noise, such as project-generated traffic traveling on public roadways, are exempt from the local ordinance but may still be subject to CEQA. Mobile source noise would, therefore, be deemed to produce a significant noise impact if the project were to generate a volume of traffic that resulted in a substantial increase in mobile source-generated noise. Neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines define what would constitute a "substantial increase" in noise levels. CEQA's threshold of significance standard is based on the introduction of a "substantial change." As noted above, the human ear can detect changes of three dBA. Changes of less than three dBA, Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 ' Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 13 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California while audible under controlled circumstances, are not readily discernable in an outdoor environment. A change of three dBA or less is,therefore, considered as a barely audible acoustical change. Because most people can readily hear a change of five dBA or more in an exterior environment, this value was selected for the purpose of acoustical assessment and is broadly used by most agencies as the appropriate CEQA criterion for defining a "substantial change." For comparison, Caltrans defines a noise increase as"substantial"when the predicted noise levels, with the project, would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq. As a result, selection of the five dBA criterion presents a reasonable "worst-case" analysis of the project's potential impacts, requiring mitigation when post-project conditions exceed this threshold value. 7.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 7.1 Impacts from Project Construction Noise disturbances in those areas located adjacent to project site can be expected during construction. These disturbances will be due to site preparation and subsequent construction of on-site structures. As with most construction projects, construction would require the use of a number of pieces of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, loaders, and concrete mixers. In addition, both heavy and light trucks would be required to deliver construction materials to and export construction debris from the site. Noise levels generated by typical construction equipment are depicted in Table 4 (Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment). Table 4 NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT .. ; _ n e�f3ound�`-e,Vels3 �j�_F _�cis est�cT. �c1�Lev Fes. ':sr,, �*--,_.. _ _ w::;��`=�:�;.� .�,;,. :-.3xr.z..•'-'�...: ;,y�:.,3.s:�?�,.'?-fir Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93 r (12,000 to 18,o00 foot-pounds/blow) Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractors 77 to 82 80 Front-End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoes 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 r Source: USEPA, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987. Composite construction noise is best characterized by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (USEPA r December 31, 1971). In this study, construction noise for commercial development is presented as 89 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. This value takes Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 14 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California into account both the number of pieces and spacing of the heavy equipment used in the ' construction effort. In later phases during building construction, noise levels are typically reduced from this value and the physical structures further break up line-of-sight noise transmission. In order to present a "worst-case" scenario, the 89 dBA value is assumed to remain constant throughout the term of the construction effort. The operation of such equipment would result in the generation of both steady and episodic noise levels significantly above those ambient levels currently experienced near the sensitive noise receptors located closest to the project site. The noise produced from construction atmospherically attenuates (decreases) at a rate of approximately six dBA per doubling of distance. At a distance ' of 100 feet, for example, the noise levels would be about six dBA less or 83 dBA. The nearest residential receptors to the project site include those located west of"B" Street, those ' located north of the Ocean View Channel, and those located along Minoru Lane. All of these residents are located approximately 50 feet or more from the nearest site boundary. At that distance, intermittent construction noise could be on the order of 89 dBA Leq. Residents situated across Warner Avenue are located approximately 100 feet from the project site and noise, at that location, would be on the order of 83 dBA Leq. Actual noise levels at those receptors which are protected by intervening structures, such as rear ' garages for the multi-family units along Minoru Lane or located behind perimeter masonry walls as with the residences located south of Warner Avenue and north of the Ocean View Channel along Lancaster Drive, would be predicted to be lower then these values presented herein as a result of the additional acoustical attenuation provided by the intervening barriers. Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. Recommended Mitigation Measures: Based on the presence of potentially significant construction impacts, the following mitigation measures are ' recommended as conditions of project approval: N-1: In accordance with Section 8.40.090(Special Provisions) of the Municipal ' Ordinance, construction shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. N-2: During all project site preparation, grading, and construction, the project contractor(s) shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers, consistent with ' manufacturers'standards. N-3: The project contractor(s)shall place all stationary construction equipment as far as feasible from near-site residential receptors and situated so that emitted noise is directed away from those sensitive receptors located to the south and east of the project site. N-4: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging areas in the central portion of the site to create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and sensitive receptors during all project site preparation, grading, and construction activities. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 15 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Level of Significance after Mitigation:Less than Significant Impact. 7.2 Impacts from Project Operation 7.2.1 Impacts from the Introduction of Addition Project-Related Traffic As noted above, the City has sets a goal of 60 dBA Ldn as a desirable for the exterior living environment. Exterior levels in excess of 60 dBA Ldn are allowed provided that the area of development is limited to infill within established neighborhoods and mitigation provides for attainment of both the exterior and interior standards, as demonstrated through a noise study. Because existing noise at proximate receptor locations already exceeds the 60 dBA Ldn standard, the project is considered to make a notable increase to the ambient noise if it raises the Ldn by three dBA, which is defined as a barely discernable increase. Because ambient growth in the project area would raise existing traffic levels even without project's implementation, for the purposes of determining if the project would significantly raise traffic- generated noise, a"worst-case"scenario would impose the totality of project-generated traffic onto the existing traffic volume. Under this approach, the project would represent a greater portion of the "whole" than would otherwise be expected. r-- As with the existing traffic volumes, project-generated traffic was based on evening peak-hour movement activities. The number of trips arriving at and departing the site during the evening peak hour were summed and the total daily traffic volume divided by this sum to create a multiplier. This r- multiplier was then used to augment the project-generated traffic volumes at the intersections and these augments values were added to the existing daily traffic. Table 5 (Existing-plus-Project Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels Along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area) presents the existing daily-plus-project traffic. As noted, noise levels along Warner Avenue (between Beach Boulevard and Newland Avenue) and Beach Boulevard (from Warner to north of Heil Avenues)could increase by as much as one dBA Ldn. This increase is neither audible nor significant based upon the referenced threshold standards. Increases to all other routes would be less than one dBA Ldn and would be deemed insignificant. r- Level of Significance before Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. Recommended Mitigation Measures: None Required or Recommended. 7.2.2 Impacts from On-Site Activities Loading Dock Area The home improvement and garden center would receive goods delivered to the project site by heavy and medium truck for subsequent on-site sale. These trucks, idling and unloading in the loading dock area located in the southeastern corner of the major building, will produce noise associated with those activities. While the loading bay area is enclosed, in order to ensure a worst- case analysis, it is assumed that the doors would remain open during unloading activities. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 16 Lmwe`s Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Table EXISTING-PLUS-PROJECT TRAFFIC AND RESULTANT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA SIMMONS ARIA Warner Avenue Golden West Street—Gothard Street 30,566 73 171 368 Beach Boulevard—Rotterdam Lane 38,677 74 199 429 Rotterdam Lane- Newland Avenue 36,257 74 199 429 Beach Boulevard Source: Environmental Impact Sciences Noise measurements taken fora variety of similar projects (e.g.` Home Depot loading bays) have demonstrated that the noise produced by idling semi-trucks is on the order of 70 to 73 dBA Leq, as measured ota distance of5O feet from the noisiest portionof the truck to the side behind the (`i�e�. cab and in line with the engine and exhaust stacks). N� The project would place these trucks within an enclosed bay and the noise emanating from the ~~ front of the truck would actually be |eno than that monitored in the field as the engine noise would be shielded by the cab and/or front of the truck. Furthermore, noise reflection out from the loading bay is based upon the angle of incidence of the noise wave striking a reflective surface, loading bay noise reflecting off the northern elevation of the loading dock would be predominately intercepted by the trucks located within those bays and not be expected to add measurably to any operational N� noise perceived by receptors located of project ��imni|�r|y, any noise reflected . �-, � . ~~ from the buildings westerly elevation, adjacent to the truck well, would be transmitted in on«*ost-to- ooutheomter|ydirection and would be predominately intercepted by those trucks located within that dock. Any additional sound energy xxoV|d. therefore, n�� add appreciably �o m��ai0e noise |�v�|o . The property boundaries for the nearest existing residence to this loading area (i.e., located mouth of Warner Avenue and directly vxaot of Rotterdam Lane) is approximately 250 feet from the N� entrance to the loading docks. Based on o value of73 dBA and distance of about 25O feet tothe nearest sensitive receptors, loading dock noise would be atmospherically attenuated down to a level of about 59 dBA at that residential property boundary. Actual noise values at those unite m/ou|d, hoxvever, be further reduced since those residents are protected from noise intrusion generated along Warner Avenue byon existing block wall. Furthermore, the truck loading area is depressed below grade and this depression also serves as e partial sound barrier. Environmental impact Sciences December2UU1 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page17 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California While this value would not exceed the City's General Plan exterior goal of a 65 dBA Ldn at noise sensitive land uses, as imposed for new commercial development, this level is above both the daytime Municipal Code standard for residential properties of 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and the nighttime standard of 50 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM applicable to residential land uses. In accordance with City policies, the residential noise standards for stationary noise sources (i.e., 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA during the night) are not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour. This value cannot be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any one-hour period but may be raised by five dBA if the cumulative period does not exceed 15 minutes in any hour and may be raised by ten dBA if the value does not exceed five minutes in any hour. During daytime periods (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM), if loading dock operations involving idling engines were to occur for more than thirty minutes during any single hour, the daytime standard of 55 dBA could be exceeded. Similarly, based on the predicted noise level (59 dBA at 250 feet), during peak late night loading activities, it is possible that a level of 55 dBA (50 dBA late night standard plus 5 dBA)could be exceeded at a limited number of local residential units for a cumulative period of 15 minutes during any single one-hour period if unregulated loading dock activities were conducted during the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Typical loading dock operations involve delivery trucks backing into the docking bay as quickly as possible and then turning off their engines. Although refrigeration units would not be assumed to be part of the delivery fleet, most refrigeration units are self contained and do not require engine idling for continued operation. The only scenario in which a daytime exceedance would be anticipated is if a single or multiple trucks were to remain idling for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any one hour. During late evening hours, the arrival of a single truck idling at or near the docking bay for a five- minute period would result in an exceedance of the City's Municipal Code standards for residential receptors. If conducted without limitations, loading dock operations could produce noise impacts above adopted City standards for a limited number of residential units located south of Warner Avenue and located both east (single-family residential) and west (multi-family residential) of Rotterdam Lane. Residential receptors to the to the east (along Minoru Lane) and to the north (along Lancaster Drive) of the project site are located approximately 600 feet from the loading dock and noise at these dwellings is predicted to be approximately 51 dBA. Actual noise at these receptors would be further reduced by virtue of the intervening Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and proposed 8-foot high screening wall (with regards to units to the north), and the restaurant and Ocean View School District Bus Maintenance Facility(with regards to units to the east). These features would reduce loading dock noise by an additional five dBA or more. The resultant loading dock noise as perceived by those sensitive receptors located to the east and north of the project would, therefore, be less than significant. Similarly, residential receptors located along "B" Street are in excess of 800 feet from the loading dock area and are effectively screened by the warehouse structure itself. Any noise from loading dock operations would be well under either the City's 55 dBA daytime and nighttime standards at these residential locations. r- Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 18 ' Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Another potential source of noise is from the use of back-up alarms associated with the use of trucks and forklifts that load and unload goods to and from waiting trucks. Noise associated with the use of back-up alarms was ascertained in a study prepared for a Home Depot project located in the City of Orange where actual forklift noise was monitored. This study noted a wide variation on ' the volume level produced by the use of back-up alarms, with values ranging from 64 to 73 dBA as measured at a distance of 40 feet from the source. Extrapolating these values to those residential receptor locations at a distance of 250 feet from.the loading docks, the projected noise at these locations is estimated at 48 to 57 dBA. The use of these back-up alarms would not measurably ' raise the noise produced from the operations of the trucks within the loading dock area. This is not to say that these alarms would not be audible to local residents, only that they would not add ' substantially to the noise produced by the delivery trucks. Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact ' Recommended Mitigation Measures: Based on the presence of potentially significant operational impacts at the loading dock area, the following two separate and distinct mitigation strategies have been identified. Under one approach, identified as the "off-site mitigation alternative"herein, an acoustical barrier would be erected off the project site. Under the second approach, identified as the "on-site reconfiguration mitigation alternative" herein, mitigation would involve the ' reconfiguration of the proposed site plan to provide a physical barrier between the noise source and the off-site receptors. ' The two mitigation options provide the City and the Applicant with separate strategies to reduce projected operational noise levels at sensitive off-site receptor locations south of the project site. The following two approaches are mutually ' exclusive such that the election to implement one approach would negate the need to implement the other strategy. ' N-5A: Off-Site Mitigation Alternative. The Applicant shall construct, reconstruct, or replace the existing walls at the residential units immediately south of Warner Avenue extending for a distance of 125 feet to the east of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane with an 8-foot high wall. At a distance of 125 feet, the wall shall step down to intercept the existing wall. The wall shall also curve southward at the intersection of Rotterdam Lane and Warner Avenue until it parallels Rotterdam Avenue. At this point it shall step down to intercept the existing wall. The wall shall be of masonry construction (e.g., concrete block) and shall be designed so as to match the existing wall(s). Similarly, an 8-foot high wall shall be constructed along the south side of Warner Avenue proceeding for a distance of 250 feet west of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane. This wall shall also curve southward at the intersection of Rotterdam Lane and Warner Avenue until it parallels Rotterdam Avenue stepping down smoothly to grade level. if this wall is infeasible due to dwelling access and/or aesthetics, the City/Applicant may elect to provide sound rated windows for these residents. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 19 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California As an added benefit, this measure would reduce vehicle noise from traffic along Warner Avenue for those residents receiving the walls) or sound rated windows and the daily Ldn noise level would be reduced from current ambient levels. Modeling indicates that the noted wall(s) would provide in excess of 6 dBA of attenuation reducing noise levels to approximately 52 dBA at the nearest residents across Warner Avenue. Therefore, loading operations during the night could still exceed the City's nighttime noise standard. As such, loading and/or unloading operations shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. These operations are to be inclusive of all outside forklift activities as well as truck deliveries and no trucks shall be allowed access to the site outside of these hours. Furthermore, to avoid trucks idling along the curbside at the facility while waiting to unload, the City shall not allow on- street truck parking outside of these hours. If upon project operations the Applicant can prove conclusively to the City that nighttime loading operations do not exceed noise ordinance levels, the City may elect to extend the operations so as to allow deliveries between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. N-513: On-Site Reconfiguration Mitigation Alternative. The site shall be reconfigured to move the truck well further from Warner Avenue. Based on a projected noise levels, truck noise would be reduced to the City's 55 dBA daytime standard at a distance of 400 feet from the residents, thus allowing for night operations if they were restricted to no more than 30 minutes in any hour. This 400-foot distance could be attained if the trucks loading area were moved to the area near the proposed"Appliance/Electronic Storage," at a distance of approximately 275 feet north of the property line along Warner Avenue. As an added benefit, the storage area could be moved closer to Warner Avenue and the physical presence of this structure would serve as an effective sound wall. If the structure obscured a view of the loading area, it could attain the 50 dBA nighttime standard allowing for unrestricted operation. Level of Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. r Customer Loading Area Site plans call for a customer loading area to be placed at the northwest corner of the main structure, at a distance of about 140 feet from residents located to the north of the existing Ocean View Flood Control Channel and over 500 feet from residents located on the west side of B Street. Customers would pick up materials in automobiles, pick-up trucks, vans, and medium trucks. Customers would not be expected to use large semi-trucks, as discussed in the loading dock operations. Any such trucks operated by customers would be directed to the rear loading bays. r Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 20 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse ' Huntington Beach, California Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with customer loading activities are presented in ' Table 6 (Maximum Leq Noise Levels Generated by Customer Loading Activities). As indicated therein, a range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. The noise levels presented in Table 6 are for a distance of 50 feet from the ' source and reflect the maximum levels generated before the imposition of any mitigation measures. Table 6 1 MAXIMUM Leq NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY CUSTOMER LOADING ACTIVITIES (at 50 feet) ;xa`sa 1. ,ci': E°, _'.`4` .ate _ ;<:�:::_.r::;.:;.g-. ',H�.'S;';:_- W, E.r - P;:x- - w _ i Au - �eysv-;a Ev nt e Nose Le�+e` :_: Door Slam 60 to 70 dBA ' Engine Start-up 60 to 70 dBA Car Pass-by 55 to 70 dBA ' Source: Environmental Impact Sciences At a distance of 140 feet, which roughly corresponds to the minimum distance from any of these ' activities to the nearest residential units to the north, customer pick-up activity noise levels would be approximately 9 dBA less than the levels presented in the table. At that distance, the maximum projected noise levels from these activities would be less than 61 dBA. The proposed 8-foot high screening wall to be located along the northern perimeter extending both east and west from the main structure would further attenuate this noise. Modeling indicates that this wall would produce an additional 11 dBA of reduction and the resultant noise at those dwellings located north of the ' flood channel could be on the order of 50 dBA. The actual noise at the dwellings would be further reduced as these homes also include existing rear-yard masonry block walls. The resultant operational noise value is within both the daytime and nighttime standards and does not present a significant impact on the homes located to the north of the channel. ' With respect to the residents located across "B" Street, customer pick-up activities could be reduced by 20 dBA from the values included in Table 6 (Maximum Leq Noise Levels Generated by ' Customer Loading Activities). The maximum noise levels at that location could, therefore, be as high as 50 dBA. The actual noise level would, however, be further reduced since other vehicles parked in the lot would break the line-of-sight between the vehicle being loaded and those receptors and would serve as an effective noise barrier. The resultant noise would not exceed either the daytime or nighttime standard and the impact is less than significant. ' Level of Significance before Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact Recommended Mitigation Measures: None Required or Recommended. ' Staging Area Activities ' The project would include a staging area located in the northeast portion of the project site. This area would receive lumber and other materials via heavy trucks. The area is located approximately 140 feet from the dwellings located to the north of the Ocean View Channel. Assuming that a truck Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 ' Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 21 r-, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California produces a noise level of 73 dBA, measured at a distance of 50 feet, in the absence of any walls or obstructions (such as any residential walls), noise at those receptor locations could be on the order of 64 dBA based solely on atmospheric attenuation. The area would also use forklifts for the movement of material. Forklift operations are estimated at a level of 64 to 73 dBA, as measured at a distance of 40 feet from the source. Extrapolating these values to those residential receptor locations at a distance of 140 feet from the staging area,the projected forklift noise at the receptors to the north is estimated at 53 to 62 dBA. Trucks delivering lumber would proceed along the east side of the facility to the staging area. These trucks would then back into the staging area and be unloaded. The proposed site plan includes an 8-foot high screening wall to be located along the northern perimeter of the property, extending both east and west of the main structure. The wall is to extend for a distance of approximately 60 feet to the east of the staging area and would attenuate both truck unloading and staging area noise. Modeling indicates that this wall provides in excess of 11 dBA of attenuation for forklifts and 5 dBA for heavy trucks. The difference lies in the height at which the noise is produced. The FHWA notes that heavy trucks produce noise at an average height of 8 feet. The forklifts, being much shorter, are modeled at an acoustic height of 3 feet. The residents are modeled at a height of 5 feet above ground. As a result,the resultant noise for a ground-floor receptor is estimated at approximately 59 dBA for trucks and 42 to 51 dBA for forklift activity. The actual noise at the dwellings would be further reduced as these homes also include existing rear-yard masonry block walls. Based on the relatively short-time period during which forklifts would be operated, this noise source would not be predicted to elevate the Ldn to the General Plan's criterion of 65 dBA nor exceed the Municipal Code's daytime standard of 55 dBA and, when considering the existing residential walls, the 50 dBA nighttime standard. However, at 59 dBA, trucks do have the potential to exceed the restrictions under the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code sets a daytime limitation of 55 dBA which is not to be violated by 5 dBA or more for a period of 30 minutes in any hour. If a truck were to idle at the facility for more than 30 minutes in any hour period, the impact would be significant. If these operations were to occur at night, the allowable duration would be reduced accordingly and a truck could only idle for 15 minutes in any hour to remain within the City's noise limitations. Another potential source of noise may occur as these trucks maneuver into the staging area. A portion of the area in which the trucks maneuver (i.e., hammer-head turnaround) is also used to access the Ocean View School District(OVSD) bus facility and is located on OVSD property. This area is not currently proposed to receive the screen wall and the residences immediately north of this area could be subject to noise levels up to the noted 64 dBA. The actual noise could, however, be less as the existing residential wall located on the north side of the channel serves as a sound barrier. The daytime standard could be violated if trucks remained in this "unshielded area"for a period of 15 minutes in any hour. Nighttime operations would reduce this value to 5 minutes in any hour in order to conform to City standards. Because this area is only used for the turning and backing of trucks, their duration in this "unshielded area"would be extremely short; however, the potential for this noise impact exists should trucking operations exceed these time periods. r Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 22 r Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse ' Huntington Beach, California Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact ' Recommended Mitigation Measures: Based on the presence of potentially significant operational impacts at the staging area, the following mitigation measure has been identified and should be adopted as a condition of project approval should the project site not be reconfigured in the manner outlined in Mitigation Measure N- 5B (On-Site Reconfiguration Mitigation Alternative). If Mitigation Measure 5B is adopted, the trucks would be located at a distance of approximately 400 feet from the nearest receptors and, in combination with the proposed 8-foot sound wall, would reduce potential operational impacts from staging area activities to below a ' level of significance. N-6: Increased Wall Height and Length Mitigation Alternative. In lieu of the 8-foot wall now proposed by the Applicant, modeling indicates that a 13-foot wall would provide in excess of 9 dBA of attenuation reducing noise at the nearest residences to less than 55 dBA meeting the City's daytime standard. ' Since the nighttime standard would be exceeded if operations continued for more than 30 minutes in any hour, an operational restriction would be required to limit staging area operations between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to ' not more than 30 minutes in any one-hour period. If the Applicant does propose extended night deliveries or should operational restrictions be deemed infeasible, an 18-foot high wall could reduce noise to less than 50 dBA. ' In addition to increasing the walls height, in order to provide acoustical attenuation for vehicles utilizing the hammer-head turn-around on OVSD property, the screening wall would need to be extended from its proposed eastern terminus to a point not less than the access gate located at the northwest corner of the OVSD maintenance facility. This may require that ' the Applicant coordinate with OVSD representatives to ensure that those improvements are acceptable to the district. ' Level of Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. Trash Compactor ' The proposed trash compactor, to be located adjacent to the truck well, constitutes another potential noise source. Noise from the compaction of trash would not be expected to exceed that ' produced by truck operations and is of such limited duration that it would not exceed authorized Municipal Code levels allowing the exterior noise standards to be exceeded by as much as 10 dBA for a period of five minutes and by as much as 15 dBA for a period of one minute in any hour. ' Level of Significance before Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact ' Recommended Mitigation Measures: None Required or Recommended. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 ' Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 23 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Other related projects potentially producing cumulative impacts located within the general project area include Huntington Crossing (consisting of retail, restaurants, and theaters), a Wal-Mart at the former Crest View School, and a proposed commercial center to be located along the north side of Warner, between Beach Boulevard and "B" Street. In addition to these land uses, the cumulative analysis assumes an area-wide growth rate to reflect future development-and redevelopment activities likely to occur in the general project area as well as to address the potential impacts of future projects not specifically identified by the City. All build-out traffic volumes are as presented in the traffic analysis and ADT volumes were determined from intersection movements using the methodology discussed for existing conditions and project-related impacts. The related projects are either of a commercial nature and not typically associated with exterior noise or are located sufficient distance from the subject property that on-site noise produced by those related projects would not be assumed to be additive to project-related noise. The traffic from these projects and ambient growth, however,would utilize the same roadways and would be additive to the project's off-site mobile sources. Table 7 (Build-Out-plus-Project Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area) examines local traffic volumes and noise levels and compares these values to existing levels. As with the assessment of project-related impacts, an increase of five dBA Ldn is used as the basis for a finding of cumulative significance. The analysis indicates noise increases of as much as one dBA Ldn both with and without the proposed project. Table 7 BUILD-OUT-PLUS-PROJECT TRAFFIC AND RESULTANT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA -= -^`' =- -- �:«+`-:�•T=;t rF- a-r'S.�'= -r''p r-E '...?�i-a .m,3pT;-.` '` vbE 5 ,t r'bP� a 4�t7.,3• t;_ °s ;„ - ,: -`3_y ti�Cl "ye"�r �" i +:vt--=""i,...•.-.,Lt:f�s:.g:ax.:..vrµ��..-^.�-x.-' ci"=-i�"5','ii:°' sef'� : 3 3t` ':._n,... ,,:LvyY=`... 6. �< 2s2'�.x,-5-N:�l i" 4 tt�am7:A:,,.^�'rtl' rt - _t,..,w.4�.,3tr._.-:....�'�it'`S�''..__h.3'.�:€ =`s`Yi'aF''.�� '.c-::=.S,K!';`.�_�:.�r_,:�.,.. `�..75in'e.':i.{� .�•. .:-let;: Warner Avenue r- West of Golden West Street 73 33,300 73 33,999 73 Golden West—Gothard Street 73 32,090 73 33,146 73 Gothard Street—Beach Blvd. 73 33,150 73 34,705 73 Beach Blvd.—Rotterdam Lane 73 34,895 73 39,287 74 Rotterdam Ln.—Newland Street 73 34,895 73 37,792 74 Newland Ave.—Magnolia Street 73 36,855 74 38,425 74 East of Magnolia Street 73 38,540 74 38,825 1 74 Beach Boulevard South of Warner Avenue 76 66,650 76 67,891 76 Warner Avenue—Heil Avenue 76 69,570 77 7L,054_LL 77 North of Heil Avenue 76 69,690 77 70,931 77 Source: Environmental Impact Sciences r Because cumulative-plus-project noise levels do not exceed the 5 dBA criterion, no cumulative impacts are projected to occur as a result of the project's implementation. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 24 ' Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Level of Significance before Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Recommended Mitigation Measures: None Required or Recommended. 9.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES In response to the identified acoustical impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended for adoption as conditions of approval. All mitigation measures will be verified and enforced by the City during routine City inspection, included as conditions on the project's grading plan, and/or implemented and verified by the City prior to the commencement of construction. 9.1 Project Construction As indicated above, Section 8.40.090 (Special Provisions)of the Municipal Code states that noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are exempt from the City mandated noise criteria provided a permit has been obtained from the City and said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. While construction activities are restricted in time by the noise ordinance, they can constitute a nuisance which can be disruptive to near-site receptors. Although exempt from the City's noise ordinance, the resulting impact has nonetheless been identified and compared to those threshold of significance standards identified herein. Based on that analysis, the following mitigation measures would serve to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible. N-1: In accordance with Section 8.40.090 (Special Provisions) of the Municipal Ordinance, construction shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. N-2: During all project site preparation, grading, and construction, the project contractor{s)shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. N-3: The project contractor(s) shall place all stationary construction equipment as far as feasible from near-site residential receptors and situated so that emitted noise is directed away from those sensitive receptors located to the south and east of the project site. N-4: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging areas in the central portion of the site to create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and sensitive receptors during all project site preparation, grading, and construction activities. 9.2 Project Operations Trucks maneuvering in the staging area and loading dock activities have the potential to exceed the City's stationary source noise ordinance at those homes located immediately north of the Ocean View Channel and directly across Warner Avenue directly to the south of the project site, respectively. Mitigation is, therefore, deemed to be warranted to ensure that any potential impacts Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 25 Lowe's P Horne Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California from these activities are reduced to a less-than-significant level. While time restrictions on the duration of truck idling and delivery activities could effectively reduce any potential impacts to a ' less-than-significant level,the City has determined that such restrictions may be difficult to enforce and has requested that the project design Include features to ensure that any potential noise impacts remain at less-than-significant levels. 9.2.1 Loading Dock Operations Modeling indicates that an 8-foot high screening wall would provide over 5 dBA of attenuation. This would then reduce noise at the nearest residents to less than 55 dBA and would reduce the impact to less than significant, provided that no deliveries were made between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7.00 AM. Night deliveries would be significant only if the trucks idled for a period in excess of 30 minutes in any hour. If extended night delivers are intended,the wall would have to be increased to 16 feet to meet the 50 dBA standard. These values are based on the most proximate receptors and assume that these dwelling have no existing walls. Actual noise levels at the receptors would be less than presented herein since sound walls exist along the rear property lines of those existing residential receptors. In either case, the sound wall should be placed at the property line along Warner Avenue so as to shield the line-of-site between the noise source and the receptor. In order to reduce noise levels to those levels in compliance with City standards, commencing at the extension of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane onto the project site, the sound wall should extend for a distance of 250 feet west of the centerline to 125 feet east of the centerline. N-5A: Off-Site Mitigation Alternative. The Applicant shall construct, reconstruct, or replace the existing walls at the residential units immediately south of Warner Avenue extending for a distance of 125 feet to the east of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane with an 8-foot high wall. At a distance of 125 feet, the wall shall step down to intercept the existing wall. The wall shall also curve southward at the intersection of Rotterdam Lane and Warner Avenue until it parallels Rotterdam Avenue. At this point it shall step down to intercept the existing wall. The wall shall be of masonry construction (e.g., concrete block) and shall be designed so as to match the existing wall(s). Similarly, an 8-foot high wall shall be constructed along the south side of Warner Avenue proceeding for a distance of 250 feet west of the centerline of Rotterdam Lane. This wall shall also curve southward at the intersection of Rotterdam Lane and Warner Avenue until it parallels Rotterdam Avenue stepping down smoothly to grade level. If this wall is infeasible due to dwelling access and/or aesthetics, the City/Applicant may elect to provide sound rated windows for these residents. As an added benefit, this measure would reduce vehicle noise from traffic along Warner Avenue for those residents receiving the wall(s) or sound rated windows and the daily Ldn noise level would be reduced from current ambient levels. Modeling indicates that the noted wall(s)would provide in excess of 5 dBA of attenuation reducing noise levels to approximately 52 dBA at the nearest residents across Warner Avenue. Therefore, loading operations during the night could still exceed the City's nighttime noise standard. As such, loading and/or unloading operations shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. These operations are to be inclusive of all Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 26 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California outside forklift activities as well as truck deliveries and no trucks shall be allowed access to the site outside of these hours. Furthermore,to avoid trucks idling along the curbside at the facility while waiting to unload, the City shall not allow on-street truck parking outside of these hours If upon project operations the Applicant can prove conclusively to the City that nighttime loading operations do not exceed noise ordinance levels, the City may elect to extend the operations so as to allow deliveries between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. As an alternative to an off-site sound wall, the site could be reconfigured to move the truck well further from Warner Avenue. Based on a projected noise levels, truck noise would be reduced to the City's 55 dBA daytime standard at a distance of 400 feet from the residents. This would also allow for night operations if they were restricted to no more than 30 minutes in any hour. This 400- foot distance could be attained if the trucks loading area were moved to the area near the proposed for"Appliance/Electronic Storage,"at a distance of approximately 275 feet north of the property line along Warner Avenue. This would allow for the retention of the Rotterdam Lane entrance/exit. As an added benefit, the storage area could be moved closer to Warner Avenue, and the physical presence of this structure would serve as an effective sound wall. If the structure obscured a view of the loading area, it could also attain the 50 dBA nighttime standard allowing for unrestricted operation. N-56: On-Site Reconfiguration Mitigation Alternative. The site shall be reconfigured to move the truck well further from Warner Avenue. Based on a projected noise levels, truck noise would be reduced to the City's 55 dBA daytime standard at a distance of 400 feet from the residents, thus allowing for night operations if they were restricted to no more than 30 minutes in any hour. This 400-foot distance could be attained if the trucks loading area were moved to the area near the proposed "Appliance/Electronic Storage," at a distance of approximately 275 feet north of the property line along Warner Avenue. As an added benefit, the storage area could be moved closer to Warner Avenue and the physical presence of this structure would serve as an effective sound wall. If the structure obscured a view of the loading area, it could attain the 50 dBA nighttime standard allowing for unrestricted operation. 9.2.2 Staging Area Operations The analysis indicates that, with the proposed 8-foot screening wall, trucks operating in the staging area could produce a noise level of 59 dBA at the nearest homes to the north. If produced for a period in excess of 30 minutes in any hour this value could exceed the City's daytime standard. The nighttime standard would be exceeded if this value were exceeded for a period of 15 minutes In any hour Furthermore, trucks will likely maneuver in the area used to access the OVSD where 1 no screening wall is proposed. N-6: Increased Wall Height and Length Mitigation Alternative. In lieu of the 8-foot wall now proposed by the Applicant, modeling indicates that a 13-foot wall would provide in excess of 9 dBA of attenuation reducing noise at the nearest residences to less than 55 dBA meeting the City's daytime standard. Since the nighttime standard would be exceeded if operations Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 ' Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 27 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California continued for more than 30 minutes in any hour, an operational restriction would be required to limit staging area operations between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to not more than ^ 30 minutes in any one-hour period. If the Applicant does propose extended night deliveries or should operational restrictions be deemed infeasible, an 18-foot high wall could reduce noise to less than 50 dBA. In addition to increasing the walls height, in order to provide acoustical attenuation for vehicles utilizing the hammer-head turn-around on OVSD property, the screening wall would need to be extended from its proposed eastern terminus to a point not less than the access gate located at the northwest corner of the OVSD maintenance facility. This may require that the Applicant coordinate with OVSD representatives to ensure that those improvements are acceptable to the district. The reconfiguration noted under Mitigation Measure N-513 (On-Site Reconfiguration Mitigation Alternative) for noise impacts for residents along Warner Avenue could also be used for staging area deliveries. This location would move the trucks to a distance of approximately 400 feet from the nearest receptors. Projected noise, in the absence of any additional walls,would be less than r, the 55 dBA standard allowing for unrestricted daytime operations. Night operations would need to be restricted to no more than 30 minutes in any one-hour period. However, modeling indicates that the proposed 8-foot screening wall would provide in excess of 5 dBA of additional attenuation. With the wall's inclusion, noise levels are not projected to exceed 50 dBA at the receptors to the north allowing for continuous operations. 10.0 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION All construction-related and operational noise impacts can be effectively mitigated to below a level of significance through the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures identified herein. 11.0 REFERENCES ■ City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach General Plan, 1992. ■ City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Noise Ordinance, December 1993. ■ County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Land Use/Noise Compatibility Manual, Amendment 93-1: December 14, 1993. ■ Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO Version). r-, ■ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, March 1985. Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Page 28 i Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California ■ State of California, 1997 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, December 1998. ■ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971. j WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Lowe's Home Improvement Project, Huntington Beach, November 2000. i i i i Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 iRevised Acoustical Analysis Page 29 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Appendix A NOISE MODELING FOR FIELD MEASUREMENT NR-3 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Microcomputer version of FHWA noise model (Using Calveno emissions formulas) INPUT FILE 1. Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric ? E 2. Input number of elements this run ? 1 3. Input number of traffic lanes/element ? 2 4. Input first element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) ? NR3 WESTBOUND 5. Roadway angle, left ? -90 6. Roadway angle, right ? 90 7. Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? 0.5 8. Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value) ? 0 9. (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N 10. volumes: Autos ? 1112 Medium trucks ? 8 Heavy trucks ? 12 11. Speed (all vehicles) ? 40 ' 12. Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 61.5 13. Grade, correction: 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA Input ? 0 Calveno emissions ' Lane #/Road segment NR3 WESTBOUND Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Trunk --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 1112 8 12 Speed (MPH) 40 40 40 Dist. to ctr. of near lane 61.5 61.5 61.5 Site/Barrier Type Soft Soft Soft Roadway Angle, (Left) -90.0 -90.0 -90.0 Roadway Angle, (Right) +90.0 +90.0 +90.0 Ref. energy emiss. level (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.1 Traffic flow adj. (dBA) 24.1 2.7 4.5 Distance adj. (dBA) -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 Ground effect adj. (dBA) -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 Barrier fresnel # 0 0 0 Barrier attenuation (dBA) 0 0 0 Shielding + Grade Adj. (dBA) 0 0 0 -------- Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 63.9 51.4 58 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 65 Leq(E Lanes/element) 65 Input same element # and next lane # description (30 char. max. ) ?NR3 EASTBOUND 9. (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N 10. Volumes: r Autos ? 1132 Medium trucks ? 36 Heavy trucks ? 24 11. Speed (all vehicles) ? 40 12. Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 106.5 13. Grade correction: 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA r 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA 7+ % = +5 dBA Input ? 0 Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment NR3 EASTBOUND ----------------------------- Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 1132 36 24 Speed (MPH) 40 40 40 Dist. to ctr. of near lane 106.5 106.5 106.5 Site/Barrier Type Soft Soft Soft Roadway Angle, (Left) -90.0 -90.0 -90.0 Roadway Angle, (Right) +90.0 +90.0 +90.0 Ref. energy emiss. level (dBA) 67.4 76.3 81.1 Traffic flow adj. (dBA) 24.2 9.2 7.5 Distance adj. (dBA) -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 Ground effect adj. (dBA) -1.2 -1.2 -1. 2 Barrier fresnel # 0 0 0 Barrier attenuation (dBA) 0 0 0 Shielding + Grade Adj. (dBA) 0 0 0 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 60.4 54.3 57.4 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 63 Leq(E Lanes/element) 67 Leq(E elements) 67 r- r- r-- 1 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California 1 t t 1 1 1 Appendix B NOISE MODELING FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC 1 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER W/O GOLDEN WEST EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 30290 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2394 .9656 Medium? 47 .0189 Heavy? 38 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER W/O GOLDENWESTEXTFOR600am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck - - - -- -- Volume(VPH) 2394 47 38 ------------------------------ ' Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70 61.2 64.8 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA 1 Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-, MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N - Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 29510 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2332 .9656 Medium? 46 .0189 Heavy? 37 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA r-, ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT r i Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2332 46 37 ------------------------------ r Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 69.9 61.1 64.7 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 71 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 81 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 81 r` Leq(E Lanes/element) 81 Leq(E elements) 81 CNEL = 73 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA r ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r r- 1 MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 ' Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 ' Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 29105 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2300 .9656 Medium? 45 .0189 Heavy? 37 .0155 l Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am ' Vehicle Class --Auto--- Med Truck Hvy Truck Volume(VPH) 2300 45 37 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 69.9 61 64.7 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 71 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 81 ' Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 81 Leq(E Lanes/element) 81 Leq(E elements) 81 CNEL = 73 dBA 1 Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 34285 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2709 .9656 Medium? 53 .0189 Heavy? 43 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM EXT FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck r --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2709 53 43 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.6 61.7 65.3 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA r- ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU i r r r MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) ' WARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 29015 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2292 .9656 Medium? 45 .0189 Heavy? 37 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2292 45 37 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 69.8 61 64.7 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 71 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 81 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 81 Leq(E Lanes/element) 81 Leq(E elements) 81 CNEL = 73 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r MODEL INFORMATION r Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND EXT_ Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N r Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 33360 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2636 .9656 Medium? 52 .0189 Heavy? 42 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2636 52 42 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.4 61.6 65.2 r- Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r r- r r ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 29980 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2369 .9656 Medium? 46 .0189 Heavy? 38 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am ' Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2369 46 38 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70 61.1 64.8 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA ' Ldn = 73 dBA a ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION - Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH S/O WARNER EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 65330 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5111 .956 Medium? 167 .0312 Heavy? 68 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ It = +5 dBA r-, ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH S/O WARNER EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5111 167 68 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.3 66.7 67.3 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 76 dBA I r- ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH WARNER-HEIL EXT Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance o ' volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 67705 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5297 .956 Medium? 173 .0312 Heavy? 71 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT ' Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH WARNER-HEIL EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 5297 173 71 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.5 66.9 67.5 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 76 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH N/O HEIL EXT r- Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 68590 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5366 .956 Medium? 175 .0312 Heavy? 72 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH N/O HEIL EXT FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck ------ --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5366 175 72 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.5 66.9 67.6 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 76 dBA r- ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-- Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California Appendix C NOISE MODELING FOR 1 EXISTING-PLUS-PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 ' Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) ' WARNER W/O GOLDEN WEST W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 30989 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2449 .9656 Medium? 48 .0189 Heavy? 39 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT 1 Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER W/O GOLDEN WEST W/P FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam ' Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2449 48 39 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.1 61. 3 64.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 ' Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD W/P r Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 30566 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2415 .9656 Medium? 47 .0189 Heavy? 39 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ $ _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT r Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD W/P FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2415 47 39 ------------------------------ e Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.1 61.2 64.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 r Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r r-- MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 30660 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2423 .9656 Medium? 47 .0189 Heavy? 39 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH W/P FOR 6:00am - 7:00am ' Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2423 47 39 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.1 61.2 64.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA ' Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION w Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 38677 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 3056 .9656 Medium? 60 .0189 Heavy? 49 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 0 = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM W/P FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 3056 60 49 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 71.1 62.3 65.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 73 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Leq(E Lanes/element) 83 Leq(E elements) 83 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-1 r , ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND W/P` Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 ' Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 36257 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2865 .9656 Medium? 56 .0189 Heavy? 46 " .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % - +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT ' Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND W/P FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2865 56 46 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.8 62 65.6 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 ' Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-, MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 30585 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2417 .9656 Medium? 47 .0189 Heavy? 39 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 -, Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA q-, ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT `- Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA W/P FOR 6:OOam - 7:O0am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2417 47 39 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.1 61.2 64.9 r Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-, ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 ' Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max.) WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 ' Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 30265 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2392 .9656 Medium? 47 .0189 Heavy? 38 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT ' Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA W/P FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2392 47 38 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70 61.2 64.8 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 73 dBA ' Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU 1 MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH S/O WARNER W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 66571 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5208 .956 Medium? 170 .0312 Heavy? 70 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH S/O WARNER W/P FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5208 170 70 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.4 66.8 67.4 r Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 76 dBA r-, ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-, ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) ' BEACH WARNER-HEIL W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 ' Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 69189 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5413 .956 Medium? 177 .0312 Heavy? 72 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 0 = +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 0 = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT ' Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH WARNER-HEIL W/P FOR 6:OOam - 7:00am Vehicle Class --Auto--- Med Truck Hvy Truck Volume(VPH) 5413 177 72 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.6 67 67.6 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 ' Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA ' Ldn = 77 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ ' Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH N/O HEIL W/P Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 69831 p Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5464 .956 Medium? 178 .0312 Heavy? 73 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 a = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH N/O HEIL W/P FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck - --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5464 178 73 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.6 67 67.6 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 77 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA,with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The program was adapted from the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model ' e = 0 Barrier Parameter,O for Wall,1 for Berm f = 550 Frequency of Sound Emitted(use 550 for Traffic) ' Hs = 3 Height of Noise Source,in Feet Hr = 5 Height of Receptor,in Feet Hb = 6 Height of Barrier,in Feet Ds = 120 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr = 20 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA = 1 Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Dr Hsm = Hs 3 2808 Hrm 3.08 Hr Hbm 3.2808 Hb Dsm 3.2808 DS Drm 3.2808 ' Ps =JDSMI+ (Hbm- Hstn)2 Pr = Drm2+ (Hbm- Hrm)2 ' Dtt = (Hsm- Hrm)Z+ (Dsm+ Drm)2 Dt =jDt ' 8o = (Ps+Pr) - (Dt) So No = 2 f 343 ' Ni =No-cos(TFIETA-deg) Ni =0.0471 8o=0.0147 (path difference in meters) No=0.0471 If NP<=-0 1916 for a wall or<=-0 2551 for a Berm,then F=0 If(-0 1916<Ni<=O for a Wall or-0.2551 <N1 <=O for a Berm,then use F1 If(0<=Ni<=5 03,then use F2 If Ni>=5.03,then use F3 F1 = 5 (1 + .6 e) + 20 log (2-n)•1NoI•cos(THETA-deg) tan (2 ac) I No I cos(THETA-deg)1 ' - F1 =4 0785 F2 = 5-(1 + .6 e) + 20 log (2 �) No cos(THETA deg) ' tanh[ (2 1) No s(THETA deg)] ' F2 =58022 F3 = 20•(I + .I5e) F3 =20 r, This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA,with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barner. The program was adapted from the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Mosel r-� e = 0 Barrier Parameter,0 for Wall,1 for Berm f = 550 Frequency of Sound Emitted(use 550 for Traffic) r-� Hs = 3 Height of Norse Source,in Feet Hr = 5 Height of Receptor,in Feet Hb = 6 Height of Barrier,in Feet r--i Ds = 20 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr = 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA = 1 Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier T Hs Hr Hb Ds Dr Hsm = Him = Hbm = Dsm = Drm = 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 r, Ps = Dsmz+ (Hbm- Hsm)z Pr = Danz+(Hbm- Hrm)z r-, Dti -_ (Hsm- Hrm)z+ (Dsm+DrTn)2 r-� Dt = jDti 5o = (Ps+ Pr) - (Dt) 60 No = 2 f 343 Ni =No-cos(THETA deg) — Ni =0.2088 6o=0.0651 (path difference in meters) No=0.2088 if Ni--=-0.1916 for a wall or- -0.2551 for a Berm,then F=O If(-0.1916<Ni<=O for a Wall or-0.2551 <N1 <=0 for a Berm,then use F1 If(O<=Ni<=5 03,then use F2 If Ni>=5.03,then use F3 r F1 = 5•(] + .6.0 + 20-log (2-7c)-(Nol-cos(THETA-deg) tan[ (2-x)-jNoj cos(THETA-deg)] r r1 F 1 =-0.6973 F2 = 5-(1 + .6•e)+ 20•1o9 (2 x)-No cos(THETA deg) tanh{.(2-x) No-cos(THETA-deg)] r F2 =7.9428 F3 = 20 (1 + .15e) F3 =20 r, r� 1 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse ' Huntington Beach, California i a 1 1 1 1 Appendix D 1 NOISE MODELING FOR 1 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 1 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER W/O GOLDEN WEST CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 ' Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 ' Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 33300 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2631 .9656 Medium? 52 .0189 Heavy? 42 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA ' 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER W/O GOLDEN WEST CNP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class --Auto- Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2631 52 42 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.4 61.6 65.2 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r- MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 32090 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2536 .9656 Medium? 50 .0189 Heavy? 41 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD CNP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2536 50 41 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.3 61.5 65.1 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA r- ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r- r-- MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 ' Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 33150 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2620 .9656 Medium? 51 .0189 Heavy? 42 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION iEsc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH CNP FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2620 51 42 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.4 61.6 65.2 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 34895 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2758 .9656 Medium? 54 .0189 Heavy? 44 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 w Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 $ _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM CNP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2758 54 44 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.6 61.8 65.4 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA r-- ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r- r- MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND CNP` Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 ' Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 34895 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2758 .9656 Medium? 54 .0189 Heavy? 44 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 1 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND CNP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 2758 54 44 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.6 61.8 65.4 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA 1 Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 36855 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2912 .9656 Medium? 57 .0189 Heavy? 47 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % = +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA CNP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 2912 57 47 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.9 62 65.7 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 74 dBA r-, ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-- r- ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 ' Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 38540 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 3046 .9656 Medium? 60 .0189 Heavy? 49 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA ' 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA CNP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 3046 60 49 ------------------------------ ' Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 71.1 62.3 65.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 73 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 ' Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Leq(E Lanes/element) 83 Leq(E elements) 83 CNEL = 74 dBA 1 Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH S/O WARNER CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 66650 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5214 .956 Medium? 170 .0312 Heavy? 70 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 r Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 0 = +2 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH S/O WARNER CNP FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5214 170 70 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.4 66.8 67.4 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 76 dBA Ir ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r- ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH WARNER-HEIL CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 ' Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 69570 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5443 .956 Medium? 178 .0312 Heavy? 73 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA ' 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH WARNER-HEILCNPFOR 6 -OOam m- 7:OOa Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck - -- - Volume(VPH) 5443 178 73 ' --- ------ -------- --- Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.6 67 67.6 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 1 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 77 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH N/O HEIL CNP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 69690 r, Morning Rush? .2455 _ Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5452 .956 Medium? 178 .0312 Heavy? 73 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 - Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 0 = +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 0 = +2 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA n ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH N/O HEIL CNP FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck r --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5452 178 73 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.6 67 67.6 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 77 dBA i ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r r-- r 1 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse ' Huntington Beach, California 1 1 1 1 i 1 Appendix E 1 NOISE MODELING FOR 1 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 ' Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 ' Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER W/O GOLDEN WEST CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: ' Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 33999 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2686 .9656 Medium? 53 .0189 Heavy? 43 .0155 ' Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER W/O GOLDENWESTCWPFOR6OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck - - - -- -- Volume(VPH) 2686 53 43 ' ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.5 61.7 65.3 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 1 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA i ' ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) - WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 r (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 33146 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2619 .9656 Medium? 51 .0189 Heavy? 42 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOLDEN WEST-GOTHARD CWP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck Volume(VPH) 2619 51 42 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.4 61.6 65.2 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU r-- ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 ' Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 34705 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2742 .9656 Medium? 54 .0189 Heavy? 44 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT ' Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER GOTHARD-BEACH CWP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class --Auto--- Med-Truck Hvy-Truck Volume(VPH) 2742 54 44 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 70.6 61.8 65.4 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 72 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 82 ' Leq(E Lanes/element) 82 Leq(E elements) 82 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 73 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ ' Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 39287 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 3104 .9656 Medium? 61 .0189 Heavy? 50 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER BEACH-ROTTERDAM CWP FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 3104 61 50 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 71.2 62.3 66 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 73 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Leq(E Lanes/element) 83 Leq(E elements) 83 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU Esc -> MENU ' MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 ' Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLAND CWP_ Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 ' Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: ' Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 37792 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 2987 .9656 Medium? 58 .0189 Heavy? 48 .0155 ' Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER ROTTERDAM-NEWLANDCWP FOR - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck - - - Volume(VPH) 2987 58 48 ' ---------------_---------_---- Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 71 62.1 65.8 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 73 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Leq(E Lanes/element) 83 Leq(E elements) 83 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nalish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 38425 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 3036 .9656 Medium? 59 .0189 Heavy? 49 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 0 = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % _ +2 dBA 7+ o = +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segmentWARNER NEWLAND-MAGNOLIA CWP FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 3036 59 49 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 71.1 62.2 65.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 73 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Leq(E Lanes/element) 83 Leq(E elements) 83 CNEL = 74 dBA Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 ' Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 38825 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 3068 .9656 Medium? 60 .0189 Heavy? 49 .0155 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 ' Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 _ +3 dBA ' 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment WARNER E/O MAGNOLIA CWP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck -- --- - - Volume(VPH) 3068 60 49 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 71.1 62.3 65.9 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 73 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 83 Leq(E Lanes/element) 83 Leq(E elements) 83 CNEL = 74 dBA 1 Ldn = 74 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH S/O WARNER CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic : 67891 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5312 .956 Medium? 173 .0312 Heavy? 71 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH S/O WARNER CWP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5312 173 71 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.5 66.9 67.5 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 76 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH WARNER-HEIL CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance 0 Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 71054 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5559 .956 Medium? 181 .0312 Heavy? 74 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % = +0 dBA 5 - 6 % _ +3 dBA 3 - 4 % = +2 dBA 7+ % _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ' Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT ' Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH WARNER-HEIL CWP FOR 6:00am - 7:00am Vehicle Class --Auto-- Med Truck Hvy Truck Volume(VPH) 5559 181 74 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.7 67.1 67.7 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 77 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ ' Esc -> MENU MODEL INFORMATION Input units = (E)nglish or (M)etric? E Input number of elements this run? 1 Input number of traffic lanes/element? 1 Input element # and lane # description (30 char. max. ) BEACH N/O HEIL CWP Roadway angle, left? -90 Roadway angle, right? 90 Dropoff rate hard site=0 soft site=0.5 ? .5 Shielding due to trees or buildings (Neg dBA value)? 0 (N)o barrier (W)all, (B)erm ? N Barrier: Barrier height 0 Receptor height 0 Barrier to receptor distance o Volumes for the hour starting : Average Daily Traffic 70931 Morning Rush? .2455 Off-Hours? .409 Evening Rush? .2455 Night? .1 Autos? 5550 .956 Medium? 181 .0312 Heavy? 74 .0128 Speed (all vehicles)? 45 Distance to center of near lane >50 Ft. (15 M) ? 50 Grade correction: 0 0 - 2 % _ +0 dBA 5 - 6 0 = +3 dBA 3 - 4 0 = +2 dBA 7+ _ +5 dBA ELEMENT NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION Esc=ABORT F6=REPEAT F10=NEXT LANE/ELEMENT Calveno emissions Lane #/Road segment BEACH N/O HEIL CWP FOR 6:OOam - 7:OOam Vehicle Class Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck --------- --------- --------- Volume(VPH) 5550 181 74 ------------------------------ Leq(h) (dBA)/Veh type 73.7 67.1 67.7 Leq(E h) (dBA) Tot. this run 75 CNEL Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Ldn Adj. (dBA) 10 Adjusted total 85 Leq(E Lanes/element) 85 Leq(E elements) 85 CNEL = 77 dBA Ldn = 77 dBA ANY KEY -> CONTINU_ Esc -> MENU 1 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California 1 1 1 Appendix F NOISE MODELING FOR 1 NORTHERN SCREENING WALL 1 1 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound THETA,with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier The program was adapted from the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. e = 0 Barrier Parameter,O for Wall,1 for Berm f = 550 Frequency of Sound Emitted(use 550 for Traffic) ' Hs = 3 Height of Noise Source,in Feet Hr = 5 Height of Receptor,in Feet Hb = 8 Height of Bamer,in Feet Ds = 20 Dance from Source to Bamer Dr = 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier ' THETA = I Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier H Hrm s Fir Dsm Drm r Hb Ds Dr Hsm = 3.2808 32808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 Ps = Dsm2+ (Hbm- Hsan)2 Pr = Drm2+ (Hbm- Hrm)2 Dti = (Hsm- 14.rm)2+ (Dsm+ Drm)2 Dt =F ' 8o = (Ps+Pr)1- (Dt) No = 2 (f�J / Ni = No-cos(THETA-deg) Ni =0 6243 So=0.1947 (path difference in meters) No=0.6244 ' If Ni<_-0 1916 for a wall or—0.2551 for a Berm,then F=0 ff(-0.1916<Ni<=0 for a Wall or-0 2551 <N1 <=0 for a Berm,then use F1 If(0<=Ni<=5.03,then use F2 ' If Ni>=5 03,then use F3 FI = (2 a)-INo�•cos(THETA•deg) 5 (1 + 6•e) + 20-log tan[ (2a)•INoI•cos(THETA deg) J ' FI =3.6912+27.2875i (2 x) No-cos(THETA deg) F2 = 5-(1 + .6•e) + 20 log ' tanh[ (2-a) No cos(THETA deg) ' F2 =11 2664 F3 = 20 (1 + .15e) ' F3 =20 1 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California 1 1 1 1 Appendix G NOISE MODELING FOR 1 RESIDENTIAL MITIGATION WALL 1 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The program was adapted from the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. e = 0 Barrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berm f = 250 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs = 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet Hr = 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Hb = 8 Height of Barrier, in Feet 1 bs = 250 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr = 25 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA = 1 Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Hsm = Hs Hrm = Hr Hbm = Hb Dsm = Ds Drm = Dr 3.2808 3.2808 32808 3.2908 3.2808 Ps = Dsm2+(Hbm- Hsm)2 Pr = Drm2+(Hbm-Htm)2 Dd = (Hsm-Hnn)2+(Dsm+Drm)2 Dt =F So =(Ps+Pr)- (Dt) No = 2•I f3) 1 Ni =No-cos(THETA•deg) Ni=0.0724 8o=0.0497 (path difference in meters) No=0.0724 If Ni <= -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If (-0.1916 < Ni <= 0 for a Wall or -0.2551 < Nl <= 0 for a Berm, then use Fl If (0 <= Ni <= 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >= 5.03, then use F3 F1 =5•(1+.6•e)+20•log (2•7t) INo)•oos(THETA•deg) tan[ (2•7t)•1Nol•cos(THETA•deg),J F1 =3.5221 F2 = 5•(1 +.6•e)+20•log (2•a)•No-oos(T1-JETA•deg) 1 tanh[ (2•a)•No-oos(THETA•deg)], F2=6.1931 F3 = 20•(1 +.15•e) F3=20 ..++.+.+t.....�tf*a++t+,rf►f+rr•�+i+,raft++*+tra++r*ara++.++t++r+++++++ rad=1 ,1 deg sin(45•deg)=0.7071 cos(45•deg)=0.7071 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Huntington Beach, California f Appendix H NOISE MODELING FOR STAGING AREA ACTIVITIES 1 Environmental Impact Sciences December 2001 Revised Acoustical Analysis Trucks in Reconfigured Staging Area with Proposed 8 Foot wall This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infini.teJy long barrier. The oroOram was acgartier Parameter, 0 for wall, 1 for Berm Prediction Model. f 250 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs - 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet Hr 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Hb 8 Height of Barrier, in Feet Ds 280 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier ' THef'A : 1 use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Hsm HS firm - 1Ir Hbm Hb nsm - Ds Drtn Tit 3.2908 3.2909 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 - - — — - - PS ,,fDsm2 -(Hbm Hsm)2 Pr - jDrre +(Hbm- Hrm)2 Dti (Hsm - Hrtn)2 �(Dsm r Dtm)2 Dt v Da ISo (Ps+Pr)- (Dt) No 2•1 f SID I 343; Ni - No-cos(THETA•dcg) Ni=0.0117 So=0.008 (path difference in meters) No-0.0117 If Ni <_ -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If (-0.1916 < Ni <- 0 for a Wall or -0.2551 < N1 <- 0 for a Berm, then use F1 If (0 <= Ni <r 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >= 5.03, then use F3 �(2•n)• Nol-co%OIC:•"1-A•deg) i tan;q(2•a)•INol-cos(THETA•deg) F 1 =4.7842 til(2-a)•No•cos(THETA_dcg) 5-0F2 5• j .6•c) , 20•log - tanhl y(2•n)•No cos(•111CTA•dtg): ' F2=5.2085 F3 20•(1 r .15-e) 1-1 -20 a••arfffarafafaaarr tar Yr Yf♦raM♦Maaaaa tali aaf rra rtYa rrraaa♦r aaffrf of fa rad 1 deg- 1 80,� sin(45•deg) -0.7071 =(45•deg) =0.7071 Trucks in Staging Area With 18 Foot Wall This progrdm computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of l assumes an infinitely long barrier. The croOram was aBarrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berrw Prediction Model. f - 250 Frequency of Sound F,m)tted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet llr 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Hb 18 Height of Barrier, in Feet Ds 20 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr - 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA 1 Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Hsm ---Hs Hrm -Hr- Hbm -Hb- Dsm Dnm _ Dr - 3.2908 3.2908 3.2808 3.2909 3.2808 Ps 0sm2 1 (Hbm- 11-sm)2 Pr ,DrM2 • (Hbm tlrm)2 lhi (1-bm Hrm)2 (Dsm+ Drm)2 ---- Dt ti"Dt, 6o = (Ps + Pr) - (DO bo� No 2•�f � 343) Ni No•cos(7NETA-deg) Ni=1.3464 6o=0.9238 (path difference in meters) No-1.3466 If Ni <- -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If (-0.1916 < N1 <= 0 for a wall or -0.2551 < N1 <= 0 for a berm, then use F1 If (0 <= Ni <= 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >= 5.03, then use F3 FI 5•(1 + G e)+20 log t�(2-n)-INol-cos(T-JETA.deg) tanj,,1(2•7r)•jNo •cos('fjiETA•deg) F1 -26.7646 +27.2875i F2 5•0 1 .6-0 1 20•Iog ..--v(2 a)No cos(THh'fA deg) tanh(,(2•a)•No•cos(THETA•dcg) F2=14.3252 F3 20•0 , .15•0 F3 =20 +rtrrrrraraarrarrrrrrrrrrraasar.a.rar.rrrrraaaraar•aaaaraaaa�arr.rrr. rad 1 I R `' deg-) 180) sin(45-deg) =0.7071 cos(45-deg)-0.7071 Trucks in Staging Area With 13 Foot Wall This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The ' oroOram was aCBarrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berta Prediction Model. f 250 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet fir - 5 Height Of Receptor, i•n Feet Kb 13 Height of Barrier, an Feet Ds 20 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier ML•:IA I Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Hs fir Hb Ds Dr Hsm --- HrTn - ---- klbm Dsm - Dtm . -- 3.2808 3.2809 3.2808 3.2809 3,2808 T• --- -••--- - . • ff Ps Dcm2 +(Hbm- Hcm)2 Pr - �I Drm2 i (Hbm _,rm)2 Oti - (Hsm- Hrm)2+(Dsm+Drrn)2 Ot ,i Dti bo (P% r Pr)- (Dt) No 2•'f 50) j Ni Ncrcos(THETA•deg) Ni -0.3775 So�0.259 (path difference in meters) No=0.3776 If Ni <= -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If 1-0.1916 < Ni <= 0 for a Wall or -0.2551 < N1 <= 0 for a berm, then use F1 If (0 <- Ni <- 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >= 5.03, then use F3 i F1 5•(1 ) .6•e) 1 20•1og +�(2n) INol•cos(THETA•dcg) tanl,I(2 n) No' cos(TtIGTA drg) F1 = 21.5086 F2 5 (I + .G c 20 I I vi(2•a)•No•coc('ll-iF,'IA•deg) 1 —G �h •�(2•a)•No•oos(77lETA-deg) F2 -'9.5498 F3 20•(1 .15•e) F3 -20 rrarrrr►r•rara•aaa•••••a••rr••a+aaarrrrrraaarrraraaaaararrrr•r•r.arr• red 1 deg ',18UI sin(45•deg) -0.7071 cos(45•deg)=0.7071 t - cos(THETA•deg) t=0.999R Trucks in Loading Dock Area With 16 Foot Wall This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The eroOram was acgarrler Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berm' Prediction Model. f - 250 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet Hr 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Hb - 16 Height of Barrier, in Feet DS 100 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr - 150 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA I Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier 1-ISM Hs 1ian - 11r Hbm I* Dsm Ds Drm Dr 3.2808 3.2908 3.2808 3-2808 .1.2808 i Ps v Dsm2 I (Hbm 1jsm)2 Pr Dmm - (Hbm Hrm)Z rhi (Hsm -- Hrm)2 1 (Dsm 1 Drm)2 Dt tii Dti So (Ps t Pr) (DE) No 2•'f 60 1 343 J Ni No-oos(THETA•deg) Ni =03129 5o=0.2147 (path difference in meters) No=0.3129 If Ni <= -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If (-0.1916 < Ni <= 0 for a Wall or -0.2551 < N1 <= 0 for a Berm, then use F1 If (0 <= Ni <= 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >= 5.03, then use F3 ,�(2•n)• No •cos(THETA•deg) Fl 5•(1 �- .6•c) r 20-logl -- --•__---�_-__=— tan!,,1;(2•n)•jNoj-cos(THETA•deg)11 F1 - 74393 F2 5 (1 6 e) 20 log �(2•x)•No•cos(THETA-dcg) tanh ,j(2•,)•N,,os(THr1 A•deg)j i F2=8 9888 F3 20•(1 15•c) F3 =20 •++a•+++*f++rt i+i a♦••+++a+++f++++++a+a+++�+♦+++i+++f f++f+i+a+♦i+++++a+ rsd I x deg 1 �180; sin(45•deg) =07071 cos(45•deg) =0.7071 t cos(THETA•deg) t=0.9998 Trucks in Loading Dock Area With 8 Foot Wall This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The eroOram was acgarrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berm Prediction Model. f - 250 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) ' He 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet lir 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Hb 8 Height of Barrier, in Feet Ds 100 Distance from source to Barrier Dr 150 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA - 1 Use I for an Infinitely Long Barrier Nsm -14S Hrrn Hr- Hbm --Hb•- 135m - Ds Drm _ Dr 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2908 3.2808 Ps ,jD5m2 r(Hbm - Hsm)2 Pr 4Drm2 r(Hbm Hrm)2 Dti - (Hsm Hrm)2 , (Dsm Drm)2 Dt . &i ISo -(Pb - Pr)• (DI) No 2•�f 343) Ni No•cos(THETA•deg) Ni=0.0053 8o=0.0037 (path difference in meters) No=0.0053 If N1 <= -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If. (-0.1916 < Ni <= 0 for a Wall or -0.2551 < N1 <= 0 for a Berm, then use Fl If (0 <= Ni <= 5.03, then use r2 If Ni >w 5.03, then use F3 F I 5(1 .6 e) 20 log .j(2-n) (No •cos(THETA,dcg) tan 4(2•7<)• Nol-cos(THErA-deg) F) -4 9023 F2 5-(1 F .6•c) 1 20•1og ---"1(Z n)_No cas(THETA deg) tanh,�)(2•n)•No-wb(T'HETA•dcg) F2=5.0962 F3 20•(1 +.15•e) 1 F3 20 aWi*i**ifafiraa♦**+***rrff*rirWWrr►f aWiWiWWW*W iW iMir rWiW****it*♦*iii♦ fad- 1 dig 1 1 1801 sin(45•deg) -0.7071 cos(45•dcg) =0.7071 Forklifts in Staqing Area With 8 Foot Wall This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point source: of sound. THETA, with a value of 1 assumes an infinitely long barrier. The eroOram was acBarrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berm Prediction Model. f - 550 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) Hs 3 Height of Noise Source, in Feet Hr 5 Height of Receptor, in Feet Height of Barrier, in Feet Dc 20 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr - 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA - I Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier 1-ism }� Hrm —Hr Hbm }-b- Dsm Ds Drm -Dr 3.2909 3.2808 3.2908 3.2808 3.2808 Ps - gDsm2 i (Hbm- Hsm)Z Pr 4Drm2 , (Hbm Hm)2 D6 (Hsm l hrn)2 , (Dsm Dttn)2 Dt -.iD,Dth k So (Ps Pr) (Dt) No 2•�F So`� 343/ Ni • No•oos(THETA•deg) Ni=0.6243 Jo=0.1947 (path difference in meters) No-0.6244 If Ni <- -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 If (-0.1916 < Ni <= 0 for a wall or -0.2551 < N1 <= 0 for a Berm, then use Fl If I0 <= Ni <= 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >= 5.03, then use F3 Fl 5(1 .G c) ZO log 4(�•n)-1Nol-cos(THETA•deg) - tan,N(2•rz)•1Nol cos("11lbTA deg) F1 =3.6912+27.2875i F2 5(1 i .6 t) 20 log 2-a)_No_oos(THETA•deg) tanh' I- '(2•n)•No-cos(THETA•dcg)} F2=11.2664 F3 20•(1 1 .15•c) F3 =20 r r�yaa ararra►a►afafrar rtaraf airarrr rraataiarrrr rarraraataf aaraa attar♦ rad I deg rz 111801 sin(45-deg) =0.707I cos(45•deg)-0.7071 Trucks in Staging Area With 8 Foot Wail This program computes the attenuation provided by a barrier for point sources of sound. THETA, with to value of 1 assumes an infinitely lonq barrier. The eroOram was aBarrier Parameter, 0 for Wall, 1 for Berm' Prediction Model. f'- 250 Frequency of Sound Emitted (use 550 for Traffic) ' Hs • 8 Height of Noise Source, in Feet Mr - 5 Haight of Receptor, in Feet Hb 8 Height of Barrier, in Feet Ds - 20 Distance from Source to Barrier Dr 120 Distance from Receptor to Barrier THETA I Use 1 for an Infinitely Long Barrier Hs Ds Dr Hsm - Hrm --HT— Hbm lIb Dsm — Drm 3.2808 3.2808 3.2808 3.2908 3.2808 I _ Ps'-'�,Dsm , (Hbm- Flsm) Pr tilDnn (Hbm Ham) Dti (Hsm Hrm)2�•(Dsm• Drm)z 1— Dt 4 Dd So (Ps � Pr)- (Dt) So � No 2•If- ' 343, Ni No•coc(TKTA•deg) Ni =00024 60=0.0016 (path difference in meters) No-0.0024 If Ni <= -0.1916 for a wall or <=-0.2551 for a Berm, then F = 0 if (-0.1916 < N1 <= 0 for a Wall or -0.2551 < N1 <= 0 for a Berm, then use Fl If (0 <= Ni <= 5.03, then use F2 If Ni >- 5.03, then use F3 FI 5(I r .G e) 20 log {2'n) INol_om(THETA_dcg)_ tank(2•n)•1No!•cos(TI]ETA•deg)' F1 =4.9566 !•2 - 5•(l j .6-c)- 20•log ---"'(2_n)No oos(YllGTA deg) wnh -j(2•a)•No•cos(THETA•deg) F2=5 04.11 F3 20•(1 - .15-e) F3=20 rrrrrrrr►►rrr♦rrrrarrrarrrarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrarra+arar+rrrrrrrrar+arrrr rad•1 deg- 1 sin(45•deg) =0.7071 oo6(45•dcg)=0.7071 1 G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES LETTERS 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i mCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P.O. BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel: (714) 960-8811 1 RONALD E. LOWENBERG Chief of Police ' August 28, 2000 FAX: (949) 753-7002 iMs. Maria Levario, Assistant Planner PCR Services Corporation One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618-3328 RE: REQUEST FOR POLICE SERVICE INFORMATION FOR THE LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH/WARNER PROJECT EIR Dear Ms. Levario: Listed below are our responses to your request for police service information questionnaire. If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. 1. The area is patrolled by a uniformed patrol officer as part of a regular beat assignment. 2. All Huntington Beach Police Department resources are based out of the main station at 2000 Main Street. The police department has 236 sworn officers. Any officer responding to calls for service would not respond from the station, but would be dispatched from the field. Response times may vary depending on the type of call for service (i.e. crime in progress vs. a burglary that occurred several hours prior). 1 High priority calls citywide have a response time of approximately three to five minutes from when they are dispatched 3. See attached information on burglary statistics for the relevant beat area. Other statistical information available upon request. 4. It's not anticipated that it will significantly impact the police department's level of service, however collateral issues relating to a new building are difficult to accurately predict. DRUG USE Ms. Maria Levario 2 09/07/00 5. There are no active plans to expand the police facility. 6. It is expected that the project will increase the number of calls for service between and 60 and 70 per year, which equates to one-quarter of a police officer. 7. Not applicable 8. (1) Possibility of increased traffic accidents due to heavier traffic turning onto and off of Beach Blvd and/or Warner Ave. (2) Possibility of drug, gang, or general nuisance activity in the parking lot during hours of darkness, especially in secluded areas. (3) Noise complaints from surrounding neighbors. (4) Additional calls for service for minor crimes such as shoplifting, trespass, etc. 9. None 10.See recommendations made by consultant regarding police security concerns. (Report available through the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Sincerely, ONALD E. LO NBERG Chief of Police REL/JMP/mm Prepared by: Sgt. Janet Perez Title: Community Liaison Team Supervisor Date: August 28, 2000 Phone: (714) 960-8806 JI J 1 ,.. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH ' To: Sgt. Perez From: Linda Hammonds Crime Analysis Subject: RD 263 Burglary Count Date: Monday, August 28, 2000 iThe following numbers from June to date are based upon crime reports that are received by our unit from Records and entered into our database. Please let me know if you have any questions or further requests. ' COMO ersial Burgiadee June 2000 0 July 2000 0 August to date 1 Residenlai SurgWies June 2000 1 July 2000 .2 1 August to date 1 1 Vehicle surgla6es June 2000 3 Jufy2wo 1 August to date 1 1 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 FIRE DEPARTMENT September 21, 2000 ' Maria Levario Assistant Planner ' PCR One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618-3328 RE: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FIRE SERVICE INFORMATION LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND WARNER PROJECT EIR Dear Ms. Levario: In response to your August 11, 2000 letter requesting information regarding existing fire service to the project site and fire service with implementation to the proposed project, the Fire Department has provided the following information: i1. What types of fire services do you provide to the project site and adjacent area? Devices: USL approved aboveground double check detector assembly, minimum 4-inch/ 1 hydrants @ 300' spacing, East Bay type 6" x 4" x 2Y2". Emergency fire, medical, and hazardous materials response. Conduct pre-fire planning, inspection, fire alarm and hydrant testing, and maintenance services. ' 2. List the name and location of station(s)which would serve the project site and their distance and response times to the project site. HBFD Fire Station#1-Gothard, 18311 Gothard Street, Huntington Beach HBFD Fire Station#2-Murdy, 16221 Gothard Street. Huntington Beach HBFD Fire Station#8-Heil, 5891 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach ' FVFD Fire Station#1, 17737 Bushard Street, Fountain Valley 3. List the number and type of personnel and equipment for fire station(s) serving the project site. HBFD Fire Station#1-Gothard HB4-Battalion Chief Command Vehicle/2 persons HE41-Paramedic Engine Company/4 persons HA41- Basic and Advanced Life Support Ambulance/2 persons HBFD Fire Station #2-Murdy HE42-Paramedic Engine Company/4 persons HT42-95' Elevated Platform/4 persons HA42-Basic and Advanced Life Support Ambulance/2 persons HBFD Fire Station #8-Heil HE48-Paramedic Engine Company/4 persons Maria Levario September 21, 2000 Page 2 3. (Continued) FVFD Fire Station #1 VB3-Battalion Chief Command Vehicle/1 person VE31-Paramedic Engine Company/4 persons VT31-100' Elevated Platform/3 persons 4. Identify the overall average response times for the fire station(s) serving the project site and vicinity. The response time standard as approved in the growth management element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan is to provide the first fire engine and paramedic level service within five minutes after receipt of alarm 80% of the time and, in all cases, within ten minutes. The first ladder company is required to arrive on scene within ten minutes 90% of the time and, in all cases, within 15 minutes. The response times will vary due to company availability and location at the moment the alarm is received. 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include location and completion dates)? Identify any of these which may specifically serve the project site. A new facility is under construction, but will not serve project site. Completion date is approximately October 2000. 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities and the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs and how the increase is determined (i.e., personnel to population ratio). Provided the project is equipped per Huntington Beach Fire Code with automatic fire sprinklers, alarms, and hydrants, additional staff will not be required. 7. If expansion is required to serve the proposed project, is there revenue budgeted? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? Expansion is not required to serve the proposed project. 8. Please describe the required access to the project site with implementation of the proposed project. If possible, provide standards used to determine adequacy of required access. Clear and unobstructed paved road, 24' minimum width with all turns providing 17' inner, 45' outer radius. Area immediately in front of structure 28'. HBFC 902.2.2.1 9. Define potential changes to response times with implementation of the proposed project. No major impacts to emergency apparatus response time is anticipated. 10. Identify the number, type, and spacing of hydrants required to serve the project site with implementation of the proposed project. Identify required fire flow. The number shall be based on 300' hydrant spacing. ' Maria Levarno September 21, 2000 ' Page 3 11. Define any reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions regarding fire protection ' for the project site and vicinity. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has approved Automatic Aid Agreements with Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana Fire Departments where the closest appropriate emergency unit will be assigned regardless of city boundaries. 12. Define standards used by the Fire Department to determine adequate level of service (i.e., response time, number of personnel, equipment, fire flow, etc). Response time standards have been adopted as part of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Minimum staffing levels have been adopted in Fire Department policy based on the type of emergency unit Fire flow requirements are determined by the Fire Prevention Division. 13. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerns. Development—typical commercial congestion. 14. If the implementation of the proposed project has significant effects on the provision of fire and emergency medical services, what measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above. Fire protection systems, including fire sprinklers and fire alarms. Sufficient fire flow with adequate hydrant spacing and number. Access and egress based according to Huntington Beach Fire Standards. ' Prepared by: Duane S. Olson Title: Fire Marshal/Division Chief ' Date: September 20, 2000 Phone: 714-536-5564 If you have any questions or need further information, please call my office at 714-536-5402. Sincerely, eNR-Aj� Michael P. Dolder Fire Chief MPD/DSO/bjg ' s/fmtolson/PCRresponses CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ' August 23, 2000 (714)536-5486 Maria Levario, Assistant Planner ' PCR Services Corporation One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618-3228 ! Dear Ms. Levario: ' Subject: Attached are my responses to your request for information regarding the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast corner of ' Beach and Warner Project located in the City of Huntington Beach. Question 1: What types of services and facilities do you provide? Response: The City of Huntington Beach provides park facilities in adjacent quarter sections, but not in the quarter section in question. This quarter section is the home of the Ocean View Little League. Question 2: Please list names and locations of recreation facilities which would serve the project site. Response: There are neighborhood parks located in the adjacent quarter sections. To the south is Lake View Park, to the west is Oak View Center Park and to the east is Pleasant View Park (note: These parks provide minimal service to the site because the public would have to cross major arterials, Beach Boulevard to the west, Warner Avenue to the south, and Newland Street to the east.) This quarter section is also served by Murdy Community Park, which provides active recreation facilities and a recreation center. It is located approximately two miles from this quarter section. Question 3: Currently what level of service do you provide to the project site and adjacent? Response: As noted in number 2, the City provides neighborhood park services within the quarter sections as well as a wide variety of recreation classes, sports leagues, and amenities at Murdy Recreation Center and Park. Question 4: Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Response: From a park standpoint, the quarter section will still be served by the parks located in the adjacent quarter sections as well as Murdy Community Park. With regards to the Ocean View Little League, it will be relocated to another school (Park View School) within its region. In reality, this will reduce the impacts of noise, parking, etc. at the Rancho View site. <I Quality Lrtc, Thiowvh Ldwalxir•, Ro icanvn and C udia Question 5: What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, ' capacities, and completion dates)? Identify any of these which may significantly serve the project site. Response: The City did not currently have plans to expand park and/or recreation amenities in , this location. In fact, the Little League will be relocated to another quarter section within the community (Park View School). Question 6: Would the proposed project create a need for the expansion or relocation of ! recreational facilities, or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Please explain how you determine service demands, i.e., park acreage, population ratios, etc.). ' Response: As noted above, it will be necessary to relocate the Ocean View Little League home field sites. Question 7: If an expansion is required to serve the proposed project, is there revenue budgeted? If not, does Huntington Beach Community Services Department have any development fees? How are these fees determined (e.g., for housing units, what is the cost)? Response: Although it is not an expansion, the relocation of the little league is a cost to the league and school district. The City anticipates potentially providing funding through a Youth Sports Grant that could assist the little league in paying its share of those costs. The City ' Council has also identified Murdy Park reconfiguration for Youth Sports Complex as part-of its Proposition 12 per capita funding. It is the City's intent to utilize a portion of the funds for this reconfiguration to add a parking lot with 96 spaces that would help address the parking issue for the little league relocation. Question 8: What problems do you foresee in serving this project? Identify any particular , concerns. Response: The primary problem focuses on the need to relocate the little league, how that is to be done is identified in previous responses. Question 9: If implementation of the proposed project results in a significant affect in the provision of recreational services, what measures can you recommend for mitigating project ' impacts identified above? Response: As noted in previous responses, a mitigation is to provide an alternative site for the little league. This has been identified as Park View School. Prepared by: Dave Dominguez Title: Sr. Recreation Supervisor— Development ' Date: August 23, 2000 Telephone: 714-374-5309 o Ocean View School District t17200 Pinehurst Lane District Superintendent Board of Trustees Huntington Beach James R Tarwater, Ed. D Pam Walker, President ' California 92647-5569 Peg Edey, Clerk 714/847-2551 Carol Kanode, Member Fax:714/847-1430 Linda Kovach, Member "In Quest of Web.www.ovsd org Tracy Pellman, Member Excellence" August 17, 2000 Maria Levario, Assistant Planner PCR Services Corporation One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: Request for School Information for the Lowe's Development Project Dear Ms. Levario: The following information is provided as per your request: 1. Please list the names and locations of the District's schools which would serve the project site, their capacity, and current enrollment. Rancho View, 16490 `B" St., HB, was built in April 1959, one of the first schools in Ocean View School District. It was closed as an active school site in 1976 but was subsequently used as a District office for ten years. On December 11, 1986, the State Board of Education approved the District's Request for Waiver, as per Ed Code 33050-53. A second Request for Waiver was necessary due to the ten-year interval when Rancho View was used as a District office. On September 11, 1997, the State Board of Education approved the District's second Request for Waiver, as per Ed Code 39394 (Naylor Act) and Government Code section 54222. The approved Request for Waiver permits the sale or long term lease of real property. On April 13, 1999,the District entered into a long term lease agreement with Eagle's, now known as Lowe's/Eagle's, for sixty-five years. This project site has not served an opera educational facility:;r students for the past 21 years. (See question 3 for names, addresses, and current enrollment of schools serving this area). ' 2. What are the school generation factors at the elementary, intermediate, and secondary levels that would be used for this project? What is the District's current standard for number of students per school? Ocean View is an elementary District and has no secondary schools. Ocean View School District's student generation factors are computed in percentage numbers and are reflective of the number of students per dwelling. Student Generation Factor/Single Family Detached: K-5 = .329 6-8 = .089 Student Generation Factor/Single Family Attached: K-5 = .175 6-8 = .043 ' Currently the District's standard for the number of students per classroom is 20:1 for grades K-3 and 30:1 for grades 4-8. Maria Levario, Assistant Planner -2- August 17, 2000 PCR Services Corporation Lowe's Development Project 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? This project will not adversely impact the level of service presently provided. As noted in the response to question #1, Rancho View has been a closed school site for educational services for twenty-one years. The two schools which serve the project area are Westmont Elementary(K-5), located at 8251 Heil Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683, and Spring View Middle (6-8), located at 16662 Trudy Lane, Huntington Beach 92647. Westmont Elementary, a K-5 school,has a current enrollment of 612 students. Spring View Middle, a 6-8 school, has a current enrollment of 859 students. 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Identify any of these which may specifically serve the project site. For the past two decades, the students in this project attendance area have been assimilated into adjacent schools; therefore, there are no plans for expansion. 5. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, does the school district implement any development fees? How are these fees determined (e.g.,per housing unit) and what is the cost? N/A 6. Would the proposed project create a need for the expansion of educational facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. No. See responses to questions 3 and 4. 7. What problems do you foresee in serving this project? Identify any particular concerns. The Ocean View School District and the City of Huntington Beach have entered into an Agreement with the City(Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements) to relocate the Ocean View Little League (OVLL) fields to Park View (closed OVSD school site), which is adjacent to Murdy Park(City property). This Agreement will provide for the relocation of the six Ocean View Little League practice fields. Maria Levario, Assistant Planner -3- August 17, 2000 PCR Services Corporation Lowe's Development Project i 8. If implementation of the proposed project results in a significant effect on the provision of school services,what measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above in items 3, 6, and 7. As noted in responses to questions 3 and 6, the District will incur no adverse impacts due to the Lowe's Development Project. As noted in the response to question 7. the need to relocate practice fields for OVLL has already been mitigated through the Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, :���z�z James R. Tarwater, Ed.D. District Superintendent ' JRT:gb i 1 1 1 Vicki L.Wilson,Director $S`t " 0•�9 300 N.Flower Street COUNTY OF ORANGE Santa Ana,CA U trJ P.O.Box 4048 048 9 PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Santa Ana,CA )834-4463 LIFOg� Telephone: 714)834-4463 ' Fax: (714)834-7411 S EP 13 2000 Maria Levario Assistant Planner PCR Services Corporation One Venture, Ste 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Subject: Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and Northeast Corner of Beach/Warner Project EIR ' Dear Ms. Levario: The following are responses to questions 1 to 10 posed in your attached letter dated August 11, 2000: 1. "A description of the existing storm drains and flood control channels serving ' the area surrounding the project site, including sizes/diameters." Drainage Facility Basemaps that depict the existing local and regional drainage ' facilities (size, configuration, approximate location, etc.) and as-built drawings of facilities owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) are available for review or purchase from PFRD's Central Files. Central Files is located on the 2nd floor of the Osborne Building at 300 N. Flower St., Room 210, Santa Ana, California, Phone No. (714) 834-3568. As-built drawings for the city-owned storm drains need ' to be obtained from the City of Huntington Beach. 2. "Define the existing physical condition of the drains/channels that serve the ' project site or vicinity, identifying any existing deficiencies." The conditions of the existing drainage systems that serve the project site and vicinity can be determined by reviewing as-built plans, project reports, hydrology reports, and field conditions. To review the as-built drawings, contact Central Files or the City of Huntington Beach (see answer to question 1 above); to make arrangements to review the hydrology and/or project reports for project related information, contact John Honsberger at (714) 834-3785 or Lance Natsuhara at (714) 834-5398 respectively. Mario Levario Page 2 3. "Design capacity for the drains and flood control channels (100-year flood, etc.) and history of flooding, if any." Information on drainage capacity and/or history of flooding may be determined by reviewing as-built drawings, project reports, and/or hydrology reports (see answer to question 2 above). 4. "The contributing watershed and drainage areas for these drains." Information for the above question may be obtained by reviewing the hydrology m reports for the respective facilities (see answer to question 2 above). 5. "A description of the flood insurance rating system and the flood potential of Zone X." Consult the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the project area. Since the project is in the City of Huntington Beach, you should contact the city, which is the local floodplain administrator. 6. "What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)?" You may consult A. B. Mehta, Senior Civil Engineer of the Programming Section, at (714) 834-5097 for information on programmed improvement to OCFCD facilities. The City of Huntington Beach should be contacted to determine planned improvements of city-owned facilities. 7. "Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs." It is the responsibility of the project proponent and their consultant(s) preparing the EIR to determine if project implementation will result in the need for improvements. Part of the EIR process, besides identifying the project impacts, is to propose adequate and appropriate mitigation measures. Measures that might need to be considered include, but are not limited to: on-site retarding basins to regulate flow or address water quality problems; construction of upgrades to impacted drainage facilities; devices to limit the amount of flow entering impacted regional facilities, etc. We will review your proposal to see whether appropriate mitigation measures for resolving any adverse impacts resulting from the project have been included in the n. DEIR. 8. "if an expansion is required to serve the proposed project, is there revenue budgeted? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue?" See response to item 6 above. If programmed capital improvement projects (if any) for impacted facilities do not fit into the project proponent's schedule, any required mitigation will be the project proponent's responsibility. Mario Levario Page 2 9. "The runoff generation factors that would be most appropriate for estimating the future runoff generation of the proposed project components." The appropriate engineering analyses should be conducted per the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) and Addendum No. 1 to the OCHM as a part of the preparation of the EIR if necessary to determine the impacts. ' 10. "if the implementation of the proposed project results in a significant effect on the provision of flood control services, what measures can you recommend ' for mitigating project impacts identified above?" The DER will need to determine the need for mitigation and recommend appropriate mitigation measures such as improvement of impacted facilities, construction of new facilities, on-site retarding, etc. (see answer to question 7 above). ' In conclusion, it should be noted that as a consultant selected to serve the developer's needs for processing the project's environmental review process, the responsibility to perform the necessary research and technical analysis rests with you, not the County of Orange or the OCFCD. Various available sources for information are being provided to you at this time. Once you have completed the necessary research and performed the required analysis, we are prepared to review your work and recommend suitable measures to mitigate impacts resulting from the proposed project. If there are questions regarding this response, please contact Shirley Chan at (714) ' 834-4398 or me at (714) 834-2425. Sincerely, ��',� Kevin Onuma, Sr. Civil Engineer PFRD/PDD/Hydrology ' SC•cd:pfrl99/20638_090700pct_lowe_maria Attachments: Letter dated August 11, 2000 from PCR cc: George Britton, PDSD/Environmental & Project Planning Division �' R ` I1•.' � lJ lJ � �' 1ust 1 Au 111 i g 2000 '^` 2300 U PRuG"na��DEVEl0eMEaT ' DNISIOM Mr. Herb Nakasone General Manager ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 300 N. Flower ' Santa Ana, California 92648 Re: Request for Storm Drain Service Information for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and Northeast Corner of Beach/Warner Project EIR ' Dear Mr. Nakasone: ' PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Lowe's Homc Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner ' Project located in the City of Huntington Beach (City). To prepare this analysis, we would like to request information regarding existing storm drain service for the project site and storm drain service with implementation of the proposed project. The attachment to this letter provides the description ' of the proposed project that will be analyzed in the Draft EIR. We would appreciate responses to the following requested information. The responses can ' be provided below or as a separate letter. The responses may be faxed to (949) 753-7002 or mailed to PCR, One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618, attention Maria Levario. ' 1. A description of the existing storm drains and flood control channels serving the area surrounding the project site, including sizes/diamerers. (Please include maps of the surrounding area with location of storm drains identified.) 2. Define the existing physical condition of the drains/channels chat serve the project site or ' vicinity, identifying any existing deficiencies. One Venture Suite 150 Irvine C.;urorma �1-761S-327 rwv. oc net :em 949.753.7001 f-.949 753 7002 j- . , Las Ar�c,E . Mr. Herb Nakasone ORANGE COUN-n,FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT August 11, 2000 - Page 3. Design capacin- for the drains and flood control channels (100-vear flood, etc.) and history of flooding, if any. 4. The contributing; watershed and drainage areas for these drains. 5. A description of the flood insurance rating system and the flood potential of Zone X. 6. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? 7. Will the proposed project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. �• SANTA MONICA Los A,.a: C- IRVINE ' Mr. Herb Nakasone ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT August 11,2000 - Page 3 ' 8. If an expansion is required to serve the proposed project, is there revenue budgeted? If not, what methods would-be used to secure capital revenue? 9. The runoffgencration factors that would be most appropriate for estimating the future runoff ' generation of the proposed project components. ' 10. If the implementation of the proposed project results in a significant effect on the provision of flood control services, what measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts ' identified above? Prepared by: Title: Date: ' Phone: SANTA Mo :C',% N'. IRVINE Mr. Herb Nakasone ORANGE COUNT'FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT August 11,2000 - Page 4 We would appreciate a response by August 25, 2000 Please call me at(949)753-7001 should you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you For your assistance with this information. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION OtAA-At� Maria Levario Assistant Planner Attachment: Project Description cc: Cindy Chic, City of Huntington Beach California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 0 1ston H.Hirkox Internet Address- http//www swrcb ca.gov/rwgcb8 Gray Davis Secretaryfor 3737 Main Street,Suite 500,Riverside,California 92501-3348 Governor Environmental Phone(909)782-4130-FAX(909)781-6288 ' Protection 6uiuuaId io ivawlludap August 21, 2000 ' ow z s nn Ms. Cindy Chie City of Huntington Beach e 2000 Main Street i ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD/WARNER AVENUE (SCH #2000071088), CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY ' Dear Ms. Chie: ' Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the Notice Of Preparation for the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. RWQCB personnel have determined that projects greater than 5 acres require coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Construction Activities National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit. Please contact Mark Smythe (909) 782-4998 with ' the Regional Board's Storm Water Section to further discuss your project. 2. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may be required to be submitted to the Regional Water Board prior to the start of the project. Proper erosion and sediment controls must be utilized to ' prevent runoff during excavation,construction, and site remediation. 3. RWQCB personnel have determined that this project may require coverage under Section 401 of the ' Clean Water Act, water quality certification for dredge and fill operations. Please contact Kelly Schmoker(909)782-4990 with the Regional Board's Planning Section to further discuss your project. 4. This project will result in a large parcel of land being paved, thereby altering the rate and volume of ' groundwater recharge and altering the rate and volume of surface water runoff, possibly increasing the amount of suspended pollutants discharging into adjacent surface channels. Mitigation for this impact should be discussed. ' 5. Utilization of retention basins or holding ponds,within the project site,to capture first flush of a rainstorm should be addressed in order to capture runoff and other elements that contribute to the degradation of water quality. 6. Non-point source pollution from continued urban development could negatively affect water quality. Potential impacts to water quality from daily runoff and storm water runoff from this site should be evaluated. 7. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) should be developed and implemented during construction to protect the beneficial uses addressed in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan. The BMPs should address: California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper Ms. Cindy Chie City of Huntington Beach -2- August 21, 2000 • discharge of pollutants; • runoff and erosion; • Controls for soil characteristics related to water quality (potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation); • prevention of sewage and chemical spills; and • tracking of sediments and toxic materials into the streets, storm water conveyance channels, or waterways. 8. Construction equipment should not be stored within any streambeds. Fueling, lubrication, and maintenance equipment should not be located within any streams or areas where contaminants could be washed into a waterbody. 9. The storage of hazardous materials on site can potentially impact water quality. Please discuss what measures will be taken, for example,best management measures, to prevent such impacts. 10. No waste material should be discharged to any drainage areas, channels or streams. Spoil sites should not be located within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed in a waterbody. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-4468 or you may contact Stephanie M. Gasca at (909)782-3221. Sincerely, Wanda Smith, Chief Planning Section—Coastal Waters cc: Scott Morgan—State Clearinghouse RECEIVED AUG 2 3 2000 Department of Planning California Environmental Protection Agency �d Recycled Paper y ' nUG—le-2000 11:01 RAINBOW 7149414660 P.02 SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IRVINE August 11, 2000 Mr. Bruce Shuman Chief Financial Officer ' RAINBOW DISPOSAL P.O. Box 1026 ' Huntington Beach, California 92647 Re: Request for Solid Waste Collection and Recyclable Collection Information for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and Northeast Corner of Beach/Warner Project EIR Dear Mr. Shuman: ' PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project located in the City of Huntington Beach (City). To prepare this analysis,we would like to request information regarding existing solid waste collection and recyclable collection services for the project site and solid waste collection and recyclable collection services with implementation of the proposed project. The attachment to this letter provides the description of the proposed project that ' will be analyzed in the Draft EIR. ' We would appreciate responses to the following requested information. The responses can be provided below or as a separate letter. Responses may be Faxed to (949) 753-7002 or mailed to PCR, One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618, attention Maria Levario. 1. A description of any existing solid waste and recyclable collection services provided to the project site or vicinity. 2. Define factors for estimating projected amounts of solid waste and recyclables generated by ' the resort residential and supporting facilities proposed for the project site. One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, Cafifornia 92618-3328 INTERNE? www.pernet.com TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753,7002 j�uG-18-2000 11:02 RAINBOW 7148414660 P.03 SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IRVINE Mr. Bruce Shuman, Chief Financial Officer R AJNBOw DISPOSAL August 11, 2000 - Page 2 3. A description of any projected changes in services to accommodate additional solid waste and recyclable collection services provided to the projcct site with implementation of the proposed project. 4. If applicable, define standards used by the City to determine adequate level of service. -T'R-AS�_ !'�.�s� T3� `�►c..1��a ���'�.f.s�r�.>r� � 'Tt►-us �o� '+r��c�C r3►�.r P1�a� ��.-► CS`. oV@�ti�il.l•._ 'TcPsr, r-���s-r Q� k�P -r o� G�loU�so 5. If the implementation of the proposed project has significant effects on the provision of solid waste and recyclable collection services, what measures can you recommend for mitigating projcct impacts identified above? Prepared by: =7� 5�E 3C.t` Title: �s-�r-.:,ti S Z\'V►cam Date: 8� %-1- a 0 Phone: 6DIO an- 358 1 ' RUG-18-2000 11:02 RAINBOW 7148414660 P.04 1 G&M LIQUOR, 8031 WARNER AVE. 1-3YD BIN 6XWEEK PICK-UP ' ECONO LUBE& TUNE, 8051 WARNER AVE 1-3YD BIN 1XWEEK PICK-UP SCHOOL DIST. MAINT., 9291 WARNER AVE 3-3YD BINS 5XWEEK PICK-UP SCHOOL DIST. TRANS., 8291 WARNER AVE. 1-3YD BIN 2XWEEK PICK-UP LITTLE LEAGUE,WARNER/B STREET 1-3YD BIN 6XWEEK PICK-UP LITTLE LEAGUE, WARNER/B STREET 1-3YD BIN 1XWEEK PICK-UP G&M OIL, 16868 A STREET 1-2YD BIN 3XWEEK PICK-UP RANCHO VIEW SCHOOL, 18 B STREET 1-3YD BIN 1XWEEK PICK-UP MCDONALDS, 16866 BEACH BLVD. 2-3YD BINS 4XWEEK PICK-UP G&M OIL, 16922 BEACH BLVD. 1-3YD BIN 3XWEEK PICK-UP i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 TOTAL P.04 J=�-j X0& Integrated Waste Management Department ° m John W.Sibley,Director 320 North Flower Street•Suite 400•Santa Ana California 92703 •(714)834-4000 www oc.ca.�_,ov/mind 1 August 21, 2000 PCR Services Corporation Attn: Ms. Maria Levario One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618-3328 Dear Ms. Levario: SUBJECT: Response to Request for Information Re: Lowe's Home Improvement ' Warehouse and Northeast Corner of Beach/Warner Project EIR The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least fifteen years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the county's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIWMP, approved in 1996, ' contains future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. IWMD's database shows that the Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of thirty (30) years. This is well above the fifteen-year threshold ' established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the project, and will likely be the solid waste facility receiving the waste. Notwithstanding, the City of Huntington Beach is under contract to IWMD to commit all of its waste to the County landfills stem (not to a particular facility) until the year 2007. At the same time, the landfill system is accepting additional waste from outside Orange County. Under these circumstances, it has been agreed that should the cumulative effect of development cause the daily tonnage ceiling of a particular facility to be exceeded, the waste being imported to that facility will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the subject project is available for the foreseeable future. ' Notwithstanding the availability of landfill capacity in the County system, the State of California has required that by the start of this year, each city and county demonstrate a reduction of at least 50% in the amount of waste from that jurisdiction that had gone into landfills in the year 1990. Also, the State requires that this level of reduction be sustained in perpetuity. Waste haulers are expected to contribute by recycling residential and commercial waste they have collected, and project developers are expected to employ measures to reduce the amount of construction-generated waste. IWMD G\GCR_RC\CEQA\NCL\NCL-LETT\2000 PCR-Lowe's Warehouse doc Ms. Maria Levario, PCR Services Corp. August 21, 2000 Page 2 recommends that the project developer contact the city recycling coordinator to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the city's program. Construction and demolition-generated waste (C&D) is heavy, inert material. This material creates significant problems when disposed of in landfills; since C&D debris does not decompose, it takes up valuable landfill capacity. Additionally, since C&D debris is heavy when compared with paper and plastic, it is more difficult for the County and cities to reduce the tonnage of disposed waste. For this reason, C&D waste debris has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste stream. Projects which will generate C&D waste should emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, rather than demolition. Deconstruction is the planned, organized dismantling of the prior construction project, which allows maximum use of the deconstructed materials for recycling in other construction projects and sends a minimum of the deconstruction material to landfills. We recommend that this project address a waste reduction plan for the C&D waste generated from this project. This plan should be coordinated with the recycling coordinator for the City of Huntington Beach to help ensure AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. At this time, IWMD does not have information on solid waste generation rates in Orange County. Any questions about solid waste generation rates should be forwarded to the California Integrated Waste Management Board in Sacramento. Further information about the County of Orange landfills can be accessed at http://www.oc.ca.<(ov/iwmd. Thank you for the opportunity to incorporate our comments. If you have any questions, Tony Deconinck can be reached by email at tony(u]iwind.co.oranre.ca.us, or by phone at(714) 834-4107. Sincerely, Robert Richmond, Planner IV Regulatory Compliance cc: Tony Deconinck RECYCLING PROGRESS* (Diversion Rate**) 1 About Us w All cities and counties are required by State law to reduce the amount of waste entering the landfill by Landfill ► 50% by the year 2000. Information ' **Diversion Rate:The percentage of trash that has been diverted from landfill disposal through waste Frequently Asked ► prevention, recycling, and composting since 1990. Questions Yard Waste ► 1995** 1996** 1997* Disposal JURISDICTION DIVERSION DIVERSION DIVERSION Recycling ► RATE(%) RATE (%) RATE (%) Anaheim 44 46 32 Resources Brea 39 41 14 Contact Us Buena Park 28 29 11 26 Costa Mesa 26 27 10 Cypress 62 66 84 Dana Point 19 22 27 Fountain Valley 51 53 48 Fullerton 32 35 35 Garden Grove 46 52 34 Huntington 45 49 43 Beach —11 Irvine 18 23 21 Laguna Beach 20 28 20 Laguna Hills 55 49 59 ' Laguna Niguel 40 41 39 p�� oods Incorporated in 1999. No data available. La Habra 32 34 37 Lake Forest 18 19 28 La Palma 52 56 54 Los Alamitos 30 35 58 Mission Viejo 38 46 43 httD://www.oc.ca.2ov/iwmd/rci)ropress.htm 4/24/02 1\VV�Vllllb 1 1Vb1 VJJ 1 4 V L Vl L Newport Beach 51 �45 J40 Orange 34 38 23 Placentia 36 53 41 San Clemente 19 23 -13 San Juan 26 29 21 Capistrano Santa An 34 27 31 Seal Beach 63 65 69 Stanton 35 41 21 Tustin 17 25 25 Villa Park 49 56 56 Westminster 55 3511 26 Yorba Linda 43 57 47 Unincorporated 40 38 31 *1997 data is a State estimation and is not approved. http://www.oc.ca.gov/iwmd/rcprogress.htm 4/24/02 H. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RECEIVED NOV 2 7 2001 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER Huntington Beach Prepared For: LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 1530 FARADAY AVENUE, SUITE #140 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Prepared By: WILLDAN 27042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 270 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 t�iAT �4Ed, ��"'e�FiJ fQb� ti v rev1� OF Ca` Under the S ervi n of ity of Huntington Beach Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Representative November 2001 WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Study Intersections and Existing Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Existing Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ' Existing Intersection Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Signal Warrants (Existing Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Other Area Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Ambient Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Pre-Project Intersection Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Signal Warrants (Pre-Project Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 PROJECT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Post Project Intersection Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Signal Warrants Post Project Conditions ' Mitigation Measures (Post Project Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Percent of Project Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) BU/LDOUT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Traffic Model Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Intersection Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Intersection Analyses Phasel - Lowes Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Phasel/ - Lowes Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Mitigation Measures (Buildout Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 ALTERNATE SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach LIST OF TABLES 1. Selection of Study Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Study Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Intersection Analyses Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (Project Opening Day - Year 2002) 4. Signal Warrant Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ra t Su ary 5. Trip Generation - Other Area Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Trip Generation Rates - Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ' 7. Trip Generation - Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' 8. Percent of Net Traffic Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Intersection Analyses Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 (Long Range Buildout Conditions) WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach LIST OF FIGURES 1. Project Location 2. Site Plan 3. Existing Intersection Geometrics 4. Existing Intersection Volumes 5. Other Volumes (Other Area Projects & Ambient Growth) 6. Project Opening Day Without Project Volumes 7. Project Distribution 8. Project Volumes at Study Intersection 9. Project Access Distribution 10. Project Access Volumes 11. Project Opening Day With Project Volumes 12. Proposed Geometrics Under Project Opening Day With Project 13. Buildout Without Project Volumes 14. Buildout With Phase I (Lowe's Only) Project Volumes 15. Adjacent Site Volumes at Study Intersections 16. Adjacent Site Volumes at Access 17. Project Plus Adjacent Site Volumes (Phase II) at Study Intersections 18. Project Plus Adjacent Site (Phase ll) Access Volumes 19. Buildout with Project Plus Adjacent Site (Phase II) Volumes at Study Intersections 20. Proposed Geometrics Under Buildout Conditions with Project Plus Adjacent Site (Phase 11) 21. "Northerly"Alternate Lowe's Site Concept. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach 1 1 ' LIST OF APPENDICES A. EXPLANATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ' INTERSECTION ANALYSES B. EXPLANATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL INTERSECTION ANALYSES 1 C. INTERSECTION ANALYSES WORKSHEETS ' D. INTERSECTION COUNTS 1 E. SIGNAL WARRANTS 1 F. GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS i 1 1 1 1 1 1 WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE ' LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' ❖ The traffic analyses includes nine study intersection locations,with selection based on evaluations directed by the City of Huntington Beach staff. The study intersection selection is consistent with Orange County Growth Management Program (GMP) procedures. ❖ The study intersections were analyzed for existing, project,and buildout conditions. Future year projections for project"Opening Day"conditions and buildout(Year 2020) ' volumes were provided based on traffic modeling, performed by RKJK, research of cumulative projects and analyses of the project-related traffic impacts. ❖ The potential improvement needs were evaluated at the two analysis conditions to provide a breakdown of the intersection improvements. This serves to provide a list 1 of intersection improvements associated with each traffic condition. The improvements' evaluation included field review of the locations and is limited to improvements determined to be feasible. ❖ The "Opening Day" analyses assume a scenario where appropriate cumulative ' projects and the proposed project development is assumed to be completed. Specific improvements are identified,which would address the cumulative plus project impacts under this level of development. These analyses serve to result in fair share mitigations that would offset project-related impacts. The Citywide Traffic Fees could potentially address the fair share responsibilities of the Lowe's project. ❖ For"Opening Day"conditions, all of the seven signalized study intersections would operate at acceptable levels or project impacts can be mitigated through improvements identified. The remaining two unsignalized intersections of Warner/B St. and Warner/Rotterdam would continue to operate at unacceptable Levels of ' Service, if B Street is not vacated. If B Street is vacated, the project impacts at the WILLDAN Lowe's Home improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach i intersections of Wamer/B Street would be minimized;howeverthe impacts at the study intersections of Warner/Rotterdam would remain with no feasible mitigation measures available, overriding considerations would be necessary. If B Street is not vacated, then no feasible mitigation measures are available for both the intersections of Warner/B St. and Warner/Rotterdam. In this case, a statement of overriding considerations would be needed for both intersections. If the intersection of Warner/Rotterdam is signalized and B Street is vacated, then the statement of overriding considerations would not be necessary. ❖ An analysis was performed for buildout conditions which includes long-term development of the surrounding region in addition to consideration of the site under two Phases(Phase I- Lowe's Only and Phase II- Lowe's Plus the 6.3 Acre Adjacent Site to the west). Under these long-term analyses, additional improvements would need to be considered. These types of improvements are expected to be needed in conjunction with other future developments as buildout(Year 2020)conditions become realized. It is assumed that given the long time frames involved,the improvements could require modification to best fit the actual traffic needs at that time. These analyses, however, provide a reasonable projection of conditions based on the City's traffic modeling efforts. ❖ In addition to the required Lowe's projecttraffic study(environmental)analyses,access and on-site circulation issues were addressed,as they relate to the proposed project and the adjacent site to the west of the Lowe's project. Mitigation Measures - Project Opening Day ❖ Heil/Beach: Add a second westbound through lane(combination through/right)and take out westbound right turn lane. " This improvement is listed within the City as being a fully funded project and would be covered through the payment of the traffic impact fee. ❖ Warner/Beach: Add a westbound right turn lane. Developer to build improvement and take traffic impact fee credit for full improvement cost. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach ii ❖ Warner/Newland: Add a southbound right turn lane. Add a westbound right turn lane. * Developer to build improvements and to be reimbursed for 30% of improvement cost for mitigation beyond project's impact. Funding for reimbursement is unknown at the time of this study. ' Warner/Magnolia: Add a second northbound left turn lane. ' * Developer to pay fair-share contribution of 30.6% of the improvement costs. This cannot be credited toward the traffic impact fee. ❖ Warner/B St. and Warner/Rotterdam ' A statement of overriding consideration is required. ' ❖ If B Street is vacated, then provide a 190 foot eastbound left turn pocket at the ' proposed signalized drivewayto the project on WarnerAvenue between Rotterdam Lane and B Street. If the adjacent site is to be considered,then the eastbound left turn pocket should be lengthened to 250 feet. Mitigation Measures - Buildout ❖ Heil/Beach: Add a second northbound left turn lane. Add a second southbound left turn lane. ' * These improvements are listed within the City's Transportation System Needs Analysis program and would be covered through the payment of the traffic impact fee. ❖ Warner/Gothard: Add a westbound right turn lane. ' * Developer to pay fair-share contribution of 26.6% of the improvement costs. This cannot be credited toward the traffic impact fee. ' WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach iii These are the findings and conclusions for the Lowe's Home Improvement Traffic Impact Analysis Study. �eau�PSI% Prepared by: ,$4A WILLDAN 4 fe4t on S. P ngIe, P.E. OF C D Heather Nix Registered Professional Engineer Associate Engineer/Senior Planner State of California Numbers C2673469 & TR565 WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach iv TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER INTRODUCTION This report presents a summary of our review of traffic factors related to the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Center project located on Warner Avenue east of"B"Street in the City of Huntington Beach. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed project in relationship to the surrounding street system. This study is based upon information provided by City Staff, ' previously completed studies in the area, model data provided by a City consultant, field studies and standard reference material. These analyses were completed for Lowe's Home Improvement Center based upon"Project Opening Day", which is expected to be in the Year 2002 and Buildout (Year 2020). The project trip generation and trip assignment associated with the Lowe's Home Improvement Center project forthe Buildout scenario were based upon the City's computer model,which was administered by the firm Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates (RKJK), Inc. ' A second phase was analyzed under the Buildout scenario, which includes not only the Lowe's project,but also the 6.3 acres site located west of"B"Street,north of Warner and east ' of Beach Boulevard. Information was obtained from the City of Huntington Beach regarding this site including assumptions such as the land use,square footage,and possible driveway locations. Further detailed information and potential impacts upon the study intersections regarding the 6.3 acres site to the west of the proposed project is contained in the"Buildout" section of this report. Currently located on the proposed Lowe's site is an abandoned school and athletic fields. These uses will be removed to make way for the proposed project. In addition, the Ocean ' View School District has bus storage and maintenance operations on the eastern portion of the site which will remain. The traffic associated with maintenance operations is included in the existing count data. ' WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach 1 The proposed project includes a 135,197 square foot(SF)Lowe's Home Improvement store with a 24,063 SF retail garden center. In addition,the proposed project includes a restaurant pad for a 9,000 SF restaurant. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan. As shown on the site plan,there are a total of five driveways to serve the site. There are two right turn only driveways located on Warner Avenue along with a full access which is being proposed with a signal. The remaining two access points are located on "B" Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS Beach Boulevard, also known as State Route 39, begins at PCH in Huntington Beach and continues northward through the Cities of Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton,Anaheim, Buena Park,La Mirada,and terminates at Whittier Boulevard in La Habra. It varies from a six to eight lane major arterial and is included in the County of Orange MPAH. Warner Avenue begins at Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Huntington Beach and runs eastward through the Cities of Fountain Valley,Santa Ana,and terminates at Redhill Avenue in Tustin. It is a four lane primary arterial from PCH to Algonquin Street and a six lane major arterial from Algonquin Street to Magnolia Street. Warner is included in the County of Orange MPAH. Goldenwest Street, which runs in a north-south alignment,is a four-lane divided roadway north of the 1-405 Freeway. South of the 1-405 Freeway, Goldenwest Street is a six-lane facility. Goldenwest originates in the City of Huntington Beach at Pacific Coast Highway, travels through the City of Westminsterto the Garden Grove Freeway where it becomes Knott Street. There is a posted speed limit ranging from 50(PCH to Warner)to 45(Warner to north City limit) miles per hour. Goldenwest is a primary arterial on the County of Orange MPAH. Heil Avenue is an east-west roadway,which runs through the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. The majority of Heil Avenue provides four lanes of travel;however,there are sections of Heil Avenue that have two undivided travel lanes (near Beach Boulevard). Heil WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach 2 MISTING RESIDENTIAL RK- 10 w-, ROBID6U]i tot ir- 7,7�, Nil -V1 147% - !, 6 1 T I I Tb AM V1 W 60� Dlorii&r dA1mrENAW0E ACILITY tr1 �1 IGLI I LEASEHOLD 'w PARCEL A F4 LOWERS Is ilk t A i PAD 51 4T.' L F! MIN T I 1 1-111-1 A J Z-� z 0 .;-WARMER AVENUE_ z to R —--—-- —--—-- —- 0 L) -—-- TIILIUST1160 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL "HE, !MINTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING CONFORMANCE MAIMIX. SC4E I'-50 • a a".: < mmmmmm' CD ww U"�.41' CD T T, 1.1; =1 ZZ 0 L I a z X X ...1 fl-kwhmw. nlw+ ....... - n,sw DATE 02 1 D9i2001 JOB NO 99-105 SHEET POW" OF2SHEEIS SITE PLAN FIG URE 2 Avenue serves mostly residential uses. A posted speed limit of 35 MPH exists on Heil Avenue in the study area. Gothard Street is a four-lane divided roadway, which begins at McFadden Avenue in the north and terminates at Main Street in the south. A bike lane is provided on Gothard Street in the project area. A 40 MPH speed limit is posted and parking is not allowed on Gothard Street. Newland Street runs in a north-south direction serving the Cities of Garden Grove, Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach. It extends from Garden Grove Boulevard in the north,southeriyto Pacific Coast Highway. Four undivided lanes of travel and bike lanes are provided on Newland Street in the project area. On-street parking is permitted in restricted areas on Newland Street, and there is a posted speed limit of 45 MPH. Magnolia Street is a north-south roadway,which is designated as a primary arterial by the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element. It begins at Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach and terminates in the City of Fullerton. In the project vicinity,full access to the San Diego (1-405) Freeway is provided via Magnolia Street. Southerly of Heil Avenue, Magnolia Street has four divided travel lanes with no on-street parking available. A speed limit ranging between 40 -45 MPH exists on Magnolia Street in the study area. SlaterAvenue is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane and striped median which provides travel in the east-west direction. To the east, Slater Avenue provides travel through the City of Fountain Valley and terminates to the west at Graham Street. No parking is permitted along Slater Avenue. There is a posted speed limit of 40 MPH along Slater Avenue within the study area. IMLLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach 3 1 i B Street is a roadway with a north-south alignment, which serves a Southern California Edison Sub-Station and three single family houses in the project area. B Street is located east of Beach Boulevard between Robidoux Drive in the north and Blaylock Drive in the south. ' Two undivided lanes of travel are provided by B Street. 1 Rotterdam Lane provides two undivided,north-south,travel lanes in the study area. It exists between Warner Avenue and Friesland Drive,east of Beach Boulevard. Residential uses are served by Rotterdam Lane. Robidoux Drive is a two lane,east-west roadway which runs between Beach Boulevard and B Street. ' Study Intersections and Existing Traffic Volumes A total of nine study intersections, in proximity to the proposed project,were selected to be 1 analyzed within the study for the short term and buildout analyses. The selection of the study intersections were based upon procedures consistent with Orange County Growth ' Management Program(GMP)guidelines for determination of the study area. Input from City staff and initial modeling efforts were also a part of the intersection selection process. Preliminary analyses of the surrounding intersections were conducted to provide information on the selection process of study intersections. One factor for selecting the intersections was 1 whether the maximum possible ICU impact of the project on the intersection,which would be 1.0 percent or more was met. Table 1 indicates whether there is a possible ICU impact by providing a Y (yes) or N (no) answer. Intersections with a maximum possible impact less than 1%cannot be significantly impacted by the project, as defined by the City of Huntington Beach. Table 2 lists the study intersections which were selected to be analyzed in this study. Intersections fartherfrom the project than those listed in Table 2 cannot be impacted by the project except under special circumstances,which do not apply here. No further analysis of the remaining intersections listed in Table 1 is required in this study. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 4 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 1 SELECTION OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS Lowe's Home Improvement Center INTERSECTION MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POSSIBLY NAME ICU IMPACT IMPACTED? Heil Ave. / Beach Blvd. 1.3 % Y Warner Ave. / Goldenwest St. 1.0 % Y Warner Ave. / Gothard St. 1.9 % Y Warner Ave. / Beach Blvd. 4.6 % Y Warner Ave. / Newland St. 5.4 % Y Warner Ave. / Magnolia St. 1.3 % Y Slater Ave. / Newland St. 1.3% Y Edinger Ave. / Beach Blvd. 0.8 % N Gothard St. / Heil Ave. 0.3% N Heil Ave. / Newland St. 0.4 % N Heil Ave. / Magnolia St. 0.3% N Warner Ave. / Edwards St. 0.6% N Slater Ave. / Beach Blvd. 0.8 % N Slater Ave. / Gothard St. 0.7% N Newland St. /Talbert Ave. 0.6% N Slater Ave. / Magnolia St. 0.1 % N (City of Fountain Valley) Warner Ave. / Bushard St. 0.6 % N (City of Fountain Valley) Warner Ave. / Brookhurst 0.5% N (City of Fountain Valle 5 TABLE 2 ' STUDY INTERSECTIONS Lowe's Home Improvement Center 1 Signalized Intersections Heil Ave. & Beach Blvd. Warner Ave. & Goldenwest St. Warner Ave. & Gothard St. Warner Ave. & Beach Blvd. Warner Ave. & Newland St. Warner Ave. & Magnolia St. Slater St. & Newland St. Unsignalized Intersections Warner Ave. & B Street 1 (Project Access) Warner Ave. & Rotterdam Lane (Project Access) 6 Most of the study intersections are exclusively located within the City of Huntington Beach, however, four of the study intersections have joint jurisdiction with the City of Westminster (Heil/Beach) and the City of Fountain Valley (Newland/Warner, Magnolia/Warner and Slater/Warner). In addition, two of the study intersections intersect with Beach Boulevard which is within the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans requested additional ramp analysis to be conducted. Project traffic accessing the freeway via Beach Boulevard to northbound 1-405 and WarnerAvenue to southbound 1-405 would utilize loop ramps where there is no restriction to the movements,either inbound or outbound movements to/from the project. These ramps are free flowing or could be equivalent to a "FREE" right turn movement. Under ICU methodology,a"FREE"movement is not included in the overall critical movement analysis;' therefore these ramps would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the project. Existing AM and PM peak hourtraffic counts were gathered at the nine study intersections. Field data were also collected regarding the existing lane geometrics and traffic controls. Figure 3 presents the existing lane geometrics and traffic control devices at each of the study intersections. As shown in Figure 3, all of the study intersections are signalized, except for the two study intersections of B Street/Warner Avenue and Rotterdam Lane/Warner Avenue, which are controlled by STOP signs on the minor streets. The existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements are illustrated on Figure 4. Appendix D contains the count data at each of the study intersections. Existing Level of Service The intersection counts and field data for the signalized intersections were utilized in the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)methodology of intersection analyses. An ICU value is calculated in this methodology based upon a ratio of the critical peak hour volumes to available roadway capacity. These values are then related to Levels of Service(LOS),which are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and range from LOS "A"(the best)to "F"(the worst). Appendix A contains a more detailed explanation of ICU, as well as the LOS definition. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 7 City of Huntington Beach i No Scale ..I S m 'qy HEIL 1� AV.Co y FZ �o WARNER �{ AV. SLATER AV. 3 z o a c o 0 0 = z z W m W z I LEA mN752�1 77O N APPROAOW 39 TLANE -4 k., .4 r WARNER AV. Cr cc EXISTING GEOMETRICS JOBa 12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 3 AE o '$ m c a = 2821321 a _ 631150 a GOLDEN WEST ST. rnf-7111326 rn-t-5831468 MAGNOLIA _ GOU)ENWEST 871204 82/197 - 840/941 -0 4431572 GOTHARD ST. 182i120 > 65/51 N N O R y D m �- z y =1 r*7 A m m n z m 2491239 N Z 191/178 AEAc- , BL. 4-2681/2929 ►n-F 684/631 O) J 1A pr 190/167 1931272 BEACH GOTHARD 1951172xll:�r 1851199 15613146 ->" a� 193/858 ACC 71/61 i 60/100 W N o b ±N NEWLAND ST. cD � �o x I o — NW c = MAGNOLIA DST. I i a W 5/17 $ 308/415 rn n PC 13112 m� 4791233 Tv B ST. W BEACH 516 1991236 411 161511964 38115 1101162 a voSi N � � ,^ V VJ H � � z O O (A ` w 98/f01 S Z 8l1 N in Z 139/90 w a a �p-+F-648/624 1n 0/0 m 4 9131894 119168 114 J 85199 NEWLAND NEWLAND n ROTTERDAM 136/166 921193 .� Q 6141872-� a"'. 1914 ro 5711979 w 71149 0/0 ->• !.a 65147 n�i m•� e N i In conformance with the Orange County CMP guidelines, a saturation flow value of 1,700 vehicle per lane per hour is used as the maximum capacity of vehicles that could be served by each approach lane at an intersection,when utilizing the ICU methodology. No adjustments are made for protected movements with dedicated lanes. In addition, a lost time factor of 5 percent (0.05) is added to the ICU calculation. The unsignalized study intersections were analyzed utilizing the "1994 Highway Capacity Manual (94HCM)". This methodology defines operating conditions in terms of Levels of Service(LOS),which are based on vehicle delaytimes. A more detailed explanation of LOS as it pertains to the Highway Capacity Manual is contained in Appendix B. It should be noted that the findings for the unsignalized intersection operation is based upon the average approach delay for the worst approach and not the overall intersection operation. In addition,due to the fact that the unsignalized intersections are currently over saturated,it can be assumed that drivers will accept smaller gaps in traffic. With this assumption made, a smaller gap parameter maybe assumed. In this study,a 5.5 second gap parameter for the side streets was utilized. In accordance with the City's General Plan, Level of Service (LOS) D is considered an acceptable Level of Service for intersections. Existing Intersection Analyses Table 3 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for existing conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The ICU and HCM worksheets for the study intersections are contained in Appendix C. As shown in Table 3, six of the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours,while the remaining three study intersections of Heil/Beach(0.94/E-AM,0.95/E-PM),Warner/B Street (F-AM, F-PM) and Warner/Rotterdam (F-AM, F-PM) are considered over capacity. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 8 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROJECT OPENING DAY (YEAR 2002) Lowe's Home Improvement Center INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION(ICU)/LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) EXISTING+OTHER INTERSECTION EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING+OTHER EXISTING+OTHER +PROJECT CONDITIONS CONDITIONS +PROJECT CONDITIONS W/MITIGATIONS [:AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR Signalized Intersections Heil & Beach 0 94/E 0.95/E 0 99/E 0.99/E 1 00/(E/F) 1 00/(E/F) 0 92/E 0 95/E Warner& Goldenwest 0.54/A 0.61/B 0.57/A 0.63/13 0 57/A 0.64/B - - Warner&Gothard 0.75/C 0.85/D 0 78/C 0.88/D 0.78/C 0.90/D - - Warner& Beach 0.80/C 0.86/D 0 84/D 0.90/D 0 87/D 0.92/E 0 87/D 0.86/D 1° Warner& Newland 0.69/B 0.86/D 0 73/C 0 91/E 0 76/C 0.96/E 0 69/B 0 88/D Warner& Magnolia 0.61/13 0.89/D 0.63/B 0.93/E 0 64/B 0 94/E 0 64/B 0 87/D Slater& Newland 0 65/B 0.67/B 0.70/B 0.71/C 0.70/B 0.72/C - - Warner& Si nalized Pro ect Drivewa - - - - 0 62/B 0.70/B - Unsignalized Intersections Warner& B Street */F 445.8/F */F 605.5/F */F */F (1) (1) Warner& Rotterdam 533.8/F 272.7/F 607.6/F 329 3/17 '/F */F (1 (1 ' "Range Limits"in the HCS program have been exceeded, which results in LOS F. (1) It should be noted that this intersection is currently operating at an over capacity Level of Service and typical roadway widening type improvements would not mitigate this intersection since the impacts are related to the "delay"in entering Warner(from B Street); a g., less traffic on Warner is needed which is not within the project's control. Potential improvement measures to address these over capacity locations are addressed ' later in this document. One potential improvement at the unsignalized locations is installation of a traffic signal; but for this type of improvement, there are guidelines which are typically examined prior to installation of a signal. Signal Warrants The intersections of Warner and B Street and Warner and Rotterdam are both currently unsignalized and operating at over capacity Levels of Service. This analysis was performed to ascertain if these two study intersections satisfy the Caltrans traffic signal warrant. Warrants for the installation of traffic signals have been developed by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans. These warrants are based upon various factors including volumes and time periods. ' The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant(Warrant 11)was applied to the study intersections of Warner/B Street and Warner/Rotterdam. Based upon the guidelines for determining the applicable warrant,Figure 9-9(Rural Areas)was utilized in these analyses as indicated in the Traffic Manual' whereby;the"rural"warrant is specified when the major street has a speed limit over 64 km/h (40 MPH). Appendix E contains Figure 9-9 and the warrants for the ' unsignalized intersections. Table 4 summarizes the results of the traffic signal warrant application. As shown in Table 4, the study intersections of Wamer/B Street and Wamer/Rotterdam currently do not satisfythe requirements for installation of a traffic signal, under existing conditions,as the minimum volume thresholds on the minor street are not met. PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS Other Area Projects ' The Cities of Huntington Beach,Westminster and Fountain Valley planning departments were contacted to obtain a list of approved projects within the study area to be included in these analyses. The Cities of Westminster and Fountain Valley indicated that there were no other ' Traffic Manual; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); Chapter 9 "Traffic Signals and Lighting", Warrant 11; July 1996. W/LLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 10 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Lowe's Home Improvement Center TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT 11 (2) CONDITIONS YES NO Warner & B Street Existing X(') Existing+Other X(') Existing+Other+Project X(') Warner & Rotterdam Existing XO) Existing+Other XO) Existing+Oth e r+Project XO) (1) The minimum volume threshold on the minor street was not met. (2) Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrant applicable for these analyses and based on the peak hour volumes. 11 area projects to be included. In orderto provide a conservative evaluation,however,a growth rate was utilized to reflectfuture growth in the area as well as to address the potential impacts of projects not specifically identified in this report. The City of Huntington Beach issued a list of other area projects which may disperse traffic ' into the study area. "Other Area" projects to be incorporated into these analyses include: a Huntington Crossing: Commercial/Theatres a Crest View School Redevelopment: Commercial Information was gathered from traffic studies which were prepared forthese projects and were included in this analysis. Trip generation rates and trip distribution applicable to the"other area"projects were referenced in the previously prepared traffic studies. These factors allow the determination of potential traffic volume impacts on the study intersections, so the pre- project conditions can be evaluated. Table 5 indicates that the"other area" projects are estimated to generate a total of 16,418 dailytnp ends of which 641 (532 In, 109 Out)would occurdunng the AM peak hour and 1,908 (747 In,1,161 Out)would occur during the PM peak hour. These trip end totals were assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the assumptions contained in traffic studies forthese projects. The resulting AM and PM peak hourvolumes,traveling through the intersections being evaluated in this study,were combined with existing traffic and ambient traffic growth, resulting in pre-project conditions. Ambient Growth The proposed Lowe's project is anticipated to have its Opening Day atthe end of Year2001. To provide conservative analyses, it was assumed that the proposed project would be built and occupied in approximately two years. The existing peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections were then projected to the future Year 2002. Based upon discussion with City of Huntington Beach Staff, a growth rate of 2.0 percent per year was utilized. Future, pre- ' WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 12 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 5 TRIP GENERATION - "OTHER AREA" PROJECTS Lowe's Home Improvement Center TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY 1N OUT IN T OUT Huntington Beach Crossing"' - (Entitled Less Existing) 4,168 72 14 352 491 Crest View School Redevelopment(z) (Commercial) 175,000 SF 12,250 460 95 395 670 TOTAL 16,418 532 109 747 1,161 (1) Information provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. (2) Crest View School Redevelopment Traffic Study; prepared by RKJK 13 i No Scale EDINGER AV. m sq'y U) koo c~i� y cn HEIL AV. 39 'cy WARNER AV. I-; z W c PROJECT m a o J W Q LOCATION a & z W SLATER AV. LEGEND j • -STLDY nrr5ZISEcn WS PROJECT LOCATION MAP ' JOB#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 1 project traffic volumes are calculated by applying the growth factor(2.0 percent per year)to the existing intersection traffic count volumes, utilizing the equation (1 + i)n, where "i" is the growth factor and "n" is the number of years of growth. These future volumes (before the proposed project is added) include the impacts for any other area projects not specifically identified by the agencies contacted, as well as account for any general area traffic growth. Existing plus "Other Area"Projects plus Ambient Growth Analysis Intersection Analyses These"other area"traffic volumes along with the ambient growth for each movement at the study intersections can be found in the "Other'column of the ICU worksheets contained in Appendix C and are illustrated on Figure 5. The ICU and HCM analyses were calculated after the "other area" project volumes and ambient growth were added to the existing volumes. These volumes represent pre-project conditions and are illustrated on Figure 6. As shown in Table 3, under existing plus other conditions four of the nine study intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. The remaining five study intersections of Heil/Beach(0.99/E-AM,0.99/E-PM),Wamer/Newland (0.91/E-PM), Warner/Magnolia (0.93/E-PM), Warner/B St. (F-AM, F-PM) and Wamer/Rotterdam (F-AM, F-PM) are considered over capacity. Traffic Signal Warrant Traffic signal warrants were again applied to the two unsignalized study intersections of Wamer/B Street and Warner/Rotterdam. Appendix E contains Figure 9-9 and the warrants for the unsignalized intersections under existing plus other conditions. Tab/e4summarizes the results of the traffic signal warrant application. As shown in Table 4, the study intersections of Warner/B Street and Wamer/Rotterdam do not satisfy the requirements for installation of a traffic signal under existing plus other conditions. Similar to results shown for existing conditions,the minimum volume thresholds for the critical approach on each minor street are not met. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 City of Huntington Beach 14 0 o GOLDEN WEST z f ST. u � f 19ro3 � ui1 18/69 re II/I9 d CA � �'` �MAGNOUA �OU)ENWEST 4/8 YS GOTHARD 39150 -►- w 18128 N ST. 7114 OA-1 Z M >E BEACH a BL. ``^ -4-148/183 �-28145 B ST BEACH 7 GOTHARD v R 77 RO 'ERDA. 6/12 718 ` 1021212 20140 ->- OD 2/4 NEWLAND ST. A < \p I C < UA NNE < A 3 0Q s z 0/0 S P. 14125 MAGNOLIA ST. I ref 0/0 r.1f138/162 Ln I` 0/0 10/23 v RB ST. w BEACH 0/0 \ 10129 O 0/0 -4• > 3 a 3 W194 0/0 5/6 a � tir y M 4/4 m > $ > N Z 0/0 +o _ 6/4 A f 56/55 n1 f 0/0 rn f 67166 U1 x R� O 'NEWLAND �,. !� o/o �NEWLAND O_— � OD5/7 ROTTERDAM 416 30185-► v v+ 0/0 3 c o 18/85 8/37 > W a 0/0 -0 N 317 < 0/0 Q W p o pl I N^ a NU a.goZ a e 3 9 181n2e a A s�- 189m5 N N m< 172/268 ; o n w O n a v al m e, 95/214 0 �_989/1322 C9 �-1022/1336 m rE-856/1106 / 1067/1583 153/178 j i 175/55 ( Z21/281 -A 1951302 WARNER AV. WARNER AV. WARNER / AV. WARNER AV 2351279 j 185/127 j 3261487 / 1001130 1257/1041 -�- „ ,� 1112/923 -b ^ 1359/916 769/773 ->r 125/15B �3 241nn a s 234/223 N e 76/99 I �o m 1 2 3 4 n < I v ~ ^ a g o i 37/95 n N o°p< 180/191 ^N 2/34 o a 2/28 781566 <v` cm �_446/36{ �_26/6/2561 5/2513 �_1� WARNER s012onAV. HEIL 'l 10&" WARNER 7AV. WARNER AV. 2 �/ < 91/123 f 184/186 15/103 / 2113 p 873/752 -9.- N ♦ 378n98 -b ' 1540/1429 ->. 1582/1470 -� W 55/31 N q N 1217 ^ 7/16 \ 11/21 O N y` � 5 64 7 8 ek 13 170206No cafe SLATV.EDINGER AV. 1!!l �8691MIM107/13W try ►� f: NCO y y HEIL 6 h AV. --T 39 7 8 may_ WARNER 3 4 AV. 5 W c PROJECT h c 3 a LOCATION m k Z z W W 3 Q 0 m Z SLATER 9 AV. I LEG�ID l7/35 -AM/PM PEAK l-OLR PROJECT OPENING DAY VGYLJLES WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES Joan 12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 6 PROJECT CONDITIONS Trip Generation In order to analyze the potential impacts of the project, it is necessary to evaluate the trip ' generation of the proposed project. After discussions with City staff and the modeling consultant, ITE2trip ratesforthe land uses of Home Improvementand High Tu mover(sit down) ' Restaurant were utilized for these analyses. In addition,the garden center was included in the total square footage for the Lowe's store which provides a conservative evaluation of project impacts. A trip generation comparison was made between the Lowe's land use and a general retail land use. The comparison indicated that the Home Improvement trip rates generated more traffic than if the retail land use rates were used. The higher trip rate (home improvement) was,therefore, utilized in the model to provide a conservative evaluation of project related impacts. ' The Citymodeling consultant,RKJK&Associates, Inc.,was retained to perform analyses for 9 P Y 1 this project utilizing the Santa Ana River Area(SARA)traffic model,which was accepted for use by the City of Huntington Beach as well as other agencies. The SARA model develops peak period and peak hourtrip generation estimates directly from local travel demand data as part of the modeling process. The trip generation which is derived for the project through the modeling process,therefore,may differ from directly taking the trip generation rates out of the Trip Generation manual and applying them to the proposed project. The model assumes some interaction between existing land uses within the area. This is a basic recognized function of the modeling process as an integral part of accepted modeling tprocedures. ' z Trip Generation, 61h Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 1997. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 15 City of Huntington Beach Table 6 lists the trip generation rates associated with the proposed project which were generated within the SARA traffic model. Table 7 provides the projected trip generation,generated by the SARA traffic model,for the proposed project. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 7,200 daily trip ends of which 280(215 In,65 Out)would occur during the AM peak hour and 565(225 In,340 Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. Based upon the current site plan,the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Center and the proposed restaurant have separate access points and parking areas. Due to the fact that the site plan separates the two proposed land uses within the site(Lowe's and the restaurant), the total trip generation would need to be split to provide trip generation for each separate land use for site access purposes. As stated previously,the trip generation for the site was generated by the model. RKJK was contacted to obtain information on the trip generation for the separate land uses. Discussions with a representative from RKJK indicated that the model does not generate the information for each land use separately. In orderto separate the trip generation between the Lowe's Home Improvement Center and the proposed restaurant, the percentage of each land use of the total trip generation was established by utilizing the ITE publication Trip Generation. By utilizing the ITE trip generation rates to establish trip generation for each use, a percentage of the total project was established. This percentage was then applied to the trip generation established by the model for the proposed project and the breakdown between the two land uses are shown in Table 7. Trip Distribution As mentioned previously, the model generates the peak hour volumes for the proposed project and also provides a distribution pattern associated with the surrounding street system based upon the SARA Traffic Analysis Zone(TAZ)structure, traffic loading points, existing and proposed street system. As stated previously,the trip distribution is also a function of the WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 16 City of Huntington Beach r TABLE 6 TRIP GENERATION RATES - PROPOSED PROJECT 1 Lowe's Home Improvement Center TRIP GENERATION RATES PER DESCRIPTOR ' LAND USE DESCRIPTOR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT ' Trip Generation Rates:-(Lowe's Project) Home Improvement/ Per 1,000 SF 42.91 1.28 0.39 1.34 2.02 Restaurant"1121 Trip Generation Rates('):-(Adjacent 6.3 Acre Site) Daily: Ln(T) = 0.643 Ln(X) + 5.866 Retail Per 1,000 SF AM Peak Hour: Ln(T)= 0.596 Ln(X)+2.329 (61% In, 39% Out) PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.660 Ln(X)+3.403 (48% In, 52% Out) Daily: Ln(T) = 0.768 Ln(X) + 3.654 Office Per 1,000 SF AM Peak Hour: Ln(T)= 0.797 Ln(X)+ 1.558 (88% In, 12% Out) PM Peak Hour: In: 0.25 Out: 1.25 [Rates used as the equation (PM)are not applicable for the size of the office proposed.] Fast Food Per 1,000 SF 496.17 25.43 24.43 17.41 16.07 Residential -SFDU Per DU 9.57 0 19 0.56 0.65 0.36 (1) Source: SARA Model (2) Trip generation rates were understood to be derived utilizing Trip Generation, 6'" Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE);1997. Land Use assumptions were Home Improvement Store for Lowe's and High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant for the restaurant pad. Based upon discussions between RKJK and the City of Huntington Beach Staff. (3) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 1997. 17 TABLE 7 TRIP GENERATION - PROPOSED PROJECT Lowe's Home Improvement Center TRIP ENDS LAND USE SIZE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT PHASE I-LOINE'S PROJECT ONLY Lowe's Home Improvement(" 159,260 SF 5,995 160 45 180 290 Restaurant Pad( 9,000 SF 1,225 55 20 45 50 TOTAL 168,260 SF 7,220 215 65 225 340 ADJACENT 6.3 ACRE SITE Retail 37,125 SF - Proposed 57,000 SF 4,750 70 44 208 225 19,875 SF - Existing (2,410) (37) (24) (104) (112) Fast Food -Existing 4,200 SF 2,080 107 103 73 67 -Minus Passby (50%) -2,100 SF -1,040 - 53 - 51 -36 -33 Subtotal -Existing 2,100 SF (1,040) (54) (52) (37) (34) Office 6,700 SF-Proposed 13,200 SF 280 33 4 3 16 6,500 SF- Existing (160) (19) (3) (2) (8) Residential�Z� -Existing, but not included in9 DU (90) (2) (5) (6) (3) Future NET VOLUMES ADDED TO ROAD SYSTEM 2,460 47 21 105 121 TOTAL VOLUMES FOR DRIVEWAY ANALYSES 7,110 210 151 284 308 PHASE H TOTAL: LOINE'S 8 ADJACENT 6.3 ACRE SITE 9,680 262 86 330 461 (Trips to be Added to study Intersections PHASE 11 TOTAL: LOINE'S 8 ADJACENT 6.3 ACRE SITE 14,330 425 216 509 648 (Trips to be Added to Project Driveways) (1) RKJK does not provide a breakdown between the home improvement land use and the restaurant land use. In order to breakdown the trips for each land use,the trip generation rates were obtained for each land use from the ITE publication Trip Generation and a percentage of each land use based upon the total was established. These percentages were then applied to the total trips generated by the SARA Model, which were utilized in this study. (2) The single family residential units are currently on the site,but will be demolished with the development of the retail/office uses. This information is shown for informational purposes and is not included in the analyses of the intersections or the driveways. 18 project land use assumptions which were specifically input into the model and are representative of the proposed project. Therefore,the traffic model was utilized to establish the trip distribution pattern, which is illustrated on Figure 7. The trip ends associated with the proposed project were assigned to the surrounding street ' system based upon the distribution pattern illustrated on Figure 7. The resulting trip assignment for the proposed project is shown on Figure 8. Figures 9 and 10 provide a ' detailed look at the project access points for distribution and project trip assignment, respectively. It should be noted that the access points were analyzed under two scenarios. This first scenario assumes B Street remains open and provides secondary access to the site via WarnerAvenue;and the second scenario assumes B Street is vacated,in which case all access to the project site would be via Warner Avenue. Existing plus "Other Area"Projects plus Ambient Growth plus Project Anal sis Intersection Analyses The project volumes were added to existing plus other area projects plus growth conditions. These volumes are illustrated on Figure 11. Intersection analyses were performed at all of the study intersections plus the additional intersection of the main access to the site on WarnerAvenue,which is proposed to be signalized,under Project Opening Day conditions with the project. Review of Table 3 indicates that three of the study intersections and the proposed signalized access would operate at acceptable Levels of Service. The remaining six study intersections of Heil/Beach(1.00/E-AM, 1.00/E-PM),Wamer/Beach(0.92/E-PM), ' Warner/Newland(0.96/E-PM),Wamer/Magnolia(0.94/E-PM),Warner/B St. (F-AM,F-PM) and Warner/Rotterdam (F-AM, F-PM) would operate at over capacity conditions. Traffic Signal Warrant Traffic signal warrants were again applied to the two unsignalized study intersections of Wamer/B Street and Warner/Rotterdam. Appendix E contains Figure 9-9 and the warrants for the unsignalized intersections. Table 4 indicates that both the study intersections of ' Warner/B Street and Wamer/Rotterdam would not satisfythe requirements for installation of WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 19 City of Huntington Beach i 4%t No Scale 0 EDINGER 4/° 1% AV. 2% 2% k i F.: 1s°i° 1 �5% O HEIL AV. 2% ;G20% y 1% 11 2 1% /0 t 21% 100 23% 2 3% 16% 10% WARNER tj AV. 8% tq 1%11% 16% 17% Q % 3 1% V 17% Z 12% O 2% Z Q 4% cc °Lu Z ° SLATER `t15/° /�- AV. f� t1% t 2% t 15% 7% t 290 = PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT NOTE: DISTRIBUTION IS BASED UPON OUTPUT RELATED TRAFFIC ON THE FROM THE SARA TRAFFIC MODEL. ROADWAY 1% = PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT RELATED TRAFFYC WITH ORIGIN OR DESTINATION IN THESE GENERAL AREAS PROJECT DISTRIBUTION JOB#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 7 i No Scale T a m EDINGER AV. a f HEIL AV. F= 4/5 } 4/5 ca v, a a m 14/71 SITE 117 113 39 11/58 /r 1/3 7 3/7147 11/58 N -4—49152 34136 �j• f 4/20 WARNER AV. A1 22n1 13114'-� 17/18 —� � 24125 -} � 37/38-'- � 7/34 2/10 7/31 N a a A 15/78---� 10154 —4 8141 1/7 h , k: SLATER -A' AV. sn f 212 1/3 y W p _ p m Q h C Z Q a Q a Z opc Ix Lu 9 m W m p p C9 Z z W C9 m LEGBVD 10120 -A 41FM PEAK AOX VOLLAES PROJECT VOLUMES (PHASE 11 AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS ]OBE 12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 8 i 10% SITE LOWE'S DWY 10% 1`40% o u� o Sx(IN) NOM I 50% � -� � f 45% �- 45% WARNER -{- � 5x(our) I 5% 45% 5% g 45%5Z IN) Co ~ O m Lowe's Home Improvement Only SITE No Scale LOWE'S DWY `to`t �,-45% NOM WARNER 55% /1 f 5% f 45% I f 45% 55% 50% 5% g 45%�. 5% 45%i' p N m ui m O NOM=NOMINAL Ix Lowe's Home Improvement Only With "B" St. Vacated SITE LOWE'S DWY 10% o Cmf 30% ^ 35% WARNER f 55% 550/c ' 45% I f 10% 55%} 55/o 55%} ° g 45%} G IY ~ W N i m O i m Restaurant Only PROJECT ACCESS DISTRIBUTION JOB#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 9 i 4/30 SITE No Scale � LOWE'S DWY 16118 so 615 Go a s c o N -E- 78196 ZR 819 N 19116 WARNER /173 */ f 21 A 9123 -A/ ( -�- 78186 819 72180 38/34, 291155} 110/115-30- 40150 -p 20113230 F= cr- N � m O OC Phase 1 (Scenario I - "B" Street Open) SITE LOWE'S DWY 615 cn o H -4- 78/96 y C4 C4 72181 A 19/16 WARNER �-36/187 /� �- 13/42 9/23 I_f 78186 1181124 80189 38135J 291154} 38135 201131-)m C CO) W m � OC Phase 1 (Scenario II - "B" Street Vacated) LEGEND PROJECT ACCESS 72181"AWW PEAK�a R VOLUMES VOLLAeS ' 1013#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 10 N 2991341 o Z 661156 rr, GOLDEN WEST ST. a.2 u n--4-8911395 SC V rn-4-607/497 81287 � MAGNOLIA �� A'GOLDENWEST �/ 951217 85/205 $79/999 -�^ o r.Wi 4611600- - m m GOTHARD N $T. 1891234 > e 70/55 ® � N rn 0 m o m " .i -i m z m cr1 73 00 z r f Z RI "i r 0,l ,�W,� � °' r' T59/249 N Z 199/185 f 2868l3153 � -E-7121676 BEACH w BL. 1981200 203/290 l 8 ST W BEACH N �� GOTHARD v 2041191 J / 192/207 /e ROTTERDAM 2270/3419-b" o m 513/698-�- v OD �a 75163 711113 rn m NEWLAND ST. < cp A �o z o < < — (38115 m C w 7132 362/647 MAGNOLIA ST. f0 i �-4—15127 o m-4-2307/2573 1J1 1 297/511 / BEACH le 2471377-oe j 0 2050/2654-0 1701203 o >E 102111 Li O b.' -4-7091703 $ b rZ�t ` N = � 1671117 �t 17/32 Ir Jr, � f 88/103 C NEWLAND �.ST. ROTTERDAM j,. m RB ST. R NEWLAND Fes+ 14111; m 1914 J N 9n \ J ` 659/973-*- 27n ,�b„ 111/2Z8 �+ •� 38115 > ,' 599/1064 �' r d 79/86 L r• 68/54 < N a a 10 w a traffic signal under post project conditions due to the fact that the minimum volume thresholds on the minor streets are not met. Mitigation Measures - Project Opening Day In order to provide acceptable intersection operations, and to determine mitigation for the ' project's impact,the following improvements are required. It should be noted, in some cases these improvements mitigate not only the proposed project's impacts,but impacts caused by other projects and ambient traffic growth, as well as some existing deficiencies. These ' improvements are shown on Figure 12. Also provided below is discussion regarding the action taken to implement the improvement. Heil & Beach ' ❑ Add a second westbound through lane(combination through/right) and take out westbound right turn lane. ' This improvement would mitigate pre-project and project impacts, but would not provide acceptable LOS values during either the AM or the PM peak hours. ' Responsibility. This improvement is listed within the City as being a fully funded project and payment ofthe traffic impact fee constitutes sufficient mitigation. Warner& Beach ❑ Add a westbound right turn lane. This improvement would mitigate existing,pre-project and project impacts,and would provide acceptable LOS values during both the AM and PM peak hours. Resyonsibilit Developer to build improvement and take traffic impact fee credit for full improvement cost. ' WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 20 City of Huntington Beach i I No Scale I HEIL /� AV. ����- y o, � } `cco � I AV. f Ir o Q Z G O to W Q SLATER AV. EU I 0 c END 39 LEG � � I Co � �F 'PWOP0� �lT /4 � -E / - -LAI1E TAKHV OUT [ 7 WARNER >( AV. } Q Lu O PROPOSED GEOMETRICS I Cr UNDER PROJECT OPENING DAY WITH PROJECT JOB#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 12 Wa rner& Newland ❑ Add a southbound right turn lane. ❑ Add a westbound right turn lane. These improvements would mitigate pre-project and project impacts, and would provide acceptable LOS values during both the AM and PM peak hours. Responsibility Developer to build both improvements and to be reimbursed for 30% of improvement cost for mitigation beyond project's ' impact. Warner& Magnolia ❑ Add second northbound left turn lane. This improvement would mitigate pre-project and project impacts, and would provide acceptable LOS values during both the AM and PM peak hours. Responsibility. Developer to pay fair-share contribution of 30.6% of improvement cost. This cannot be credited toward the traffic impact fee since this intersection is not forecasted to be a problem in the City's TIF study. ' Warner/B St. & Warner/Rotterdam It should be noted that there are no typical roadway widening improvements which could be made at the intersection of Warner/ B Street or Warner/Rotterdam. Signalization of the intersection of Wamer/B Street would mitigate the LOS F,but the intersection's proximity to ' the Beach/Warner intersection would result in an undesirable traffic signal spacing. ' Signalization of the intersection of Wamer/Rotterdam would also not be an option due to the close proximity to the proposed signal at the project main access on Warner to the west. Since the over capacity LOS(existing conditions through project conditions)is related to the delay of side street traffic,reduced traffic on Wamerwould be needed(to improve the LOS), which is not within the control of Lowe's. These two study intersections are currently operating ' at an over capacity Level of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours without the project WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 21 City of Huntington Beach and would continue to worsen with the addition of future development and growth. If acceptable mitigation measures cannot be adopted with the approval of the proposed project, a statement of overriding considerations would be necessary. However, the statement of overriding consideration would not be needed if the main access were to align with Rotterdam, thus providing a signal at Rotterdam and B Street were vacated. Percent of Project Impact The "Percent of Project Impact" was determined based upon the City's Traffic Study guidelines. Table 8 indicates that at the study intersection of Heil/Beach, the project has a 18.7 percent impact;a 34.5 percent impact at the study intersection of Warner/Beach;a 46.0 percent impact at the study intersection of Wamer/Newland;a 30.6 percent impact at the study intersection of Warner/Magnolia and at the study intersection of Warner/Gothard, a 26.6 percent impact. Under project opening day conditions, the proposed project would be responsible for contributing its"fair share"(30.6%)of the intersection improvement cost at the study intersection of Magnolia/W amer. This fair share contribution cannot be credited toward the Traffic Impact Fee program since this intersection is not forecasted to be a problem in the City's Transportation System Needs Analysis. It is recognized that the City of Huntington Beach has a Citywide Traffic Impact Fee which is expected to be applicable to the proposed project. Project mitigation measures which are identified as improvementsto befunded bythe traffic impactfee program are eligibleforTIF credits. The improvements at the study intersection of Heil/Beach would be covered by payment of the traffic impact fee due to the fact that the improvements are shown in the City's Transportation System Needs Analysis. At the study intersection of Warner/Beach, the developer is to build the improvements listed forthe intersection, but may take TIF credit for the full project cost. The full TIF credit maybe taken due to the fact that the improvement is listed in the Transportation Needs Analysis. In addition, the benefit of the improvements to the intersection, which is an ICU benefit of 6 percent would offset the projects impacts of 2 percent. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 22 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE OF NET TRAFFIC IMPACT ' Lowe's Home Improvement Center PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES CALCULATION IMPACT Heil VP = 114 100 (114) at V, = 8,682 8,682 - 8,073 18.7 % Beach Ve = 8,073 Warner VP = 310 100 (310) at VC = 9,358 9,358 - 8,460 34.5 % Beach Ve = 8,460 Warner VP = 255 100 (255) at V, = 5,832 5,832 - 5,278 46.0 % ' Newland Ve = 5,278 Warner VP = 119 100 (119) at VC= 6,327 6,327 - 5,938 30.6 % Magnolia Ve = 5,938 Warner VP = 90 100 (90) at Ve = 5,383 5,383 - 5,044 26.6 % Gothard V = 5,044 ' V 100 Equation: y ( � (Vd - (V.) ' Legend: 1 = Percent of Project Traffic Impact VP = Project Traffic Volumes Ve = Cumulative Volumes for Study Period Ve = Existing Traffic Volumes 23 At the study intersection of Warner/Newland the developer is to build both improvements,but will be reimbursed for 30 percent of the projects costs for mitigation beyond project's impact. The ICU benefit at this study intersection due to the project's improvement is 7.6 percent with the project's impact of 5.3 percent. The City was unable to provide the funding source for the reimbursement. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Traffic Modeling Data The Buildout baseline condition or no project condition, was developed utilizing the City's transportation model(SARA Model)prepared bythe consulting firm, RKJK Associates, Inc. These projections account for growth throughout the City of Huntington Beach as well as surrounding regional areas. RKJK utilized the SARA Model to forecast peak hour intersection turning movement forecasts at the study intersections,along with daily traffic volume forecasts. The projected"Buildout" volumes,without the project,at the study intersections can be found in Appendix F and are illustrated on Figure 13. Intersection Analyses Intersection analyses were performed at the study intersections for Buildout conditions(without any development on the projectsite)utilizing the SARA Model generated peak hourvolumes. It should be noted that model data was not generated forthe intersections of Slater/Newland, Warner/B Street and Warner/Rotterdam. In order to perform intersection analyses under Buildout conditions, Long Range volumes were derived for these three intersections utilizing the Model generated peak hour volumes of the adjacent intersections. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 24 City of Huntington Beach EI� fz 184/376 a 63/161 GOLDEN WEST ST. " M-4--71/1339 mf 711/t170 r o 4791216 353/273 �/ MAGNOLIA �'` GOLDENWEST -1' 911206 �f 1*" 821202 z 848/1052 %D+t 7261994 -P- > 0m v GOTHARD ST. 2291273 $N 94/51 < N O R=t C A 2511241 $ 192/179 BEACH BL. ~ 4 2707/2978 y' rz+tf 6901820 W 1911213 IN274 B ST � BEACH N fGOTHARD J ROTTERDAM 196/242 J "%\f /'V" 197/116 186/3177 -'> t S 6811908 OD dy 72/81 as a 701119 o NEWLAND ST. < _- co x _ c 5 ��W o 361/618 5/17MAGNOLIA ST. z f�/� zf219oizs o4 A 13/12 2441455 Tv B ST. W BEACH R 516 \f 264/351 411 -> > , 1975/2484 38/15 1291160 > w b td cl y y 99/108 "'. Z 8/1 140190 O g a e �f 6611749 ' �f 0/0 q 929/1102 J EWL 2/4�! r 85/99 r-+ x /r NEWUNDOD NEWUND CA) ►g O 152/191 ROTTERDAM 1161250 663/1046}' �i" 19/4 61//1251 y 91/59 U/0 -� °p 118/69 > $o 27/7 � V Table 9 indicates that the study intersections of Heil/Beach (0.96/E-AM, 1.04/F-PM), Warner/Beach(1.04/F-PM), Warner/Newland(1.05/F-PM),Warner/Magnolia(0.98/E-PM), Wamer/B Street(F-AM, F-PM)and Warner/Rotterdam(F-AM,F-PM)would all operate at an overcapacity Level of Service. The remaining three intersections of Warner/Goldenwest, Warner/Gothard and Slater/Newland would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. The study intersection of Warner/Gothard is, however,on the borderline operating at a 0.90/D during the PM peak hour. These intersection analyses were performed assuming future traffic volumes combined with the existing geometrics. The ICU worksheets for the study intersections can be referenced in Appendix C. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Buildout conditions were also evaluated with the project. Under buildout conditions the proposed project was broken down into two phases: Phase 1 consisted of only the proposed project (Lowe's project). D Phase 1l includes not only the proposed project,but also the adjacent 6.3 acres site located west of B Street and north of Warner Avenue. Phase I- Buildout with Lowe's Only Lowe's project volumes shown on Figure 8 were added to the Buildout volumes shown on Figure 13,so the intersection analyses could be updated. Figure 14 shows the intersection volumes under buildout conditions with the Lowe's project only. Intersection analyses were performed at the study intersections for Buildout conditions with the project and with and without B Street. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 25 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY - LONG RANGE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Lowe's Home Improvement Center INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION(ICU)/LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) LONG RANGE LONG RANGE+PROJECT LONG RANGE+PROJECT INTERSECTION CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS (W/Existing Geometrics) (W/Existing Geometrics) (W/Post Project Mitigation) AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR Signalized Intersections Heil& Beach: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.96/E 1.04/F 0.96/E 1.06/F 0.83/D 0.90/D ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.96/E 1.04/F 0.96/E 1.061F 0.83/1) 0.90/1) Warner&Goldenwest: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.67/13 0.77/C 0.68/13 0.77/C - ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.67/13 0.77/C 0.68/13 0.78/C - - Warner&Gothard: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.82/13 0.90/D 0.83/D 0.91/E 0.83/13 0.87/D ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.82/D 0.90/D 0.83/D 0.92/E 0.83/1) 0.88/D rn Warner& Beach: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.85/13 1.04/F 0.87/D 1.09/F 0.87/D 1.05/F ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.85/D 1.04/F 0.89/D 1.14/17 0.89/1) 1.09/F Warner& Newland: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.85/D 1.05/17 0.88/D 1.10/F 0.83/1) 1.05/F ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.85/13 1.05/F 0.89/D 1.12/F 0.84/D 1.07/F Warner& Magnolia: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.67/13 0.98/E 0.67/13 0.991E 0.67/13 0.93/E ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.67/13 0.98/E 0.67/13 1.00/E 0.67/13 0.93/E Slater&Newland: ♦ Lowe's Only 0.71/C 0.74/C 0.72/C 0.76/C - - ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 0.71/C 0.74/C 0.72/C 0.76/C - - Phase I -Lowe's Only Phase 11 -Lowe's Plus Adjacent 6.3 Acre Site TABLE 9 (Cont.) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY- LONG RANGE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Lowe's Home Improvement Center INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION(ICU)/LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) LONG RANGE LONG RANGE+PROJECT LONG RANGE+PROJECT INTERSECTION CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS (W/Existing Geometrics) (W/Existing Geometrics) (W/Post Project Mitigation) AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR Signalized Intersections(Cont.) Warner& Signalized Project Driveway: ♦ Lowe's Only -B St. Open - - 0.37/A 0.64/B - - - B St.Vacated - - 0.38IA 0.70/13 - ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site - B St. Open - - 0.42/A 0.68/13 - - -B St. Vacated - - 0.46/A 0.79/C - - Unsignalized Intersections N J Warner& Rotterdam: ♦ Lowe's Only 85.8/F 158.9/F 134.0/F 126.2/F (1) (1) ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site 85.8/F 158.9/F 171.2/F 215.5/F (1) (1) Warner& B Street: ♦ Lowe's Only -B St. Open 105.5/F 210.3/F 149.0/F 685.8/F (1) (1) - B St. Vacated 105.5/F 210.3/F 28.3/F 129.5/F (1) (1) ♦ Lowe's +Adjacent Site - B St. Open 105.5/F 210.3/F 206.2/F */F (1) (1) - B St. Vacated 105.5/F 210.3/F 33.2/F 250.5/F (1) (1) Phase I - Lowe's Only Phase 11 -Lowe's Plus Adjacent 6.3 Acre Site (1) It should be noted that this intersection is currently operating at an over capacity Level of Service and typical roadway widening type improvements would not mitigate this intersection since the impacts are related to the "delay"in entering Warner(from B Street); e.g., less traffic on Warner is needed which is not within the project's control. o W C c N C _ W o�S V N�'3 n 9 198/179 a 'C 181/207 n N N 227/488 m o W 91/208 / �C �--965/1477 G9 �-1015/1486 m .F_J40/1071 Z {_1109/1969 WARNER tAV47 W RNER� 188/BAV. RNER 36 �AV. WARNER 1 AV. 234/270 1791123 j ` I 4201644 106/171 j f 1612/1059 �- ,� 1466/967 -i- 1110/651 -� _ 1513/1019 -0- 1211216 oei 2341268 N m'^ 4501318 �+ 0 961179 A N 3 � =� �4 N � A 1 2 3 iia 4 �° a �PNZ w+< 10/125 LA, 10143 H �_910401 994 N -11M4 61 -J 'F'71 18/2428 E-71 2212476 m cc WARNER 1< AV. HEIL WARNER AV. WARNER AV. 1171129 178/180 231112 f 1555/1011 -i- _ 3661492 -1r- 1534/1224 -►- ,o ,,, 1557/1336 54143 N h N 1771262 N ,7°D 7116 `+ "� .Z 3 7116 " ee 5 �N 6 'N 7 7 N 0 0 6133 f 1374/2317 No cafe f 27131 EDINGER AV. WARNER AV. s s9/37 � C �'�' / m '9y 1676/1336 W 11121 o O N Z 1' t%-b 8h h h HEIL 6 AV. c e ` O�p 39 8 58H17 7 Rmay_ i- z .t._4381756 1 2 WARNER 3 NE 4 AV. 5 SLATE 1` 38184 < ,( W c PROJECT = y In 10 z�i718 W = LOCATION v m c g Z 113n60 a p C9 2 9 SLATER 9 AV. LEGEND 17135 -AAffV PEAK/-O R Vocu+IES BUILDOUT WITH Josu 12670 7A -B STRUT OPHV O-B STRUT VACA7m �LOWE'S ONLY) PROJECT VOLUMES PROJECT VOLUMES WILLDAN NorE.COKES OALY CASs Sscn� LOKIFS FIGURE 14 AM PROPOSED RESTALRANT PAD) Table 9 indicates that the study intersections of Heil/Beach (0.96/E-AM, 1.06/F-PM), Warner/Gothard (0.91/E-PM),Warner/Beach (1.09/F-PM),Warner/Newland (1.10/F-PM), Warner/Magnolia(0.99/E-PM),Warner/B Street(F-AM, F-PM)and Warner/Rotterdam (F- AM, F-PM) would all operate at an over capacity Level of Service. The remaining two intersections of Warner/Goldenwest and Slater/Newland,along with the project main access at Warner,would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. These intersection analyses were performed assuming future traffic volumes combined with the existing geometrics. The ICU worksheets for the study intersections can be referenced in Appendix C. Phase 11- Buildout with Lowe's Plus Adjacent 6.3 Acre Site As stated earlier, there is a 6.3 acre site adjacent(to the west)of the proposed project.The Cityof Huntington Beach requested thatthis site be included in the overall analyses with the proposed project. Currently on the 6.3 acre adjacent site there is an existing fast food restaurant which will remain. Also on the site are nine single family residential dwelling units which would be demolished with development of the adjacent site. The existing retail(19,875 SF)and office (6,500 SF)land uses currently on the site would expand to provide 37,125 SF of additional retail use and 6,700 SF of additional office use. In orderto determine the impacts of the adjacent site with the proposed project,the adjacent site was added to the Lowe's project on the surrounding street system. Trip Generation,was referenced to obtain trip generation rates associated with the adjacent site land uses. Table 6,which was presented earlier in this report,provides the trip generation rates utilized in this study for the adjacent land use. Due to the fact that there are existing uses on the site,traffic generated by these uses would be included in the existing counts at the study intersections. Two separate trip generation estimates were generated. One would not include the existing land uses due to the fact that these are already on the street system. These net trips would WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 28 City of Huntington Beach be distributed onto the street system for the"study" intersection analyses. The second trip ' generation which includes not only the existing uses on the adjacent site, but also the proposed uses to be built, would be distributed to the driveway locations and the adjacent intersection of Warner/Beach. rAs indicated in Table 7, which was presented earlier, the adjacent 6.3 acre site would generate a total of 7,110 dailytrip ends of which 361 (210 In, 151 Out)would occur during the AM peak hour and 592 (284 In, 308 Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. For intersection analyses purposes,the netvolume increase to the study intersections would be* 2,460 dailytrip ends of which 68(47 In,21 Out)would occur during the AM peak hour and 226 (105 In, 121 Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. The same City traffic model distribution pattern development for the Lowe's Home Improvement Center project was utilized forthe adjacent development. In orderto distribute traffic from the adjacent parcel onto the street system, the potential access points were reviewed. Due to the constraints of the surrounding street system, all driveways located directly on Beach Boulevard or Warner Avenue would be restricted to right tums onlyfor both the ingress and egress movements. There were discussions with City Staff regarding access to this parcel and itwas indicated Robidoux could potentially be vacated,and a full access driveway ' provided at that location along Beach. Beach Boulevard,however,is controlled by Caltrans and it is unlikely that a full access driveway(which would likely require signalization)could be provided. Full access at Beach Boulevard was,therefore,not addressed in these evaluations. Access would also be provided via driveways located on B Street. Due to the location of the P Y driveways forthe Lowe's project on B Street,traffic associated with the adjacent project could utilize the traffic signal(via cutting through the Lowe's parking lot)at Lowe's main access and Warner Avenue. There may be a need for an easement agreement with Lowe's and the WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 29 City of Huntington Beach adjacent parcel (to utilize the proposed signal at Lowe's main driveway/Warnervia Lowe's parking lot). In addition,two access scenarios were included in these analyses,with B Street and B Street vacated. The proposed adjacent site trip generation was distributed to the street system and the resulting trip assignment is shown on Figure 15. Figure 16 illustrates a detailed look at the adjacent site volumes at the proposed access points. Under Phase 11 conditions, Lowe's plus the adjacent site would generate a total of 14,330 daily trip ends of which 641 (425 In,216 Out)would occurduring the AM peak hour and 1,157(509 In,648 Out)would occur during the PM peak hour. These trips would be utilized to analyze the project driveways. For intersection analyses purposes,the net volume increase to the study intersections would be 9,680 daily trip ends of which 348(262 In,86 Out)would occur during the AM peak hour and 791 (330 In, 461 Out)would occur during the PM peak hour. Figures 17 and 18 illustrate Phase II conditions, Lowe's project plus the adjacent site development volumes at the study intersections and access points, respectively. These volumeswere added tothe Buildout volumes without the project,shown previouslyon Figure 13. Figure 19 illustrates the long range buildout projections with the Lowe's project and adjacent site volumes at each of the study intersections. Intersection Analyses The intersections were analyzed under buildout (long range) conditions with the project/adjacent site(Phase II)and with the existing intersection geometrics. As indicated in Table 9,only the study intersections of Wamer/Goldenwest,Slater/Newland and the proposed signalized access on Warnerwould operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hour. The remaining intersections of Heil/Beach(0.96/E-AM, 1.06/F-PM), Warner/Gothard(0.92/E-PM),Warner/Beach (1.14/F-PM),Warner/Newland (1.12/F-PM), WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 30 City of Huntington Beach i No Scale U) EDINGER AV. e S,9 ti HEIL N 112 mNOM/2 NOM/12/10 f 2/13 26/52NOM/1 1/5 26152 'A/ f 2 8/17 WARNER AV. 0 418 5112 } /� 36148 V12 : 1/4 ` _ �► a 5/28 3/19 3115 NOW m ,=a SLATER AV. 1/3 v~i W CO) 's t) im cl W Q W S Z tY 3 m W Q W ca LEGBVD 10120 -AIWPM PEAK ACW VOLLh S ACM-AMOVAL A 40LIVT ADJACENT SITE VOLUMES AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS MJOB#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 15 1 1`32/65 ADJACENT SITE LOWE'S SITE No Scale 72196 U) o c m co N m -�- 26152 32143 WARNER 21 63185 63 85 ( 951128 -E- 951128 361481/ 44/60 } 44160 68/139 Z m o v W O w RIGHT TURN ACCESS &ACCESS THROUGH LOWE'S SITE I WITH ACCESS ON "B"STREET ® 1,_32/65 ADJACENT SITE LOWE'S SITE F: 72196 c CO) �-26152 , 0° WARNER 26152 95/128 - -951128 951128 -E- 951128 36/48, l 44160 44160 -� 44160 68/139 Z cc T � CO ° o v ui W O RIGHT TURN ACCESS &ACCESS THROUGH LOWE'S SITE WITH "B"STREET VACATED ADJACENT SITE VOLUMES ONLY (NO LOWE'S TRAFFIC) JOBN 12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 16 I No Scale h N EDINGER AV. sqy HEIL AV. sn vi -jADJA a m ` S CENT 14171 SITE SITE 'C. 1/9 ' 37/110 1/4 0 39 37/110 h { 7137 a �—9150 0`i 4/19 `D `r 60176 f 26/33 5128 1<v4 I< WARNER f AV. �,/ 4 16/20—0 21126 —� 29/37'} 36148 9146 3/14 J 9 6 37/38—�' a 20/106—D a 13173 —� 11156 119 CIA SLATER AV. 7/10 -E— F- T 219 v W C C Z N ri o z tj= a g °at Lu 3 O m W Q y W C9 m i LEGEND 10120 -AOPM PEAK AaR VOLLA ES PROJECT & ADJACENT SITE ' VOLUMES (PHASE III AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS JOB#12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 17 I ( ADJACENT SITE LOWE'S DWY LOWE'S SITE No Scale 615 40152 N W 64/7Y �- 173/224 WARNER �'` -E--961258 19h6 -.F-- 116/179 � �9/23 ,� ,.�_ f 73/214 ( 52169J 72/80 j a 38134 J 971294} 1101115-30 40150 -) 881271-) p N W (to � O Phase II Scenario I - "B" Street Open) ( W LOWE'S DWY LOWE'S SITE ( ADJACENT SITE Q v 6/5 > H m( 173/224 M 72181 ► 19116 WARNER 4 1311315 Aj 108/170 ,� 9/23 /� (f 173/214 1621184 124/149 �1� 38/35J 971293 38135 881270 30 C F= Qr try W ( Phase II (Scenario II - "B" Street Vacated) t LE Gew 72181-AA&PM PEAK Na R VOLLMES PROPOSED PROJECT PLUS 6.3 ACRE JOB#12670 ADJACENT SITE ACCESS VOLUMES WILLDAN FIGURE 18 am T tt u w 2911386 a $ 70 631151 �+ a GOLDEN WEST ST. w rn-E-7111339 :0�'711/1170 MAGNOLIA �� GOLDENWEST 96/113 l 82/202 M1052 -�^ 'O+ 7261994 �e�o > M M GOTHARD N ST. 22on73 a N 961� < 0 V m v ® DN, CO' y � z N O0o r 2511241' A 192/179 BEACFI BL. ( 27W3038 ref 6901020 W O) 191/213 196/277 D (q B ST L .EACH N rGOTHARD n 197/251 've1971226 J ROTTERDAM 22 3260"� 6811908 -> a+ 00 d� 72181 \i a=. 81I132 AND NEWL ST. e x 11. 0 MAGNOLIA CST. N 7131 361/628 O1 Mf 1/'I ' "' zf219012504 Ln 15/27 - 333/562 9 SST.. w �/ EACH 516 r 264/351 / le N1 -> > j+f' 2011/2532 38115 166/198 > w O w < O 991108 167/124 w ��$ � 17/32 q '� Z �"a Z f 667/781 + rZn f 0/0 f 92911102 n 1 5199 fNIEWUNO ,� A/� 0/9 V - �N6EWLAND f-+ B ST. ca � ROTTERDAM m / y ► 1521191 / �f 9/7 J 1481290 r 681/1069-► ` 1914 . > j+ 614/1252 -►' (/] 92/59 < 'nd ON -1• '�+Si w 38115 :' 2 128/69 < m 27/7 o, Warner/Magnolia(1.00/E-PM),Warner/B Street(F-AM, F-PM)and Warner/Rotterdam (F- AM, F-PM) would all operate at an over capacity Level of Service. Mitigation Measures - Buildout Conditions In order to provide acceptable intersection operations or to mitigate the project's impact,the following improvements are required. These improvements are also shown on Figure 20. It should be noted thatthe improvements shown under Project Opening Daywere incorporated as a part of these"General Plan Long Range improvements". The improvement measures required for Buildout conditions are shown below. All of the improvements listed within this study apply to both Phase I and Phase II analyses. Heil & Beach ❑ Add a second northbound left turn lane. ❑ Add a second southbound left turn lane. These improvements would mitigate existing, long-term project impacts and would also provide acceptable LOS. Responsibility Due to the fact that this intersection is in the traffic impact fee program and the mitigation measure matches the improvements in that program,payment of the traffic impact fee constitutes sufficient mitigation. Warner & Gothard ❑ Add a westbound right turn lane. This improvement would mitigate long-term growth and project impacts and would also provide acceptable LOS. Responsibility: Developer to pay fair-share contribution of 26.6%. This cannot be credited toward to traffic impact fee since this intersection is not forecasted to be a problem in the City's TIF study. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 31 City of Huntington Beach i No Scale m sq HEIL AV. Cn Co 1-Z �- -4 WA_LRNE`R, AV. � f -F -%��7ff } } �- � m o � Q o Z SLATER AV. LEGEND 39 m f -i ( =PROPOSED mCw0VEtiLENT I1< =LAI1E TA�1/OrJT � �f WARNER A V. g tl w PROPOSED GEOMETRICS o UNDER BUILDOUT CONDITIONS cc WITH PROJECT & ADJACENT SITE PHASE II ]OBM 12670 WILLDAN FIGURE 20 ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION The potential access and on-site circulation of the Lowe's site plan were reviewed. As mentioned earlier,there are a total of five driveways to serve the proposed Lowe's site. Three access points are located on Warner Avenue, one would provided right turn ingress and egress only,one would provide full access in and rightturn only out and one driveway would provide full access with a proposed signal. The other two access points are located on B Street. The proposed signalized driveway access to the site provides dual southbound leftturn lanes (each approximately 145 feet)and a single southbound rightturn lane. The dual southbound lefttum lanes could potentially accommodate up to 290 vehicles per hour. This storage would be more than adequate forthe combined project and adjacent site volumes of 270 vehicles, with B Street vacated. The proposed single eastbound left turn lane on Warner at the proposed signal should be lengthened to 250 feet to accommodate project and adjacent site volumes of 253 vehicles, which were projected with B Street vacated. Under Phase I,with only Lowe's considered and B Street vacated, a 190 foot eastbound left turn pocket is recommended. A westbound right turn pocket is also proposed at the signalized driveway on Warner. The plans show an adequate length to accommodate project and adjacent traffic volumes. The proposed length of the lefttum pocketto the drivewayon Wamerserving the loading area of Lowe's,the Ocean View School District Bus Maintenance Facility and the restaurant pad would be adequate. B Street Analysis Currently the site plans indicates two driveways located on B Street to serve the project site. With the addition of the adjacent land use to the proposed project analysis,two scenarios for B Street were analyzed in this study; one was B Street to remain open and the second was WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 32 City of Huntington Beach to vacate B Street. Under either scenario,the study intersections would generally operate at the same Levels of Service. It is recommended that B Street be vacated from Warner Avenue north to Robidoux Drive, which would serve to mitigate traffic impacts and could provide additional parking,which may ' be lost through attempts to provide access for the adjacent 6.3 acre site. Vacating B Street would also provide the needed storage in future for the westbound left turn pocket at Beach/Warner. If B Street is vacated, some form of "internal aisle" would be needed to connectthe adjacent site(to the west)through Lowe's project. This connection would provide an increased usage at the proposed Lowe's main driveway/Wamer intersection; however,the intersection would remain at an acceptable Level of Service C. If B Street were to remain,the driveways associated with the adjacent 6.3 acre parcel would need to align with the Lowe's project driveways on B Street. i On-Site Circulation On-site circulation as depicted on the proposed Lowe's site plan was examined. Truck access to the site would be provided via the driveway located directly to the east of the main ' driveway located on Warner Avenue. This driveway will provide full access for ingress; however,egress is restricted to right turns in and out. Adequate turning radii is provided for ' trucks accessing the site at this driveway, along with sufficient on-site maneuverability. The restaurant land use also has an internal driveway which would provide access to the same ' area as the Lowe's trucks and buses for the school district along with utilizing the same driveway location on Warner. There are traffic concerns related to mixing trucks with passenger vehicles at access points and on-site. It is suggested that the northwest driveway to the restaurant site be restricted to emergency vehicles only. ' WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 33 City of Huntington Beach There were concerns raised by staff atthe City of Huntington Beach and Police Department representatives regarding access between the restaurant parcel and the Lowe's building along the Ocean View Channel,respectively. If the City requires reciprocal access between parcels,an internal access drive could be created north of the building bythe following(a)on property utilized for the access road for the drainage channel or (b) the building could be moved to the south to allowforan access road between the Lowe's building and the Channel. Both of these suggestions would satisfythe preliminary comments of the Huntington Beach Police Department. Alternative Site Plan There is also an Alternative site concept,in general it involves relocating the Lowe's building to the north side of the site(facing WarnerAvenue). Figure 21 illustrates a site plan concept prepared bythe City of Huntington Beach,wherethe Lowe's building is located to the northerly side of the site. For this Alternative, the traffic signal would be loC9d at the Warner/Rotterdam intersection. For purposes of these traffic analyses, the off-site traffic impacts are assumed to be equivalent to the proposed project evaluations. Under this Alternative site plan,signalization of the intersection of Warner/Rotterdam would provide for increased Level of Service. In addition, this concept would provide for on-site circulation between the two proposed uses, the restaurant pad and Lowe's. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job #12670 34 City of Huntington Beach .. .r .. .. M NN -..F-..-..F- NNU- MN - =9 1 :,NO .: .: m T' -Q- No Scale - N ' LOWE'S �M I � - _ - �' _ �1 Iillllllllllllllllifl = I I PAD o = SITE 1 I � WARNER AVENUE I NOTE. PROVIDED FOR CONCEPT PURPOSES ONLY. IF THIS CONCEPT IS PURSUED A FORMAL SITE PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED. 12670 "NORTHERLY' ALTERNATE LOWE'S SITE CONCEPT 0 NUN ENGINEERING, INC. 21 FIGURE ' APPENDIX A ' EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND ' LEVEL OF SERVICE APPENDIX A ' EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersections and less at ' intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continuously between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement; (b) summing the times for the movements; and (c) comparing the total time required to the time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traffic is 1,000 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 800 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then 1 northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,0000/2,000 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent. When left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated ■ into the analysis. As ICU's approach 100 percent,the quality of traffic service approaches ! Level of Service (LOS) E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, Highway Research Board, 1965. Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various Levels of Service appears on the following page. ' The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. It is possible to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand, with excess time existing on other moves. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is not necessarily valid, it can be performed with the presumption that a signal can be installed and the calculations show whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot lanes. Our data indicates that a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left-turn lane, has a capacity as ' high as approximately 2200 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual found capacities of 1800 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. These studies show that values in the 1600 to 1700 range should result in a conservative analysis. APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF NOMINAL RANGE SERVICE DESCRIPTION OF ICVa) Low volumes;high speeds;speed not restricted by other vehicles;all A signal cycles clear with no vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no 0.00-0.60 vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between B one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles 0.61-0.70 which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other C traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or 0.71-0.80 more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles D have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal 0.81-0.90 cycle during traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection can E accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal 0.91-1.00 cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; F traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero;traffic volume will be Not Meaningful less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. (a) ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels of Service versus Level of Service E for urban arterial streets. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual; Special Report 87; Highway Research Board; 1965. i APPENDIX B ' 1994 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (94HCM) EXPLANATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOPPED DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 5.0 _ B 5.1 TO 15.0 ' C 15.1 TO 25.0 D 25.1 TO 40.0 ' E 40.1 TO 60.0 F > 60.0 ' UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION r STOPPED DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 5.0 B 5.1 TO 10.0 ' C 10.0 TO 20.0 D 20.0 TO 30.0 ' E 30.0 TO 45.0 F > 45.0 APPENDIX B - 94HCM LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS ' FOR INTERSECTIONS ' LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all sign A cycles clear with no vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic,between one and ten B percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through morl than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic, C between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic period recommended ideal design standard. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one D more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during traf], periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Capacity, the maximum traffic volumes an intersection can accommodat , E restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or mor vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffl periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow, stoppages of long duration; traffic volum F and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. � APPENDIX C � INTERSECTION ANALYSES WORKSHEETS e ' iJNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BEA.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ' University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R ( L T R L T R �---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 ! 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ NJ Volumes 1 15 1480 71 7 2543 21 5 4 381 13 1 5 PHF .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (x) SU/RV's M CV's M 1.10 PCE's-------1.10----------—-------------—--- -----1 10------ ---------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BEA.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 523 893 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 752 489 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 752 489 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ------------------------------------------ ------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1565 2679 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 734 402 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 734 402 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4264 4266 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 11 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.60 0.90 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NS SB ------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4262 4260 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 12 12 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.57 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.66 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements O.B7 0.62 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 7 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 6 10 594.5 0.6 F NB T 4 10 > 117.2 NB R 44 752 > 105 60.4 1.7 F SB L 15 7 * 1.6 F SB T 1 10 > SB R 6 489 > 62 65.3 0.2 F EB L 18 402 9.4 0.0 B 0.1 WB L 8 734 5.0 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 6.3 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.lg W&BEP.HCO Page 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst........... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R I L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NI NJ Volumes 1 103 1369 161 7 2457 341 6 1 151 12 1 17 PHF .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's MI CV's M 11.10 11.10 10 1.10----------- ----------- --------------------------- ------ --- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BEP.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 489 880 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 783 496 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 783 496 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WS EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1458 2622 Potential Capacity:,(pcph) 778 414 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 778 414 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.71 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4186 4177 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 12 13 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.71 0.71 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 8 9 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88 0.89 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4151 4160 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 13 13 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.63 0.62 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.71 0.70 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.68 0.69 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 9 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 7 9 727.5 0.7 F NB T 1 8 > 222.4 NB R 18 783 > 128 33.0 0.4 E SB L 14 9 * 1.4 F SB T 1 9 > 445.8 SB R 20 496 > 139 30.5 0.4 E EB L 119 414 12.2 1.2 C 0.8 WB L 8 778 4.7 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 4.8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BEOA.HCO Page 1 --------------- -------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound L T R L T R I L T R I L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 11 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NJ NI Volumes 1 15 1540 71 7 2646 21 5 4 381 13 1 5 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's M CV's M PCE's 1.10 ------- ----------—-------------—-------- --------- --------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 f HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBBEOA.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 5" 929 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 734 468 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 734 468 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1628 2787 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 710 379 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 710 379 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.95 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4434 4437 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 10 9 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 8 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.56 0.88 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4432 4432 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.82 0.52 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.86 0.63 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.59 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 6 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 6 9 679.4 0.6 F NB T 4 9 > 136.2 NB R 44 734 > 95 71.5 1.8 F SB L 15 6 * 1.6 F SB T 1 8 > SB R 6 468 > 51 81.5 0.3 F EB L 18 379 10.0 0.0 B 0.1 WB L 8 710 5.1 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 7.2 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBBOP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS PM PK HR Two-way-Stop controlled-Intersection----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes ( 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NI NJ Volumes 1 103 1429 161 7 2561 341 6 1 151 12 1 17 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's (%) 1 SU/RV's (%) CV's M 1.10 PCE's-------1.10-----------1.10-----------1-10------1 1.10 -------------- --- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BOP.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 510 917 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 764 475 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 764 475 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1521 2732 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 752 390 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 752 390 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.69 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4360 4350 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.69 0.69 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 7 7 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86 0.86 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4324 4334 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 11 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.59 0.59 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.68 0.68 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.65 0.66 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 7 7 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 7 7 995.4 0.7 F NB T 1 7 > 298.9 NB R 18 764 > 114 37.8 0.5 E SB L 14 7 * 1.5 F SB T 1 7 > 605.5 SB R 20 475 > 114 38.6 0.6 E EB L 119 390 13.2 1.3 C 0.9 WB L 8 752 4.8 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 6.2 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BPA.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (B St . Open) AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R - I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I--- ---- ----I---- --- No. Lanes 11 3 < 0 11 3 < 0 11 1 < 0 11 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI I Volumes I 23 1650 71 7 2679 10I 5 4 381 15 1 7 PHF I .95 .95 .95I .95 .95 .95I .95 .95 .95I .95 .95 .95 Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 MC'S M I I I I SU/RV's MI I I I CV's M I I I I PCE's------11.10-------.--I1.10----------11.10-1.10-1.10I1.10-1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBBPA.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NO SO -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 582 946 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 702 459 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 702 459 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB ES -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1744 2831 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 667 370 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 667 370 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.93 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NO SO -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4602 4600 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 8 8 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.92 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 7 7 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.43 0.86 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NO SO -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4592 4596 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 8 8 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.79 0.39 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.84 0.52 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.82 0.48 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 7 4 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 6 7 928.7 0.6 F NO T 4 7 > 194.5 NO R 44 702 > 76 107.1 2.2 F SO L 18 4 * 2.1 F SO T 1 7 > SO R 8 459 > 56 76.2 0.4 F EB L 26 370 10.5 0.1 C 0.1 WB L 8 667 5.5 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 13.2 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BPP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (B ST . OPEN) PM PK HR Two-way-Stop=controlled-Intersection ----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 i 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ N) Volumes 112 1544 161 7 2734 431 6 1 151 27 1 32 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's M CV's M PCE's------I1_10-----------1.10 10 ----------—---------------- ---------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BPP.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 550 982 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 729 440 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 729 440 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.92 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ---------- --------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1642 2923 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 704 352 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 704 352 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.63 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4682 4668 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 7 7 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.62 0.62 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 4 4 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.75 0.75 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4637 4652 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 8 8 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.47 0.47 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.58 0.58 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.53 0.57 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 4 5 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 7 4 * 0.8 F NS T 1 4 > 577.2 NB R 18 729 > 69 70.9 0.8 F SB L 31 5 * 3.6 F SB T 1 4 > SB R 37 440 > 114 46.6 1.2 F EB L 130 352 16.1 1.7 C 1.1 WB L 8 704 5.2 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 25.7 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&BPAI.HCO Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall ' Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst.,.....—...**.... HI Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (B St VACATED) AM PK HR Two-way-Stop-controlled-Intersection ----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R I L T R L T- -R- �---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- -- No. Lanes 0 3 < 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield NJ NI Volumes 1658 71 7 2682 1 9 381 PHF .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 MC's M SU/RV's M CV's M 1.101 PCE's----------------------------------- �---- ----- ------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 i HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BPAI.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 585 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 700 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 700 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1752 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 664 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 664 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4578 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 8 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 8 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 10 8 * 1.0 F 198.3 NB R 44 700 5.5 0.1 B WB L 8 664 5.5 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec/veh * The calculated value was greater than 999.9. HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BPPI.HCO Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (B St . VACATED) PM PK HR Two-way-Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound I Westbound ( Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 0 3 < 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield NI NI I Volumes 1553 161 7 2748 1 7 151 PHF 1 .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 MC's M I I I I SU/RV's MI I I I CV,s M I I I I 11.10 1.101 -----------I-------------- ---------- 1---- ----- ---------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 1 i HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BPPI.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 554 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 725 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 725 Prob. of queue-Free State: 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1652 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 701 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 701 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4544 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 9 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 8 9 775.8 0.8 F 250.3 NB R 18 725 5.1 0.0 B WB L 8 701 5.2 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 1.3 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&BBA.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall ' Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT AM PK HR Two-way-Stop controlled-Intersection----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NJ NJ Volumes 1 15 1424 71 7 1384 21 5 4 381 13 1 5 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 ( 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's MI CV's M 11.10 PCE's------I1_10----------I1_10----------------�---------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t.f) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBBBA.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 503 487 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 770 784 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 770 784 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1506 1459 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 758 778 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 758 778 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 2984 2987 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 45 45 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 43 43 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 2982 2982 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 45 45 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.88 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.85 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 43 38 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 6 43 96.9 0.3 F NB T 4 43 > 22.1 NB R 44 770 > 320 13.2 0.5 C SB L 15 38 146.6 0.9 F SB T 1 43 > 105.5 SB R 6 784 > 226 16.4 0.0 C EB L 18 778 4.7 0.0 A 0.0 WB L 8 758 4.8 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBP.HCO Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall ' Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT PM PK HR 1 Two-way-Stop controlled-Intersection----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T-- -R-- No. Lanes 1 1 3 < 0 ( 1 3 < 0 1 1 1 < 0 1 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI Volumes 1 103 1109 161 7 2255 341 6 1 151 12 1 17 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC'S M I I I SU/RV's MI I I I CV'S M I I I I PCE's-------1.10-----------1.10-----------1.10 1,10-------.10-1.10-1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&BBP.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ---------- --------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 398 809 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 870 539 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 870 539 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1184 2410 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 903 465 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 903 465 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.74 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3700 3691 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 21 21 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.74 0.74 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 15 15 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 0.93 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3665 3674 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 22 22 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.69 0.69 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.76 0.76 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.73 0.74 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 16 16 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 7 16 344.0 0.6 F NB T 1 15 > 107.0 NB R 18 870 > 218 18.1 0.2 C SB L 14 16 495.8 1.2 F SB T 1 15 > 210.3 SB R 20 539 > 202 19.9 0.3 C EB L 119 465 10.4 1.1 C 0.9 WB L 8 903 4.0 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 2.7 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBA2.HC0 Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE I (B St. Op en) AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R �---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NI NJ Volumes 1 23 1534 71 7 1418 101 5 4 381 15 1 7 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's MI I CV's M PCE's ----- 1---- -----1.10-----------1.10-1.10-------.10-1.10 1.10 ---------------------- - Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBA2.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB ------------------------------- ------------------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 542 503 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 736 770 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 736 770 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WE EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting flows: (vph) 1622 1504 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 712 759 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 712 759 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.97 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3154 3152 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 37 37 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 35 35 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.89 0.97 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3142 3146 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 38 38 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.85 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.88 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.93 0.83 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 36 31 ------------- ------------------------------------ Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 6 36 119.0 0.3 F NB T 4 35 > 26.8 NB R 44 736 > 276 15.8 0.6 C SB L 18 31 219.9 1.2 F SB T 1 35 > 149.0 SB R 8 770 > 231 16.2 0.0 C EB L 26 759 4.9 0.0 A 0.1 WE L 8 712 5.1 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBA2.HCO Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hatt Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE I (B St. Op en) PM PK HR Two-way-Stop=controlled-Intersection ----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R �---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ NI Volumes 112 1224 161 7 2428 431 6 1 151 27 1 32 PHF .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's (%) SU/RV's (%)I CV's (%) 1.10 PCE's-------1.10-----------1.10-----------1-10------1 10------ ---------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBA2.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------- ----------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 438 874 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 831 499 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 831 499 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.93 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1305 2601 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 845 419 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 845 419 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.69 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB ---I---------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4022 4008 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 15 15 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.68 0.68 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.90 0.90 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3979 3992 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 16 16 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.61 0.61 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.70 0.70 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.65 0.68 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 11 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 7 10 635.9 0.7 F NB T 1 10 > 192.5 NB R 18 831 > 156 26.3 0.3 D SB L 31 11 * 3.2 F SB T 1 10 > 685.8 SB R 37 499 > 218 20.0 0.6 C EB L 130 419 12.4 1.4 C 1.0 WB L 8 845 4.3 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 12.0 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized intersections Release 2.1g W&BBAI.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ` University of Florida 512 Wei[ Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE I (B St. VA CATED) AM PK HR 1 Two-way-Stop-controlled-Intersection ----------------------------------- 1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 0 3 < 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield 1 NI NI I volumes 1 1557 71 7 1422 1 9 381 PHF I .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade I 0 1 0 1 0 1 ' MC's (%) I I I I SU/RV's (%)I CV's (%) I I I I 1.101 PCE's------ --------------I1-10-----------1----- ----- - - - ----------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBAI.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 550 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 729 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 729 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1646 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 703 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 703 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3146 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 38 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 38 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 10 38 125.7 0.6 F 28.3 NB R 44 729 5.3 0.1 B WB L 8 703 5.2 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBPI.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE I (B St. VA CATED) PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R (---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 3 < 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield I NI NJ Volumes 1 1336 161 7 2476 ' 7 151 PHF 1 .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 MC's M I I SU/RV's M Cv's M PCE's .101 ------I 110 1 1 --------------I - ----------I ---- .--- ------------------------ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBP1.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB ---------------------------------------- --------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 477 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 794 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 794 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1423 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 793 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 793 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4028 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 15 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 15 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 8 15 397.0 0.7 F 129.5 NB R 18 794 4.6 0.0 A WB L 8 793 4.6 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec/veh "CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&B1A4.1C0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida ' 112 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst.............. HN Date of Analysis.. ....• 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE II (B St. 0 pen) AM PK HR Two-way-Stop controlled-Intersection----------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ' L T R L T R L T R I L T R �---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes ( 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI Volumes 1 67 1534 71 7 1481 421 5 4 381 15 1 7 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's M CV's M PCE's-------1.10----------I1_10 1 ---.----------- ---- -------- ---- 1.10 ---- 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: aTY OF HUNTINGTON-BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S GOLDEN WEST ST. ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 4-AM 15 MINUTE 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT I WBTH WBLT NBRT I NBTH NBLT EBRT I EBTH I EBLT 700-715 8 93 62 30 214 24 12 87 12 19 248 33 715-730 11 125 89 41 230 27 16 112 18 29 296 52 73D-745 12 156 110 55 236 32 21 120 23 37 329 60 7454= 16 160 77 37 246 42 11 109 19 29 305 60 800-815 24 142 74 41 239 46 17 102 22 25 273 54 8154330 32 126 63 39 221 34 18 98 27 22 252 47 8304545 36 102 58 37 212 41 14 96 30 18 235 41 845aW 22 94 53 38 222 30 15 93 23 14 215 39 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 1 8 9 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT I NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 7OD-800 47 534 338 163 926 125 60 428 72 114 1178 205 4190 715-815 63 583 350 174 951 147 65 443 82 120 1203 226 4407 730-83D 84 584 324 172 942 154 67 429 91 113 1159 221 4340 7454345 108 530 272 154 918 163 60 405 98 94 1065 202 4069 800-900 114 464 248 155 894 151 64 389 102 79 975 181 3816 A.M.PEAK HOUR 63 583 350 715-875 226 t 174 1203 951 WARNER AVE. 120 147 F," 82 443 65 GOLDEN WEST ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING N10VFMFNT CO-U-NT .SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH ' DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 4:00 P.M.TO 6:00 P.M. INTERSECTION NIS GOLDEN WEST ST. ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 4-PM ' 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT 1::SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH I EBLT 4OD-415 38 109 64 51 309 31 10 145 49 35 246 59 415-430 41 106 69 47 299 39 14 136 51 36 235 64 43D 445 39 99 65 44 310 39 11 142 47 38 226 60 ' 445- � 43 92 72 45 296 42 13 145 52 34 221 64 500.515 38 106 81 59 312 44 16 143 56 39 235 76 515 9m 44 114 73 61 326 49 12 149 52 41 243 6B 530-545 40 126 62 57 309 37 12 143 47 33 257 65 545-60D 28 122 55 42 319 41 11 137 42 39 261 59 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 40D 50D 161 406 270 187 1214 151 48 568 199 143 928 247 4522 ' 415515 161 403 287 195 1217 164 54 566 206 147 917 264 4581 430530 164 411 291 209 1244 174 52 579 207 152 925 268 4676 445-545 165 438 2B8 222 1243 172 53 580 207 147 956 273 4744 500-600 150 46B 271 219 1266 171 51 572 197 152 996 268 4781 P.M.PEAK HOUR 150 468 271 500-600 26B 219 996 1 1266 WARNER AVE. 152 171 r r 197 572 _51 GOLDEN WEST ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S GOTHARD ST. ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 3-AM 15 MINUTE 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 10 1 11 1 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT I WBTH I WELT NBRT I NBTH I NBLT I EBRT EBTH I EBLT 700-715 7 124 50 30 163 13 8 105 34 42 257 19 715-730 15 13D 55 30 208 18 15 119 44 56 286 20 730-745 29 143 63 35 217 26 17 125 47 59 291 25 7454= 39 159 60 45 231 36 15 129 49 66 298 38 800-815 51 165 55 48 234 40 14 121 47 62 293 47 8154330 55 184 41 48 269 50 18 127 48 54 240 49 830-845 46 175 37 41 248 42 13 116 41 50 233 44 845-900 38 163 35 33 229 31 9 10B 36 44 217 35 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 7 1 8 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT I EBTH I EBLT ITOTALS1 700-800 90 556 228 140 819 93 55 478 174 223 1132 102 4090 7154115 134 598 233 15B 890 120 61 494 187 243 116E 130 4416 730 830 174 652 219 176 951 152 64 502 191 241 1122 159 46M 745545 191 684 193 182 982 16B 60 493 185 232 1064 178 4612 80DQM 190 688 16B 170 9B0 163 54 472 172 210 983 175 4425 A.M.PEAK HOUR 191 684 193 745845 178 _? L- 182 1064 ♦ 982 WARNER AVE. 232 168 185 493 .60 GOTHARD ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVER ENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY HUNTINGTONBEACH ' DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,200D PERIOD: 4.00 P.M.TO 6:00 P.M. INTERSECTION N/S GOTHARD ST, ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 3-PM ' 15 MINUTE 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH I SBLT WBRT I WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT I EBRT EBTH EBLT 400-415 41 157 58 39 309 16 24 182 55 45 233 21 415-430 33 151 62 43 292 18 28 171 50 42 231 20 430445 36 141 64 40 297 16 26 164 56 50 243 20 445.500 41 155 71 45 319 18 29 179 51 59 252 28 500515 51 169 75 54 336 14 26 205 54 73 223 32 515530 43 173 68 57 322 13 24 234 46 70 213 31 ' 530545 43 134 58 46 304 8 21 240 48 64 194 31 545-600 37 123 51 38 291 7 19 233 43 55 185 26 1 HOUR 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 1 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT I SBTH I SBLT WBRT I WBTH I WELT I NBRT I NBTHj NBLT I EBRT I EBTH I EBLT ITOTALS1 400-500 151 604 255 167 1217 68 107 696 212 196 959 89 4721 ' 415.515 161 616 272 182 1244 65 109 719 211 224 949 100 4853 430530 171 63B 278 196 1274 61 105 782 207 252 931 111 5006 445545 178 631 272 202 1281 53 100 858 199 266 882 122 5044 ' 5OD-600 174 599 252 195 1253 42 90 912 191 262 815 120 4905 ' P.M.PEAK HOUR 178 631 272 445.545 LIM. I122 �? 202 882 � 1281 WARNER AVE. 266 53 4 r ' 199 858 100 GOTHARD ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462977 Sep. 29 2000 09:53AM P2 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA I A DIVISION OF 1NILLDAN PROJECT. CITY OF HUNTINGTON 13EACH DATE: TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 19.2000 PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM INTERSECTION: NIS BEACH BOULEVARD E'W WARNER AVENUE FILE NUMBER: 1-AM 15 MINUTE 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 8 1 8 1 10 1 11 1 12 TOTALS SfIRT SBTH SBLT WI3RT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 700-715 70 422 85 41 148 49 28 411 36 40 299 50 715-730 65 453 99 39 201 52 30 386 47 51 344 65 730.745 80 501 121 42 197 45 27 442 50 54 304 78 74"00 88 580 135 52 224 54 32 416 44 58 389 86 800-815 75 540 124 30 204 56 21 372 58 43 299 80 815430 70 536 95 31 187 47 26 384 34 47 283 68 830-846 69 488 74 27 169 51 24 356 28 50 214 49 845-900 64 453 65 28 155 39 19 332 31 39 238 51 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 161 7 1 8 19 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SFRT I SBTH SBLT WHRT WBTH I WBLT I NBRT I NBTH NBLT I EBRT-A EBTH I EBLT I TOTALS 700.800 303 1956 440 174 770 200 117 1654 177 203 1336 279 76C 715-815 308 2074 479 163 826 207 110 1615 199 206 1336 309 783� 730-830 313 2157 475 155 812 202 106 1614 186 202 1276 312 7809 745.845 302 21" 428 140 784 208 103 1528 164 198 1185 283 744 800-g00 276 2017 358 116 715 193 80 1444 151 179 1034 248 681_ A.M.PEAK HOUR 308 2074 479 715-815 309 163 1336 __. 86 WARNER AVENUE 206 � � 207 199 1815 110 BEACH BOULEVARD THE TRAFFIC:SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA. CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7976 ' FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462877 Sep. 29 2000 09:53AM P3 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' CLIENT: WPA/A DIVISION OF WILLOAN PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: TUESDAY.SEPTEMBER 19,2000 PERIOD: 4:00 P.M.TO&W P.M. INTERSECTION: NVS BEACH BOULEVARD SW WARNER AVENUE ' FILE NUMBER: 1-PM 15 MINUTE �t 2 1 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 ' TOTALS SEIRT SBTH SBLT W13RT WSTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 40"16 114 563 47 48 197 62 29 408 62 43 270 108 415.430 105 524 51 50 233 61 34 410 56 52 264 111 ' 430445 93 496 64 64 264 49 33 461 50 50 212 110 445500 126 516 6p 56 278 68 39 493 58 61 237 127 500-616 100 552 53 70 2111 60 40 504 88 50 253 126 ' 515.530 99 604 61 62 275 64 43 490 63 48 216 110 530-545 90 646 59 58 2" 55 40 477 47 41 193 99 5454M' Be 588 47 63 266 61 33 413 56 43 170 105 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SEIRT SBTH SBLT W13RT WBTH WELT NBRT I NBTH I NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 400-600 438 2088 222 218 972 240 135 1772 226 206 983 466 7959 415-515 424 2087 228 240 1056 238 146 1866 232 213 966 474 $172 43"30 416 2167 2311 252 10" 241 155 1948 239 2011 918 473 8356 445-545 415 2318 233 2" 1078 247 162 1964 236 200 899 462 8460 500.600 377 2390 220 243 1066 240 156 1884 234 182 840 440 8272 P.M.PEAK HOUR 415 2318 233 445-545 462 246 ' 8 � � 1076_ WARNER AVENUE 99 ' 200 247 r 236 1964 162 BEACH BOULEVARD ' THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91008 626.448.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S NEWLAND ST. E/W WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 5-AM 15 MINUTE 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT I WBTH WBLT NBRT I NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 700-715 24 106 17 13 231 25 11 106 15 7 164 14 715-730 27 223 19 20 245 35 13 119 20 12 167 20 730-745 30 241 22 25 253 39 15 131 22 15 176 26 745 SM 32 266 26 28 270 46 12 121 20 22 171 22 800-815 33 233 15 23 261 53 13 140 23 21 179 25 815 330 44 173 22 15 242 45 25 179 27 15 213 23 8304345 44 111 25 8 234 36 44 200 21 8 229 17 845-901) 36 95 38 9 160 20 29 177 25 4 199 7 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 1 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 700.800 113 836 84 86 999 145 51 479 77 56 678 82 3686 715-815 122 963 82 96 1029 173 53 511 85 70 693 93 3970 7304M 139 913 85 91 1026 183 65 571 92 73 739 96 4073 745-845 153 783 88 74 1007 180 94 648 91 66 792 87 4063 800-am 157 612 100 55 897 154 111 704 96 48 820 72 3826 A.M.PEAK HOUR 139 913 85 730-830 96 ? 91 739 ___► ♦ 1026 WARNER AVE. 73 183 I 92 571 .f6 NEWLAND ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING A40VE IlENT COUNT-S-L)MNIARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 4:00 P.M.TO 6:00 P.M. INTERSECTION N/S NEWLAND ST. ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 5-PM ' 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11P TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT SBTHT ' 400-415 29 211 23 47 379 73 10 246 46 22 184 28 415-430 23 195 24 45 396 69 8 239 49 17 192 23 430-445 27 200 22 43 405 72 6 241 47 16 197 26 i 445-500 26 221 26 48 394 77 10 245 53 21 194 29 500-515 21 239 28 56 371 71 14 252 49 26 187 34 515S30 16 234 23 59 352 65 17 241 44 32 165 36 530-545 11 230 21 55 328 62 19 230 41 38 151 31 ' 545-WO 21 233 23 50 326 47 20 214 41 33 132 25 1 HOUR 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 6 7 1 8 9 10 1 11 12 iTOTALS SBRT I SBTH I SBLT t WBRT I WBTH I WELT I NBRT I NBTH I NBLT I EBRT I ESTH EBLT I TOTALS 400500 105 827 95 183 1574 291 34 971 195 76 767 106 5224 415515 97 855 100 192 1566 289 38 977 19B 80 770 112 5274 430-530 90 894 99 206 1522 285 47 979 193 95 743 125 5278 445-545 74 924 98 218 1445 275 60 968 187 117 697 130 5193 i50D.600 69 936 95 220 1377 245 70 937 175 129 635 126 5014 P.M.PEAK HOUR 90 894 99 430ZX i125 t 206 WARNER AVE. 743 1522 95 285 � r 193 979 47 ' NEWLAND ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COIJNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTOti REACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM INTERSECTION NIS MAGNOLIA ST. ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 6-AM 15 MINUTE 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 TOTALS I SBRT SBTH I SBLT I WBRT I WBTH I WBLT I NBRT i NBTH I NBLT I EBRT EBTH I EBLT 700-715 55 12 103 4 213 14 40 189 21 7 204 16 715.730 69 14 110 7 255 18 43 199 22 10 210 23 730-745 72 17 125 10 237 22 54 204 26 15 234 27 745500 75 22 127 12 258 18 49 217 22 13 211 21 800-815 66 18 103 7 226 14 36 220 17 15 184 16 815330 53 15 79 5 196 9 31 200 13 11 169 13 83D645 50 14 75 4 192 7 27 194 15 9 167 16 845-9M 46 12 6B 3 179 6 25 176 12 6 160 11 1 HOUR 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 700-800 271 65 465 33 963 72 186 809 91 45 859 87 3946 715-815 282 71 465 36 976 72 182 840 87 53 839 87 3990 730-830 266 72 434 34 917 63 170 841 78 54 798 77 3804 745-845 244 69 384 28 872 48 143 831 67 48 731 66 3531 800-900 215 59 325 19 793 36 119 790 57 41 680 56 3190 A.M.PEAK HOUR 282 71 465 715-815 � I 87 L� 36 839 `► 976 WARNER AVE. 53 72 � r 87 840 182 MAGNOLIA ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY HUNTINGTONBEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 4.00 P.M.TO 6:00 P.M. ' INTERSECTION WS MAGNOLIA ST. ENV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 6-PM 15 MINUTE 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 400-415 75 331 48 21 364 69 54 222 46 7 172 26 415A30 71 322 52 23 372 67 59 231 51 6 181 28 430 445 74 316 49 25 379 62 54 235 53 8 184 30 445500 70 320 47 22 370 57 56 228 48 6 179 26 50D-515 85 364 53 23 388 76 61 244 53 6 181 33 515.530 92 326 48 21 368 67 49 234 50 10 179 29 ' 530-545 88 331 45 24 362 64 53 228 46 8 173 26 545-600 85 322 41 19 354 59 51 216 42 5 168 23 1 HOUR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS [_SBl4 RTSBTH I SBLT WBRT I WBTH I WBLT I NBRT I NBTH_j NBLT I SBRT I EBTH LEBLT ITOTALS 4OD-9M 290 1289 196 91 1485 255 223 916 198 27 716 110 5796 ' 415515 300 1322 201 93 1509 262 230 938 205 26 725 117 59M 430.53D 321 1326 197 91 1505 262 220 941 2D4 30 723 118 593E 445-545 335 1341 193 90 1488 264 219 934 197 30 712 114 5917 ' 500-600 350 1343 187 87 1472 266 214 922 191 29 701 111 5873 ' P.M.PEAK HOUR 321 1326 197 430-530 r 118 � �_. 91 1 72310. 1505 WARNER AVE. 30 262 � r 2D4 941 220 ' MAGNOLIA ST. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION ' 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462877 May. 04 2000 11:06AM P2 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,A DIVISION OF WILLDAN PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,APRIL 27,2LOO PERIOD: 7W AN TO aw Au INTERSECTION NS ROTTERDAM LN. EAN WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 1-AM 15 MINUTE t 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 9 1 10 71 12 TOTALS :iBRT SBTH SBLT WBItT WBTH WBLT NBRT INBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 7OD-715 1 0 0 0 503 3 6 0 1 1 335 1 715-730 2 0 0 0 59B B 10 0 2 2 419 4 73D-745 1 0 1 O 663 3 5 0 8 5 399 1 74580D 2 0 0 1 670 3 6 0 1 3 377 B BOD815 3 0 1 1 621 4 6 0 8 1 326 8 8154M 3 1 2 1 540 2 4 0 1 1 261 4 83045C 1 0 2 1 473 1 9 O 0 2 2B1 4 8454M 2 1 1 2 485 3 3 0 3 1 27B 7 1 HOUR 1 21 3 1 4 1 5 6 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS :IBFtT SBTH I EBLT WBF,'T WBTH WBLT NSFIT I NBTH I NBLT I EBRT I EBTH I EBLT ITO7ALS 7OD" 6 O 1 1 2395 17 27 O 12 11 1530 14 4014 715,815 8 0 2 2 2513 18 27 O 19 11 1521 21 4142 7.304M 9 1 4 3 2494 12 21 O 18 10 1363 21 38ti6 74S845 9 1 5 4 2304 10 25 0 10 7 1245 24 3844 800.900 9 2 6 5 2119 10 22 O 12 5 1148 23 3369 A.M.PEAK HOUR 8 0 2 715-015 21 J L 2 15Z1 ♦ �_ 2513 WARNER AVE. it 18 . � 1 F-0, 19 O 27 ROTTERDAM LN THE TRAFFIC SMUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA. CALIFORNIA 91006 626A46 7978 ' FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462877 May. 04 2000 11:06AM P3 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,A DIVISION OF WILLDAN PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON 6EACH DATE: THURSDAY.APRIL 27,2t00 PERIOD: 7:0D AM TO 9:100 AM ' INTERSECTION MIS B STREET EJ'N WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER 2-AM ' 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 8 1 9 1 10 11 12 TOTALS EBRT SBTH SBLT WBIRT WBTH WELT NBRT NSTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT ' 7OD-715 1 0 1 0 505 0 5 O 1 1 351 2 715-73D O 0 2 0 569 2 10 0 2 1 410 5 730-746 2 1 8 O aw 4 9 2 0 1 386 3 745.8DD 3 O 3 0 68, 0 10 1 1 3 352 4 ' 80"15 0 0 0 2 637 1 9 1 2 2 333 3 8154M O O 2 0 522 0 2 0 2 1 269 1 830845 1 0 1 0 472 0 5 1 1 0 278 1 ' 845,000 0 1 2 0 487 1 7 0 2 1 274 3 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 TOTALS $BItT SBTH 6BLT WBItT WBTH I WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS ' 7M4= 6 1 14 0 2411 6 35 3 4 6 1498 14 3m 71SAIS 5 1 13 2 2543 7 38 4 5 7 148D 15 41M ' 730-8.3D 5 1 13 2 2496 5 3D 4 5 7 1339 11 391E 745845 4 0 6 2 2312 1 25 3 6 6 1232 9 38D7 80D%900 1 1 5 2 2118 2 23 2 7 4 11S4 8 3327 A.M.PEAK HOUR 5 1 13 715.815 41 1 15 t 2 ' 1'� ♦ 2543 WARNER AVE. 7 7 � T r ' 5 4 38 B STREET THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION ' 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462877 May. 04 2000 11:07W P4 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,A DIVISION OF WILLDAN PROJECT. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE' THURSDAY,APRIL 27,20JD PERI00: 400 P.M.TO S.W P.M. INTERSECTION NIS ROTTERDAM LN. EJVV WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER 1-PM 1SMINUTE _ 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 11 12 TOTALS ki F SBLT WBRT I WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT SBTH 1EBLT 400-415 O 0 0 6 612 1 1 0 1 4 321 0 415-M O 0 0 7 848 2 1 O 0 10 383 O 43D445 0 0 0 9 631 3 2 0 1 3 342 O 4456M 0 0 2 7 S79 1 1 0 0 1 349 1 500.615 1 0 2 5 581 2 3 O 3 7 364 2 515-630 2 1 1 6 517 2 0 0 0 6 321 0 590.645 1 0 0 5 462 1 2 0 2 1 283 2 545-600 2 0 0 6 JIM 1 1 1 1 2 226 1 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS $BF:T SBTHI SBLT I WBF'T I WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT I EBTH EBLT ITOTALSI 40361D O 0 2 29 2470 7 5 0 2 18 1375 1 38M 41&615 1 0 4 20 243D 8 7 0 4 21 1408 3 3iZ3 43D4= 3 1 5 27 230E 8 6 0 4 19 13% 3 37M 44S.S45 4 1 5 23 2139 6 6 0 5 17 1257 5 3495 50043M 8 1 3 22 2018 6 6 1 6 18 1166 5 3256 P.M.PEAK HOUR 1 0 4 415815 44-1 3 Ljo� 20 1408 ♦ 2439 WARNER AVE. 21 8 4 0 7 ROTTERDAM L.N THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626 446.7978 ' FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462877 May. 04 2000 11:07AM PS ' INTERSECTIION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,A DIVISION OF WILL016N PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,APRIL 27,XIDD PERIOD: 4.M P.M.TO 600 P.M. INTERSECTION NIS B STREET EPN WARNER AVE. FILE NUMBER: 2-PM 15 MINUTE 2 3 1 4 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 TOTALS EBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT SBRT I EBTH I EBLT 4OD-415 4 O 2 8 608 2 3 O 2 4 319 25 416 4M 7 0 2 13 &M 5 6 0 1 4 346 32 43OA45 1 1 5 5 63D 0 2 1 1 5 350 22 44515W 5 0 3 8 MI 0 4 0 2 3 345 24 500-615 7 O 4 7 567 2 5 1 O 5 352 36 515530 4 2 7 7 508 5 8 1 1 6 312 32 53D645 1 O 5 12 453 1 7 0 2 5 252 17 $454100 3 1 5 a 443 3 4 0 0 3 272 17 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 v 8 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 TOTALS SBRT EBTH SBLT WB!RT WBTH W8LT I NBRT I NBTH_j NBLT I FORT I EBTH I EBLT I TOTALS ' 4m4mo 17 1 12 34 2457 7 15 1 8 18 13W 103 JIM 415515 20 1 14 33 2408 7 17 2 4 17 1393 113 4M9 43D4WO 17 3 19 27 2288 7 19 3 4 19 1390 113 387E 445645 17 2 19 34 2111 8 24 2 5 19 1261 108 3810 500400 15 3 21 32 1961 11 24 2 3 19 1138 101 3334 P.M.PEAK HOUR 17 1 12 40D-600 ♦-JI 1 103 L.—_ 34 ' 1389 2457 WARNER AVE 16 7 � T r 6 1 15 B STREET THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND:STREET ARCADIA.Ci%LIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. : 626 4462877 Jun. 05 2001 08:30RM P3 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WILLDAN/WPA ENGINI_ER1NG PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MAY 31,20D1 PERIOD: 07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION: " NEWLAND ST E W SLATER ST FILE NUMBER: 2,AM 15 MINUTE 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 1 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WI3RT WBTH WBLT NBRT NSTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 11 82 23 11 72 8 13 107 31 17 201 14 0715-0730 26 146 39 12 93 6 12 162 33 21 218 18 0730-0745 30 179 29 14 132 14 25 182 26 25 255 13 0745-OB00 24 169 31 10 100 7 15 127 41 27 171 18 0800-0815 18 154 20 15 96 11 19 143 36 30 191 14 0815-0830 22 125 20 9 81 16 15 130 22 22 132 9 083D-0845 20 102 18 8 84 9 5 108 20 23 150 7 D8454X= 23 106 14 5 88 9 12 129 19 13 108 13 1 HOUR 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS I SEIRT I SBTH SBLT W13RT WBTH WBLT NBRT NSTH NBLT EBRT EBTH SBLT TOTALS 0700.OBW 91 576 122 47 397 35 65 578 131 90 845 63 3U 0715-0615 98 648 119 51 421 38 71 614 136 103 835 63 319, 0730-0830 94 627 100 48 409 48 74 582 125 104 749 54 3014 0745-0845 84 550 89 42 361 43 54 508 119 102 644 48 264 0800-0900 83 486 72 37 349 45 51 510 97 88 581 43 244: A.M.PEAK HOUR 96 648 119 0715-0815 -cj L-01. 93 L_ 51 835 421 SLATER 3T 103 38 138 614 71 NEWLAND ST THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 'FROM : THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION PHONE NO. 626 4462877 Jun. 07 2001 09:33AM P3 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WILLDAN/WPA ENGINEERING PROJECT. HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MAY 31,201 PERIOD: 04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION. NIS NEWLAND ST E/W SLATER ST FILE NUMBER: 2-PM 15 MINUTE _1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT W6TH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT I EBTH EBLT 0404a415 19 167 12 14 171 22 8 224 29 31 164 25 0415-MO 22 154 16 16 168 17 9 199 31 33 170 29 0430.0445 30 170 15 15 189 21 13 219 40 38 177 26 0445-OSW 19 118 15 25 138 18 7 208 45 23 100 21 0500-0515 28 151 13 25 149 22 15 168 36 34 172 34 0515-0530 30 185 25 44 199 22 14 277 45 38 167 35 0530-0545 39 195 12 31 172 28 17 176 36 45 152 27 0504" 19 120 15 14 127 12 6 134 32 32 101 it 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 /0 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT W13RT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT ITOTALS 0400-MO 90 W9 58 72 666 78 37 840 145 126 619 101 U40 0415-0515 99 593 59 83 644 78 44 78a 152 128 627 110 3401 0430-0530 107 624 68 109 675 83 49 572 166 133 624 116 36M 0445-0545 116 849 65 126 653 90 53 829 192 140 592 117 3803 05004" 116 651 65 114 647 84 52 755 149 149 692 107 3481 P.M.PEAK HOUR 107 624 68 0430-0530 116 109 624 _♦ 675 SLATER 3T 133 83 � � r 166 $72 49 NEWLAND ST THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 01006 626.446,7978 � APPENDIX E � TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 1 1 i t 1 r Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 7-1996 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8-Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT -V FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 1 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-7(RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume W flIWF-IZ g S41zeFE SATISFIED YES ❑ NON I55x/sT1Nb COND171otjs 2 or Am ft4K Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street x Oct Highest Approaches - Minor Street u 147 * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. f Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-19s ` Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 2 a > 400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) Q OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) W � °� 300 as Na a oc w z 200 � J O 0 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH IJU -N -.S;�f" roIr-log- MPrjo2 Exts7-7t4(j CoNpInO.,j Af7 �fo5t� * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. — Mi rvoQ sf-,-r�,�- doss NoT-- r466T- mjn►m unj -r;1p-e5ho[.1oL— Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 7-1 N6 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8-Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;A jQ YES ❑ NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume WAf 60-/904-1 c SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ' exisni,4e, Co►. omon15 2or AM 01- Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 2 a > 400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) QOR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) W = 300 � CL Na a M w Z E 200 � J O > 0 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH • Ex6T7t,161 Cdrndpborjs i'Y)wotz /'Y1A30R (Am PK 4ig) 4o vD * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. r»I no r does no f- mu4- m I ni rnun- A.,c5�wjd - Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-7(RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ ' (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; A_NJ2 YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AUQ YES ❑ NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume UVAeNElZ /6 S4Kt4— SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (� Extsnr46 +OT14 Q, CoNOi noNS 2 or PEAk, Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street x [�Z171 Highest Approaches - Minor Street I V ,c k7 * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,contusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) IL > 400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) QOR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) LU M 300 cc n. Na Q ¢ w 02200 O 0 100 1 LANE(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH buAvw , /6 Ekeshinq p-oTHEt C YVdl�aM miaoe m4JorL -,417 7 * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. — r 71mg- s4.,rz4 6104s &4 nXtv/ m in,ry7 vr-i. At5A,Y . Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8-Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT ./ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ ' 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES [__1NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour ' Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7(RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 " Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;A D YES ❑ NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ p WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �15f1»9 4- OTI�Q (,el�i f 1OY15 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour�E�K Both Approaches - Major Street a( Highest Approaches - Minor Street Y '7zo * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence ce of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7- M Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 2 a > 400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) W Uj CC 300 o. cn a cc LU 02200 � J O > 0 100too 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH w,gwN E2. Iqo Ot-d"VL-, • e�o s h,r -I- or)�er2 c ndj�on s m yn/oi- (n,4J o Iz 4(a * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. &r d n6l nna) /n r n I m v m 4i�rtg)74/d Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 7-1996 Figure 9-3 ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street 1 * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 1 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume 0,�'ri(y j�p�1'Cd�- SATISFIED YES ❑ NO -►or>!�� + �s}IA gam- YW�Z�N��r1JNs 2or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street k * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 2 a > 400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) aOR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) L300 � a Na a CC w 02200 � J O > 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 .800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH - &djj Erns ryj1 tz rye \v,r * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. i Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 7-1996 Figure 9-3 ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT a- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ SO% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ ' 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street ' * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 1 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ ' WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume (,VQ,"Itr SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ya,l �k15�7�a +pT1�E�2 f �- O;!Q— lgnC14� s 2 or � REA�-J- �-}E J Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street x (� * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a > 400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) U OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) H Q LU ¢ 300 � a Na a ac w 02200 O 0 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH w0-r S4 - - sF-I► �- arm -+ Prok<-r- C "s jL m A,j,.,¢- 0m)>�40v-- bo 445U * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. APPENDIX F 1 GENERAL PLAN ' WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS r i MODEL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CALCULATIONS ! Intersection: Beach B1. (NS) / Heil Av. (EW) Project: Lowes HB Modeling Support JN: 0575-00-01 cdw Case Description: LowesNP - General Plan Without Project 5/8/00 Existing Count Future Volume Percent Increase Approach- Movement CAM-- --PM-- --AM-- --PM-- ---AM--- ---PM--- Left 195 172 196 242 1 41 Northbound Through 2156 3146 2188 3177 1 1 Right . 72 61 72 81 0 33 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 2423 3379 2456 3500 1 4 Left 190 187 191 213 1 14 Southbound Through 2681 2929 2707 2978 1 2 ' Right 249 1 1----- --- ------ ---- ---- APPROACH TOTAL 3120 3355 3149 3432 1 2 Left 177 179 178 180 1 1 Eastbound Through 363 383 366 492 1 28 Right 172 204 173 257 1 26 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 712 766 717 929 1 21 Left 104 44 114 47 10 7 Westbound Through 429 350 433 461 1 32 Right ---173 1 1 - -- ------ -- -------- ---- --- APPROACH TOTAL 706 573 737 688 4 20 INTERSECTION TOTAL 6961 8073 7059 8549 1 6 Forecast Peak Hour To ADT Comparison ' Intersection Peak Hour Leg Volumes Percent of ADT AM-- PM -AM-- --PM-- --ADT-- North Leg INBOUND 3149 3432 North Leg OUTBOUND 2556 3537 -- -- North Leg TOTAL 5705 6969 10 12 57300 South Leg INBOUND 2456 3500 South Leg OUTBOUND 2994 3282 ' South Leg TOTAL 5450 6782 10 12 55700 East Leg INBOUND 737 688 East Leg OUTBOUND 629 786 ' East Leg TOTAL 1366 1474 7 8 19600 West Leg INBOUND 717 929 ' West Leg OUTBOUND 944 ---880 --- West Leg TOTAL 1597 1873 7 8 23300 ' TOTALS 14118 N17098 9 11 155900 MODEL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CALCULATIONS Intersection: Beach B1. (NS) / Warner Av. (EW) Project: Lowes HB Modeling Support JN: 0575-00-01 cdw Case Description: LowesNP - General Plan Without Project 5/8/00 Existing Count Future Volume Percent Increase - - -------Approach Movement Movement AM PM AM PM AM PM ---------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- Left 237 348 264 351 it 1 Northbound Through 1956 2460 1975 2484 1 1 Right 128 159 129 160 1 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 2321 2967 2368 2995 2 1 Left 242 451 244 455 1 1 Southbound Through 2169 2411 2190 2504 1 4 Right 348 622 361 628 4 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- --=----- APPROACH TOTAL 2759 3484 2795 3587 1 3 Left 416 628 420 644 1 3 Eastbound Through 576 415 1073 613 86 48 Right 446 315 450 318 1 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1438 1358 1943 1575 35 16 Left 349 840 352 848 1 1 Westbound Through 741 703 829 1013 12 44 Right 211 413 213 417 1 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1301 1956 1394 2278 7 16 INTERSECTION TOTAL 7819 9765 8500 10435 9 7 Forecast Peak Hour To ADT Comparison Intersection Peak Hour Leg Volumes Percent of ADT AM PM AM PM ADT ------ ------ ------ ------ --------- North Leg INBOUND 2795 3587 North Leg OUTBOUND 2608 3545 North Leg TOTAL 5403 7132 10 13 55700 South Leg INBOUND 2368 2995 South Leg OUTBOUND 2992 3670 South Leg TOTAL 5360 6665 10 12 54200 East Leg INBOUND 1394 2278 East Leg OUTBOUND 1446 1228 East Leg TOTAL 2840 3506 6 8 45100 West Leg INBOUND 1943 1575 West Leg OUTBOUND 1454 1992 West Leg TOTAL 3397 3567 8 8 44000 TOTALS 17000 20870 9 10 199000 I - - MODEL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CALCULATIONS Intersection: Gothard St. (NS) / Warner Av. (EW) Project: Lowes HB Modeling Support JN: 0575-00-01 cdw ' Case Description: LowesNP - General Plan Without Project 5/8/00 Existing Count Future Volume Percent Increase Approach Movement AM PM AM PM AM PM ' ---------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- Left 185 199 197 226 6 14 1 Northbound Through 493 858 681 908 38 6 Right ----60 100 ----70 119 17 ---19--- ------ ------ -------- APPROACH TOTAL 738 1157 948 1253 28 8 ' Left 193 272 194 274 1 1 Southbound Through 684 631 690 820 1 30 Right 191 178------ -- ------ ----1 1 --- APPROACH TOTAL 1068 1081 1076 1273 1 18 Left 178 122 179 123 1 1 Eastbound Through 1064 882 1442 942 36 7 Right 232 266 234 268 1 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1474 1270 1855 1333 26 5 Left 168 53 185 75 10 42 Westbound Through 982 1281 1008 1449 3 13 Right ---182 202 ---183 204 ----1 1--- APPROACH TOTAL 1332 1536 1376 1728 3 13 ,INTERSECTION TOTAL 4612 5044 5255 5587 14 11 Forecast Peak Hour To ADT Comparison Intersection Peak Hour Leg Volumes Percent of ADT AM-- --PM-- AM --PM-- -- ADT--- North Leg INBOUND 1076 1273 ' North Leg OUTBOUND 1043 1235 -- -- North Leg TOTAL 2119 2508 8 9 26500 ' South Leg INBOUND 948 1253 South, Leg OUTBOUND 1109 1163 South Leg TOTAL 2057 2416 8 9 27200 East Leg INBOUND 1376 1728 East Leg OUTBOUND 1706 1335 ' East Leg TOTAL 3082 3063 7 7 44000 West Leg INBOUND 1855 1333 ' West Leg OUTBOUND 1397 1854 -- -- West Leg TOTAL 3252 3187 7 7 44000 ' TOTALS 10510 11174 7 8 141700 MODEL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CALCULATIONS Intersection: Goldenwest St. (NS) / Warner Av. (EW) Project: Lowes HB Modeling Support JN: 0575-00-01 cdw Case Description: LowesNP - General Plan Without Project 5/8/00 Existing Count Future Volume Percent Increase Approach Movement AM PM AM PM AM PM ---------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- Left 82 197 82 202 0 3 Northbound Through 443 572 726 994 64 74 Right 65 51 94 51 45 0 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 590 820 902 1247 53 52 Left 350 271 353 273 1 1 Southbound Through 583 468 711 1170 22 150 Right 63 150 63 151 0 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 996 889 1127 1594 13 79 Left 226 268 234 270 4 1 Eastbound Through 1203 996 1595 1041 33 5 Right 120 152 121 216 1 42 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1549 1416 1950 1527 26 8 Left 147 219 148 244 1 11 Westbound Through 951 1266 960 1450 1 15 Right 174 171 197 172 13 1 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1272 1656 1305 1866 3 13 INTERSECTION TOTAL 4407 4781 5284 6234 20 30 Forecast Peak Hour To ADT Comparison Intersection Peak Hour Leg Volumes Percent of ADT AM PM AM PM ADT ------ ------ ------ ------ --------- North Leg INBOUND 1127 1594 North Leg OUTBOUND 1157 1436 North Leg TOTAL 2284 3030 7 9 33500 South Leg INBOUND 902 1247 South Leg OUTBOUND 980 1630 South Leg TOTAL 1882 2877 6 9 31900 East Leg INBOUND 1305 1866 East Leg OUTBOUND 2042 1365 East Leg TOTAL 3347 3231 8 7 44000 West Leg INBOUND 1950 1527 West Leg OUTBOUND 1105 1803 West Leg TOTAL 3055 3330 7 8 43100 TOTALS 10568 12468 7 8 152500 MODEL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CALCULATIONS Intersection: Newland St. (NS) / Warner Av. (EW) Project: Lowes HB Modeling Support JN: 0575-00-01 cdw ' Case Description: LowesNP - General Plan Without Project 5/8/00 Existing Count Future Volume Percent Increase Approach- Movement - AM-- --PM-- - AM-- --PM-- -- AM--- ---PM--- Left 92 193 116 250 26 30 ' Northbound Through 571 979 614 1252 8 28 Right ----65 47 ---128 ----69 ---97-- ---47--- APPROACH TOTAL 728 1219 858 1571 18 29 Left 85 99 85 99 0 0 Southbound Through 913 894 929 1102 2 23 Right 139 90 140 90 1 0 ' ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1137 1083 1154 1291 1 19 Left 96 125 99 137 3 10 Eastbound Through 739 743 1498 941 103 27 Right 73 95 88 138 21 45 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 908 963 1685 1216 86 26 Left 183 285 184 485 1 70 Westbound Through 1026 1522 1060 1917 3 26 Right 91 206 910 - --- ------ ------ ---- --- ---- --- APPROACH TOTAL 1300 2013 1335 2610 3 30 INTERSECTION TOTAL 4073 5278 5032 6688 24 27 ' Forecast Peak Hour To ADT Comparison ' Intersection Peak Hour Leg Volumes Percent of ADT AM-- PM -AM-- --PM-- -- ADT--- North Leg INBOUND 1154 1291 North Leg OUTBOUND 1597 ---804 -- North Leg TOTAL 1958 2888 6 9 31700 South Leg INBOUND 858 1571 South Leg OUTBOUND 1201 1725 South Leg TOTAL 2059 3296 6 9 34700 ' East Leg INBOUND 1335 2610 East Leg OUTBOUND 1711 1109 East Leg TOTAL 3046 3719 6 8 49300 West Leg INBOUND 1685 1216 ' West Leg OUTBOUND 1316 2257 -- -- West Leg TOTAL 3001 3473 7 8 45100 ' TOTALS 10064 13376 6 8 160800 MODEL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CALCULATIONS Intersection: Magnolia St. (NS) / Warner Av. (EW) Project: Lowes HB Modeling Support JN: 0575-00-01 cdw Case Description: LowesNP - General Plan Without Project 5/8/00 Existing Count Future Volume Percent Increase Approach Movement AM PM AM PM AM PM ---------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- Left 87 204 91 206 5 1 Northbound Through 840 941 848 1052 1 12 Right 182 220 220 273 21 24 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1109 1365 1159 1531 5 12 Left 465 197 479 216 3 10 Southbound Through 71 1326 71 1339 0 1 Right 282 321 284 376 1 17 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 818 1844 834 1931 2 5 Left 87 118 115 119 32 1 Eastbound Through 839 723 1545 957 84 32 Right 53 30 53 36 0 20 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 979 871 1713 1112 75 28 Left 72 262 93 325 29 24 Westbound Through 976 1505 1006 1958 3 30 Right 36 91 40 125 11 37 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- APPROACH TOTAL 1084 1858 1139 2408 5 30 INTERSECTION TOTAL 3990 5938 4845 6982 21 18 Forecast Peak Hour To ADT Comparison Intersection Peak Hour Leg Volumes Percent of ADT AM PM AM PM ADT ------ ------ ------ ------ --------- North Leg INBOUND 834 1931 North Leg OUTBOUND 1003 1296 North Leg TOTAL 1837 3227 6 11 30700 South Leg INBOUND 1159 1531 South Leg OUTBOUND 217 1700 South Leg TOTAL 1376 3231 4 11 30600 East Leg INBOUND 1139 2408 East Leg OUTBOUND 2244 1446 East Leg TOTAL 3383 3854 7 8 50200 West Leg INBOUND 1713 1112 West Leg OUTBOUND 1381 2540 West Leg TOTAL 3094 3652 6 7 49300 TOTALS 9690 13964 6 9 160800 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO I-B STREET OPEN) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II li IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED II II IIIII PROJECTED II II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 II IIIII V/C II 11 it II II II VAC-w_IMP 11 IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Hill IIIII NT IIIII Oil IIIII oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 II ' II II ' II II ' II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII oil IIIII oil 011111 oil oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 II 011111 11611 Oil 011111 0.03 11 11 0.03 II II 0.03 11 11 II IIIII 11111 ST IIIII oil IIIII oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 II II II II 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR 11111 1 II IIIII 170011 011111 131 11 oil 011111 0.08 II "'II 0.08 II ' II 008 II ' II II IIIII 11111 EL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 81 11 Oil 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 II 11 0.05 II 11 II IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 123311 Oil 011111 0.24 II II 0.24 II li 0.24 11 11 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II 11 II II' II II II IIIII 11111 WL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II 11 II II II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 311 11111 510011 011111 2323 II Oil 011111 0.46 11 ' 11 0.46 11 ' 11 0.46 11 ii 11 I1111 IIIII WR IIIII 1 11 11111 170011 011111 72 11 0 11 0 Hill 0.04 11 II 0.04 11 11 0.04 II II 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PD 1 IIIII -- - -- - -- - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.51 1 0.51 i 0.51 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 l 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.64 I 0.64 1 0.64 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- -- - - 11111 DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO II-B STREET VACATED) IIIII IIIII II IIIII 11 IIIII II II IIIII ll II II II II II II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED II 11 IIIII PROJECTED II II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II II IIIII V/C 11 11 II 11 ll II V/C-W_IMP 11 IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=====_°11=====_=Hill =_______= II =_______= 11111 =_______= ll =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II II =_______= II=_=Il =_______= 11= II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 II II 11 II II II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 ' 11 II ' II II ' II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 II ll 11 II II Il IIIII IIIII SL 11111 211 011111 3400 II 011111 2011 Oil 011111 0.01 II ' II 0.01 II ' II 0.01 11 ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil 0 hill Oil 0 IIIII Oil 0 II 011111 II II 11 11 11 II 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 2311 Oil 011111 0.01 11 11 0.01 II 11 0.01 II 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 011111 9511 Oil 011111 0.06 II ' 11 0.06 11 ' 11 0.06 11 ' II II ' hill IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 1503 it 0 li 0 11111 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0•29 it 11 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 11 II 11 11 II II II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII Oil 0 IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 II II II II 11 II IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3 II 0 IIIII 510011 011111 1349 II Oil 0 IIIII 026 II ' II 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 11 ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 1 11 0 Hill 1700 11 011111 72 11 0 11 0 Hill 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 0.04 II 11 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.01 I 0.01 l 0.01 l 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBPDA I IIIII —— — —— — —— — —— IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII —— — —— — —— — — —-- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ____ N S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.38 I 038 I 038 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII —— — —— — —— — — — — IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII A I A I A I IIIII ------------ -------------- ---- ---------- -------------- ----- ------------ -------------- ---- ---------- -------------- - ---- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: BEACH BLVD./WARNER AVE. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII- II '- IIIII II �^ IIIII GENERAL 11 II IIIII GENERAL II II GP II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II 11 +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II it Vic II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 351II 0II 011111 010 II II 0.10 II II 0.10 II II 0.10 11 IIIII IIIII NT 11111 4 II 4 IIIII 6800 II 680011111 2484 II Oil 011111 0.39 II ' II 0.39 II ' II 0.39 II • II 0.39 II ' IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 16011 Oil 3811111 II II II II II II 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 II 340011111 45511 Oil 4711111 0.13 II ' II 0.13 II ' II 0.15 II ' II 0.15 11 • IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 4 11 4 11111 6800 11 6800 11111 2504 11 Oil 011111 0.37 II 11 0.37 II II 0.37 11 II 0.37 11 IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 628 11 Oil 0 IIIII 0.37 II 11 0.37 II II 0.37 II 11 0.37 11 11111 IIIII EL IIIII 2 11 2 IIIII 3400 11 3400 11111 644 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.19 11 ' 11 0.19 11 • 11 0.19 11 ' 11 0.19 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 3 II 3 IIIII 5100 11 5100 11111 613 11 0 II 38 11111 0.18 II 11 0.18 11 11 0.19 II II 0.19 11 ' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 0 11 0 IIIII Oil 011111 318 11 0 11 0 IIIII 11 11 II 11 II II 11 IIIII 11111 W L IIIII 2 II 2 11111 3400 11 340011111 848 II 0 II 58 IIIII 0.25 11 11 0.25 11 11 0.27 II II 0.27 II ' IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 3 11111 510011 5100 11111 1013 II 0 II 58 IIIII 0.28 11 ' II 0.28 II ' 11 0.31 11 ' 11 0.21 II IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 011 111111 011 170011111 41711 011 7111111 it II II II II II 0.29 II IIIII ------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.52 I 0.52 1 0.54 I 0.54 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FBBW I IIIII--- -- - -- - -- - - - - IIIII ------ EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.47 1 0.47 1 0.50 I 0.46 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111=_________ ____ __________ ____ __________ ______________ ___IIIII N S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 1.04 I 1.04 I 1.09 1 1.05 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII - -- - -- --- -- - -- - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII F I F I F 1 F 11111 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO I-B STREET OPEN) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED II II IIIII PROJECTED II II II II 11 II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II II IIIII wC II II II II II II Vac-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII==== II=_____-Ilitl =_______= II =_______= IIIII ========= II =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= II=_=II =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NIL IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 011 011111 oil 011111 oil Oil 011111 II ' II II ` II II ' II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII oil olllll Oil olllll Oil oil olllll II II II it II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 16 II Oil 011111 0.01 II ' II 0.01 II ' II 0.01 II ' II II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 o11 0il 011111 II II II II II II II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 011111 2011 Oil 011111 001 II II 001 II II 001 II II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 011111 72 II Oil 011111 0.04 II ' II 004 11 ' II 0.04 II ' it 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 5100II 011111 155611 0II 011111 0.31 11 II 0.31 II II 0.31 II II II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII WL Hill Oil 0 IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 135911 0 11 011111 0.27 11 • II 027 11 ' 11 0.27 II ' II 11 ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 1 it 011111 1700 11 0 IIIII 64 11 0 II 0 11111 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 II IIIII — -- — -- - — - — - - IIIII__________ ______________ _____________ ____ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 001 1 0.01 I 0.01 1 0.00 Hill ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PD I IIIII —— — —— — —— — — --- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.31 I 0.31 I 0.31 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII —— — —— — —— — —— IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= 11111 0.05 I 0.05 l 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___ 11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.37 I 0.37 I 0.37 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII —— — —— — —— — — '— IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII A I A I A I IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- - ------------- ----- ------------ -------------- -------------- - ------------- ----- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO II-B STREET VACATED) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED 11 II IIIII PROJECTED II II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 II IIIII V/C II II II II II II V/C-W-IMP 11 IIIII IIIII NL hill Oil IIIII Oil 011111 all Oil 011111 II 11 II II II II ii ' IIIII IIIII NT hill Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 ' 11 11 ' 11 II ' II 11 hill 11111 NR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 II II 11 11111 IIIII SL IIIII 211 hill 340011 011111 13111 Oil 011111 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR 11111 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 14511 Oil 011111 0.09 11 11 0.09 11 ' 11 0.09 11 ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL hill 111 IIIII 170011 011111 19311 Oil 011111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ` 11 II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 1191 11 Oil 011111 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 11 II IIIII IIIII ER hill Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 II IIIII IIIII WL hill Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 II 11 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 2300 11 Oil 011111 0.45 11 ' 11 0.45 11 ' 11 0.45 11 ' 11 it ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 111 IIIII 170011 011111 6111 Oil 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 11 IIIII - -- - - - - - - - IIIII__________ ____ _ _____________ _ ___ =_________ _ _=11111 NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.09 1 0.09 1 0.09 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PDA I IIIII -- - - -- - -- - --- IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= hill 0.56 1 0.56 ( 0.56 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- -- -- - -- - - --- 11111 E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= hill 0.05 1 005 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.70 I 0.70 1 0.70 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE./BEACH BLVD. - LONG RANGE IIIII- IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER Ii PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER 11 11 +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII=======II======-IIIII ========= 11 ========= IIIII ========= II -======= 11 ========= IIIII ========= 11 II ========= II=_°II ========= II=_°11 ========= II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 211111 170011 340011111 19611 Oil 1 IIIII 0.12 II ' 11 0.12 II ' II 0.12 II ' II 0.06 11 ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 218811 011 16 IIIII 0.33 11 II 0.33 II II 0.33 II II 0.33 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 7211 Oil 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 II 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 340011111 191 II Oil 0 IIIII 0.11 11 II 0.11 II II Oil 11 II 0.06 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 411 411111 6800 11 6800 11111 2707 11 Oil 47 IIIII 0.44 11 ' 11 0.44 II ' II 0.44 11 ' 11 0.44 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 251 11 Oil 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 17811 Oil 0 Hill 0.10 11 ' 11 0.10 II ' 11 0.10 11 ' 11 0.10 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 36611 011 0 IIIII 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11111 IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 17311 0 11 5 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 114 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 ll 007 11 11111 11111 WT IIIII 1 11 2 IIIII 170011 3400 11111 433 II 0 11 0 IIIII 0.25 11 ' 11 0.25 11 ' 11 0.25 11 ' 11 018 11 ' IIIII IIIII W R IIIII 1 11 0 IIIII 1700 11 011111 190 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= Hill 0.56 1 0,56 1 0.56 1 0.50 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FH&B1 1 Hill EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.35 I 0.35 1 0.28 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- -- -- -- -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 005 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.96 1 0.96 1 0.96 1 0.83 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- --- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII E I E I E I D IIIII ------------ ---- ---------- -------------- - --- ---------- - ---- ------------ -------------- -------------- ---- ---------- ----- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE./BEACH BLVD. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII-� II IIIII II Ilill GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL 11 II GP II - II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII Vac 11 II V/c II II V/C II II V/c-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 3400 11111 242 11 Oil 9 11111 0.14 II ' 11 0.14 11 ' 11 0.15 II ' 11 0.07 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 317711 011 83 IIIII 0.48 11 11 0.48 II 11 0.49 11 11 0.49 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 81 11 Oil 0 IIIII II If 11 11 11 II 11 IIIII IIIII SL 11111 111 211111 170011 340011111 21311 011 0 IIIII 0.13 11 11 0.13 II II 0.13 11 11 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII ST 11111 4 II 411111 6800 11 6800 11111 297811 Oil 60 11111 0.47 11 ' 11 0.47 II ' 11 0.48 11 ' II 0.48 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 011 011111 011 011111 24111 011 0 IIIII II 11 II 11 If 11 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 180 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.11 II ' II o.11 11 ' 11 0.11 II ' II 0.11 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 2 11 2 11111 3400 11 3400 11111 492 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0•22 II II 022 II 11 0.22 II II 0.22 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 0 11111 Oil 011111 257 11 0 11 7 IIIII II 11 11 it II II 11 IIIII IIIII WL 11111 111 111111 170011 170011111 4711 011 0 11111 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 II II 0.03 II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 1 11 2 11111 170011 3400 IIIII 461 II 0 11 0 11111 0.27 II ' 11 027 II ' 11 0.27 II ' II 0.19 II ' IIIII 11111 W R IIIII 1 11 011111 1700 11 011111 180 11 0 11 0 11111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 I I II I I I NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.61 1 0.61 1 0.63 I 0.55 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FH&B1 I IIIII -- - -- - - -- - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 I 0.38 I 0.38 I 0.30 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - - -- - -- - - -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= 11111 1,04 1 1.04 I 1.06 1 0.90 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- ----- - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII F I F I F I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P• II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME It VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C tl 11 V/C 11 11 V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=_____°II=_____°IIIII =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II ==______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II=_=II =_______= II=_°11 =_______= II=_=II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 8211 Oil 011111 0.02 11 II 0.02 II II 0.02 II 11 II • IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 011111 510011 0 IIIII 72611 Oil 011111 0.14 II ' II 0.14 II ' II 0.14 II ' 11 II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 011111 94 II 0 II 211111 006 11 II 0.06 II It 0.06 II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 35311 Oil 5 IIIII 0.10 II ' II 0.10 II ' II 0.11 II • II II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 711 II Oil 011111 0.15 II II 0.15 II II 0.15 it II II ` IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 0 it 011111 Oil 011111 6311 Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 234 II Oil 011111 0.07 11 it 007 11 11 0.07 11 II 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 1595 11 Oil 21 IIIII 0.34 11 ` 11 0.34 11 ' 11 0.34 II ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 0 11 011111 121 11 Oil 011111 II II It 11 11 It 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 14811 Oil 1 IIIII 0.04 II ' II 0.04 11 • 11 0.04 II ' 11 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 11 0 IIIII 5100 11 011111 960 II 0 II 7 11111 023 11 II 0.23 11 11 0.23 II II 11 • IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 011 011111 011 011111 19711 011 111111 II 11 It II II II II IIIII --- - - - - - - - - IIIII__________ ______________ ____ NORTHISOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 024 I 0.24 I 0.25 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&GW7 I IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 I 0.38 I 0.38 I 000 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= Hill 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.67 1 067 I 0.68 I 000 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - - DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL 11 II IIIII GENERAL II 11 GP� 11 II GP+OTHER 11 II GP+OTHER II IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 PLAN 11 II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT 11 IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES Q LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME I1 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 II V/C II II V/C 11 II V/C-W-IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 202 11 Oil 011111 0.06 11 ' 11 0.06 11 • 11 0.06 11 ' 11 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 99411 011 011111 0.19 II II 0.19 II II 0.19 II II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 51 11 Oil 311111 0.03 11 II 0.03 II 11 003 II 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 IIIII 340011 011111 27311 011 711111 0.08 II 11 0.08 II 11 0.08 11 II II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 117011 oil 011111 0.26 II ' II 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 II ' II II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 011 IIIII 011 011111 15111 011 011111 it II 11 11 II it 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 27011 Oil 011111 0.08 11 ' II 0.08 II ' II 008 II ' it II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 104111 011 2611111 0.25 11 11 0.25 II II 0.25 11 II II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 11111 Oil 011111 21611 Oil 011111 11 11 it it 11 11 II 11111 IIIII WL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 244 11 Oil 411111 0.07 II 11 0.07 II 11 0.07 II II II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 II IIIII 510011 0 IIIII 145011 Oil 37 11111 0.32 11 ' II 0.32 11 ' II 0.33 II ' 11 li ' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII Oil IIIII 0 II 0 IIIII 17211 Oil 9 IIIII 11 II II II II II II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.32 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBGW 1 I IIIII -- ---- -- - -- - - --- IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 040 1 0.40 1 0.41 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND lull -- - -- - -- - -- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= Hill 0.05 1 0.05 ) 0.05 1 0.00 Hill L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= hill 0.77 1 0.77 1 0.78 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C 1 C I C I IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOTHARD ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. 11 II GP+OTHER )) - II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER i1 PROJECT ))))) PLAN 11 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT 11 11111 IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY (( CAPACITY )))11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C II 11 V/C 11 11 V/C II II V/C-W-IMP II 11111 IIIII =_______= IIIII=====_°II=_____°IIIII =_____== II =_______= IIIII ===_____= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11==°11 =_______= 11= 11 =_______= 11= II =_______= II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 197 II Oil 011111 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 II ' II 0.12 II ` 11 0.12 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 681 11 Oil 011111 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 11111 IIIII NR Hill Oil 011111 Oil 011111 7011 Oil 11 11111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 11 1 11111 170011 1700 IIIII 194 11 oil 211111 0.11 II 11 0.11 II 11 0.12 11 II 0.12 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 690 11 Oil 011111 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 11 ' 11111 IIIII SR IIIII oil 011111 Oil 011111 19211 Oil 011111 11 11 11 II 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 11111 170011 1700 11111 179 11 Oil 011111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 144211 Oil 2911111 0.28 11 ' 11 028 11 ' 11 0.29 11 ' 11 0.29 11 ' 11111 IIIII ER IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 234 11 Oil 011111 0,14 11 it 0.14 11 11 0.14 11 11 0.14 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 185 11 0 11 4 11111 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' It 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 11 3 11111 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1008 11 0 11 9 IIIII 0.23 11 11 0.23 II 11 0.24 11 11 0.20 11 IIIII IIIII WR hill oil 1 IIIII 0 11 1700 IIIII 183 11 0 11 1 IIIII II II II II 11 11 0.11 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 I 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.38 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&G1 I IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.39 1 0.39 1 0.40 1 0.40 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.82 I 0.82 I 0.83 1 0.83 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D I D I D IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- ------------ -------------- -------------- ---- ---------- - ---- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOTHARD ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII �^ IIIII- II 11111 11 IIIII GENERAL 11 II IIIII GENERAL II - II GP II II GP+OTHER II - II GP+OTHER it IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 PLAN II 11 +OTHER (I ii +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT 11 11111 IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 V/C If 11 V/C-W-IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 226 11 Oil 011111 0.13 11 11 0.13 II 11 0.13 11 11 0.13 11 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 90811 Oil 011111 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 II ' 11 0.31 11 ' II 031 11 ' IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 11911 Oil 1311111 11 11 11 11 II II 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 II 1 11111 170011 1700 11111 274 11 Oil 311111 0.16 11 ' II 0.16 11 ' 11 0.16 11 ' II 016 11 ' 11111 IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 82011 011 011111 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII oil 011111 oil 011111 17911 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 If 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 12311 Oil 011111 0.07 11 ' 11 0.07 11 • 11 0.07 11 ' 11 0.07 II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 94211 011 3711111 0.18 11 11 0.18 It li 0.19 11 11 0.19 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 26811 011 011111 0.16 11 II 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 II 0.16 11 11111 11111 WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 75 11 0 11 19 Hill 0.04 ii 11 0.04 it 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 II 3 11111 5100 11 5100 11111 144911 Oil 50 IIIII 0.32 11 ' II 0.32 11 ' II 0.33 11 ' 11 0.29 11 ' 11111 11111 WR IIIII 0II 111111 011 170011111 20411 0II 411111 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.12 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.46 I 0.46 1 0.47 I 0.47 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&G1 I IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.39 1 0.39 1 0.40 1 0.36 Hill N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - -- - -- - -- ---- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 l 0.05 ( 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.92 i 0.88 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D 1 D 1 E 1 D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: BEACH BLVD./WARNER AVE. - LONG RANGE -- ----------- ----- -- ------ ---- - -- - - - - -- - -- IIIII IIIII II 11111 II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER 11 IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP 11111 EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT 11 11111 IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C 11 11 V/C 11 A V/C-W_IMP 11 11111 IIIII =_______= IIIII==== II=_____°IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11111 =_______= 11 =_______= II ==______= IIIII =_______= II= 11 =_______= II==-11 =_______= II= II =_______= II=_°IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 264 II Oil 011111 "8 II ' 11 0.08 11 ' 11 0.08 II II 0.08 11 IIIII IIIII NT Hill 4 11 4 IIIII 6800 11 6800 11111 197511 Oil 3611111 0.31 11 11 0.31 11 11 0.32 11 ' 11 0.32 11 ' 11111 11111 NR Hill Oil 011111 Oil 011111 12911 Oil 3711111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 244 II 0 11 8911111 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.10 11 ' 11 0.10 11 ` 11111 IIIII ST IIIII 411 4 11111 680011 6800 11111 219011 0 11 011111 0.32 11 ' 11 0.32 11 ' 11 0.32 11 II 0.32 II 11111 11111 SR Hill 1 11 1 11111 170011 1700 11111 361 11 Oil 011111 0.21 11 11 0.21 11 II 021 11 11 0.21 11 11111 Hill EL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 42011 011 3611111 0.12 11 11 0.12 11 11 0.13 11 11 013 11 11111 IIIII ET 11111 3 11 3 11111 5100 11 5100 Hill 1073 11 0 11 37 11111 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 11 ' 11 0.31 11 ° 11 0.31 11 ' 11111 IIIII ER IIIII 0 11 011111 0 11 0 11111 450 11 0 11 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11111 11111 WL IIRI 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 352 11 0 11 37 11111 0.10 11 ° 11 0.10 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' Hill lull WT IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 82911 011 3711111 0.20 11 11 0.20 11 it 0.21 11 II 0.17 11 11111 11111 WR IIIII 0 11 1 11111 0 11 1700 11111 213 11 0 11 14 IIIII II II II II II 11 0.13 II IIIII - - ------- -- ---------- ------ - - - - --_--__ -- -- - ----- 11111=====_____ ------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.40 I 0.40 1 0.42 I 0.42 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FB&W 1 I IIIII -- - -- -- ----- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.40 I 0.40 I 0.42 1 0.42 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- ---- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.85 1 0.85 1 0.89 1 0.89 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - - -- - - - -- ' -' IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D I D I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: BEACH BLVD./WARNER AVE. - LONG RANGE IIIII - -^- IIIII II - IIIII - - II '-- IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II - II GP II II GP+OTHER II 11 GP+OTHER 11 IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER 11 II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W-IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 351II 0II 011111 0.10 II II 010 11 II 0.10 11 II 0.10 II IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 4 II 4 IIIII 6800 II 680011111 2484 II Oil 4811111 0.39 II ' II 0.39 II ' II 0.40 II ' II 0.40 II • IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 16011 Oil 3811111 II 11 II 11 II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 2 IIIII 3400 II 340011111 455 II Oil 107 IIIII 0.13 II II 0.13 II ' II 0.17 II ` 11 0.17 II ' IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 411 411111 680011 6800111/1 250411 0ll 011111 0,37 11 II 0.37 II II 0.37 II II 0.37 II IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 62811 011 011111 0.37 11 II 0.37 11 11 0.37 11 11 0.37 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 2 11 2 IIIII 3400 11 3400 IIIII 644 II 0 11 48 IIIII 0.19 11 • 11 0.19 11 • 11 020 11 ' II 0.20 II IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 3 11 3 11111 5100 11 5100 IIIII 613 11 0 11 38 11111 0.18 11 11 0.18 11 11 0.19 11 11 0.19 11 ' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 0 11 011111 0 11 0 IIIII 318 11 0 11 0 IIIII II II 11 11' 11 II 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 2 11 211111 3400 11 340011111 848 II 0 II 110 IIIII 0.25 11 11 025 11 11 0.28 11 11 0.28 II ` 11111 IIIII WT IIIII 3 11 3 11111 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1013 II 0 II 110 IIIII 0.28 11 ' 11 0.28 11 ` 11 0.32 11 ' 11 0.22 II 11111 11111 W R IIIII 0 11 1 IIIII 0 11 1700 11111 417 11 0 11 71 11111 I I I I II II II II 0.29 11 11111 -------------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.52 1 0.52 I 0.57 I 0.57 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FB&W 1 I IIIII-- -- ------ -- - ---- - -- -- --- - - IIIII ---------------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.47 1 047 1 0.52 I 047 1110 N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- ----- -- --_---- -- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111__________ ____ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 1.04 i 1.04 I 1.14 I 1.09 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - --- - - -- -- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII F I F I F I F IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II 11111 GENERAL 11 II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 PLAN II 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT 11 IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES p LANES IIIII CAPACITY p CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME p VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/c II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IUII 1 11 1 lull 170011 1700 11111 11611 Oil 3211111 007 11 ' 11 0.07 ll • it 0.09 11 • 11 0.09 11 ' lull IIIII NT Hill 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 61411 Oil 011111 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 11 0.22 II li 0.22 11 11111 IIIII NR IIIII 011 011111 Oil 011111 12811 Oil 011111 11 fl 11 it 11 11 11 lull IIIII SL IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 8511 O11 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 it 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11111 IIIII ST lull 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 92911 Oil 011111 0.31 11 ' 11 0.31 II • 11 0.32 11 ' 11 0.27 11 ' 11111 IIIII SR IIIII Oil 1 IIIII Oil 1700 11111 14011 Oil 2711111 11 11 it II 11 11 0.10 11 11111 IIIII EL IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 9911 011 911111 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 If 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11111 IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 149811 Oil 2011111 0.31 it • 11 0.31 11 • 11 0.32 11 " 11 0.32 If ' 11111 Hill ER IIIII 0 11 0 11111 Oil 0 Hill 88 11 0 11 11 Hill II 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 W L IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 1700 II 1700 11111 184 11 0 11 0 Hill 0.11 II ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' II Oil 11 ' Hill 11111 WT IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 106011 011 6011111 0.23 II 11 0.23 11 11 0.24 11 11 0.22 11 11111 IIIII WR IIIII 011 1IIIII 011 170011111 9111 011 0IIIII 11 11 II II 11 II 0.05 11 full NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= lull 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.41 I 0.36 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&N1 I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= Iilll 0.42 1 0.42 1 0.43 1 0.43 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 l 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.85 1 0.85 1 0.89 1 0.84 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - - -- - -- - -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D 1 D I D I D IIIII r• rw mom a m t m rat � m am m, M rt m m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST, - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II GP II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II= II =_______= II===11 =_______= II=_=II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 250 II Oil 4011111 0.15 II ' II 0.15 II • II 0.17 II • II 0.17 II ' IIIII IIIII NIT IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 125211 011 011111 0.39 II II 0.39 11 II 0.39 II II 0.39 II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 6911 Oil 011111 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 9911 011 011111 0.06 II 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 II 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 110211 Oil 011111 0.35 II ' II 0.35 II ' 11 0.36 11 ' 11 032 II • IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 1 IIIII Oil 1700 11111 9011 Oil 34 11111 11 II II 11 11 II 0.07 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 137 II Oil 4611111 0.08 11 ' II 0.08 11 ' II 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 941 11 Oil 106 11111 0.21 II 11 0.21 11 11 0.24 11 11 0.24 II ' 11111 IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 13811 Oil 5611111 II 11 11 11 11 11 II 11111 IIIII WL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 485 11 Oil 0 IIIII 0.29 11 II 0.29 11 II 0.29 II II 0.29 11 ' 11111 11111 WT IIIII 311 3 IIIII 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1917 11 Oil 76 11111 0.42 II ' II 0.42 11 • II 0.43 II ' 11 0.39 II IIIII 11111 WR IIIII Oil 1 IIIII 0 11 1700 11111 208 II Oil 0 Hill II II II II II II 0.12 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.53 1 0.49 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&N1 I IIIII - - - -- - -- - -- - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.54 I 0.53 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - -- 11111 E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 005 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ____ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 1.05 1 1.05 l 1.12 I 1.07 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII F I F I F I F IIIII ------------ ---- ---------- -------------- ---- ---------- - ---- ------------ ---- ---------- ---- ---------- - --- ---------- - ---- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE.I MAGNOLIA ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL it II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST 11 PROP 11111 EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT 11111 PLAN II II +OTHER 11 II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 II V/C II II V/C 11 11 V/C-W_IMP 11 IIIII 11111 =_______= IIIII°====_°11=====_'11111 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11==°11111 IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 3400 11111 91 11 Oil 5 IIIII 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 006 11 11 0.03 11 IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 84811 Oil 011111 0.21 11 ` 11 0.21 11 ` 11 0.21 11 ` 11 0.21 11 ' 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 220 11 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 479 11 Oil 011111 0.14 11 ` 11 0.14 11 • 11 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 11 ' IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 7111 0II 011111 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 28411 011 711111 0.17 11 11 0.17 11 11 0.17 11 11 0.17 11 IIIII IIIII EL 11111 211 211111 340011 340011111 11511 011 311111 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 4 11 4 11111 6800 11 6800 11111 1545 11 0 11 13 11111 0.24 II ` 11 0.24 11 • 11 024 11 • 11 0.24 11 ` 11111 IIIII ER IIIII 0 II 011111 0 11 0 IIIII 53 11 Oil 1 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 2 II 2 11111 3400 11 3400 11111 93 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.03 11 ` 11 0.03 11 ' 11 0.03 11 ` 11 0.03 11 ` IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 11 311111 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1006 11 0 II 42 IIIII 0.20 11 11 020 11 11 0.21 11 11 0.21 II IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 IIIII 40 11 0 II 0 IIIII 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 IIIII - - - - - - - - - - ---- - ------ - - - IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII -------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.35 I 0.35 1 0.35 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&M1 I IIIII -------------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.27 1 0.27 I 0•27 1 0.27 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- -- -- - -- - ---- -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 005 1 005 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.67 1 0.67 1 0.67 1 0.67 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- -- - - IIIII °DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I B IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- - ------------- - ---- ------------ - ------------- -------------- - --- ---------- - ---- r �s ,mac ar �■r w mom m � r m .1r r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA ST. - LONG RANGE ----- -------- -- ---------- --------- - - -- - - -- -- -- - -- - -- - illli IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL it II GP II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER 11 Iilll IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT (1 II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II 11 V/c 11 II V/C II II V/C-w_IMP II 11111 IIIII =_______= IIIII=_=====11=====_=IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= 11=_=II =_______= II=_=II =_______= 11===11 =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 211111 170011 3400 11111 206 it Oil 7 11111 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11 0.13 11 ' II 0.06 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 105211 Oil 011111 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 IIIII 11111 NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 273 11 Oil 011111 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 21611 01l 011111 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11111 IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 133911 0 11 011111 0.39 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' 11111 IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 376 11 0 11 1011111 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 11 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 IIIII IIIII EL Illll 2 11 2 11111 3400 11 3400 11111 119 11 0 11 14 11111 0.04 11 ' 11 0.04 11 ' 11 0.04 II ' 11 0.04 11 ' 11111 IIIII ET IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 95711 011 7311111 0.15 11 11 0.15 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 0 IIIII 0 11 0 IIIII 36 11 0 11 9 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 32511 011 011111 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3II 3 IIIII 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1958 II Oil 53 11111 0.38 11 ' 11 0.38 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' 11111 IIIII WR IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 12511 011 011111 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11111 - - --- - - - - - ------ --------- - - IIIII__________ ______________ _ _____________ ______________ ___11111 ---------------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= Hill 0.51 1 0.51 1 0.52 1 0.45 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&M1 1 IIIII -- - -- - -- -- -- -- IIIII --------------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= Hill 0.42 1 0.42 1 0.43 1 0.43 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - - - - -- ------ -- -- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ _ ___ __________ ___11111 N S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= Illll 0.98 l 0.98 1 1.00 1 0.93 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII - -- - -- --------- -- ---- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII E I E I E I E IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- ------------ - ------------- - --- ---------- ---- ---------- - ---- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE 11 (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: SLATER AVE./NEWLAND - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II 11111 GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II - II G.P. II II GP+OTHER 11 II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN 11 II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 0 IIIII 15211 Oil 011111 009 11 ' II 0.09 11 • 11 0.09 11 • it II • IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 66311 0II 1811111 0.22 II li 0.22 II II 0.23 11 II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 9211 Oil 0 IIIII II II II II 11 II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 12011 0II 311111 0.07 II II 0.07 II 11 0.07 II 11 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 661 II Oil 611111 0.22 11 ' II 0.22 11 ' 11 0.23 II ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 0 IIIII Oil 0 IIIII 99 II Oil 011111 II II 11 II 11 II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 64 11 Oil 011111 0.04 II 11 0.04 II II 0.04 II II II ' IIIII 11111 ET IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 100211 Oil 011111 0.33 11 ' 11 0.33 11 ' 11 0.33 11 ' 11 II IIIII 11111 ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 11311 Oil 0 IIIII II II ll II II li II IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 011111 3811 Oil 011111 0.02 11 ' it 0.02 II ' 11 0.02 11 ' II II IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 211 0 IIIII 3400 11 011111 438 li 0 II 0 IIIII 0.14 II 11 0.14 II II 0.15 II 11 II ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 0 II 0 IIIII 0 II 0 IIIII 52 11 0 11 7 IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.31 I 0.31 I 0.32 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FS&N1 1 IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.00 11111 N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- ---- - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ _ __IIIII N.S =NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.71 1 0.71 ( 0.72 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- - --- ---------- ----- ------------ ---- ---------- ---- ---------- -------------- ----- r� Pam M m rr m r r ■r m m M m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE II (LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: SLATER AVE.I NEWLAND - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II - II GP II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT 11111 PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT 11 IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 VIC-W_IMP 11 IIIII IIIII =_______= 11111===== 11=====_°Hill =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11===11 =_______= Il===11 =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11111 IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 191 11 0 ll 011111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 0 IIIII 3400 11 011111 104611 Oil 2311111 0.33 11 ' 11 0.33 11 ' II 0.33 11 • 11 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 5911 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 SL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 6911 Oil 14 11111 0.04 11 • 11 0.04 11 • 11 0.05 11 • 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 749 11 Oil 3211111 0.25 11 11 0.25 II 11 0.26 II 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 10811 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 11911 Oil 011111 0.07 11 ' 11 0.07 11 ' 11 0.07 11 • 11 II • IIIII IIIII ET 11111 211 011111 3400 Il 011111 71811 Oil 011111 0.26 II 11 0.26 11 Il 0.26 II li 11 IIIII IIIII ER 11111 Oil 011111 Oil 011111 16011 Oil 011111 II 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 84 11 Oil 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 211 0 IIIII 3400 II 0 IIIII 756 11 0 it 0 IIIII 0.25 li • 11 0.25 11 • 11 0.26 11 • 11 11 ' 11111 IIIII WR IIIII Oil 011111 0 11 011111 110 it 0 11 10 IIIII II II II II II II 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.37 1 0.37 1 0.38 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FS&N1 1 IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.33 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - -- - -- - -- - -- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.74 1 0.74 1 0.76 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII - -- - -- - -- - -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII ------------ ---- ---------- -------------- - --- ---------- ----- ------------ ---- ---------- -------------- --- - ---------- - ---- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO I-B STREET OPEN) IIIII - ` IIIII II IIIII II IIIII 11 II IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED II II IIIII PROJECTED II II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME II II IIIII V/C 11 11 II II II II V/C-W_IMP 11 11111 IIIII =_______= IIIII°_____°11=====_=IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= II =_______= 11111 =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_=II =_=_____= II=_°II =_______= 11==-IIIII IIIII NIL IIIII Oil 011111 oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 II II 11 • IIIII IIIII NT IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 ' 11 it ' 11 II ' II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII SL 11111 211 011111 3400 II 011111 8611 oII 0 IIIII 0.03 11 ' 11 0.03 11 • 11 0.03 11 ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 0 II 011111 oil 011111 0 II Oil 011111 II 11 11 11 li 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 2011 0 II 011111 0.01 II 11 0.01 it II 0.01 11 li 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 7211 oII 011111 0.04 11 • II 0.04 II ' 11 0.04 11 ' II II ' IIIII IIIII ET 11111 311 011111 510011 011111 155611 Oil 011111 0.31 11 11 0.31 11 11 0.31 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 0 IIIII II 11 II II II II II IIIII 11111 WL IIIII oII 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 li II 11 11 II 11 11 IIIII 11111 WT 11111 3 11 0 IIIII 5100 11 0 IIIII 1547 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 11 ' II 0.30 II ' 11 11 ' 11111 IIIII WR 11111 1 11 0 11111 170011 0 Hill 64 11 0 11 0 11111 0.04 II 11 0.04 II II 0.04 II 11 li IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PD1 1 IIIII - - - -- - -- - -- IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.34 1 0.34 1 0.34 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ____ __________ ____ __________ ___11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.42 I 0.42 1 0.42 1 000 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - - -- - -- -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII A I A I A I IIIII ------------ -------------- ---- ---------- ---- ---------- ----- ------------ -------------- ---- ---------- -------------- ----- r ,fir r r �r rir �r rR rs r r r r� �rr r r r r rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO I-B STREET OPEN) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II 11 IIIII II II II 11 II II 11 IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED 11 II lllll PROJECTED 11 11 II II II II PROJECTED 11 IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES II LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 II IIIII V/C II II II II II II V/C-w_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II 11 II it II II 11 ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II ' II II ' II it ' II 11 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II 11 IIIII 11111 SL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 25511 Oil 011111 0.08 II II 0.08 11 II 0.08 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil Hill Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II 11 II ii II 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 II 11111 170011 011111 131 II Oil 011111 0.08 II "'II 0.08 11 • 11 0.08 11 ' 11 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 81 11 Oil 011111 0.05 II • II 0.05 11 • 11 0.05 11 • 11 II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 1233 11 Oil 011111 0.24 II 11 0.24 11 11 0.24 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II 11 II II 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II 11 II II' 11 11 11 Ilill 11111 WT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 257511 Oil 011111 0.50 11 ' 11 0.50 II ' II 0.50 11 ' II II ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 72 11 Oil 011111 0.04 II 11 0.04 II II 0.04 11 II II 11111 -- ---- - - - - - NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PD1 I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - -- IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.55 i 0.55 I 0.55 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - --- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ _ __IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.68 1 0.68 1 0.68 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - - -- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII ------------ - --- ---------- -------------- -------------- - ---- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- - -- -- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO II-B STREET VACATED) Illtl IIIII II IIIII II IIIII 11 II IIIII II II II II ll ll II IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED 11 11 IIIII PROJECTED II II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II 11 IIIII V/C 11 II II 11 II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II ll 11 II II ' IIIII IIIII NT 11111 Oil 011111 011 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 ' II 11 II 11 II 11 IIIII 11111 NR IIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 II 11111 IIIII SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 88 II Oil 011111 0.03 11 ' 11 0.03 11 ' II 0.03 11 ' 11 11 IIIII 11111 ST IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 23II O11 011111 0.01 11 11 0.01 11 11 0.01 II 11 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 139 11 Oil 0 IIIII 0.08 11 ' 11 008 11 ' 11 008 11 ' 11 II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 155611 Oil 011111 0.31 11 II 0.31 II II 0.31 II II II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil 0 II 011111 11 11 II 11 11 11 II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil 0 II 011111 11 11 II II II 11 II IIIII 11111 W T IIIII 311 0 Hill 5100 11 011111 1537 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 11 ' 11 II ' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 111 011111 170011 OIIIII 7211 011 011111 0.04 11 11 0.04 II 11 0.04 11 11 II IIIII ---- - -- - - - - - - IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ____ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.03 I 003 I 003 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PDA1 I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - -- IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- --- -- - -- ----- -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.46 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- -- - -- - DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII A I A I A I IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- - ---- ------------ -------------- -------------- ---- ---------- - ---- rr rr rr r rr r r� rr rr rr rr �r r rr r� �r rr �r r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-LONG RANGE-PHASE II(LOWE'S&ADJACENT SITE) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO II-B STREET VACATED) Illil IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP 11111 EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 PROJECTED II II IIIII PROJECTED 11 II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII NIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME ll II IIIII V/C 11 it II II II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=====_°II=_____=IIIII =_______= II =_______= 11111 =_______= II =_______= II =_______= 11111 =_______= II=_=II =_______= II II =_______= II=_°II =_______= II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II 11 II II II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II ' II 11 ' 11 11 ' 11 ll Illil IIIII NR IIIII Oil 11111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 it 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 270 II Oil 011111 0.08 II II 0.08 11 11 0.08 11 11 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII oil IIIII oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 II II II II II II II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 14511 Oil 011111 0.09 11 "'II 0.09 II ' II 009 II ' II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 II IIIII 170011 011111 253 li Oil 011111 0.15 II ' 11 015 II ' II 0.15 ll ' 11 II IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 5100 11 011111 130911 Oil 011111 0.26 11 II 0.26 II II 0.26 II II II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil Illil oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II 11 11 II II II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII Oil IIIII oil 011111 oil oil 011111 11 11 11 II II II II IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 255211 Oil 011111 0.50 11 ' II 0.50 11 ' II 0.50 II ' II II ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 0 Hill 81 11 0 11 0 11111 0.05 II II 0.05 11 II 0.05 II II 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.09 , 0.09 1 0.09 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&PDAI , IIIII -- - - -- - -- ----- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.65 1 0.65 1 0.65 , 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 , 0.05 , 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.79 1 0.79 I 0.79 , 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII ' APPENDIX D ' COUNT DATA INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. PROJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S BEACH BLVD. ' ENV HEIL AVE. FILE NUMBER: 1-AM 15 MINUTE 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 6 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS �SBRT+S13TH SBLT WBRT WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 700-715 20 455 26 30 47 5 25 552 21 30 75 41 715-730 40 539 32 46 50 8 24 578 31 36 93 50 730-745 62 577 39 39 80 16 21 593 52 40 94 44 1 745-800 6B 673 45 37 117 23 18 576 55 48 89 42 800-815 60 710 46 48 116 28 15 509 46 46 99 47 8154330 59 721 60 49 116 37 18 478 42 38 81 44 83DZ45 51 654 50 47 93 30 14 476 3B 30 58 37 845-900 41 622 42 41 76 16 10 461 32 28 53 35 1 HOUR 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT I WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 7OD.800 190 2244 142 152 294 52 88 2299 159 154 351 177 6302 715-815 230 2499 162 170 363 75 78 2256 184 170 375 183 6745 730-830 249 2681 190 173 429 104 72 2156 195 172 363 177 6961 745-845 238 2788 201 181 442 118 65 2039 181 162 327 170 6912 800-900 211 2737 19B 185 401 111 57 1924 15B 142 291 163 6578 A.M.PEAK HOUR 249 2681 190 7304M LIM.. 177 173 HEIL AVE. 363 429 172 104 � r 195 2156 72 ' BEACH BLVD. 1 THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 INTERSECTION TURNING MDVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2000 PERIOD: 4:00 P-A.TO 6:00 P.M. INTERSECTION N/S BEACH BLVD. E/W HEIL AVE. FILE NUMBER: 1-PM 15 MINUTE 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 400-415 57 732 42 29 63 6 16 748 46 48 75 49 415-430 61 765 48 28 68 7 20 762 53 54 81 58 430-445 79 768 45 42 73 8 15 752 52 53 82 59 445500 54 720 40 48 76 12 12 796 47 51 93 48 500.515 ' 52 706 44 44 98 9 18 807 37 57 101 46 515-930 55 740 46 47 92 12 14 778 40 51 106 42 530-545 78 761 57 40 84 11 17 763 48 45 83 43 545-600 6B 759 47 42 78 9 10 751 40 36 85 33 1 HOUR 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 6 7 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 400500 251 2985 175 147 2B0 33 63 3080 196 206 331 214 7943 415515 246 2961 177 162 315 36 65 3119 189 215 357 211 8053 43D-530 240 2936 175 181 339 41 59 3135 176 212 382 195 8071 445.545 239 2929 187 179 350 44 61 3146 172 204 383 179 8073 500-600 253 2968 194 173 352 41 59 3099 165 189 375 164 8032 P.M. PEAL(HOUR 239 2929 187 445545 179 ,? �^ 179 3B3 �^ 350 HEIL AVE. 204 44 172 3146 -61 BEACH BLVD. THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 ' HCS: Unsignalized-Intersections Release 2.1g--- W&BBA4.HC0_----Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ---------------------------------------------- ------- - Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 542 542 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 736 736 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 736 736 Prob. of Queue-Free State: -----0.94--- - ---0.99 - ----- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1622 1603 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 712 719 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 712 719 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.89 - --- --- --- - Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3300 3281 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 32 33 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 28 29 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86 0.97 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3256 3276 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 34 33 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.76 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.81 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.76 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 30 25 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary ' Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 6 30 147.8 0.3 F NB T 4 28 > 32.7 NB R 44 736 > 237 19.0 0.7 C SB L 18 25 306.0 1.4 F SB T 1 29 > 206.2 SB R 8 736 > 198 19.0 0.0 C EB L 78 719 5.6 0.3 B 0.2 WB L 8 712 5.1 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBP4.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE II (B St. 0 pen) PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controLLed Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ NJ Volumes 1 172 1224 161 7 2513 861 6 1 151 27 1 32 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's M CV's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: UnsignaLized-intersections Release-2.1g_--_W&BBP4.HC0----_Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 438 927 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 831 470 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 831 470 Prob. of Queue-Free-State: --------0.98 0.92 -- -- - Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1305 2736 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 845 389 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 845 389 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -0.49 ------ Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4220 4184 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 12 12 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.48 0.48 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 6 6 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.83 0.83 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4129 4168 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 14 13 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.40 0.40 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.52 0.52 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.48 0.51 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 7 7 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 7 7 995.4 0.7 F NS T 1 6 > 303.3 NB R 18 831 > 101 43.7 0.5 E SB L 31 7 * 3.4 F SB T 1 6 > SS R 37 470 > 155 30.6 0.9 E EB L 199 389 18.6 2.8 C 2.3 WB L 8 845 4.3 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 19.5 sec/veh HCS: UnsignaLized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBA3.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE II (B St. V ACATED) AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R i---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 0 3 < 0 11 3 0 I 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI I Volumes I 1601 71 7 1517 1 9 381 PHF I .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 MC's M I I I I SU/RV's MI I I I CV,s M I I I I PCE's 1 11.10 11.10 1.101 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized-intersections -- Release 2.1g W&BBA3.HC0 Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection --------------------- ---------------- ---- - --- - --- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 565 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 716 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 716 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: ------ ---0.94 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1692 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 686 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 686 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 --------------------------------7----------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3292 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 33 Major LT, Minor TH ' Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 33 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 10 33 150.9 0.6 F 33.2 NB R 44 716 5.4 0.1 B ' WB L 8 686 5.3 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.lg W&BBP3.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 WeiL Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) B STREET (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.._. EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS - PHASE II (B St. V ACATED) PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R ---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----i---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 0 3 < 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield NI NI Volumes 1696 161 7 2604 1 7 151 PHF .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 MC's M I I I SU/RV's MI I I I Cv's (%) I I I I PCE's 1 11.10 11.10 1.101 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical FoLLow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&BBP3.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection --------------------------- -- -- - ---- ------ ------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 604 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 684 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 684 Prob. of Queue-Free 0.97 -State: ---- - Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1802 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 646 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 646 Prob. of Queue-Free State: - - 0.99 -------------------------- --------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4542 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 9 Major LT, Minor TH ' Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 -------------------------------------------------------- ' Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 8 9 775.8 0.8 F 250.5 NB R 18 684 5.4 0.0 B WB L 8 646 5.6 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 1.3 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&REA.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ NI Volumes 21 1521 111 18 2513 21 19 0 271 2 0 8 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's MI Cv's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS:-Unsignalized_intersections _-_Release_2.1g_-- W&REA.HCO__----Page_2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 540 883 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 737 494 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 737 494 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1613 2647 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 716 409 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 716 409 Prob. of Queue-Free State: - --0.97- -- 0.94 Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4295 4300 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 11 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street----- -------NB --- -- SB ------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4293 4288 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 11 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.91 0.91 ' Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.93 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.89 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ' Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 22 10 * 2.3 F NB T 0 10 > 533.8 NB R 31 737 > 737 5.1 0.0 B ' SB L 2 10 434.6 0.2 F SB T 0 10 > 92.8 SB R 9 494 > 494 7.4 0.0 B EB L 24 409 9.3 0.1 B 0.1 WB L 21 716 5.2 0.0 B 0.0 ' Intersection Delay = 6.2 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&REP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NI NI Volumes 1 3 1408 211 8 2439 281 4 0 71 4 0 1 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's (�)� CV's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 I1.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&REP.HCO -_--Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ! Conflicting Flows: (vph) 505 870 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 768 502 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 768 502 Prob- of Queue-Free State: ------ 0.99- - ---1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1504 2596 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 759 420 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 759 420 ! Prob. of Queue-Free State:--- -- --- 0.99 0.99 -- - --- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4100 4096 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 14 14 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 14 14 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street ------------NB --- ---- -SB ----------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4072 4074 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 14 14 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 14 14 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ! Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NS L 4 14 339.1 0.3 F NB T 0 14 > 126.3 NB R 8 768 > 768 4.7 0.0 A SB L 4 14 339.1 0.3 F SB T 0 14 > 272.7 SB R 1 502 > 502 7.2 0.0 B ' EB L 3 420 8.6 0.0 B 0.0 WB L 9 759 4.8 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec/veh HCS: UnsignaLized Intersections Release 2.1g W8ROA.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER r Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R ( L T R I L T R r 1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 3 < 0 1 1 3 < 0 1 1 1 < 0 1 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NI NI I Volumes 1 21 1582 111 18 2615 21 19 0 271 2 0 8 r PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC'S M I I I I r SU/RV's (%)I I I I CV'S M I I I I PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 r ----------------------------------------------------------------------- r-, Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r r- r- HCS: Unsignalized_Intersections---Release-2.1g W&ROA.HCO_--__ Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ---------- ---------------- ---- --------- - -- ---- - Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 561 919 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 720 474 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 720 474 1 Prob. of Queue-Free State:- - - - 0.96 0.98 Step 2: LT from Major Street WS EB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1677 2755 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 691 385 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 691 385 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 - 0.94 ----------------------------------------- - Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4467 4472 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 9 9 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 8 8 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4465 4460 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 10 10 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.91 0.91 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.93 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.91 0.89 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 9 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ' Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- ' NB L 22 9 * 2.3 F NB T 0 8 > 607.6 NB R 31 720 > 720 " 5.2 0.0 B SB L 2 9 490.8 0.2 F SB T 0 8 > 104.3 SB R 9 474 > 474 7.7 0.0 B EB L 24 385 10.0 0.1 B 0.1 WB L 21 691 5.4 0.0 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 6.8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBROP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER r Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R r ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 ( 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ NJ Volumes 1 3 1470 211 8 2543 281 4 0 71 4 0 1 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's M I I I SU/RV's M CV's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 r ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r r- r r ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&ROP.HCO Page_2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NS SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 527 907 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 749 481 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 749 481 Prob.-of-Queue-Free-State: 0.99 - -- ---1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1569 2706 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 733 396 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 733 396 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -0.99 - -- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4275 4272 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 11 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 11 11 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4246 4250 ' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 12 12 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.97 ' Movement Capacity: (pcph) 12 12 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ' Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 4 12 409.8 0.3 F N8 T 0 11 > 152.1 NB R 8 749 > 749 4.9 0.0 A ' SB L 4 12 409.8 0.3 F SB T 0 11 > 329.3 SB R 1 481 > 481 7.5 0.0 B ' EB L 3 396 9.2 0.0 B 0.0 WB L 9 733 5.0 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&RPA.HCO Page 1 Center For For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound L T R L T R I L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Stop/Yield NI NJ Volumes 59 1602 111 27 2693 81 19 271 17 PHF .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .951 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC's M SU/RV's (X)� Cv's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.101 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up r Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r- ' HCS:-Unsignalized-intersections ---Release_2.1g--- W&RPA,HCO Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 568 949 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 714 458 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 714 458 ' Prob.-of-Queue-Free-State: ---- - ----0.96 0.96 - - --- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1698 2843 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 683 368 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 683 368 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.82 - - Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ' Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4617 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 8 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.78 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.78 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.74 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 6 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NS L 22 6 * 8.8 F * NB R 31 714 5.3 0.0 B ' 8.2 SB R 20 458 8.2 0.0 B EB L 68 368 12.0 0.8 C 0.4 WB L 31 683 5.5 0.0 B 0.1 Intersection Delay = 26.3 sec/veh ' * The calculated value was greater than 999.9. r-, HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBRPP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation r University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER — Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 3 < 0 1 1 3 < 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Stop/Yield I NI NI Volumes 1 38 1601 211 31 2639 331 4 71 32 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .951 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's M I I I I SU/RV's MI I I I CV's M I I I I PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.101 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.lg W&RPP.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 573 9" Potential Capacity: (pcph) 710 460 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 710 460 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.92 ----------- ---------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1707 2813 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 680 374 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 680 374 Prob. of Queue-Free State: -0.95------- 0.88 -------------------- ----------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4547 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 9 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.84 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.84 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.77 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 7 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 4 7 794.1 0.4 F 292.0 NB R 8 710 5.1 0.0 B 1 8.5 SB R 37 460 8.5 0.2 B EB L 44 374 10.9 0.4 C 0.2 WB L 36 680 5.6 0.0 B 0.1 ' Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&RBA.HCO Page 1 - ---------------- --- ------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ^ University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 ^ Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection n ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound L T R ( L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I NJ NJ Volumes 1 21 1656 111 18 1296 21 19 0 271 2 0 8 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 1 0 0 1 0 MC's M ^ SU/RV's MI CV's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- n Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 r-, Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r-, ^ ^ r-, r-� HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&RBA.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 587 456 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 698 813 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 698 813 Prob. of Queue-Free-State: 0.99 - - --- 0.96 -- - --- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1755 1366 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 663 818 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 663 818 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.970.97 -- ----- - - --- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3156 3161 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 37 37 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 35 35 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting.Flows: (vph) 3154 3149 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 38 38 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.94 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.95 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 36 35 I -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 22 36 200.0 1.4 F NB T 0 35 > 85.8 NB R 31 698 > 698 5.4 0.0 B SB L 2 35 109.0 0.0 F SB T 0 35 > 25.4 SB R 9 813 > 813 4.5 0.0 A EB L 24 818 4.5 0.0 A 0.1 WB L 21 663 5.6 0.0 B 0.1 Intersection Delay = 1.4 sec/veh r, HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&RBP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER r-� Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R I L T R L T R rti ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 1 < 0 ( 1 1 < 0 Stop/Yield NJ NI Volumes 1 3 1205 211 8 2221 281 4 0 71 4 0 1 r PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 MC's M I I I ­, SU/RV's MI I I I CV's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 r Adjustment Factors vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 ,r r^ r-� r`l r-� HCS:-Unsignalized-Intersections -__Release_2.1g__--N&RBP.HCO- ----Page_2 Norksheet for TWSC Intersection ---------------------------------- ---- ------ ---- -- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 434 794 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 835 548 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 835 548 Prob. of Queue-Free-State: 0.99-------- 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street YB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1290 2367 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 852 476 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 852 476 Prob. of Queue-Free State: - --0.99- -- 0.99 --------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -----------------------------------------=-------------- 1 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3657 3654 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 22 22 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 22 22 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3628 3632 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 23 23 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 23 22 --------------------------------- -------- ------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 4 23 187.0 0.2 F NB T 0 22 > 70.8 NB R 8 835 > 835 4.4 0.0 A SB L 4 22 197.0 0.2 F SB T 0 22 > 158.9 SB R 1 548 > 548 6.6 0.0 B ES L 3 476 7.6 0.0 B 0.0 NB L 9 852 4.3 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh r-, HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&RBPA.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation r, University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT (PHASE I) AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection r, I Eastbound Westbound I Northbound ` Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R ( L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 11 3 < 0 11 3 < 0 11 0 1 10 0 1 Stop/Yield I NI NI I Volumes I 59 1676 11I 27 1374 81 19 271 17 PHF i .95 .95 .95I .95 .95 .95I .95 .95I .95 Grade i 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 MC's (%) I I I I SU/RV's (%)I I I I Cv's (%) I I I I PCE's I1.10 I1.10 11.10 1.10I 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r" r1 r- r- ! HCS: Unsignalized-Intersections_ -Release-2.1g W&R&A.HCO---_-Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 594 486 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 692 785 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 692 785 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 0.97 -------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1776 1454 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 655 780 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 655 780 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ----- ----- 0.95 0.91 ----- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- ! Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3306 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 32 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.87 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.87 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.85 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 27 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) ! -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 22 27 316.7 1.7 F 134.0 NB R 31 692 5.4 0.0 B ! 4.7 SB R 20 785 4.7 0.0 A EB L 68 780 5.1 0.2 B 0.2 WB L 31 655 5.8 0.0 B 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec/veh r, HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.19 W&RBPP.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 r Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT (PHASE I) PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled intersection --- --- -------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Sorthbound L T R I L T R L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- r, No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Stop/Yield NJ NJ Volumes 1 37 1336 211 31 2317 331 4 71 32 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .951 .95 Grade 0 1 0 0 1 0 MC'S SU/RV's M Cv's M PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.101 1.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- F r-, Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r-, r-, HCSUnsignalited_intersections _--Release-2.1g__--WBRBPP.HCO Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) , 480 830 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 791 526 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 791 526 ' Prob. of Queue-Free-State: 0,93 - -- - ---0,99 - ---- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1428 2474 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 791 449 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 791 449 Prob. of Queue-Free 0.90 -State: --- --- 0.95 - -- - Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3927 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 17 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.86 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.86 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.80 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 14 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 4 14 339.1 0.3 F 126.2 NB R 8 791 4.6 0.0 A 7.4 SB R 37 526 7.4 0.1 B EB L 43 449 8.9 0.3 B 0,2 WB L 36 791 4.8 0.0 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 0.6 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g WBRBPAI.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER r Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT (PHASE II) AM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection I Eastbound I Westbound i Northbound ( Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R r, ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----i---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 11 3 < 0 11 3 < 0 i 1 0 1 10 0 1 Stop/Yield ( NI NI Volumes I 59 1744 111 27 1469 81 19 271 17 PHF I .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .951 .95 Grade I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's M I I I I SU/RV's MI I I I CV's M I I I I PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.101 1.10 r � ----------------------------------------------------------------------- r-� Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical follow-up i— Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) --------------- -------------------------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 r, Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r- HCS:-UnsignaLized-Intersections -- Release_2.1g----W&RBPAI.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 618 519 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 673 756 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 673 756 Prob. of Queue-Free State: - ---------0.950.97 ------------------------------------ Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1848 1554 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 630 739 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 630 739 1 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.91 -- -- -- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3478 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 27 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.86 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.86 Capacity Adjustment Factor I due to Impeding Movements 0.84 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 23 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- NB L 22 23 406.5 1.8 F 171.2 NB R 31 673 5.6 0.0 8 4.9 SB R 20 756 4.9 0.0 A EB L 68 739 5.4 0.2 8 0.2 WB L 31 630 6.0 0.0 B 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.5 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g W&RBPP1.HC0 Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Wei( Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) ROTTERDAM (E-W) WARNER Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst................... HN Date of Analysis.......... 5/16/0 Other Information......... BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT (PHASE II) PM PK HR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection *� Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R ( L T R r ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 < 0 1 3 < 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Stop/Yield I NJ NI Volumes 1 37 1475 211 31 2445 331 4 71 32 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .951 .95 Grade 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's (%) I r SU/RV's (%)I CV's (%) PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.101 1.10 r ----------------------------------------------------------------------- r-, Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up r Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road *3.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road *5.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road *5.50 3.40 r-, r, r-, r—, 1 HCS:-Unsignalized-Intersections -- Release 2.1g-_ -W&RBPP1.HC0__- Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ------------- ------------- ----------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 529 876 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 747 498 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 747 498 Prob. of Queue-Free-State: - ---0.99 0.93 --- ----- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1575 2609 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 730 417 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 730 417 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: - --- -0.95 --- - -0.90 ----------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4209 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 12 Major LT, Minor TH 1 Impedance Factor: 0.85 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.85 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.79 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 9 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 4 9 584.2 0.4 F 215.5 NB R 8 747 4.9 0.0 A 7.8 SS R 37 498 7.8 0.1 B EB L 43 417 9.6 0.3 B 0.2 WB L 36 730 5.2 0.0 B 0.1 ' Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh ' SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1 1 1 i 1 i rr ■■r rr ri rr r� r �r rr rr r�r �r rr r �r r r rr rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE./BEACH BLVD. IIIII- IIIII II IIIII 11 IIIII it II IIIII^ II it EXISTING II II EX.+OTHER 11 11 EX.+OTHER it IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 EXISTING 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 EXISTING 11 11 +OTHER 11 11 +PROJECT 11 II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C II 11 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=====_°II=_=====11111 =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11 ==______= IIIII =_______= 11===11 =_______= II==-11 =_=_____= II=_=II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 19511 811 1 IIIII 0.11 II ' 11 0.12 11 ` II 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 215611 10211 12 IIIII 0.33 11 II 0.34 11 11 0.34 II 11 0.34 II 11111 11111 NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 7211 311 0 IIIII 11 II II 11 II 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 19011 811 0 IIIII Oil II 11 0.12 11 II 0.12 11 II 0.12 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 411 4 11111 6800 11 6800 11111 2681 11 14811 39 IIIII 0.43 11 ` II 0.45 11 ` 11 0.46 11 ` 11 0.46 11 ` 11111 IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 24911 1011 0 IIIII II II II II 11 II 11 IIIII 11111 EL Hill 1 11 1 11111 170011 1700 11111 177 11 7 11 0 IIIII 0.10 11 ` 11 0.11 11 ` 11 0.11 11 ` II 0.11 11 ` IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 36311 1511 0 IIIII 0.16 11 II 0.17 II II 0.17 II II 0.17 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 0 IIIII Oil 0 IIIII 172 11 12 II 4 IIIII If 11 11 11 II 11 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 104 11 4 11 0 IIIII 0.06 II II 0.06 II 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 II Illll IIIII WT IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 3400 IIIII 429 11 17 II 0 IIIII 0.25 II ' II 0.26 II ' 11 0.26 II ' II 0.18 11 ` IIIII 11111 WR 11111 111 011111 170011 011111 17311 711 0 IIIII 0.10 11 II 0.11 II II 0.11 11 II II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.54 1 0.57 1 0.58 1 0.58 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME H&B 1 IIIII-- -- - - - - - -- - ---- -' IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.37 1 0.37 1 0.29 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - -- - -- - -- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT Illll__________ ______________ ______________ ________"_____ __=11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.94 1 0.99 I 1.00 1 0.92 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII--- - - - - -- - -- -- - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII E 1 E 1 E I E IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE./BEACH BLVD. IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II 11 IIIII II it EXISTING II - II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER II 11111 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP 11111 EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII EXISTING II 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 II +PROJECT 11 11111 IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 v/C 11 II V/C 11 11 V/C 11 II V/C-W_IMP 11 11111 IIIII ========= IIIII=====_°11=======11111 ========= II ========= 11111 ========= It ========= 11 ========= 11111 ========= 11==-11 ========= 11===11 ========= 11==°It ========= 11==°11111 IIIII NL IIIII 111 1IIIII 170011 170011111 17211 1211 7 IIIII 010 11 11 0.11 II 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 II 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 4 11 411111 680011 6800 11111 314611 21211 61 11111 0.47 11 ' It 0.50 11 ' 11 0.51 11 ' 11 0.51 11 ' 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 61 11 211 0 11111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL 11111 1 11 1 11111 170011 170011111 18711 1311 0 IIIII 0.11 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' IIIII IIIII ST 11111 411 411111 680011 680011111 292911 18311 41 11111 0.47 11 11 0.49 11 11 0.50 II 11 0.50 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII 011 011111 011 011111 23911 1011 0 IIIII 11 11 11 it 11 11 11 11111 IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 11111 170011 170011111 17911 7 11 0 hill 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 II ' IIIII IIIII ET 11111 211 211111 340011 340011111 38311 1511 0 11111 0.17 11 11 0.18 11 11 0.18 11 11 0.18 11 11111 IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 011 011111 20411 13II 5 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 It Wit 11111 WL IIIII 111 1111ll 170011 170011111 4411 211 0 11111 0.03 11 it 0.03 ll 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 1 11 2 11111 170011 3400 11111 350 11 14 11 0 IIIII 0.21 11 ' 11 0.21 11 ' ll 0.21 11 ' 11 0.16 II ' IIIII IIIII W R IIIII 1 11 0 11111 170011 011111 179 11 12 11 0 11111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 11 Hill NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.58 1 0.62 1 0.63 1 0.63 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME H&B I IIIII - -- - -- - -- - --- - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.32 1 027 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- --- - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.95 I 0.99 I 1.00 1 0.95 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - 'DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII E 1 E I E I E IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnnJsor LnwE's'PROJECT OPENING DAY /wrsnvxL: Aw PEAK HOUR /wrsnosormw: SLATER AVE./wswLAwoor. --- --------------------- ---------- ----------- --- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------------- ---- ---------------------- ----------------------- -' |N| |U|| || ||\U || |UU || |\ U|U || U smaT/wo U U sx+oT*se || |\ c«.+oT*sn || ||U| U|U MOVEMENT UU| smuT U pnop U||| emuT|we U pnopoosoUU| sxmT|wG U or*sn U pnnJscr UU| exIST|wo || || +nTHsn || U +PnoJsCr U U +pn«Js«T || UN |UU NU LANES U uANsoU|U CAPACITY U cApxCnv |UU vOLoms U vouums U VOLUME UN wo U U wC U U wC || || «/C-WLIMp U NU ||U| wL ||U| 111 » \UU 170011 » |UU 13611 « || » U||| »o» U ^ || 0.0811 ` U ».«» \| ` \| U ` U||| U|U wr UU| 211 011111 »*«» U 011111 «w U 3011 15 |UU 0.20 U U ».», U U uo || || || UU| UN wn UN » U » UN » U 0011 n U » U « UN U U U U U U U NN |U|| SL UU| 111 » UN 170011 « KN :nU » U u UN 0u711 || 0.0711 U «.»/ U U U U|U NN »T NN : U » UN »*«» U « NU wm U »» U » UN 0.22 U ` U 0.2* U ` K 0.24 U ` U U ` UN UU| »n UU| » U » |UU » U « |U|| »» U * U » |UU U U U || || || || |U|| NU *L UN 1 U » UN 170011 « NU u» U » U » UN 0o4 U U 0.04 U U »o* U U U ` UN NU ET UU| : || » U|U »*»» || » U|U mm || »u || » UU| um || ` || uu» || ^ U ».»* U ` U U U|U UN En UN » U » UN » U » NN 10311 * U » UN U U U U U U U UN U|U wIL ||U| 111 » |UU 170011 » U|U »» || u/ U » UN »zmU ^ U 0.0* 11 ^ || «u* U ` U U U|U NU wn KN eU » UN »*»» U « UN 421 U nU « NU uw U U «w U U ua U U U ` UN U|U wn N|| » || » U|U » || « U|U 5111 « U « U||| || || U U || U || UU| — ------— ---' ----' — -------------— --------------—----- UN ~ ~~ NN ------ wonT*mouTn CRITICAL SUMS~ |UU 0.30 | unx | uox | »zm UN ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME nuw | Hill---------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- ---------------------' UU| -------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= UU| 0.30 | o.:x i ».»« | ».»» |UU w~NORTHBOUND,n~oour*eouwo |UU------'-'--' ----'----' -- ---- ------------'- ----'-'-----' U||| s=EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND oLcAnAwcs= UU| 0.05 | noo | 000 n�on NU L=LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT |UU~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ UU| w.n.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE |U|| 0.65 | »./» | »./» | ».«« UK| uVo~LEVEL nrSERVICE Hill---------------------- -----'----— --- ---------------- ----------------------- |U|| `DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS uoo= UU| a | a | a | U|U INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJscr� Lnwsn'PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: pm PEAK HOUR INrsnosurmw: SLATER AVE./wsWuwNosr --- --------------------- ---------- _---------- --- -------- --- _--------------------- ------------------_------ ----------_------------ ----_ ---------------_--- _------------------_--- _------------ ----_--- _------------------_--- _ |UU |UU U U|U || UU} || U |UU U || EXISTING || || sx.+oT*sn || U su+nT*sn |! UU| U|UmovsmswTUU| sxmT U pnop UU| EXISTING U pnopoosoNU smoT|wo U OTHER U pnnJso7 UU| sx|nT/wo U || +oT*en U U +peoxeCT U || +pnnJsCT U |U|| UU| LANES LANES CAPACITY |) CAPACITY UN voLume |\ «»Lmws || vOLums |U|| wo || U wC U || wC || U «1C-WL|mp U |UU UU| wL |UU 111 UU| 170011 » U||i m» || r || » ||U| 0.1011 ` U »mU || 0.1011 U || ^ UU| UU| wT |UU 211 NU »u»» U 011111 87211 8511 m ||N ».u/ || U 0.31 U ^ U 0.31 U ` U U ||U| UN wn UN » U UN » U « UN 4911 »rU « UN U U U U U U U UN UU| nL UN 1 U NU 170011 » UU| «» || » U m U|U 0.04 U || »»* U ^ || 0.05 U ^ U || |N| UN nr UN uU UN »*»» U » NU mwU »: U 24 UN 0.22 U ` U 0.23 U U 0.24 K K U ` U0 NU nn UU| Oil UN Oil 011111 107 U * K « NN U U U U U U U NU UN EL KN I U UN '170011 011111 11611 511 » NU 0-07 U ` U oor U~ U 0.07 U ^ U U ^ UN NU ET UU| 211 |UU »*»» U 011111 62411 2511 » |UU 0.22 U U 0-23 U U ».uu U U U UU| 011 en UN » U UN » U « UN 13311 « U » UN U U U U U U U UN UU| *u UU| 1 || NU 170011 » UU| »» U »» U » U|U 0-05 U || «o» || U »»« U U U UU| UN W7 UN zU UN 340011 » UN 67511 »/ U « UN 0.23 U ` U 0.2* U ` U 0.24 U ` U U ` UN UU| w« |UU » U UN » U » NU 10911 * U / U|U U U U U U U U U|U - ------- ---' ----'- -------------- --------------------' UN ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ = ~= ~ ~ ~~ UN ------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U|U ».»: i o.»« | «.»» | ».«« |UU ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME ouw | UU|-------- ----------------—-- --------- --------- UU| -------' sAoTmvsoT CRITICAL SUMS= UU| ».»» | 0.31 | 0.31 | «»» UN w~NORTHBOUND,o~oour*aouwo Hill-------- ------------ ----------------------- ------------------- --------------------- U|U s~sAoraouwo.vv~wsoraouwo oLeAnAwus~ UU| 0.05 | ».»» | ».«» | ».»» UU| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT |N| ~~~~~~==~~ = ~~ KN w.G.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE UN oar \ 0J1 ) o.m | ».»» UU| Lno~LEVEL opSERVICE Hill---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------—'---- --------------------- UU| `oswnTsoCemCALmovswswTn Loo~ UU| o | o | o | |UU rr rr rr rr �r rr rr rrr rr rr r rt rr rr wr r rr rr rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./BEACH BLVD. IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II EXISTING II II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER it Iliil IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 EXISTING 11 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY Ii CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II ll V/C Il II V/C-W_IMP 11 IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 19911 1011 011111 006 11 II 0.06 11 it 0.06 II II 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 411 411111 6800 11 6800 11111 161511 9411 011111 0.25 11 ' 11 0.27 11 ' II_ 0.27 11 • 11 0.27 II ' IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 0 11111 Oil 011111 11011 511 3711111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 479 11 1011 4511111 014 11 ' 11 0.14 11 ' 11 0.16 11 ' 11 0.16 II ' IIIII 11111 ST 11111 411 411111 680011 680011111 207411 13811 011111 0.31 11 11 0.33 11 11 0.33 11 11 0.33 II IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 30811 1411 011111 0.18 11 11 0.19 11 11 0.19 11 11 0.19 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 30911 1711 011111 0.09 11 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 3 IIIII 510011 510011111 1336 11 23 11 37 IIIII 0.30 11 ' 11 0.31 II ' II 0.32 11 ' it 0.32 11 ' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 0 11 011111 0 11 011111 206 11 28 11 0 Hill 11 11 II II II II 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 2 11 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 207 11 14 11 11 IIIII 0.06 11 ' 11 0.07 II ' II 0.07 II ` II 0.07 II ' IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 82611 3011 1111111 0.19 11 11 0.20 11 11 0.21 11 11 017 II IIIII 11111 WR IIIII Oil 1 11111 Oil 170011111 16311 9 11 14 IIIII II II II II it II 0.11 11 IIIII - - - - - - - - --__ -- -- ----- - -- -- - IIIII__________ ______________ _ _____________ ______ _ __IIIII ---------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.39 1 0.41 1 0.43 I 0.43 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&B 1 IIIII- -- - -- - -- - --" '" IIIII ------------ EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.36 1 0.38 I 0.39 1 039 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND 11111 -- ----- -- - --- - -- --"""- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII=_________ ______________ ______________ ____'_________ _ IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.80 I 0.84 1 0.87 1 0.87 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- ------ -- -- -"" - --------- -""-- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= Iliil C I D I D I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./BEACH BLVD. IIIII IIIII�- II -- IIIII_ II - IIIII - II 11 IIIII II - it EXISTING 11 - II EX.+OTHER 11 - II EX.+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING II OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII EXISTING 11 11 +OTHER II 11 +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C it II VIC II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 23611 2911 011111 0.07 11 ' 11 0.08 11 ' II 0.08 11 ' 11 0.08 II ' IIIII IIIII NT 11111 411 411111 680011 680011111 196411 19411 011111 0.31 11 it 0.34 11 11 0.35 11 11 0.35 11 11111 11111 NR Hill Oil 011111 Oil 011111 16211 611 3811111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Hill 11111 SL Hill 211 211111 340011 340011111 23311 2311 4711111 0.07 11 11 0.08 11 11 0.09 11 11 0.09 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 411 411111 6800 11 680011111 231811 16211 011111 0.34 11 ' 11 0.36 11 ` 11 0.36 11 ' 11 036 11 ' 11111 11111 SR IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 41511 2511 011111 0.24 11 11 0.26 II 11 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 11111 Hill EL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 462 II 25 11 0 lull 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 11 ` 11 0.14 11 ' 11111 IIIII ET Hill 311 311111 510011 510011111 89911 1711 3811111 0.22 11 II 0.22 11 11 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 11111 hill ER IIIII 0 11 011111 Oil 0 IIIII 200 11 2311 011111 11 11 II 11 11 11 II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 24711 3411 5811111 0.07 11 11 0.08 11 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 11 3 11111 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1078 11 2811 58 IIIII 0.26 11 ' 11 0.27 11 ' 11 0.29 11 ' 11 023 11 ' 11111 11111 WR IIIII 011 111111 011 170011111 24611 2211 7111111 II fl II II II II 0.20 II IIIII ------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.41 1 0.44 1 0.44 1 0.44 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&B I IIIII- -- - ----------------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= Hill 0.40 1 0.41 1 0.43 1 037 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND Hill -- -- - -- --- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= Mill 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.86 i 0.90 I 0.92 I 0.86 Ilill LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII - -- - -- - - -- - -------- - - IIIII 'DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D I E I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE.I GOLDENWEST ST. IIIII -' IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II EXISTING 11 II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 EXISTING 11 OTHER II PROJECT IIIII EXISTING II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C 11 11 V/C II II V/C II II VIC-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 8211 311 011111 0.02 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 443 11 1811 011111 0.09 11 ' 11 0.09 11 ' 11 0.09 11 ' 11 II IIIII 11111 NR IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 6511 311 211111 0.04 11 it 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 35011 14 11 4 IIIII o.10 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 583 11 24 11 011111 0.13 11 11 0.13 11 11 0.13 11 11 II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 6311 311 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 226 11 911 011111 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 3 11 011111 5100 11 011111 1203 11 54 11 17 IIIII 0.26 11 ' 11 0.27 II ' II 0.27 11 ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 0 11111 120 11 5 11 0 IIIII 11 11 II II 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 211 0 IIIII 3400 11 011111 147 11 6 11 1 IIIII 0.04 11 ' 11 0.05 11 • II 0.05 11 ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 0 IIIII 5100 11 011111 951 11 38 11 5 IIIII 0.22 11 11 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 0 11 0 IIIII 0 11 011111 174 11 7 11 1 IIIII II II II II II II 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.19 I 0.20 1 0.20 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&GW I IIIII -- - - - - - - EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.30 ( 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- -- - -- - E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.54 1 0.57 1 0.57 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII A i A I A I IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S • PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II 11111 II II EXISTING II - 11 EX.+OTHER II 11 EX.+OTHER 11 - IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP 11111 EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 EXISTING 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 EXISTING II 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II 11 v/c 11 11 V/c II 11 V/C-W_IMP II IIIII 11111 =_______= IIIII=====_=II=_____=IIIII =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_°II =_____= II=_°II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL 11111 211 IIIII 3400 II 011111 19711 811 011111 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 11 • 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 311 11111 510011 011111 572 11 2811 011111 0.11 II ' 11 0.12 11 ' it 0.12 11 ' 11 II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 111 IIIII 170011 011111 5111 211 211111 0.03 II II 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 II 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 II 011111 271 11 11 II 511111 0.08 II ' II 0.08 11 • 11 0.08 11 ' II II IIIII IIIII ST 11111 311 IIIII 510011 011111 468 II 2911 011111 012 11 II 0.13 II II 0.13 II II II • IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 15011 611 011111 11 II II II II II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 268 II 11 II 011111 0.08 II • II 0.08 II ' II 0.08 II ' II 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET 11111 311 IIIII 510011 011111 99611 4511 1811111 0.23 11 II 0.24 II II 0.24 II II 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 15211 611 011111 11 11 II II 11 II II IIIII 11111 WL 11111 211 IIIII 340011 011111 17111 711 311111 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 it 11 II 11111 IIIII WT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 126611 5611 2711111 0.29 11 ' 11 0.30 II ' II 0.31 II ' II II ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 21911 9 11 7 11111 II II II II II 11 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.19 1 0.20 1 0.20 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&GW I IIIII -- - -- - -- -- - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.37 1 0.38 1 0.39 1 0.00 11111 N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- ----- -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= 11111 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ____ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.61 1 0.63 1 0.64 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- ------------ ---- ---------- -------------- - ------------- ----- r rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr r r r r r r rr �r r� rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'$-PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOTHARD ST. --- ----------- -- ---- ------ -- ----------- --------- - -------- ----- - - - -- - - -- - - --- - Hill IIIII II IIIii II IIIII II II IIIII II II EXISTING II II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER II Iilll IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST II PROP 11111 EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 EXISTING II OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII EXISTING II II +OTHER 11 11 +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT 11 Iilll IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 V/C-W_IMP 11 11111 IIIII =_______= IIIII=_=====11=======11111 =_______= II =_______= 11111 =_______= II =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11===II =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===II =_______= 11==°IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 18511 711 011111 0.11 11 • 11 0.11 11 • 11 0.11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 011111 340011 011111 49311 2011 011111 0.16 II 11 0.17 it 11 0.17 11 II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 oil 011111 6011 211 911111 11 ii II II II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 19311 811 211111 0.11 II II 0.12 II 11 0.12 11 II II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 684 11 2811 011111 0.26 II ' 11 0.27 11 ' it 0.27 II ' II 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 191 II 811 011111 II II II 11 II II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 17811 711 011111 0.10 II ' 11 0.11 II ' 11 0.11 11 • II II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 1064 11 4811 24 11111 0.21 II II 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 II II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 1 11 0 Hill 1700 11 0 Hill 232 11 9 11 0 Hill 0.14 11 II 0.14 II II 0.14 II II II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 16811 711 311111 0.10 11 II 0.10 II II 0.10 11 11 II IIIII IIIii WT IIIII 311 011111 510011 0 IIIII 982 II 40 II 7 11111 0.23 11 ' 11 0.24 11 • 11 0.24 II ' II II ' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 011 011111 011 011111 18211 711 111111 II II II II II II it IIIII --- ----- -- --- -------- --------- - - -- ----- - ---- - IIIII ------------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.37 I 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&G I IIIII -- - -- ---- ------------------ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.33 1 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- ----- - -` -- ' ` IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ _ _____________ ___________'__ _ _____________ _ _=IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.75 I 0.78 I 078 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- -- -- - -'- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII l; INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S-PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE,/GOTHARD ST. IIIII V IIIII - II - IIIII II IIIII II R �- II IIIII II II EXISTING 11 II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 EXISTING 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII EXISTING 11 II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II 11 +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII II=_____°IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_=_____= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= 11111 =_______= 11===II =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11 =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 19911 811 011111 0.12 II 11 0.12 11 11 0.12 II 11 II ' IIIII 11111 NT IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 85811 4011 011111 0.28 II ' II 0.29 11 ' II 0.30 11 ' 11 II IIIII 11111 NR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 10011 4 11 911111 it 11 11 11 II 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 272 11 1611 211111 0.16 II ' II 0.17 II ' II 0.17 11 ' 11 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 631 11 4511 011111 0.24 II 11 0.25 II II 0.25 11 II II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 178 11 7 11 011111 11 II 11 11 11 II 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 12211 511 011111 0.07 11 • 11 0.07 11 ' 11 0.07 11 ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 88211 4111 2511111 0.17 11 11 0.18 11 11 0.t9 II 11 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 1 11 IIIII 1700 11 0 11111 266 11 11 11 0 Hill 0.16 11 II 0.16 11 II 0.16 II 11 II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 111 IIIII 170011 011111 5311 211 1411111 0.03 11 11 0.03 II II 0.04 II II II IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3 11 IIIII 510011 0 IIIII 1281 11 57 11 37 11111 0.29 11 ' 11 0.30 11 ' II 0.31 II ' 11 II ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 0 11 IIIII Oil 0 IIIII 202 11 13 11 3 IIIII II II II II II II II IIIII ------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.44 I 0.46 1 0.47 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&G I IIIII -- - -- - -- ----- -- IIIII ------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.36 I 0.37 1 0.38 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- -- -- -- -- -'- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.85 1 0.88 1 0.90 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D I D I IIIII r m m m r s m m m m � � � � � � � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA ST. Hill IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II It EXISTING II II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 EXISTING 11 OTHER II PROJECT IIIII EXISTING II 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 11 V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1I1 211111 170011 340011111 8711 411 411111 0.05 II 11 0.05 11 II 0.06 II II 0.03 II IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 840 11 3911 011111 0.20 II ' 11 0.21 II ' 11 0.21 11 ' II 0.21 II ' IIIII 11111 NR IIIII oil 011111 Oil 011111 18211 711 011111 II 11 11 11 11 II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 46511 1911 011111 0.14 II ' II 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 ll ' 11 0.14 II ' IIIII 11111 ST IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 7111 1811 011111 0.02 11 II 0.03 II 11 0.03 II II 0.03 II IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 282 11 11 11 611111 0.17 11 II 0.17 11 11 0.18 11 11 0.18 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 2 11111 3400 11 3400 IIIII 87 11 4 II 2 IIIII 0.03 II ' II 0.03 11 ' II 0.03 II ' 11 0.03 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 83911 3411 1011111 0.13 11 II 0.14 11 it 0.14 11 II 0.14 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 0 IIIII 0 II 011111 53 II 211 1 IIIII 11 II 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 7211 811 011111 0.02 II II 0.02 11 II 0.02 II II 0.02 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 3 11111 510011 5100 IIIII 976 11 39 11 34 IIIII 0.19 II ' 11 0.20 II ' II 0.21 II ' II 0.21 II ' 11111 IIIII WR IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 36 11 1 11 0 IIIII 0.02 II II 0.02 II it 0.02 II II 0.02 11 IIIII - -------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.34 I 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.35 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&M I IIIII -- - -- - - --' - --- -- -" 11111 ----------------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.22 1 0.23 1 0.24 1 0.24 11111 N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - -- --- -- -- Hill E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 005 ( 0.05 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ____ __________ ____'______'__ _ __ _ __________ _ _=11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.61 I 0.63 I 0.64 1 0.64 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - - ---'' -- --- -' -- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= Illll B I B I B I B IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE.!MAGNOLIA ST. IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II EXISTING II II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER 11 IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII EXISTING II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II 11 V/C 11 II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII==== it=_____°IIIII =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_=_____= II =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II 11 =_______= II II =_______= II=_°11 =_______= 11 Hill IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 340011111 204 II 811 511111 0.12 11 ' 11 012 11 ' 11 0.13 11 ' 11 0.06 II ` IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 941 11 5811 011111 0.23 11 11 0.24 11 11 0.24 11 11 0.24 II 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 220 11 14 11 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 19711 811 011111 0.06 11 II 0.06 II II 0.06 II ii 0.06 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 132611 6911 011111 0.39 11 ' II 0.41 11 ` 11 0.41 11 ' 11 0.41 11 ' 11111 11111 SR IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 321 11 13 11 7 11111 0.19 11 II 0.20 II II 0.20 11 II 0.20 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 2 II 2 11111 3400 11 340011111 118 11 5 11 10 IIIII 0.03 11 ' II 0.04 II ' 11 0.04 11 ` 11 0.04 11 ` 11111 IIIII ET IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 72311 2911 5411111 0.11 II 11 0.12 II II 012 II 11 0•12 11 11111 IIIII ER IIIII Oil 0 IIIII Oil 0 IIIII 30 11 1 II 7 IIIII II II II II II 11 II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 211 2 11111 3400 11 3400 11111 262 11 16 11 0 IIIII 0.08 11 II 0.08 11 II 0.08 II it 0.08 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3 II 3 11111 5100 11 5100 IIIII 1505 11 61 11 36 11111 0.30 11 • 11 0.31 it ` 11 0.31 11 ' II 0.31 11 ' 11111 11111 W R IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 91 11 4 11 0 IIIII 0.05 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11111 - --- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.51 I 0.53 I 0.54 I 0.47 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&M I IIIII- -- - - - - - --------------- EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.33 I 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.35 Hill N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- -- -- -- ---- -- - E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.89 1 0.93 I 0.94 I 0.87 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- - -- ---- -- ---- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I E I E I D IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- - ------------- --- -- -- ---------- -------------- - --- ---------- - ------------- --- -- 7 7 7 1 3 7 ] 7 7 ) 7 7 7 7 rr rr rr rr ■r rr rr •rr rr rr rr r rr �r rr r� rr rr rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST. IIIII--~ IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II EXISTING II II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER II IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP 11111 EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT I1I11 EXISTING 11 11 +OTHER II it +PROJECT II li +PROJECT 11 IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES II LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 II V/C It II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II Illif 11111 =_______= VIM======-11===== 11111 =_______= 11 =_______= 11111 =______== It =__==__= 11 =_______= IIIII ==_____= II=_°11 =_______= 11==-11 =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_°IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 9211 4 11 2611111 0.05 11 • 11 0.06 11 ' 11 0.07 11 ' 11 0.07 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 340011 3400IIIII 57111 2811 011111 0.19 11 11 0.20 11 11 0.20 11 II 0.20 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 0 IIIII Oil 011111 6511 311 011111 11 11 11 11 II II 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 II 1 11111 170011 170011111 8511 311 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 It it 0.05 it 11 0.05 11 Iliil IIIII ST 11111 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 91311 6711 011111 0.31 11 ' 11 0.33 11 • i1 0.34 11 ' 11 0.29 II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 0II 1IIIII 0II 170011111 13911 611 2211111 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.10 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 9611 4 11 711111 0.06 11 • 11 0.06 11 ' 11 0.06 11 ' 11 0.06 II ' IIIII Hill ET 11111 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 739 11 3011 15 pill 0.16 It 11 0.17 It 11 0.17 II II 0.17 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 7311 311 811111 11 11 11 11 , II II 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 18311 1211 011111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 II II 0.11 11 IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 3 IIIII 5100 11 510011111 1026 11 41 11 4911111 0.22 11 ' 11 0.23 11 ' 11 0.24 11 ' 11 0.22 11 ' IIIII 11111 WR 11111 0 11 1 Hill 0 11 1700 11111 91 11 4 11 0 Hill 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.06 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.36 1 0.39 1 0.41 1 0.36 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&N 1 IIIII -- - - -- - -- - - -- IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.28 1 0.29 1 0.30 1 0.28 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND Illll------- -- - -- - -- - -- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= Illll 0.69 1 0.73 1 0.76 I 0.69 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I C I C I B IIIII C: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST. IIIII- IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II ^ II IIIII II it EXISTING ii II EX.+OTHER II II EX.+OTHER 11 IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII EXISTING 11 II +OTHER II 11 +PROJECT II 11 +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME p VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II WC II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 19311 811 27 IIIII 0.11 11 ' II 0.12 II • II 013 11 ' 11 0.13 11 ' IIIII 11111 NT 11111 211 211111 340011 340011111 97911 8511 011111 0.30 II 11 0.33 11 II 0.33 it 11 0.33 11 11111 IIIII NR 11111 Oil 011111 Oil 011111 47 11 711 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11111 IIIII SL IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 99 11 4 11 011111 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 II 0.06 11 11111 IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 89411 6611 011111 0.29 11 ' II 0.31 11 ' II 0.32 II ' II 0.28 11 • IIIII 11111 SR IIIII Oil 1 11111 Oil 170011111 9011 411 2311111 II II II II II II o.07 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 125 II 511 34 11111 0.07 11 • 11 008 11 • II 0.10 II ' II 0.10 it Hill IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 74311 3011 7811111 0.16 II 11 0.17 II II 0.19 II 11 0.19 II IIIII 11111 ER (Jill 011 011111 01I 011111 9511 4II 4111111 II II II II 11 II II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 28511 17 11 011111 0.17 II II 0•18 II 11 0.18 11 II 0.18 II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 11 311111 510011 5100 IIIII 1522 11 61 II 52 11111 0.34 11 • it 0.35 11 • 11 0.36 11 ' 11 0.32 11 ' 11111 IIIII WR IIIII Oil 1 11111 oil 170011111 206 II 8 II 0 IIIII II II II II II II 0.13 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.40 I 0.43 I 0.45 I 0.41 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W 8,N I IIIII -- - -- - - EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.41 I 0.43 i 0.46 I 0.42 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - -- - - -- - -- - - -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.86 I 0.91 I 0.96 ( 0.86 Hill LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII - -- - -- - -- - --- -- IIIII •DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I E I E I D IIIII i i i i i i i i i i i 1i i i i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO I-B STREET OPEN) IIIII IIIII {{ lllp II IIIII II II IIIII II - II II - II II II ii - IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 PROJECTED 11 II IIIII PROJECTED 11 II II II II II PROJECTED 11 IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 II IIIII Vic 11 11 II 11 II II V/C-W_IMP 11 11111 IIIII NL IIIII oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 II II ' 11 II ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 0 11111 11 11 ii 11 11 11 11 11111 11111 SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 1811 Oil 0 11111 0.01 11 ` 11 0.01 Il ' 11 0.01 11 ' II 11 IIIII IIIp ST IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil oil 011111 II II 11 II 11 11 II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 2011 Oil 011111 0.01 it 11 0.01 ll li 0.01 li II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 7211 Oil 011111 0.04 11 ' 11 0.04 II ' it 0.04 li ' ii II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 163311 Oil 011111 0.32 11 11 0.32 II it 0.32 II II 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 oII oil 011111 11 11 11 II 11 II 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII oII 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II if ll 11 II 11 11 IIIII 11111 WT 11111 311 011111 510011 011111 2667 11 Oil 011111 0.52 II ' 11 0.52 11 ' II 0.52 II ' II 11 ' IIIII 11111 WR 11111 1 II 011111 170011 011111 6411 0 11 011111 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 o.04 II 11 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&PD I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.56 I 0.56 1 0.56 i 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- -- -- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ____ _ _=IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.62 1 0.62 1 0.62 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - --- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO I-B STREET OPEN) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II II II it II II IIIii 11111 MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED II II IIIII PROJECTED II II II II II 11 PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 II 11111 v/c 11 11 II II II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII =_______= Hill=======11=====_°IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11= 11 IIIII NL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II 11 11 11 II II II ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil off o fffit If * It 11 ' 11 II ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 II 11 11 II 11 11 IIIii IIIII SL 11111 211 11111 340011 011111 11611 O11 011111 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil IIIII oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 II IIIII 170011 011111 131 II Oil 011111 0.08 II "'II 0.08 11 • 11 0.08 II ' 11 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 8011 Oil 011111 0.05 11 ' 11 0.05 11 • 11 0.05 11 ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET 11111 311 IIIII 510011 011111 1541 11 oil 011111 0.30 11 11 0.30 11 11 0.30 11 11 11 11111 IIIII ER IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II 11 11 11 11 II IIIII 11111 WL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 if If 11 11 II 11 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 265011 Oil 011111 0.52 11 ' II 0.52 11 • 11 0.52 11 ' 11 II ' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 1 11 IIIII 1700 11 011111 7211 Oil 011111 0.04 11 ff 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 11 11111 NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&PD 1 IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- - IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= Bill 0.57 I 0.57 I 0.57 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.70 1 0.70 I 070 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII i i i i i i i i i i i i i .i i i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO II-B STREET VACATED) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II II II II II it IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 PROJECTED 11 II IIIII PROJECTED II li II II II II PROJECTED 11 IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II II IIIII vac II II II II II 11 V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII ==______= IIIII=====_-II=_====-11111 =_______= 11 =_______= 11111 ========= 11 =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II 11 =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_°11 =_______= 11==°IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 0 11111 Oil Oil 011111 it ' II II ' II II ' II II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 2011 Oil 011111 0.01 II ' 11 0.01 II ' II 0.01 II ' 11 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 11 II 11 II II 11 it ' IIIII IIIII SR Hill 1 11 011111 170011 011111 2311 Oil 011111 0.01 II II 0.01 11 11 0.01 II 11 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 8011 Oil 011111 0.05 11 ' 11 0.05 II ' 11 0.05 11 • II II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 161611 Oil 011111 0.32 11 II 0.32 II II 0.32 II II 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II 11 IIIII 11111 WT 11111 311 011111 510011 011111 2651 11 oil 011111 0.52 11 • II 0.52 11 ' II 0.52 II ' II it ' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 1 11 0 11111 1700 1I 0 Hill 7211 0 11 0 Hill 0.04 11 II 0.04 11 II 0.04 11 it II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.01 I 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&PD1 1 IIIII -- - - -- -- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.57 I 0.57 1 0.57 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND 11111 -- -- -- -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= Hill 0.05 - I 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE_ (IIII 0.63 I 0.63 1 0.63 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- - - - -- - -- - - - '- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER&SIGNALIZED PROJECT DRIVEWAY(SCENARIO II-B STREET VACATED) IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II II - II II II II II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PROJECTED II II 11111 PROJECTED II II II II II II PROJECTED II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME II II IIIII V/C II II II II II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II 11 II • IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 011 IIIII 011 011111 011 011 011111 11 II 11 II 11 11 II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II 11 II 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 IIIII 340011 011111 13111 011 011111 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 11 0.04 11 II II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II 11 II II II II ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1 II IIIII 170011 011111 14511 Oil 011111 0.09 11 •••11 0.09 II ' II 0.09 II ' II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 8911 Oil 011111 0.05 11 • 11 0.05 11 • 11 0.05 II • 11 II • IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 149911 011 011111 0.29 II 11 0.29 II II 0.29 11 II II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII 11111 WL IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 Oil Oil 011111 II II II II II II II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 263211 Oil 011111 0.52 11 ' II 0.52 II ' II 0.52 II ' II II ' IIIII 11111 W R IIIII 1 11 IIIII 170011 011111 81 II 0 11 0 Hill 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 II II II Hill III NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.09 I 0.09 I 0.09 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME W&PD1 I IIIII -- - -- - -- - ---- IIIII EASTMEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.57 I 0.57 I 0.57 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- ---- 11111 E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.71 I 0.71 I 0.71 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- ---- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII Z Q JO QD � J W - Z = W m C� rr r m1 m ml r mrr �r it rr rr r rr rr ar rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII- IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. II II GP+OTHER it II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 II +PROJECT it IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII VIC II II V/C II II V/C II II VIC-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 11611 Oil 2611111 0.07 II ' II 0.07 II ' II 0.08 II ' II 008 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 61411 0II 011111 0.22 11 II 0.22 II 11 0.22 11 II 0.22 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 12811 Oil .011111 II 11 11 II II 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 111 111111 1700II 170011111 8511 0II 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 929 11 Oil 011111 0.31 11 • II 0.31 II ' 11 0.32 II ` 11 0.27 11 ' 11111 IIIII SR IIIII 0II Hill[ 0II 170011111 14011 0II 2211111 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.10 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 99 II Oil 7 IIIII 0.06 11• 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 149811 Oil 1511111 0.31 11 • 11 0.31 11 • 11 0.32 11 ' II 0.32 11 ' 11111 IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 8811 Oil 811111 11 11 11 11 ii ii 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 184 11 Oil 011111 o.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11• 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 106011 011 4911111 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 11 0.24 11 11 0,22 11 IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 011 111111 011 170011111 9111 011 0]1111 11 II II II II it 0.05 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.40 1 035 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&N I 11111 -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.42 1 0.42 1 0,43 I 0.43 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND 11111 -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 ( 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.85 1 0.85 1 0.88 1 0.83 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D I D I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II GP II 11 GP+OTHER 11 II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER 11 PROJECT lull PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C 11 11 V/C 11 II V/C-W-IMP 11 IIIII IIIII =_______= 11111_=====11=====_=IIIII ==______= 11 =_______= 11111 =_______= 11 =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= 11===11 =_______= II=_=ll =_______= 11===II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 ll 1 11111 170011 1700 11111 25011 Oil 2711111 0.15 ll ' 11 0.15 11 ` 11 0.16 11 ' 11 0.16 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 125211 Oil 011111 0.39 II 11 0.39 11 11 0.39 11 11 0.39 11 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 6911 0 11 011111 11 11 II 11 II II II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 99 II Oil 011111 0.06 ll II 0.06 II II 0.06 II II 0.06 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 110211 Oil 011111 0.35 11 ' 11 0.35 11 ' II 0.36 11 ' 11 0.32 11 ' 11111 IIIII SR IIIII Oil 1 IIIII Oil 1700 11111 9011 Oil 2311111 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.07 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 13711 Oil 3411111 0.08 11 ' 11 0.08 11 ' 11 0.10 11' 11 0.10 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 941 11 Oil 7811111 0.21 II 11 0.21 11 II 0.23 11 II 0.23 11 ' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 13811 Oil 41 11111 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 IIIII 485 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0.29 II ' IIIII IIIII WT 11111 311 3 IIIII 510011 510011111 191711 0 11 52 IIIII 0.42 11 ' 11 0.42 II ' II 0.43 11 ' 11 0.39 11 IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 0 11 1 11111 oil 1700 IIIII 208 11 Oil 011111 11 II 11 II II 11 0.12 11 IIIII - - - - - - - - - IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.52 1 0.48 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBN I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.53 1 0.52 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII - -- - -- - -- - - - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= lull 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 1.05 I 1.05 1 1.10 1 1.05 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- --- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII F ( F I F I F IIIII rr m ro m r m m r r r r rir rr rr rr rr rr r tr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL 11 II IIIII GENERAL II II G.P. II II GP+OTHER 11 11 GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII PLAN 11 II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 II +PROJECT 11 IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C II II V/C II 11 V/C II 11 V/C-W-IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 111 211111 170011 340011111 9111 0II 411111 0.05 II 11 0,05 Ii 11 0.06 11 11 0.03 II IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 848 11 Oil 011111 0.21 11 ` 11 0.21 11 ' 11 0.21 11 • 11 0.21 11 ' IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 220 11 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 47911 Oil 011111 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 11 • 11 0.14 11 ' IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 71 11 Oil 011111 0.02 11 II 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 28411 011 611111 0.17 11 11 0.17 11 11 0.17 11 11 0.17 11 11111 IIIII EL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 11511 011 211111 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11111 IIIII ET IIIII 4 11 4 11111 680011 6800 11111 154511 Oil 1011111 0.24 II ' 11 0,24 11 • 11 0.24 11 ` 11 0-24 11 ` 11111 IIIII ER lull Oil 0 Hill 0 11 0 11111 53 11 Oil 1 11111 11 it 11 11 ll 11 11 IIIII 11111 WL lull 211 2 11111 3400 11 3400 11111 93 11 Oil 011111 0.03 11 ' 11 003 11 ' 11 0.03 II • 11 0.03 11 ' 11111 11111 WT IIIII 3 11 3 IIIII 510011 5100 11111 1006 11 0 11 34 11111 0.20 11 11 0.20 11 11 0.20 11 11 0.20 11 IIIII 11111 W R IIIII 1 11 1 11111 1700 11 1700 11111 40 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.02 11 11 0.02 II 11 0.02 II 11 0.02 11 11111 -------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.35 1 0,35 1 0.35 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBM I IIIII -- -- -- ------------ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.27 1 0.27 1 0.27 1 0.27 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND lull -- - -- -- -- - ----- - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.67 1 0.67 I 0.67 1 067 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- - -- - - -- ---- -- _ - - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I B IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA ST. - LONG RANGE Hill IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II GP II II GP+OTHER 11 11 GP+OTHER 11 IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN 11 OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II ll +OTHER II 11 +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II I) V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII II=_____°IIIII =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II =_______= II =_______= 11111 =_______= 11 11 =_______= II II =_______= II=_°II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 340011111 20611 oil 511111 0.12 11 ' 11 0•12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11 H6 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT lilll 311 311111 510011 5100 11111 105211 Oil .011111 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 11 0.26 11 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 273 II Oil 011111 II 11 11 11 II 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 21611 Oil 011111 0.06 11 II 0,06 II II 0.06 II 11 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 133911 Oil 011111 0.39 11 ' 11 0.39 II 11 0.39 II ' 11 0,39 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR hill 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 376 11 Oil 711111 0.22 II- 11 0.22 11 11 0.23 II 11 0.23 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 11911 Oil 1011111 0.04 it ' II 0.04 11 ' 11 0.04 II ' 11 0.04 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET hill 411 4 11111 6800 11 6800 11111 957 11 Oil 5411111 0.15 11 11 0.15 II 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11111 IIIII ER IIIII 0 11 0 IIIII 0 11 0 IIIII 3611 O II 7 11111 ll 11 11 it• 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 2 11 2 11111 3400 11 3400 11111 32511 0 11 0 Hill 0.10 II 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 11 0.10 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 II 311111 510011 5100 11111 1958 11 0 11 36 11111 0.38 11 ' 11 0.38 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' 11 0.39 11 ' IIIII 11111 W R IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 125 11 0 11 011111 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 IIIII --------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.51 1 0.51 I 0.51 ( 0.45 I1111 ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&M I IIIII -- - -- - - ------------ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.42 1 0.42 1 043 1 0.43 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- ----- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111__________ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.98 I 0.98 1 0.99 I 0.93 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- --- -- ---'-- -- IIIII 'DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII E I E I E I E IIIII �+ m M, m am m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: SLATER AVE./NEWLAND - LONG RANGE IIIII -� IIIII II IIIII II 11111 GENERAL II 11 IIIII GENERAL II 11 G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER 11 IIIII 11111 MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT II 11111 IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C 11 II V/C 11 II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII=======11=======11111 ========= 11 ========= IIIII ========= 11 ========= 11 ========= IIIII ========= 11===11 ========= 11===11 ========= 11===11 ========= 11===IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 15211 0 11 011111 0.09 11 ` 11 009 11 ` 11 0.09 11 ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 011111 340011 011111 66311 O11 1511111 0.22 11 11 0.22 11 11 0.23 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 NR 11111 Oil 011111 Oil 011111 9211 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11111 IIIII SL IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 12011 O11 211111 0.07 11 it 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 661 11 Oil 511111 0.22 11 ' 11 0.22 11 ' 11 0.23 11 ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 9911 O11 011111 II 11 11 it 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 6411 Oil 011111 0.04 11 11 0,04 11 11 004 11 11 11 ' Hill IIIII ET 11111 211 011111 3400 11 011111 1002 11 Oil 011111 0.33 11 ` 11 0.33 11 ` 11 0.33 11 ` 11 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 11311 Oil 011111 11 It 11 11 11 11 II IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 3811 Oil 011111 0.02 11 ` 11 0.02 11 ` 11' 0.02 11 ' 11 II IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 2 11 0 IIIII 3400 11 011111 436 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.14 11 11 0.14 11 11 0.15 11 11 II ` IIIII IIIII WR IIIII Oil 011111 011 011111 5211 011 611111 it II II II II II 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.31 1 031 1 0.32 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FS&N I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - - IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII- -- - -- - -- - -"'- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT 11111__________ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= 11111 0.71 1 0.71 1 0.72 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- -- - -- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C 1 C 1 C 1 IIIII r: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: SLATER AVE./NEWLAND - LONG RANGE IIIII u� IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II GP II it GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II 11111 IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED 11111 PLAN II OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII PLAN II 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT II 11111 IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 11 v/C II 11 V/C 11 II V/C-W-IMP 11 IIIII 11111 ==____= IIIII=====_=II_____=IIIII =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= 11111 =_______= 11===II =_______= II=_=II =_______= 11===II =_______= II=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 II 011111 1,70011 011111 191 II Oil 011111 0.11 II 11 0.11 11 ll 0.11 II II II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 011111 3400 II 011111 104611 Oil 1611111 0.33 it ' 11 0.33 11 ' 11 0.33 II ' 11 II IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 5911 Oil 011111 II 11 II II 11 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 II 011111 170011 011111 6911 Oil 1011111 0.04 11 ' II 0.04 11 • 11 0.05 11 ' 11 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 749 II Oil 24 IIIII 0.25 11 11 0.25 II 11 0.26 11 II 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 10811 Oil 011111 11 11 II II 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 11911 Oil 011111 0.07 II ' II 0.07 11 • 11 0.07 II ' II II ' IIIII 11111 ET IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 71811 Oil 011111 0.26 II II 0.26 11 II 0.26 11 11 II IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 16011 Oil 011111 II 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 W L IIIII 1 11 011111 170011 011111 84 11 Oil 011111 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11 11 Hill 11111 WT IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 0 IIIII 75611 Oil 011111 0.25 II ' 11 0.25 II ' II 0.26 11 ' II II ' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 11011 Oil 711111 11 II II II II II II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.37 I 0.37 I 0.38 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FSBN EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.32 ( 0.32 I 0.33 ( 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SORTHBOUND E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= 11111 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.74 I 0.74 I 0.76 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- -- -- - 'DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII r �r m 1m m m m r m mrr� ■r rr rr r r r ■r rr INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE./BEACH BLVD. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII 11 IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II 11 G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER it 11111 IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 PLAN II OTHER 11 PROJECT IIIII PLAN 11 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C II 11 V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP 11 IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=====_°11=====_=IIIII =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =______= 11 =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11 =_______= 11===11111 IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 340011111 19611 Oil 1 IIIII 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 11 ' 11 0.06 11 ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 218811 011 12 IIIII 0.33 11 11 0.33 11 11 0.33 11 11 0.33 11 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 7211 Oil 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11111 IIIII SL IIIII 111 211111 170011 340011111 19111 011 0 IIIII 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 ll 11 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 411 411111 6800 11 680011111 2707 11 Oil 39 11111 0.44 11 ' 11 0.44 11 ' 11 0.44 11 ' 11 0.44 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 251 11 Oil 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 17811 Oil 0 IIIII 010 11 ' 11 0.10 11 ' 11 0.10 11 ' 11 0.10 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 36611 011 0 IIIII 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 IIIII IIIII ER 11111 011 011111 011 011111 17311 011 4 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 11411 011 0 IIIII 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 1 11 211111 1700 11 3400 IIIII 433 11 0 11 0 IIIII 0.25 11 ' 11 0.25 11 ' 11 0.25 11 ' 11 0.18 11 ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 19011 011 0 IIIII 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.56 1 0.56 1 0.56 1 0.50 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FHBB I IIIII -- - - -- - -- - --- EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.35 1 0.28 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - - -- - -- ---- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIii 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.96 1 0.96 1 0.96 1 0.83 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- -- -- DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII E 1 E I E I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE.I BEACH BLVD. - LONG RANGE IIIII '- IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II Illii GENERAL 11 - II GP II - 11 GP+OTHER 11 11 GP+OTHER 11 IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING 11 PROPOSED IIIII PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 11 +PROJECT 11 11111 IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY 11111 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 11 V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 211111 170011 3400 11111 242 11 Oil 7 IIIII 0.14 II ' 11 0.14 II ' II 0.15 11 ' II 0.07 II ' 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 411 4 11111 680011 6800 11111 317711 Oil 61 IIIII 0.48 II tt 0.48 II II 0.49 II II 0.49 11 11111 11111 NR 11111 011 011111 oil 011111 8111 011 0 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11111 IIIII SL IIIII 111 211111 170011 340011111 21311 01l 0 IIIII 0.13 ll 11 0.13 II II 0.13 11 11 0.06 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 411 411111 6800 11 6800 11111 297811 Oil 41 IIIII 0.47 11 II 0.47 11 ' 11 0.48 11 II 0.48 11 11111 11111 SR 11111 Oil 011111 Oil 011111 241 11 Oil 0 IIIII 11 II II II II II II Iillt IIIII EL IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 18011 Oil 0 11111 0.11 II ' 11 0.11 11 ' II 0.11 11 ' II 0.11 II ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 49211 Oil 0 IIIII 0.22 11 II 0.22 11 II 0.22 II II 0.22 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII O11 011111 O11 011111 257II Oil 5 IIIII 11 11 11 11' 11 II 11 IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 11111 47 11 Oil 0 IIIII 0.03 11 11 0.03 11 11 0.03 II II 0.03 11 11111 11111 WT IIIII 1 11 2 11111 1700 11 3400 IIIII 461 11 0 II 0 IIIII 0.27 11 ' Il 0.27 II ' 11 0.27 11 ' II 0.19 II ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 1II 011111 1700 11 011111 18011 Oil 0 IIIII 0.11 II II 0.11 11 11 0.11 II II II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.61 1 0.61 1 0.63 1 0.55 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FHBB l 11111 -- - -- --- -- - -- -- IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 1 0.38 I 0.38 I 0.30 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND Hill -- - - - -- ---- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0,05 i 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ _____________ ___IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 1.04 1 1.04 I 1.06 I 0.90 11111 LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- -- - -- - -- ----- - IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII F I F I F I D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII - ` IIIII it IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL II II G•P II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED 11111 PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT 11 II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII 11111 LANES 11 LANES 11111 CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11111 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 11 V/C II II V/C-W-IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 8211 Oil 011111 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 0.02 11 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 726 11 Oil 011111 0.14 11 ' 11 0.14 11 • 11 0.14 11 ' 11 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 111 011111 170011 011111 9411 011 211111 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 0.06 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 353 11 Oil 411111 0.10 11 • 11 0.10 11 • 11 0.11 11 • 11 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 311 011111 510011 011111 711 11 Oil 011111 0.15 11 11 0.15 11 11 0.15 11 11 II • IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 0 11 011111 Oil 011111 6311 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 234 11 Oil 011111 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 0.07 11 11 11 • IIIII IIIII ET 11111 311 011111 510011 011111 159511 Oil 1711111 0.34 11 ' 11 0.34 11 • 11 0.34 11 • 11 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 121 11 Oil 011111 II 11 11 11 11 II 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 211 011111 3400 11 011111 14611 Oil 1 IIIII 0.04 11 • 11 0.04 11 ' 11 0.04 11 • 11 11 IIIII 11111 WT 11111 3 11 0 IIIII 5100 11 0 11111 96011 Oil 5 11111 0.23 11 11 0.23 II 11 0.23 11 11 II • IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 011 011111 011 011111 19711 011 111111 II Ii II II Ii II II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.24 1 0.24 1 0.25 1 0.00 I1111 ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBGW EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.38 ( 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - - -- - -- - - -'' IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.67 I 0.67 1 0.68 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= UIII B I B I B I IIIII 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII - IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL 11 II GP II II GP+OTHER II ll GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN 11 OTHER 11 PROJECT 11111 PLAN 11 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II 11 +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME II VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W_IMP II IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 202 11 Oil 011111 0.06 11 ` 11 0.06 II ` 11 0.06 11 ` 11 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 311 IIIII 5100II 011111 99411 0II 011111 0.19 11 II 0.19 II II 0.19 11 11 II IIIII 11111 NR IIIII 111 IIIII 170011 011111 5111 011 211111 0.03 11 II 0.03 II 11 0.03 11 11 II IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 211 IIIII 340011 011111 27311 011 511111 0.08 11 11 0.08 II II 0.08 II II II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 117011 Oil 011111 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 II ' II 0.26 11 ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 151 II Oil 011111 11 11 II II II II II IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 211 IIIII 3400 11 011111 270 II Oil 011111 0.08 11 ' II 0.08 II ' II 0.08 II ' II 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 IIIII 510011 011111 104111 011 1811111 0.25 11 11 0.25 II 11 0.25 II 11 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil IIIII Oil 011111 21611 Oil 011111 II 11 II II II II II IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 211 IIIII 340011 011111 24411 011 311111 0.07 II 11 0.07 II II 0.07 11 II II IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 3 II IIIII 5100 II 0 IIIII 1450 11 Oil 27 IIIII 0.32 11 ' 11 0•32 II ' II 0.32 II ' 11 11 ' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII Oil IIIII 0 II 0 IIIII 17211 0 11 7 11111 11 II 11 11 11 II 11 IIIII -- •----- - - - - - - - IIIII__________ _____________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.32 1 0.32 1 0.32 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBGW I IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.40 1 0.40 1 0.40 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- ---- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 I 000 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ____ __________ ______________ ______________ ___11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.77 1 0.77 1 0.77 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII �r r m 'r m m m m r r r r rr rr rr rr �r r �r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOTHARD ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII Hill II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL 11 II G.P. II II GP+OTHER II II GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST 11 PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II 11 +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME 11 VOLUME IIIII V/C 11 II VIC II 11 V/C 11 11 V/C-W_IMP 11 IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 19711 Oil 011111 0.12 11 • II 0.12 11 • II 0.12 11 ' 11 0.12 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 681 11 Oil 011111 0.22 II 11 0.22 it 11 0.22 II 11 0.22 11 IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 7011 Oil 911111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 194 11 Oil 211111 0.11 11 11 0.11 II II 0.12 11 11 0.12 11 IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 690 II Oil 011111 0.26 11 ' II 0.26 II ' II 0.26 11 ' 11 0.26 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 19211 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 11111 170011 1700 11111 17911 Oil 011111 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 11 0.11 11 IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 144211 Oil 24 11111 0.28 11 ' 11 0.28 11 ' 11 0.29 11 ' 11 0.29 11 ' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 1 11 1 Hill 170011 1700 11111 234 11 Oil 011111 0.14 11 11 0.14 11 11 0.14 11 11 0.14 11 11111 11111 WL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 185 11 0 11 311111 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 ' 11 0.11 11 • 11 0.11 11 ' IIIII 11111 WT IIIII 311 3 11111 510011 5100 Hill 1008 11 0 11 7 1IItl 0.23 11 11 0.23 11 11 0.24 11 11 0.20 11 IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 0 11 1 IIIII Oil 1700 11111 183 11 0 11 1 IIIII 11 11 11 II II II 0.11 II IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.38 i 0.38 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBG I IIIII- -- - -- - -- - - EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.39 I 0.39 1 0.40 1 0.40 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII -- - -- - -- - - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ __'___________ ____________'_ _ _= 11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.82 1 0.82 1 0.83 1 0.83 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII- -- - - -- - -- - --- - 11111 DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D 1 D 1 D IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOTHARD ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII- __ _ _ IIIII II IIIII II IIIII GENERAL 11 II IIIII GENERAL II II GP II II GP+OTHER II it GP+OTHER II IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST II PROP IIIII EXISTING II PROPOSED IIIII PLAN II OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT II II +PROJECT II IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES 11 LANES IIIII CAPACITY 11 CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME II VOLUME IIIII V/C II II V/C II II V/C II II V/C-W-IMP 11 IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 22611 011 011111 0.13 11 11 0.13 11 II 0.13 11 11 0.13 11 11111 IIIII NT IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 908 11 Oil 011111 0.30 11 • 11 0.30 II ' II 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 11 ' IIIII IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 11911 Oil 911111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 1700 11111 274 11 Oil 211111 0.16 11 • 11 0.16 11 • 11 0.16 11 • 11 0.16 11 ' IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 820 11 Oil 011111 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11 0.29 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 17911 Oil 011111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 11 1 IIIII 170011 170011111 12311 Oil 011111 0.07 11 • 11 0.07 11 • 11 0.07 11 • 11 0.07 11 ' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 94211 011 2511111 0.18 11 11 0.18 11 11 0.19 11 11 0.19 11 IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 26811 011 011111 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11 0.16 11 11111 IIIII WL IIIII 111 111111 170011 170011111 7511 Oil 1411111 0.04 11 11 0,04 11 11 0.05 11 11 0.05 11 11111 IIIII WT IIIII 3 11 3 IIIII 510011 510011111 144911 0 11 37 IIIII 0.32 11 • 11 0.32 11 ' 11 0.33 11 • 11 0.29 11 ' IIIII IIIII W R IIIII Oil 1 IIIII Oil 170011111 204 11 0 11 3 IIIII 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.12 11 IIIII NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.46 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FWBG I IIIII -- - -- - -- - -- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.39 1 0.39 1 0.40 1 0.36 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII------- -- - -- - -- - --- - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ _ _____________ ____ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= 11111 0.90 I 0.90 1 0.91 1 0.87 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- - "- ""' IIIII •DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D I E I D IIIII rr w aw m m r w w r� w w w r r� wi r■i re +w� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: BEACH BLVD./WARNER AVE. - LONG RANGE IIIII - - IIIII - II - IIIII - - II -- IIIII GENERAL II II IIIII GENERAL Il II G.P. - II II GP+OTHER + +OTHER IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST 11 PROP EXISTING PROPOSED IIIII PLAN 11 OTHER II PROJECT IIIII PLAN II II +OTHER II II +PROJECT it II PROJECT II 11111 II Ilfil IIIII 11111 LANES II LANES IIIII CAPACITY II CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME 11 VOLUME p VOLUME 11111 V/C 11 11 V/C 11 li V/C II 11 V/C-W_IMP ll 11111 IIIII =_______= ljjll======t II=_=====11111 =_______= II =_______= IIIII =_______= II =_______= 11 =_______= IIIII =_______= 11==-II =_______= II=_°11 =_______= II===11 =_______= 11==-IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 211 211111 3400 11 340011111 264 II Oil 011111 0.08 II ' II 0.08 II ' II 0.08 11 ' II 0.08 II ' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 411 411111 680011 680011111 197511 011 011111 0.31 II II 0.31 11 II 0.31 11 II 0.31 II 11111 IIIII NR IIIII Oil 011111 Oil 011111 12911 oil 37 11111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IIIII IIIII SL 11111 211 211111 3400 11 3400 11111 244 11 Oil 4511111 O.07 11 11 0.07 11 II 009 11 11 0.09 II IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 4 11 4 11111 6800 11 680011111 219011 Oil 011111 032 11 ' 11 0.32 11 ' II 0.32 11 ' 11 0.32 11 11111 IIIII SR IIIII 1 II 1 IIIII 1700 11 1700 IIIII 361 II 0 II 0 IIIII 0.21 II II 0.21 II II 021 II II 0.21 it IIIII Iilll EL IIIII 211 211111 340011 340011111 42011 011 011111 0.12 il, II 0.12 II II 0.12 II II 0.12 II IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 3 II 3 11111 5100 11 510011111 1073 II O II 37 11111 0.30 11 ' 11 0.30 11 • 11 0.31 II • II 0.31 II ' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII Oil 0 IIIII Oil 011111 450 II 0 11 0 IIIII 11 II 11 II 11 II 11 IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 2 II 2 11111 3400 11 3400 IIIII 352 II Oil 11 IIIII 0.10 11 ' 11 0.10 II ' II 0.11 II ' 11 0.11 11 ' IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 311 311111 510011 510011111 82911 011 1111111 0.20 II II 0.20 II II 021 it II 0.16 II IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 0 II 1 IIIII oil 1700 IIIII 213 II Oil 14 11111 II II II II II II 0.13 li IIIII - --- -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - ---- - - IIIII ----------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.40 i 0.40 I 0.40 i 0.40 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FB&W I IIIII- -- - -- ----- -- --- - - - IIIII -------------- EASTIWEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.40 i 0.40 I 0.42 ( 0,42 HillN=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII--- -- - - -- - --- - -- ------- - - IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE_ IIIII 0.05 i 0.05 i 0.05 i 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.85 I 0.85 i 087 I 0.87 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII -- - -- - -- -- - ----- -- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D I D ( D I D IIIII ------------ -------------- -------------- ---- ---------- ----- ------------ -------------- - ------------- - --- ---------- - ---- t ' I. WATER ANALYSIS 1 FEB 12 ' LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE Huntington Beach, CA ' WATER ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared For: Lowe's HIW, Inc. 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 140 Carlsbad, California 92008 7. �L7+t�3v/' laJo�l�� ill\i t_ a Prepared By: CANYON CONSULTING 4665 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 486-1 430 ' CONTACT: PAUL ROTHENBERG February,2003 LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE Huntington Beach, CA 1 WATER ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared For: Lowe's HIW, Inc. t 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 140 Carlsbad, California 92008 ' Prepared By: CANYON CONSULTING 4665 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 486-1 430 CONTACT: PAUL ROTHEN BERG February, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section Page 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.0 Existing Conditions 1 3.1 Water Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.2 Existing Infrastructure Serving the Project Site . . . . . . 3 4.0 Project Impacts ' 4.1 Proposed Water Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2 Project Water Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3 Alternative Project Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4 Future Water Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5 Fire Flow 8 4.6 Hydraulic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.0 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.0 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' Tables 1 Daily Project Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Uniform Building Code Fire Flow Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' Exhibits 1 Existing and Proposed Water Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Alternative Site Plan - Proposed Water Improvements . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendices A Persons and Organizations Consulted ' B Lowe's Water System Analysis C City Interdepartmental Memo dated November 5, 2002 D Fire Department Letter dated February 10, 2003 ' WATER ANALYSIS REPORT 1 CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The following report was prepared as a technical supplement to the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)forthe proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse(HIW). The hydraulic network analysis referenced in this report was prepared byTETRATECH Asp on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach and is included in the appendices of the report. An additional source of information used in the preparation of this report was ' the December 2000 Water Master Plan. The proposed project that is subject of this report consists of the development of a 25.6 acre site with commercial retail,office and restaurant uses. The project area is bordered by Beach Boulevard to the west,the Ocean View storm drainage channel to the north, residential uses along Minoru to the east and Warner Avenue to the south. ' The project area is divided into three subareas. Area A is approximately 11.6 acres and consists of the former Rancho View school facilities and baseball fields. Area A ' is proposed fordevelopment as a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse(HIW)and a restaurant. In the eastern portion of the site,Area B2 consists of 7.7 acres utilized by the Ocean View School District for their bus maintenance facility. The bus maintenance facility will remain with minor changes to access. Area B1 is approximately 6.3 acres of developed area located between B Street and Beach Boulevard. Area B1 currently contains nine(9)residential units and a combination of retail/commercial, restaurant and office uses totaling approximately 41,000 square feet. An existing Southern California Edison substation is excluded from the project area. Area B1 is not presently proposed for development but has been included in the program EIR in orderto evaluate potential future development.An additional 43,825 square feet of retail/commercial and office development has been allocated forArea ' B1. The project areas are identified on Exhibit 1. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water service within the City of Huntington Beach is provided by a municipal water system which serves approximately 200,000 people, as well as commercial and industrial uses in this predominately residential beach community. The primary sources of potable water is underground water produced from seven active wells, supplemented by imported water provided through three service connections to the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)l. ' The City's service area of 17,200 acres has little variation of topography and the water system is divided into two (2) pressure zones. Pressure Zone 1 includes the vast ' City of Huntington Beach, Water Master Plan December 2000,p.1-1. ' WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 1 i majority of the service area for all area with elevation between 0 and 80 feet. Pressure Zone 2 is comprised of the 800 acre Reservoir Hill area. The water system is comprised of a network of storage reservoirs, booster pumps and distribution i mainline. The wells and booster pumps distribute the water to reservoirs through a network of transmission and distribution mains. Water not utilized through the system ' is stored in the reservoirs for use when water usage exceeds the amount of water pumped into the water mains, or as needed for fire suppression and emergency outages of water system components. In addition to the three(3)service connections ' to MWDOC, the City has emergency water connections with the Cities of Fountain Valley, Seal Beach and Westminster, which could provide Huntington Beach with limited water supply under emergency conditions. 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Water Production The City's sources of water supply presently consists of the nine(9)active wells and ' the three(3)imported water connections from MW DOC;OC 9,OC35 and OC 44. The ground water pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin by the City of ' Huntington Beach is unadjudicated but managed by OCWD.The City has the ability to pump groundwater from the basin as a member agency of OCWD, subject to i payment of a BPP (Basin Production Percentage) fee. OCWD currently allows Huntington Beach to pump groundwater up to 75% of the City's applicable water demand, which is the Basin Production Percentage. As reported in the Water Master Plan,total daily water production in year 2000 from the groundwater wells was approximately 29 mgd (million/gallons/day) or 20,100 ' gallons per minute 2. The City's allocation from the three imported water connections totalled 32 mgd(22,000 gpm)3. To satisfy water demand,the City historically utilizes groundwater more than imported water. For the years 1995 through 2000, imported water has accounted for between 25-46%of total water production 4. One additional groundwater well is presently under design to help expand the City's groundwater capacity. i 2 Ibid,p.1-1 i a Ibid,p.1-1 Ibid, Table 3-1,p. 3-2 WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING ' LOWE'S HIW 2 ' 3.2 Existing Infrastructure Serving the Proiect Site The project area that is the focus of this report is served by the City's public water system. Area A is served from an existing 8-inch water line in B Street. Area B1 is ' served from the 8-inch water line in B Street, as well as an 8-inch line in A Street. Area B2 is served from a 6-inch waterline that terminates at the eastern portion of the Bus Maintenance Facility. Existing water facilities in the vicinity of the project site are ' depicted on Exhibit 1. ' 4.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 4.1 Proposed Water Facilities The proposed water distribution system for project area has been developed for Area A to serve the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and the future ' restaurant. No additional water distribution facilities,other than the existing facilities, are proposed for the future development of Area B1 at this time. No additional water distribution facilities are anticipated for Area B2, the Ocean View Bus Maintenance Facility. The proposed water system improvements are depicted on Exhibit 1. ' As illustrated on Exhibit 1, a new 12-inch public water line is proposed in Warner Avenue to connect the 8-inch public water line at B Street to the 6-inch public water line that terminates approximately 1000 feet to the east. The City Public Work's ' Department has indicated that the existing 6-inch water line needs to be replaced because of the line's age'. Therefore the proposed 12-inch water line will extend to the origination point of the 6-inch line at Minoru. The water system forArea A,the Lowe's HIW and future restaurant, is proposed as a private water system. The private system would be connected to the public water ' system at three points;two connections to the 8-inch public water line in B Street and a third point of connection to the proposed 12-inch waterline in Warner Avenue. Each ' connection to the public system will be through an approved backflow prevention device. The private distribution system for Area A consists of a loop system comprised of 12-inch lines located within the on-site drives. All on-site water ' improvements including distribution lines,valves and fire hydrants are proposed to be constructed in accordance with private facility standards. Easements overthe water facilities will be required if,through the entitlement process,the system is required to ' be constructed as a public water system. 5 Department of Public Works,Memo dated Nov. 5, 2002. ' WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOwE'S HIW 3 4.2 Project Water Demand As illustrated on Table 1, implementation of the proposed project (Area A and Area B1)will require an estimated 41,696 gallons perday based on the expected land uses. The consumption factors utilized for Table 1 were accepted by the City's Water r Division as appropriate for use in this report. TABLE 1 DAILY PROJECT WATER CONSUMPTION PROPOSED USE CONSUMPTION FACTOR TOTAL CONSUMPTION GALLONS/UNIT (AVG. GALLONS/DAY) AREA A Commercial Retail (Lowe's HIW) 50/1000 sq. ft.' 7,965 159,300 r Restaurant-9,000 sq. ft. 1100/1000 sq. ft.2 9,900 Irrigation Use 10% of total bldg. demand 1,787 Subtotal Area A 19,652 AREA 61 Commercial/Retail 57,000 sq. ft. 230/1000 sq. ft.3 13,110 Restaurant-4,200 sq. ft. 1100/1000 sq. ft.2 4,620 Office- 13,200 sq. ft. 175/1000 sq. ft.4 2,310 r-, Irrigation Use 10% of total bldg. demand 2,004 Subtotal Area 61 22,044 TOTAL PROJECT CONSUMPTION (276,247 total bldg. sq. ft.) 41,696 AREA 62(No change to existing facility) r-, Public Facility(Bus Maintenance) based on water usage 2,9895 Irrigation Use 10% of total bldg. demand 299 Subtotal Area B2 3,288 GRAND TOTAL PROJECT AND EXISTING USE 44,984 1 based on Storage Land Use Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan,1994. 2 based on Family Restaurant Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan,1994. 3 based on General Commercial Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan,1994. 4 based on General office Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan,1994. r 5 based on actual water usage from water bills. r-- WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 5 Average-day water demand for the project (Area A and B1) is estimated to be 28.9 gallons per minute (gpm). Maximum-day water demand for the proposed project is ' estimated to be 42.1 gpm based on a historical City peaking factor of 1.6 times the average day demand. Total annual water use for the project is estimated to be 46.7 acre-feet. This figure represents less than two tenths of 1% (.0014%) of the total 1999-2000 water ' consumption forthe Cityof Huntington Beach of 33,053 acre-feet.As reported in the Master Plan, Existing Maximum Day Demand is presently 34,718 gpm 6. The City's current total well capacity for existing wells is 20,100 gpm. The City's three imported water connections provide sufficient supplemental waterto provide the balance of the projected maximum day demand '. ' 4.3 Alternative Project Site Plan For purposes of this report,the Site Plan Alternative (Lowe's building facing Warner Avenue)was evaluated to determine if water system impacts from implementation of this project alternative site plan would significantly differfrom the impacts associated with the proposed project. The existing and proposed water facilities for the project alternative are shown on Exhibit 2. The difference between these two site plans is primarily limited to the orientation of the Lowe's building. Minor realignment of the proposed water system to reflect the revised building location will not significantly affect the performance of the proposed water system. The performance of the on-site water system for the project alternative is described in Section 4.6. The size of the Lowe's building,the amount of waterdemand,the proposed connection points and the impacts to the existing public water system are the same as the proposed project. Impacts from implementation of the Warner-facing project alternative will not significantly differ than the impacts described in this report that are associated with the proposed project. 6lbid, Table 2-9,p.2-15 lbid,p. 1-1 WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING Lowe's H I W 6 4.4 Future Water Demand and Supply ' Water demand for the City's service area has been fairly stable for the past decade, reflecting the nearly built-out condition of the City and water conservation measures. ' Future water usage, however, is projected to increase 8%over the 2000-2020 period due to a projected increase in both population and population density 8. Projected Ultimate Maximum Day Demand for City at build-out is estimated at 37,576 gpm without the annexation of Bolsa Chica and 39,208 gpm with annexation of Bolsa Chica 9. The recent construction of two additional wells and the anticipated completion of a third well will bring total groundwater production to 26,600 gpm 10. With the completion of the additional wells, the City will have sufficient groundwater capacity to supply 115% of the projected ultimate average-day demand and 71% of the projected ultimate maximum-day demand 11. Additional water,sufficient to meet the balance of the maximum-day demand, will be provided through the City's three imported water connections. Increased water demands from future development in the City, including implementation of the proposed project,will be satisfied by increased well production and by deliveries of imported waterfrom the City's three imported water connections. ' The City's groundwater reservoirs, supplemented by imported water,will enable the City to reliably provide adequate waterto the proposed project and anticipated growth within the City of Huntington Beach. 4.4 Fire Flow The determination of required fire flow is typically based on the Fire Department's application of Appendix III-A of the Uniform Fire Code (see Appendix C). In utilizing the Uniform Fire Code to determine the appropriate fire flow for the proposed project, it is necessaryto determine which building structure is the most demanding from a fire flow requirement. Table 2 illustrates fire flow required for each building as determined by Table A-III-A-1 of the Uniform Fire Code. Based on the building construction types, the Lowe's retail building of 159,300 square feet is Type V-N, which requires the 1 highest fire flow. i s Ibid,p. 2-1 9 Ibid, Tables 2-10&2-11,p. 2-15&2-16 70/bid,p. 1-1 "Ibid,p.ES-2 WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW $ TABLE 2 UBC FIRE FLOW FOR PROPOSED PROJECT ' Uses Floor Area Building Fire Flow and Fire Flow per Type Duration per UFC HB Fire Dept. (GPM/hr) (GPM) ' AREA A Commercial Retail 159,300 V-N 8,000/4 3,000 (Lowe's HIW) Restaurant 9,000 V-N 2,500/2 3,000 ' AREA B1 Commercial/Retail 57,000 sq. ft. V-1 hr 4,250/4 4,000 Restaurant 4,000 V-N 1,750/2 4,000 Office 13,200 V-1 hr 2,250/2 4,000 AREA B2 Bus Maintenance EXISTING USE ---- ---- Facility 1 As shown on Table 2, the 159,300 square foot Lowe's retail building requires a fire flow perthe Uniform Fire Code of 8,000 gpm fora duration of 4 hours.The Huntington Beach Fire Department reviewed the proposed projectfora preliminary determination of required fire flow.The Fire Department determined that Area A would require afire flow of 3,000 gpm from 3 hydrants 12. I Since the ultimate uses and configuration forArea B1 has not been determined,the Fire Department determined that Area B1 would require a fire flow of 4,000 gpm 13 These fire flow requirements were used to evaluate the capacity of the existing and proposed water system to deliver adequate. 'Z Huntington Beach Fire Department,Letter from T. Greaves, 02110103 13 Ibid WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 9 ' 4.6 Water System Hydraulic Analysis The project water distribution system was evaluated to determine the impact on the City's distribution system of the proposed project's increased water demand. The hydraulic analysis was performed by TETRA TECH Asp, a consultant to the City Water Division. Several hydraulic simulations were run for the project alternative site plan utilizing the existing City water system and the proposed public and on-site water improvements anticipated for the project. A Peak-Hourdemand model was run,with and withoutthe additional waterdemand required bythe proposed project. This model showed a negligible decrease in pressure resulting from the additional project water demand 14. For Area A (Lowe's and future restaurant), Maximum-Day Domestic Demand Plus ' Fire Flow(3,000 gpm)was modeled by establishing a 1000 gpm fire demand at each of three proposed on-site fire hydrants.The residual pressure at each of the selected Area A fire hydrants exceeded the Fire Department's minimum requirements of 20 psi (lbs. per sq. in.) residual pressure. For Area B1, Maximum-Day Domestic Demand Plus Fire Flow(4,000 gpm)was modeled by establishing a 1000 gpm fire demand at each of four proposed fire hydrants.The residual pressure at each of the selected Area B1 fire hydrants exceeded the Fire Department's minimum requirements 15. An additional hydraulic model was run to determine the impact if local sources of water supply in the proximity of the project were lost. For this model, City wells 3a, 5, 6, 9 and 10 and imported water connection OC-9 were assumed to be non-functional as other more remote sources were turned on.Then maximum day demand plus fire flow was run for both Area A and B1. Again, residual pressure at all fire hydrants exceeded minimum requirements for this model 16. The hydraulic runs confirm thatthe existing City water distribution system in the vicinity of the proposed project,together with the improvements proposed by the developer (Exhibit 1)are sufficientto deliverthe required maximum-day and fire flowdemands. Further,the hydraulic runs indicate thatthe proposed private water distribution system is adequate to serve the project. 14 Tetratech, Water System Analysis for Lowe's Development, September 30, 2002,p.3 75 Ibid,p.3 16 Ibid,p.3 WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LowE'S HIW 10 5.0 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures address the impacts the proposed project will have on the City of Huntington Beach municipal water system: 1. Priorto issuance of a building permit,water improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works department and the Fire Department. 2. Priorto issuance of a building permit,water improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved for the construction of a 12-inch water main, per Water Division standards,in WarnerAvenue extending from the existing 8-inch main in B Street to the ' existing 6-inch water main located in Minoru. 3. All new fire hydrants along the Warner Avenue frontage shall be connected to the new water distribution pipeline in Warner Avenue. 4. The on-site fire distribution system shall conform to all Water Division standards. Easements shall be provided for any onsite public distribution lines. The easement shall be clear, unobstructed paved surface(no structures, planters, parking spaces, etc.)and shall be maintained on either side of any proposed on-site public line. Total width of the easements mayvary between 10 feet and 20 feet,depending on location. 5. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible materials are delivered to the site. Indicate all existing and proposed fire hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department shall determine the number of fire hydrants and fire department connections. 6. The developer shall pay the Capital Facilities Charge and all applicable fees in accordance with the Huntington Beach Water Master Plan and City Council Resolution No. 6713. 6.0 Conclusion With the development of the proposed off-site and on-site water improvements and implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, the proposed water infrastructure is capable of accommodating the expected water demands of the project. WATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LowE's H 1 W 1 1 APPENDIX A ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 1 1 1 1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Debbie Debow, P.E. ' Department of Public Works Water Division CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Robert Ri9 hetti ' Department of Public Works CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Charles W. Burney Tim L. Greaves Matt McGrath ' Fire Department CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Robert Brandom, P.E. Project Manager TETRA TECH ASL 16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 r ' APPENDIX B LOWE'S WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 1 1 TETRA TECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group October 2, 2002 Ms. Debbie De Bow City of Huntington Beach ' Department of Public Works 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Water System Analysis for Lowe's Development Dear Ms. De Bow: Tetra Tech has performed a water analysis for the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Development at "Area A" considering the impacts of ultimate demands at the adjacent "Area B 1" as requested by the Water Division of the City of Huntington Beach's Department of Public Works (City). The purpose of the analysis was to determine what effects new water demands at the proposed development will have on the City's water distribution system and to determine what improvements, if any, will be required to maintain-system performance criteria while servicing these new demands. The analysis was conducted using the City's H2Onet hydraulic model of the water distribution system. Development Location and Description "Area A" is an 11.6-acre site located at the northeast corner of B Street and Warner Avenue. The development will include a 159,300 square foot Lowe's warehouse and a 9,000 square foot restaurant pad, with parking and access driveway. The tenant for the restaurant site has not yet been formally identified. "Area B1", which is located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, includes 30,575 square feet of existing retail/commercial, restaurant and office development. Another, 43,825 ' square feet of retail/commercial, restaurant and office development is planned for the future. As requested by the Huntington Beach Planning Department, "Area B1" will be included in the water analysis from a "Program EIR level" perspective. Note that "Area B 1" is not part of the planned Lowe's Development, which is only"Area A". Demand Estimates ' Estimated ultimate (buildout) water demands for"Area A" and "Area B 1" are shown in Table 1. The average demands were estimated based on land use and areas provided by Canyon Consulting for ' "Area A" and by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for "Area B1". The average- day demand factors, as submitted by Canyon Consulting, are deemed appropriate based on the land 16241 Laguna Canyon Road,Sure 200.Irvine,CA 92618 Tel 949.727.7099 Fax 949.727 7097 www.reu-atech.com TETRA TECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group r� Ms. Debbie De Bow October 2, 2002 Page 2 use types. City peaking factors of 1.6 and 2.5 as developed in the 2000 City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan were used to obtain maximum-day and peak-hour demands, respectively. The fire-flow Demands were provided by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. r~ Table 1. Demands for Area A (Lowe's Development) and Area B1 r, Average Day Average Max Peak Fire Demand Day Day Hour FlowFactor Demand Demand('� Demand(b) Demand(c) r, "Area A"-Lowe's Development Commercial Retail (Lowe's MEW) (159,300 sf) 50 5.5 8.8 13.8 - Restaurant (9,000 sf) 1,100 6.9 11.0 17.3 Irrigation NA 1.2 0 0 - Total - 13.6 19.8 31.1 3,000 "Area Bl" r, Commercial Retail (57,000 sf) _ 230 9.1 14.6 22.8 - Restaurant(4,200 sf) 1,100 3.2 5.1 8.0 - Office(13,200 sf) 175 1.6 2.6 4.0 Irrigation NA 1.4 0 0 - Total 15.3 22.3 34.8 4,000 r, (a) Maximum-day demand peaking factor of 1.6 per 2000City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan (b) Peak-hour demand peaking factor of 2.5 per 2000City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan (c) Per City of Huntington Beach Fire Department r— r-, TETRA TECH, INC. Infrastrucrure Services Group Ms. Debbie De Bow October 2, 2002 Page 3 Minimum Improvements Proposed by Developer The Developer has proposed minimum water system improvements to service the Lowe's Development, "Area A". These minimum improvements are shown on Figures I and 2. The ' proposed improvements include a 12-inch water main on Warner Avenue, which would be a public water main. At this time, it has not been determined whether the other proposed pipelines would be publicly or privately owned and maintained. Additional improvements required to service "Area A" and "Area B1" may be required pending the results of this water analysis. Note that Lowe's would not be responsible for improvements required for servicing"Area BI". Analysis Methodology and Results ' The model was run with existing water system facilities and with ultimate, build-out demands. When analyzing the water system with the proposed Lowe's development (Area A), the minimum water ' system improvements as proposed by the Developer and as shown on Figures 1 and 2 were input into the model. The proposed 12-inch pipeline in Warner would be a public water main. For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the other proposed pipelines would be private. Accordingly, a backflow preventer with a headloss coefficient of 6.4 was assumed on each private pipeline where it connects with a public pipeline (three locations). It should be noted that the water system typically maintains hydraulic grades of 180 to 200 feet in this ' area of the water system. With ground elevations ranging from approximately -5 to 20 feet, pressures of 70 to 80 psi are "normal" for this area. The following simulations were run with the following results: Peak-Hour Demand The model was first run without the ultimate demands estimated for "Area A" and "Area BI" to see what pressures would occur without these demands. The results of the analysis revealed that pressures in this area ranged between 71 and 83 psi. A second analysis was run with the "Area A" and "Area B1" peak hour demands added. The results showed negligible change in area pressures, i.e. pressures were lowered by less than 0.2 psi. No additional system improvements other than the minimum improvements proposed by the Developer are required to service peak hour demands for ' "Area A" and"Area B 1". Maximum-Dav Demands and 3.000-um fire demand at "Area A" ' The model was run with ultimate maximum-day demands located throughout the system including "Area A" and "Area B 1". A 1,000-gpm fire demand was located at each of three proposed hydrants ' as shown on Figure 1 (3,000 gpm total). The residual pressure at each of the three fire hydrants was approximately 57 psi. This exceeds the minimum residual pressure of 20 psi required by the Fire Department. Velocities in the 6-inch and 8-inch public pipelines that connect to the "Area A"private pipelines were 8 and 12 feet per second, which is not considered excessive for a fire-flow demand ' condition. Accordingly, no additional system improvements other than the minimum improvements proposed by the Developer are required to service fire demands for"Area A". lbTETRA TECH, INC. Infrastructure Services Group r—, Ms. Debbie De Bow r, October 2, 2002 Page 4 r, Maximum-Dav Demands and 4,000-gpm fire demand at "Area BI" r, The model was run with ultimate maximum-day demands located throughout the system including "Area A" and "Area B I". A 1,000-gpm fire demand was located at each of four existing fire hydrants as shown on Figure 1 (3,000 gpm total). The residual pressure at the four hydrants ranged from approximately 59 to 71 psi. This exceeds the minimum residual pressure of 20 psi required by the Fire Department. Accordingly, no additional system improvements other than the minimum improvements proposed by the Developer are required to service fire demands for"Area B I". Maximum-Dav Demands and 3,000-gpm fire demand at "Area A" with Area Supply Sources Turned r, City Well Nos. 3a, 5, 6, 9 and 10, and imported water connection OC-9 are located in the northeast portion of the City where "Area A" and "Area B1" are located. These sources were turned off and other more remote sources turned on to see what effect the loss of these "local" supply sources would have on pressures for"Area A" and"Area B I". The model was then run with ultimate maximum-day demands located throughout the system including "Area A" and "Area B1". A 1,000-gpm fire demand was located at each of three proposed hydrants as shown on Figure 1 (3,000 gpm total). The results revealed that the residual pressure at each of the three fire hydrants would be approximately 54 . psi, which is only 3 psi less than the pressure results when all of these "local" supply sources were turned on. Again, this pressure exceeds the minimum residual pressure of 20 psi required by the Fire Department. Accordingly, no additional system improvements other than the minimum improvements proposed by the Developer are required to service fire demands for"Area A". Summary No additional system improvements other than the minimum improvements proposed by the Developer (See Figures 1 and 2) are required to service demand conditions including fire-flow demands for"Area A" and"Area B 1". The H2Onet output results for the model simulations are attached. Please give me a call if you have r, any questions. r, Sincerely, Robert Brandom, P.E. PPresident , P.E. Project Manager RGB/RJO/tic JA0600\00 16\100 1 rgb.doc Q00) r— Attachment(s) C3 rrI Pi 0 ru BE ACH 'A' I k IT L AFV D s p f, ITTEI RT -- LOU '.R. ' LI I LK C/) 4 u (A) Sc TSDA E (A R, 41 A CFL UNT AIR > IT, GLI"N EN T# ; Eli I I i 2\,EFFREI I CR IR Y LK LI I i 3 1 1 HEVLMD :� 1 C1�TSI L=L -_LT J ro 01 ' APPENDIX C t INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 11/05/02 1 1 1 1 1 NOO-12-2002 15:01 HUNTINGTON BEACH _ _ 714 374 1573^ P.01i01 Post-It°Fax Note 7671 Date a of From /oZ pages •�J � To I � �Gr'✓1 i ' Co.IDept. �QYt O Co. C I� CITY O Phone N Phone a ' I N T E R D E P ' TO: Bob Righetti, Engineering Resources FROM: Tom Rulla, Civil Engineer Principal ' SUBJECT: Lowe's Development (Revised Memo) ' DATE: November 5, 2002 ' This memo serves as a supplement to the previous transmittal to you regarding water supply for the Lowe's development. The development was hydraulically analyzed and addressed system performance for normal operating conditions and for anticipated fire flow requirements. From this analysis, it was determined that minimal offsite improvements were needed to satisfy the hydraulic conditions. It was determined that constructing the missing link of distribution pipe in Warner Avenue(I 2-inchdiameter) would satisfy the minimum hydraulic requirements for the Lowe's development. However, what was not addressed was the need to replace existing substandard piping that will supply the ' development. The existing 6-inch asbestos cement(AC) pipe located in Warner Avenue toward the east end of the Lowe's development is obsolete and undersized by today's water standards_ Even though the hydraulic analysis did not indicate an immediate need to replace this line, we have determined that this ' pipe should also be replaced with 12-inch diameter PVC pipe to its point of interconnection with the 21- inch diameter Warner Trunk Line. This will restore the basic water infrastructure for the life of the proposed Lowe's development. ' Also, a planned storm drain improvement crossing Warner Avenue,just w the east of the proposed Lowe's development, is in its preliminary design stage_ The channel project will require the relocation of a portion of the existing 6-inch AC line and the 21-inch diameter Warner Trunk Line. Since the storm drain channel construction may be completed prior to the Lowe's development, I would ask that a condition of the Lowe's project include reimbursement to the City for the cost of replacing the 6-inch distribution line as proposed. In the event the Lowe's development precedes the storm drain channel improvement, and since the developer was previously conditioned to construct the 12-inch missing link in Warner Avenue, we would be agreeable to have the Lowe's developer install the remaining portion of 12-inch pipe to the interconnection with the 21-inch Warner Trunk Line_ i Cc: Terri Elliott, Civil Engineer Principal ' Debbie De Bow, Civil Engineer Associate Lili Tom, Civil Engineer Assistant ' TnToi 0 ai ' APPENDIX D ' FIRE DEPT. LETTER DATED 02/10/03 1 j, CITY OF HtJNTIRIBTC]N BEACH `• 2000 MAIN STREET FIRE DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA 92648 February 10, 2003 ' Ms. Deborah Debow, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Department of Public Works ' City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' Subject: Required Fire Flow for EIR Analysis— Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse (Area A) and Area 131 ' Dear Deborah, ' This letter summarizes the fire flow information previously submitted by the fire department to be used in the EIR analysis of the above referenced project. Area A (Lowe's and future restaurant)— 1) 6 hydrants will be required, 2)for purposes of the flow study, a fire flow of 3,000 gpm from three (3) hydrants should be used. Area 131 (future development area between S Street and Beach)— 1)Assuming whatever is developed on Area B1 will be fully sprinklered, the FD flow ' requirement is 4,000 gpm. Please let me know if you need any additional information. ' Sincerely, Tim L. Greaves J. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS a LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE -Huntington Beach, CA WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared For: Lowe's HIW, Inc. 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 140 Carlsbad, California 92008 C Prepared By: CANYON CONSULTING 4665 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 486-1430 CONTACT: PAUL ROTHENBERG February,2003 I LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE Huntington Beach, CA WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared For: 1 Lowe's HIW, Inc. 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 140 Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared By: CANYON CONSULTING ' 4665 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 486-1 430 CONTACT: PAUL ROTHENBERG February, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paqe i 1.0 Introduction and Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 Existing Wastewater Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 Existing Sewer Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.0 Flow Monitoring of Existing Sewer System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.0 Proposed Sewer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.0 Impact of the Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.0 Impact of the Alternative Project Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 I 8.0 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.0 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 Tables 1 Existing Wastewater Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Summary of Existing Wastewater Flow Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Daily Project Wastewater Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Calculation of Remaining Sewer Capacity of 8-inch Sewer Line . . . . . . . . 7 5 Calculation of Remaining Sewer Capacity of 15-inch Sewer Line . . . . . . . 8 Exhibits 1 Existing and Proposed Sewer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2 Alternative Site Plan - Proposed Sewer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendices Appendix A - Organizations and Persons Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Appendix B - Sewer Flow Monitoring Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C - Calculations of Maximum Sewer Flow Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT I CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 The following report was prepared as a technical supplement to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse (HIW). The proposed project that is subject of this report consists of the development of a 25.6 acre site with commercial retail, office and restaurant uses. The project area is bordered by Beach Boulevard to the west, the Ocean View storm drainage channel to the north, residential uses along Minoru to the east and Warner Avenue to the south. The project area is divided into three subareas. Area A is approximately 11.6 acres and consists of the former Rancho View school facilities and baseball fields. Area A is proposed for development as a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse (HIW) and a restaurant. In the eastern portion of the site, Area B2 consists of 7.7 acres ' utilized by the Ocean View School District for their bus maintenance facility. The bus maintenance facility will remain with minor changes to access. Area B1 is approximately 6.3 acres of developed area located between B Street and Beach Boulevard. Area 131 currently contains nine (9) residential units and a combination of retail/commercial, restaurant and office uses totaling approximately 41,000 square feet. An existing Southern California Edison substation is excluded from the project area. Area B1 is not presently proposed for development but has been included in the program EIR in order to evaluate potential future development. An additional 43,825 square feet of retail/commercial and office development has been allocated for Area B1. The project areas are identified on Exhibit 1. Huntington Beach and the proposed project are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD).The project site is located within Service Area 11. The wastewater currently being generated at the project site and the future flows from the proposed project will be treated at Plant 1 Reclamation Plant located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley. Plant 1 has a design capacity of 174 mgd (million gallons per day) and is currently treating an average flow of 90 mgd'. OCSD has a second reclamation plant, Plant 2, which has a design capacity of 276 mgd and is currently treating an average flow of 153 mgd. Consequently, the treatment facilities are operating at 52% and 55% of design capacity, respectively. Orange County Sanitation District Website, Quick Facts � WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 1 2.0 Existing Wastewater Facilities As illustrated by Exhibit 1 - Existing Sewer Facilities, the project site is served by a 8-inch sewer in Warner Avenue, which discharges to a 69-inch sewer transmission ' line at a point approximately 150 feet westerly of Rotterdam Lane. Area A (Lowe's and future restaurant) utilize an existing sewer lateral to the last manhole on the 8- inch sewer line in Warner Avenue which connects to the 69-inch transmission line via a 15-inch lateral. Area 131 is served by a 8-inch sewer in A Street which flows southerly and joins the 8-inch sewer line in Warner Avenue. ' The 69-inch transmission sewer line flows easterly and southerly through various trunk sewer lines until it reaches the OCSD Plant 1 Water Reclamation Plant in Fountain Valley. 1 . 3.0 Existing Sewer Generation for Project Area In order to evaluate the incremental impact of the proposed project on the sewer infrastructure, it is necessary to establish the estimated sewer generation of the existing facilities. An estimate of sewer generation was determined using generation factors for the existing land uses and is illustrated in Table 1. 4.0 Flow Monitoring of Existing Sewer System A flow monitoring study was performed in September 2002 to establish baseline flows in the existing sewer lines serving the project area. One (1) manhole was selected by the City of Huntington Beach for measurement on the 8-inch sewer line in Warner Avenue. The monitoring site is identified on Exhibit 1 as Sewer Monitoring Site 1. Since the existing sewer lines serve off-site areas upstream of the project area, the measured sewer flow rates on Table 1 include flows from outside the defined project area. Flow Test Procedures Flow tests were conducted for a period of five (5) days, from Wednesday September 18 through Wednesday September 25, 2002. The data was obtained using a ISCO 4150 Velocity Flow Logger with a low profile probe. The probe was installed in the upstream end of the manhole using an expansion ring. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 3 TABLE 1 EXISTING WASTEWATER GENERATION PROPOSED USE GENERATION FACTOR TOTAL GENERATION GALLONS/UNIT (GALLONS/DAY)' AREA A Public Facility (School) 200/1000 sq. ft.' 6,700 33,547 square feet Subtotal Area A 6,700 AREA B1 9 Residential Units 260/unit 2 2,340 Commercial/Retail 19,875 sq. ft. 207/1000 sq.ft.' 4,119 Restaurant-4,200 sq. ft. 990/1000 sq. ft.' 4,158 Office-6,500 sq. ft. 158/1000 sq.ft.' 1,027 Subtotal Area B1 11,644 AREA B2 Public Facility(Bus Maintenance) not applicable 2,6906 EXISTING TOTALS 21,034 1 Table of Loadings,Capacity Units and Unit Rates,Los Angeles County Sanitation District,assumes school operational. 2 Table of Loadings,Capacity Units and Unit Rates,Los Angeles County Sanitation District. 3 based on 90%of Water Demand-General Commercial Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan, 1994. 4 based on 90%of Water Demand-Family Restaurant Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan, 1994. 5 based on 90%of Water Demand-General Office Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan,1994. 6 based on 90%of actual water usage per water bills,Ocean View School District. Flow Test Results Sewerflowwas measured continuously from September 18,2002 to September25, 2002 and recorded. Data was processed and tabularized at 15-minute intervals over the 7-day period and summarized on a daily basis with respect to average and maximum flows. The flow measurements are presented in the Appendix B of this report and summarized in Table 2. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 4 TABLE 2 Summary of Existing Wastewater Flow Rates 8-inch Sewer in Warner Avenue DAY No. FLOW TEST PERIOD TOTAL FLOW FLOW RATES FLOW RATES GALLONS PER DAY AVERAGE(GPM) MAXIMUM(GPM) 1 9/18/02-9/19/02 45,046 31 49 2 9/19/02-9/20/02 43,929 31 65 3 9/20/02-9/21/02 39,454 27 53 4 9/21/02-9/22/02 44,877 31 72 5 9/22/02-9/23/02 45,951 32 51 1 6 9/23/02-9/24/02 41,075 29 48 7 F9/24/02-9/25/02 35,582 26 46 TOTALS FOR WEEK 295,914 29 72 ' Discussion of Results The results of the flow measurements are presented in Table 2. No unusual measurements were recorded during the duration of the monitoring. 5.0 Proposed Sewer Facilities As illustrated on Exhibit 1, the proposed sewer facilities in Area A will consist of the extension from the existing lateral with a private sewer system to serve the Lowe's building and the future restaurant. The existing sewer lateral serving Area A is connected to the last manhole on the 8-inch sewer line in Warner before it joins the 69-inch sewer transmission line. A 15-inch sewer line connects the City system to a manhole on the 69-inch transmission sewer line. Since a development plan does not currently exist for future development in Area 61, it is anticipated that sewer ' service will continue to be provided from the existing sewer line in A Street. The existing bus maintenance facility will continue to use it's present sewer lateral and no modifications are anticipated. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 5 6.0 Impact of the Proposed Project The estimated amount of wastewater generation for the proposed project was M derived by applying generation criteria for specific land uses to the estimated building areas of the proposed project. As illustrated on Table 3, the proposed project (Areas A and 131) is expected to generate approximately 34,122 gallons.per r day (gpd) or an average of 24 gallons per minute (gpm). This represents an increase of approximately 86% over existing flows per Table 1. Since the sewer generation from Areas A and 61 enter the existing sewer facilities at different locations, it is necessary to evaluate the impacts on the existing sewer system separately. Area 131 discharges to the upstream portion of the existing - g p p s g 8 Inch diameter public sewer in Warner. This line has a design peak capacity of 166 gpm based on the ' pipe's existing slope and standard criteria allowing the pipe to flow half-full (see Appendix C - Calculation of Maximum Design Flow). An existing measured peak flow of 72 gpm was recorded on one of the seven days of sewer flow monitoring. ' TABLE 3 PROPOSED DAILY PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION PROPOSED USE GENERATION FACTOR TOTAL GENERATION GALLONS/UNIT --(GALLONS/DAY), AREA A Commercial Retail(Lowe's HIW) 45/1000 sq.ft.' 7,169 159,300 Restaurant-9,000 sq. ft. 990/1000 sq.ft.2 8,910 Subtotal Area A 16,079 AREA 131 Commercial/Retail 57,000 sq.ft. 207/1000 sq.ft.3 11,799 Restaurant-4,200 sq.ft. 990/1000 sq.ft.2 4,158 Office- 13,200 sq.ft. 158/1000 sq.ft.° 2,086 Subtotal Area B1 18,043 TOTAL PROJECT SEWER GENERATION (276,247 total bldg.sq.ft.) 34,122 , Area B2(No change to existing facility) Public Facility(Bus Maintenance) not applicable 2,6906 GRAND TOTAL PROJECT& EXISTING USE 36,812 1 based on 90%of Water Demand-Storage Land Use Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan, 1994. , 2 based on 90%of Water Demand-Family Restaurant Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan, 1994. 3 based on 90%of Water Demand-General Commercial Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan, 1994. 4 based on 90%of Water Demand-General Office Category,San Clemente Water Master Plan,1994. 5 based on 90%of actual water usage per water bills,Ocean View School District. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 6 The projected sewer generation from Area B1 will contribute an additional 12.5 gpm (average flow). Applying a peaking factor of 2.5 to the average discharge, results in a theoretical peak flow of 31 gpm from Area 131. The remaining capacity of the existing 8-inch sewer line is calculated below on Table 4. The sum of the measured peak flow in the existing sewer line, the projected Area 131 peak flows and the deduction of peak flows for the existing uses in Area 131, result in a remaining peak capacity of 83 gpm in the 8-inch Warner sewer line. TABLE 4 Calculation of Remaining Sewer Capacity 8-inch Sewer in Warner Avenue PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION PEAK RATES MAXIMUM(GPM) ' DESIGN PEAK CAPACITY FOR 8-INCH SEWER LINE IN WARNER 166 SUBTRACT MEASURED PEAK FLOW FROM FLOW MONITORING 2 -72 ADD CALCULATED AREA B1 PEAK FLOWS FOR EXISTING USES' +20 SUBTRACT AREA B1 PROJECTED PEAK FLOWS° -31 REMAINING PEAK CAPACITY IN 8-INCH SEWER LINE IN WARNER 83 1 FROM CALCULATION OF DESIGN PEAK CAPACITY FROM APPENDIX C 2 PEAK FROM MEASURED FLOW MONITORING FROM TABLE 2 3 EXISTING AREA B 1 FLOWS FROM TABLE 1 X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR(11,644 GPD=8.1 GPM X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR) 4 PROJECTED AREA B 1 FLOWS FROM TABLE 3 X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR 18,043 GPD=12.5 GPM X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR Area Al discharges directly to the last manhole on the 8-inch Warner sewer line, thereby having no impact on the 8-inch line itself but on the 15-inch line connecting the City's manhole to the manhole on the 69-inch transmission sewer line. The 15- inch line has a peak capacity of 1100 gpm, based on the pipe's existing slope and standard criteria that the pipe is allowed to flow half-full (see Appendix C - Calculation of Maximum Design Flow). The anticipated sewer generation from Area A will contribute an additional 11.2 gpm (average flow). Applying a peaking factor of 2.5 to the average discharge, results in a theoretical peak flow of 28 gpm from Area A. The remaining capacity of the existing 8-inch sewer line is calculated on Table 5. The sum of 1) the measured existing measured peak flow in the 8-inch Warner sewer line, 2) the theoretical Area 131 peak flow, 3) the theoretical Area A peak flow, and 4) the deduction of peak flows for the existing uses in Area 131; leaves a remaining peak capacity of 989 gpm in the 15-inch sewer line. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 7 TABLE 5 Calculation of Remaining Sewer Capacity 15-inch Sewer Line to 69-inch Transmission Line PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION PEAK RATES L I MAXIMUM(GPM) DESIGN PEAK CAPACITY FOR 15-INCH SEWER LINE CONNECTING TO 69"LINE 1100 SUBTRACT MEASURED PEAK FLOW FROM FLOW MONITORING 2 -72 ADD CALCULATED AREA B1 PEAK FLOWS FOR EXISTING USES 3 +20 SUBTRACT AREA B1 PROJECTED PEAK FLOWS° -31 i SUBTRACT AREA A PROJECTED PEAK FLOWS 5 -28 REMAINING PEAK CAPACITY IN 15-INCH SEWER LINE IN WARNER 989 1 FROM CALCULATION OF DESIGN PEAK CAPACITY FROM APPENDIX C 2 PEAK FROM MEASURED FLOW MONITORING FROM TABLE 2 3 EXISTING AREA B 1 FLOWS FROM TABLE 1 X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR(11,644 GPD=8.1 GPM X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR) 4 PROJECTED AREA B1 FLOWS FROM TABLE 3 X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR(18,043 GPD=12.5 GPM X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR) 5 PROJECTED AREA A FLOWS FROM TABLE 3 X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR 16,079 GPD=11.2 GPM X 2.5 PEAKING FACTOR 7.0 1 Impact of Alternative Project Site Plan p For purposes of this report, the Alternative Project Site Plan (Lowe's building facing , Warner Avenue)was evaluated to determine if sewer impacts from implementation of this project alternative site plan would significantly differ from the impacts associated with the proposed project. The proposed sewer facilities for the Alternative Site Plan are shown on Exhibit 2. The difference between these two site plans is primarily limited to the orientation of the Lowe's building. Minor realignment of the proposed sewer system to reflect the revised building location will not significantly affect the performance of the proposed sewer system. The size of the Lowe's building, the amount of project sewer discharge, the proposed discharge points and the impacts to the existing public sewer system are the same as the proposed project. Impacts from implementation of the Warner- ' facing project alternative will not significantly differthan the impacts described in this report that are associated with the proposed project. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 8 BEACH BLV D t T. F oil TF 0 z m u m c z ES TION m RT B_" MEE 0 0 0 0 I K 777 ---- A 0 0 0 : I �jIp 0 0 0 0 II 0 o 0 10. 0 0 0 lz� m e 0 o > 0 0 0 cTJ J�j 0 Lo 110i z ti Z! ZI Im: r .4 IQ oin -4-1it 16 ROTTERDAM I LANE /Z n -v Im M X m 0 m 0 m co Im C) 0 (n m * m M ;o Z Il m m K) m > F cn I i �' > L m 77 C)o MINORU 0 EXHIBIT 1 -EXISTING AND PROPOSED m (0 1z" SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CANYON m 685 MACARTHUR COURT,SUITE 200 1 —I,. NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 C:>Z p LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE C 0 IN S U L T I IN G TEL(949)486-1430 FAX(949)486-1442 Ln HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA PLANNING.CIVIL ENGINEERING .SURVEYING P IPio119 9 1 0 514wgIEH19910SE82 It ISS d1g,0111V"3 01,23 54 PK Eaa,dllaGla uI BEACH BLVD I" °�°�`. �'� I I I I I, -I I �rr�rlli#• �rrrrf`t�, ,, h; -- 4f,, FL -- �T -� �1a9•�SFL. F 1 r__1 z 11' 1-'-SCE Skm� TION :3 4 c I I ;.'I I Il ..�lQ j , -.ARTIt h E T_ I I�I h II o 0 o o it II IIII I ,III U o 0 0 o O s I I II I I �► Ilj j i U O O O O 0 0 l 1 1 I _ I I , OO O O O O I ,,_� II 0 oho o _.I_. 1r1 O I( I IID:rn I O O O O O Z; I � nn II ii� I - I I ro � I II ti y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 l II - II II t III o 0 0 0 0 o D o0 II I I I II ROTTERDAM I 610 0 0 o 0 0 o O LANE I — — A iO_0 m r— — II A X m 0 Fn co 0 m O r I, , . ,� m m Ili/ IN II N m I . I i II j,: II r I 'I r- = --_ _-- r��•--- ., ---=-' .==�— "ail. , m — 9 CD m f n 4 ILI-_-....- MINORU _ m EXHIBIT 2-ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN CANYON m z EXISTING AND PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 4665 MACARTHUR COURT,SUITE 200 —� .a. O NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 n o p LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE CONSULTING TEL(94H)486.1430 FAX(949)486.7442 Ul HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA PLANNING.CIVIL ENGINEERING .SURVEYING 8.0 Mitigation Measures 1. Project developer shall be required to construct the necessary on-site sewer improvements in Area A as a private system to convey sewage generated from the proposed uses to the existing sewer lateral. 2. Prior to issuance of a connection permit, the project will be required to pay sewer connection fees according to the fee schedule in place at the time of permitting. The connection fees shall be adjusted to give credit for any prior fees paid by the Ocean View School District for this site. 3. The sewer improvement plans shall be reviewed by the City's Public Works Department. All on-site sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. 9.0 Conclusion With the development of the proposed wastewater improvements and implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, the existing wastewater J infrastructure is capable of accommodating the expected sewage generation of the proposed project. WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT CANYON CONSULTING LOWE'S HIW 10 ' APPENDIX - A ' ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ' Steve Krieger Robert Righetti Department of Public Works CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jim Burror ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ' Joseph Zimmer WESTERN ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. ' 13744 Monte Vista Avenue Chino, CA 91710 1 APPENDIX - B i SEWER FLOW MONITORING STUDY WESTERN ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 13744 MONTE VISTA AVENUE - CHINO, CALIFORNIA 91710-5512 PHONE (909) 627-3628 - FAX (909) 627-0491 - http://www.wal.cc SUMMARY OF FLOW STUDY FOR CANYON CONSULTING ' WARNER AVE. EAST OF"B"ST. IN HUNTINGTON BEACH ' DATE TOTAL FLOW AVE. FLOW MAX. FLOW GPD GPM GPM Wed, Sep 18 to Thurs, Sep 19 45,046 31 49 ' Thurs, Sep 19 to Fri, Sep 20 43,929 31 65 Fri, Sep 20 to Sat, Sep 21 39,454 27 53 Sat, . Sep 21 to Sun, Sep 22 44,877 31 72 ' Sun, Sep 22 to Mon, Sep 23 45,951 32 51 ' Mon, Sep 23 to Tues, Sep 24 41,075 29 48 Tues, Sep 24 to Wed, Sep 25 35,582 26 46 TOTAL FOR WEEK 295,914 29 72 1 Warner E of B St Flowlink 4 for Windows Flow Rate 81.1 al 70 i 60 50 I 40 Q 30 I I I 'I, ! I I �i'• III � I 20 10 0 19 Thu 20 Fri 21 Sat 22 Sun 23 Mon 24 Tue 25 Wed Sep 2002 9/18/2002 11:45:00 AM - 9/25/2002 11:45:00 AM Warner E of B St _ Flowlink 4 or Windows Date/Time Flow Rate —�9Pm) 9/18/2002 12:00:00 PM 32 9/18/2002 12:15:00 PM 28 9/18/2002 12:30:00 PM 36 9/18/2002 12:45:00 PM 38 9/18/2002 1:00:00 PM 39 9/18/2002 1:15:00 PM 43 9/18/2002 1:30:00 PM 32 9/18/2002 1:45:00 PM 40 9/18/2002 2:00:00 PM 40 9/18/2002 2:15:00 PM 44 9/18/2002 2:30:00 PM 43 9/18/2002 2:45:00 PM 47 9/18/2002 3:00:00 PM 46 9/18/2002 3:15:00 PM 32 9/18/2002 3:30:00 PM 35 9/18/2002 3:45:00 PM 41 9/18/2002 4:00:00 PM 40 9/18/2002 4:15:00 PM 40 9/18/2002 4:30:00 PM 48 9/18/2002 4:45:00 PM 46 9/18/2002 5:00:00 PM 45 9/18/2002 5:15:00 PM 39 9/18/2002 5:30:00 PM 42 9/18/2002 5:45:00 PM 25 9/18/2002 6:00:00 PM 33 9/18/2002 6:15:00 PM 32 9/18/2002 6:30:00 PM 28 9/18/2002 6:45:00 PM 34 9/18/2002 7:00:00 PM 34 9/18/2002 7:15:00 PM 33 9/18/2002 7:30:00 PM 26 9/18/2002 7:45:00 PM 26 9/18/2002 8:00:00 PM 27 9/18/2002 8:15:00 PM 27 9/18/2002 8:30:00 PM 38 9/18/2002 8:45:00 PM 44 9/18/2002 9:00:00 PM 47 9/18/2002 9:15:00 PM 36 9/18/2002 9:30:00 PM 39 9/18/2002 9:45:00 PM 33 9/18/2002 10:00:00 PM 26 9/18/2002 10:15:00 PM 25 9/18/2002 10:30:00 PM 23 9/26/2002 10:53:52 AM Page 1 of 3 Daterrime Flow Rate �9.PML-- 9/18/2002 10:45:00 PM 23 9/18/2002 11:00:00 PM 27 9/18/2002 11:15:00 PM 16 9/18/2002 11-30:00 PM 19 9/18/2002 11:45:00 PM 22 9/19/2002 12:00:00 AM 19 9/19/2002 12:15:00 AM 14 9/19/2002 12:30:00 AM 11 9/19/2002 12:45:00 AM 17 9/19/2002 1:00:00 AM 16 9/19/2002 1:15:00 AM 15 9/19/2002 1:30:00 AM 17 9/19/2002 1:45:00 AM 21 9/19/2002 2:00:00 AM 18 9/19/2002 2:15:00 AM 18 9/19/2002 2:30:00 AM 15 9/19/2002 2:45:00 AM 13 9/19/2002 3:00:00 AM 13 9/19/2002 3:15:00 AM 20 9/19/2002 3:30:00 AM 19 9/19/2002 3:45:00 AM 18 9/19/2002 4:00:00 AM 18 9/19/2002 4:15:00 AM 16 9/19/2002 4:30:00 AM 18 9/19/2002 4:45:00 AM 20 9/19/2002 5:00:00 AM 23 9/19/2002 5:15:00 AM 19 9/19/2002 5:30:00 AM 21 9/19/2002 5:45:00 AM 25 9/19/2002 6:00:00 AM 25 9/19/2002 6:15:00 AM 37 9/19/2002 6:30:00 AM 28 9/19/2002 6:45:00 AM 35 9/19/2002 7:00:00 AM 39 9/19/2002 7:15:00 AM 34 9/19/2002 7:30:00 AM 36 9/19/2002 7:45:00 AM 34 9/19/2002 8:00:00 AM 36 9/19/2002 8:15:00 AM 36 9/19/2002 8:30:00 AM 38 9/19/2002 8:45:00 AM 49 9/19/2002 9:00:00 AM 46 9/19/2002 9:15:00 AM 36 9/19/2002 9:30:00 AM 42 9/19/2002 9:45:00 AM 45 9/19/2002 10:00:00 AM 38 9/19/2002 10:15:00 AM 40 9/19/2002 10:30:00 AM 42 9/26/2002 10:53:52 AM Page 2 of 3 rr rr rr r �r r rr rr rr r it rr rr rr rr r rr r rr Date/Time Flow Rate (9Pm) 9/19/2002 10:45:00 AM 39 9/19/2002 11:00:00 AM 35 9/19/2002 11:15:00 AM 32 9/19/2002 11:30:00 AM 41 9/19/2002 11:45:00 AM 43 9/19/2002 12:00:00 PM 41 Average Flow Rate (gpm)_ 31 Total 45045.8 gal 9/26/2002 10:53:53 AM Page 3 of 3 Warner E of B St Flowlink 4 or Windows Date/Time Flow Rate (9pm) 9/19/2002 12:00:00 PM 41 9/19/2002 12:15:00 PM 53 9/19/2002 12:30:00 PM 40 9/19/2002 12:45:00 PM 36 9/19/2002 1:00:00 PM 51 9/19/2002 1:15:00 PM 40 9/19/2002 1:30:00 PM 39 9/19/2002 1:45:00 PM 54 9/19/2002 2:00:00 PM 65 9/19/2002 2:15:00 PM 63 9/19/2002 2:30:00 PM 61 9/19/2002 2:45:00 PM 60 9/19/2002 3:00:00 PM 49 9/19/2002 3:15:00 PM 53 9/19/2002 3:30:00 PM 42 9/19/2002 3:45:00 PM 46 9/19/2002 4:00:00 PM 52 9/19/2002 4:15:00 PM 47 9/19/2002 4:30:00 PM 40 9/19/2002 4:45:00 PM 45 9/19/2002 5:00:00 PM 44 9/19/2002 5:15:00 PM 40 9/19/2002 5:30-00 PM 38 9/19/2002 5:45:00 PM 30 9/19/2002 6:00:00 PM 35 9/19/2002 6:15:00 PM 33 9/19/2002 6:30:00 PM 38 9/19/2002 6:45:00 PM 39 9/19/2002 7:00:00 PM 32 9/19/2002 7:15:00 PM 22 9/19/2002 7:30:00 PM 31 9/19/2002 7:45:00 PM 34 9/19/2002 8:00:00 PM 32 9/19/2002 8:15:00 PM 32 9/19/2002 8:30:00 PM 48 9/19/2002 8:45:00 PM 38 9/19/2002 9:00:00 PM 39 9/19/2002 9:15:00 PM 33 9/19/2002 9:30:00 PM 22 9/19/2002 9:45:00 PM 30 9/19/2002 10:00:00 PM 29 9/19/2002 10:15:00 PM 27 9/19/2002 10:30:00 PM 22 9/26/2002 10:55:00 AM Page 1 of 3 m m = = i = = M = r m M M M = = m �■■� w w w w� wi w w� ww �w ww w � � �w w w �w �w Date/Time Flow Rate (gem_ 9/19/2002 10:45:00 PM 20 9/19/2002 11:00:00 PM 23 9/19/2002 11:15:00 PM 19 9/19/2002 11:30:00 PM 21 9/19/2002 11:45:00 PM 25 9/20/2002 12:00:00 AM 19 9/20/2002 12:15:00 AM 18 9/20/2002 12:30:00 AM 16 9/20/2002 12:45:00 AM 14 9/20/2002 1:00.00 AM 12 9/20/2002 115:00 AM 14 9/20/2002 1:30:00 AM 17 9/20/2002 1 A5:00 AM 17 9/20/2002 2:00:00 AM 18 9/20/2002 215:00 AM 16 9/20/2002 2:30:00 AM 15 9/20/2002 2:45:00 AM 13 9/20/2002 3:00:00 AM 11 9/20/2002 3:15:00 AM 11 9/20/2002 3:30:00 AM 11 9/20/2002 3:45:00 AM 12 9/20/2002 4:00:00 AM 10 9/20/2002 4:15:00 AM 13 9/20/2002 4:30-00 AM 11 9/20/2002 4:45:00 AM 12 9/20/2002 5:00:00 AM 29 9/20/2002 5:15:00 AM 16 9/20/2002 5:30:00 AM 19 9/20/2002 5:45:00 AM 18 9/20/2002 6:00:00 AM 21 9/20/2002 6:15:00 AM 32 9/20/2002 6:30:00 AM 24 9/20/2002 6:45:00 AM 33 9/20/2002 7:00-00 AM 33 9/20/2002 7:15:00 AM 35 9/20/2002 7:30:00 AM 32 9/20/2002 T45:00 AM 27 9/20/2002 8:00:00 AM 27 9/20/2002 8:15:00 AM 31 9/20/2002 8:30:00 AM 34 9/20/2002 8:45:00 AM 34 9/20/2002 9:00:00 AM 24 9/20/2002 9:15:00 AM 25 9/20/2002 9:30:00 AM 25 9/20/2002 9:45:00 AM 33 9/20/2002 10:00:00 AM 31 9/20/2002 10:15:00 AM 24 9/20/2002 10:30:00 AM 29 9/26/2002 10:55:00 AM Page 2 of 3 Date/Time Flow Rate 9/20/2002 10:45:00 AM 30 9/20/2002 11:00:00 AM 33 9/20/2002 11:15:00 AM 35 9/20/2002 11:30:00 AM 30 9/20/2002 11:45:00 AM 38 9/20/2002 12:00:00 PM 30 Average Flow Rate 31 Total 43928.5 gal 9/26/2002 10:55:01 AM Page 3 of 3 Warner E of B St Flowlink 4 for Windows Date/Time Flow Rate - -(9Lm) 9/20/2002 12:00:00 PM 30 9/20/2002 12:15:00 PM 32 9/20/2002 12:30:00 PM 29 9/20/2002 12:45:00 PM 28 9/20/2002 1:00:00 PM 34 9/20/2002 1:15-00 PM 25 9/20/2002 1:30:00 PM 23 9/20/2002 1:45:00 PM 28 9/20/2002 2:00:00 PM 27 9/20/2002 2:15:00 PM 22 9/20/2002 2:30:00 PM 22 9/20/2002 2:45:00 PM 22 9/20/2002 3:00:00 PM 30 9/20/2002 3:15:00 PM 29 9/20/2002 3:30:00 PM 31 9/20/2002 3:45:00 PM 25 9/20/2002 4:00:00 PM 38 9/20/2002 4:15:00 PM 34 9/20/2002 4:30:00 PM 26 9/20/2002 4:45:00 PM 26 9/20/2002 5:00:00 PM 29 9/20/2002 5:15:00 PM 33 9/20/2002 5:30:00 PM 27 9/20/2002 5:45:00 PM 34 9/20/2002 6:00:00 PM 35 9/20/2002 6:15:00 PM 37 9/20/2002 6:30:00 PM 47 9/20/2002 6:45:00 PM 37 9/20/2002 7:00:00 PM 31 9/20/2002 7:15:00 PM 32 9/20/2002 7:30:00 PM 43 9/20/2002 7:45:00 PM 34 9/20/2002 8:00:00 PM 29 9/20/2002 8:15:00 PM 30 9/20/2002 8:30:00 PM 25 9/20/2002 8:45:00 PM 22 9/20/2002 9:00:00 PM 28 9/20/2002 9:15:00 PM 26 9/20/2002 9:30:00 PM 23 9/20/2002 9:45:00 PM 22 9/20/2002 10:00:00 PM 26 9/20/2002 10:15:00 PM 24 9/20/2002 10:30:00 PM 25 9/26/2002 10:55:17 AM Page 1 of 3 Date/Time Flow Rate (9Pm) 9/20/2002 10:45:00 PM 27 9/20/2002 11:00:00 PM 32 9/20/2002 11:15:00 PM 26 9/20/2002 11:30:00 PM 23 9/20/2002 11:45:00 PM 22 9/21/2002 12:00:00 AM 20 9/21/2002 12:15:00 AM 24 9/21/2002 12-30:00 AM 22 9/21/2002 12:45:00 AM 17 9/21/2002 1:00:00 AM 18 9/21/2002 1:15-00 AM 14 9/21/2002 1:30-00 AM 18 9/21/2002 1:45-00 AM 15 9/21/2002 2:00:00 AM 12 9/21/2002 2:15:00 AM 20 9/21/2002 2:30-00 AM 16 9/21/2002 2:45:00 AM 24 9/21/2002 3:00:00 AM 20 9/21/2002 3:15:00 AM 18 9/21/2002 3:30:00 AM 16 9/21/2002 3:45:00 AM 16 9/21/2002 4:00:00 AM 15 9/21/2002 4:15:00 AM 15 9/21/2002 4:30:00 AM 15 9/21/2002 4:45:00 AM 14 9/21/2002 5:00:00 AM 15 9/21/2002 5:15:00 AM 16 9/21/2002 5:30:00 AM 15 9/21/2002 5:45:00 AM 25 9/21/2002 6:00:00 AM 18 9/21/2002 6:15:00 AM 21 9/21/2002 6:30:00 AM 18 9/21/2002 6:45:00 AM 16 9/21/2002 7:00:00 AM 17 9/21/2002 7:15:00 AM 16 9/21/2002 7:30:00 AM 25 9/21/2002 7:45:00 AM 36 9/21/2002 8:00:00 AM 25 9/21/2002 8:15:00 AM 33 9/21/2002 8:30:00 AM 25 9/21/2002 8:45:00 AM 32 9/21/2002 9:00:00 AM 36 9/21/2002 9:15:00 AM 38 9/21/2002 9:30:00 AM 37 9/21/2002 9:45:00 AM 36 9/21/2002 10:00:00 AM 37 9/21/2002 10:15:00 AM 39 9/21/2002 10:30:00 AM 51 9/26/2002 10:55:18 AM Page 2 of 3 .a A t I I I I 1 1 I, 1 I I I I I I I I rr � r r rr rr r� r� r it r r rr r r r� rr rr ri Date/Time Flow Rate (9pm) 9/21/2002 10:45:00 AM 49 9/21/2002 11:00:00 AM 47 9/21/2002 11:15:00 AM 47 ! 9/21/2002 11:30:00 AM 52 9/21/2002 11:45:00 AM 46 9/21/2002 12:00:00 PM 53 Average Flow Rate —_ _(9Pm) 27 Total 39454.3 gal 9/26/2002 10:55:18 AM Page 3 of 3 Warner E of B St -` — Flowlink 4for Windows-- - ---— -, — - — -- Daterrime Flow Rate p-M 9/21/2002 12:00:00 PM 53 9/21/2002 12:15:00 PM 55 9/21/2002 12:30:00 PM 55 9/21/2002 UA5W PM 64 9/21/2002 1:00:00 PM 72 9/21/2002 1:15:00 PM 59 9/21/2002 1:30:00 PM 49 9/21/2002 1:45:00 PM 64 9/21/2002 2:00:00 PM 54 9/21/2002 2:15:00 PM 54 9/21/2002 2:30:00 PM 53 9/21/2002 2:45:00 PM 51 9/21/2002 3:00:00 PM 45 9/21/2002 315:00 PM 41 9/21/2002 3:30:00 PM 48 9/21/2002 3:45:00 PM 51 9/21/2002 4:00:00 PM 52 9/21/2002 4:15:00 PM 38 9/21/2002 4:30:00 PM 42 9/21/2002 4:45:00 PM 39 9/21/2002 5:00:00 PM 37 9/21/2002 5:15:00 PM 37 9/21/2002 5:30:00 PM 30 9/21/2002 5:45:00 PM 33 9/21/2002 6:00:00 PM 36 9/21/2002 6:15:00 PM 38 9/21/2002 6:30-00 PM 32 9/21/2002 6:45:00 PM 23 9/21/2002 7-00:00 PM 34 9/21/2002 7:15:00 PM 29 9/21/2002 7:30:00 PM 33 9/21/2002 7:45:00 PM 27 9/21/2002 8:00:00 PM 32 9/21/2002 8:15:00 PM 37 9/21/2002 8:30:00 PM 36 9/21/2002 8:45:00 PM 24 9/21/2002 9:00:00 PM 19 9/21/2002 9:15:00 PM 21 9/21/2002 9:30:00 PM 19 9/21/2002 9:45:00 PM 25 9/21/2002 10:00:00 PM 31 9/21/2002 10-15:00 PM 25 9/21/2002 10:30:00 PM 20 9/26/2002 10:55:38 AM J Page 1 of 3 rr r� a� rr r� rr �r rr r� r r� rr r� rr rr it ■r sir �■ Date/Time Flow Rate 9/21/2002 10:45:00 PM 25 9/21/2002 11:00:00 PM 22 9/21/2002 1'1:15:00 PM 19 9/21/2002 11:30:00 PM 20 9/21/2002 11:45:00 PM 21 9/22/2002 12:00:00 AM 18 9/22/2002 12:15:00 AM 16 9/22/2002 12:30:00 AM 19 9/22/2002 12:45:00 AM 19 9/22/2002 1:00:00 AM 15 9/22/2002 1:15:00 AM 15 9/22/2002 1:30:00 AM 14 9/22/2002 1:45:00 AM 13 9/22/2002 2:00:00 AM 14 9/22/2002 2:15:00 AM 17 9/22/2002 2:30:00 AM 17 9/22/2002 2:45:00 AM 24 9/22/2002 3:00:00 AM 22 9/22/2002 3:15:00 AM 19 9/22/2002 3:30:00 AM 22 9/22/2002 3:45:00 AM 18 9/22/2002 4:00:00 AM 18 9/22/2002 4:15:00 AM 17 9/22/2002 4:30:00 AM 17 9/22/2002 4:45:00 AM 21 9/22/2002 5:00:00 AM 18 9/22/2002 5:15:00 AM 18 9/22/2002 5:30:00 AM 19 9/22/2002 5:45:00 AM 19 9/22/2002 6:00:00 AM 18 9/22/2002 6:15:00 AM 17 9/22/2002 6:30:00 AM 15 9/22/2002 6:45:00 AM 15 9/22/2002 7:00:00 AM 16 9/22/2002 7:15:00 AM 19 9/22/2002 7:30:00 AM 21 9/22/2002 7:45:00 AM 22 9/22/2002 8:00:00 AM 29 9/22/2002 8:15:00 AM 27 9/22/2002 8:30:00 AM 30 9/22/2002 8:45:00 AM 33 9/22/2002 9:00:00 AM 30 9/22/2002 9:15:00 AM 32 9/22/2002 9:30:00 AM 38 9/22/2002 9:45:00 AM 38 9/22/2002 10:00:00 AM 35 9/22/2002 10:15:00 AM 40 9/22/2002 10:30:00 AM 46 9/26/2002 10:55:38 AM Page 2 of 3 Date/Time Flow Rate 9/22/2002 10:45:00 AM 41 9/22/2002 11:00:00 AM 42 9/22/2002 11:15:00 AM 49 9/22/2002 11:30:00 AM 50 9/22/2002 11:45:00 AM 41 9/22/2002 12:00:00 PM 49 Average Flow Rate --_�9Pm) 31 Total 44876.2 gal 9/26/2002 10:55:39 AM Page 3 of 3 Warner E of B St Flowlink 4 for Windows Daterrime Flow Rate --(9p—m) -- 9/22/2002 12:00:00 PM 49 9/22/2002 12:15:00 PM 44 9/22/2002 12:30:00 PM 44 9/22/2002 12:45-00 PM 47 9/22/2002 1:00:00 PM 44 9/22/2002 1:15:00 PM 49 9/22/2002 1:30:00 PM 51 9/22/2002 1:45:00 PM 44 9/22/2002 2:00:00 PM 46 9/22/2002 2:15:00 PM 43 9/22/2002 2:30:00 PM 35 9/22/2002 2:45:00 PM 34 9/22/2002 3:00:00 PM 33 9/22/2002 3:15:00 PM 33 9/22/2002 3:30:00 PM 30 9/22/2002 3:45:00 PM 29 9/22/2002 4:00:00 PM 27 9/22/2002 4:15:00 PM 41 9/22/2002 4:30:00 PM 36 9/22/2002 4:45:00 PM 39 9/22/2002 5:00:00 PM 40 9/22/2002 5:15:00 PM 25 9/22/2002 5:30:00 PM 41 9/22/2002 5:45:00 PM 38 9/22/2002 6:00:00 PM 40 9/22/2002 6:15:00 PM 45 9/22/2002 6:30:00 PM 37 9/22/2002 6:45:00 PM 37 9/22/2002 7:00:00 PM 31 9/22/2002 7:15:00 PM 35 9/22/2002 7:30:00 PM 31 9/22/2002 7:45:00 PM 30 9/22/2002 8:00:00 PM 33 9/22/2002 8:15:00 PM 46 9/22/2002 8:30:00 PM 33 9/22/2002 8:45:00 PM 40 9/22/2002 9:00:00 PM 42 9/22/2002 9:15:00 PM 43 9/22/2002 9:30:00 PM 43 9/22/2002 9:45:00 PM 32 9/22/2002 10:00:00 PM 29 9/22/2002 10.15:00 PM 31 9/22/2002 10:30:00 PM 27 9/26/2002 10:56:25 AM Page 1 of 3 Date/Time Flow Rate 9/22/2002 10:45:00 PM 30 9/22/2002 11:00:00 PM 29 9/22/2002 11:15:00 PM 30 9/22/2002 11:30:00 PM 27 9/22/2002 11:45:00 PM 32 9/23/2002 12:00:00 AM 27 9/23/2002 12:15:00 AM 25 9/23/2002 12:30:00 AM 24 9/23/2002 12:45:00 AM 23 9/23/2002 1:00:00 AM 17 9/23/2002 1:15:00 AM 20 9/23/2002 1:30:00 AM 21 9/23/2002 1:45:00 AM 21 9/23/2002 2:00:00 AM 21 9/23/2002 2:15:00 AM 20 9/23/2002 2:30:00 AM 19 9/23/2002 2:45:00 AM 18 9/23/2002 3:00:00 AM 20 9/23/2002 3:15:00 AM 19 9/23/2002 3:30:00 AM 17 9/23/2002 3:45:00 AM 19 9/23/2002 4:00:00 AM 17 9/23/2002 415:00 AM 16 9/23/2002 4:30:00 AM 18 9/23/2002 4:45:00 AM 17 9/23/2002 5:00:00 AM 15 9/23/2002 5:15:00 AM 17 9/23/2002 5:30:00 AM 20 9/23/2002 5:45:00 AM 25 9/23/2002 6:00:00 AM 30 9/23/2002 6:15:00 AM 32 9/23/2002 6:30:00 AM 34 9/23/2002 6:45:00 AM 27 9/23/2002 7:00:00 AM 41 9/23/2002 7:15:00 AM 36 9/23/2002 7:30:00 AM 36 9/23/2002 7:45:00 AM 37 9/23/2002 8:00:00 AM 32 9/23/2002 8:15:00 AM 31 9/23/2002 8:30:00 AM 34 9/23/2002 8:45:00 AM 34 9/23/2002 9:00:00 AM 33 9/23/2002 9:15:00 AM 35 9/23/2002 9:30:00 AM 31 9/23/2002 9:45:00 AM 36 9/23/2002 10:00:00 AM 33 9/23/2002 10:15:00 AM 30 9/23/2002 10:30:00 AM 33 9/26/2002 10:56:25 AM Page 2 of 3 I t A I I I I I I I I I I I I I r rr rr r rr �s rr rr �r rr rr rr rr rr �r rr arr r ■■� Date/Time Flow Rate ------(gpm) 9/23/2002 10:45:00 AM 33 9/23/2002 11:00:00 AM 33 9/23/2002 11:15:00 AM 33 9/23/2002 11 i30:00 AM 44 9/23/2002 11:45:00 AM 43 9/23/2002 12:00:00 PM 36 Average Flow Rate �9Pm) 32 Total 45951.3 gal Page 3 of 3 9/26/2002 10:56:25 AM Warner E of B St Flowlink 4 for Windows Date/Time Flow Rate (9P►n) 9/23/2002 12:00:00 PM 36 9/23/2002 12:15-00 PM 42 9/23/2002 12:30-00 PM 42 9/23/2002 12:45:00 PM 40 9/23/2002 1:00:00 PM 35 9/23/2002 1:15:00 PM 39 9/23/2002 1:30:00 PM 43 9/23/2002 1:45:00 PM 37 9/23/2002 2:00:00 PM 47 9/23/2002 2:15:00 PM 39 9/23/2002 230:00 PM 46 9/23/2002 2:45:00 PM 41 9/23/2002 3:00:00 PM 29 9/23/2002 3:15:00 PM 32 9/23/2002 3:30:00 PM 33 9/23/2002 3:45:00 PM 34 9/23/2002 4:00:00 PM 38 9/23/2002 4:15:00 PM 35 9/23/2002 4:30:00 PM 41 9/23/2002 4:45:00 PM 34 9/23/2002 5:00:00 PM 40 9/23/2002 5:15:00 PM 33 9/23/2002 5:30:00 PM 33 9/23/2002 5:45:00 PM 39 9/23/2002 6:00:00 PM 41 9/23/2002 6:15:00 PM 33 9/23/2002 6:30:00 PM 37 9/23/2002 6:45:00 PM 32 9/23/2002 7:00:00 PM 28 9/23/2002 7:15:00 PM 34 9/23/2002 7:30:00 PM 36 9/23/2002 7:45:00 PM 28 9/23/2002 8:00:00 PM 30 9/23/2002 8:15:00 PM 32 9/23/2002 8:30:00 PM 31 9/23/2002 8:45:00 PM 36 9/23/2002 9:00:00 PM 34 9/23/2002 9:15:00 PM 34 9/23/2002 9:30:00 PM 36 9/23/2002 9:45:00 PM 35 9/23/2002 10:00:00 PM 31 9/23/2002 10:15:00 PM 26 9/23/2002 10:30:00 PM 25 9/26/2002 10:56:37 AM Page 1 of 3 rr r rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr r rr r rr r rr �r r Datelfime Flow Rate 9/23/2002 10:45:00 PM 20 9/23/2002 11:00:00 PM 26 9/23/2002 11:15:00 PM 26 9/23/2002 11:30:00 PM 23 9/23/2002 11:45:00 PM 19 9/24/2002 12:00:00 AM 19 9/24/2002 12:15:00 AM 23 9/24/2002 12-30:00 AM 17 9/24/2002 12A5:00 AM 17 9/24/2002 1:00:00 AM 22 9/24/2002 1:15:00 AM 13 9/24/2002 1:30:00 AM 12 9/24/2002 1-45:00 AM 20 9/24/2002 2:00:00 AM 15 9/24/2002 2:15:00 AM 13 9/24/2002 2:30:00 AM 12 9/24/2002 2:45:00 AM 9 9/24/2002 3:00:00 AM 9 9/24/2002 3:15:00 AM 8 9/24/2002 3:30:00 AM 10 9/24/2002 145:00 AM 11 9/24/2002 4:00:00 AM 11 9/24/2002 4:15:00 AM 10 9/24/2002 4:30:00 AM 9 9/24/2002 4:45:00 AM 10 9/24/2002 5:00:00 AM 11 9/24/2002 5:15:00 AM 16 9/24/2002 5:30:00 AM 21 9/24/2002 5:45:00 AM 22 9/24/2002 6:00:00 AM 17 9/24/2002 6:15:00 AM 30 9/24/2002 6:30:00 AM 26 9/24/2002 6:45:00 AM 23 9/24/2002 7:00:00 AM 29 9/24/2002 715:00 AM 44 9/24/2002 7:30:00 AM 36 9/24/2002 7:45:00 AM 30 9/24/2002 8:00:00 AM 23 9/24/2002 8:15:00 AM 25 9/24/2002 8:30:00 AM 37 9/24/2002 8:45:00 AM 33 9/24/2002 9:00:00 AM 25 9/24/2002 9:15:00 AM 33 9/24/2002 9:30:00 AM 32 9/24/2002 9:45:00 AM 48 9/24/2002 10:00:00 AM 45 9/24/2002 1015:00 AM 38 9/24/2002 10:30:00 AM 36 9/26/2002 10:56:37 AM Page 2 of 3 Date/Time Flow Rate ---(gpm) ---- 9/24/2002 10:45:00 AM 35 9/24/2002 11:00:00 AM 28 9/24/2002 11:15:00 AM 30 9/24/2002 11:30:00 AM 30 9/24/2002 11:45:00 AM 30 9/24/2002 12:00:00 PM 30 Average Flow Rate (g T) 29 Total 41075.2 gal 9/26/2002 10:56:38 AM Page 3 of 3 k I I I i II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rr r r r rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr rr rr rr rr r rw Warner E of B St Flowlink 4 for Windows _ Date/Time Flow Rate 9/24/2002 12:00:00 PM 30 9/24/2002 12:15:00 PM 34 9/24/2002 12:30:00 PM 32 9/24/2002 12-45:00 PM 31 9/24/2002 1:00:00 PM 34 9/24/2002 1-15:00 PM 36 9/24/2002 1:30:00 PM 27 9/24/2002 1:45:00 PM 28 9/24/2002 2:00:00 PM 27 9/24/2002 2:15-00 PM 28 9/24/2002 2:30:00 PM 30 9/24/2002 2:45:00 PM 31 9/24/2002 3:00:00 PM 29 9/24/2002 3:15:00 PM 25 9/24/2002 3:30:00 PM 27 9/24/2002 3:45:00 PM 26 9/24/2002 4:00:00 PM 28 9/24/2002 4:15:00 PM 31 9/24/2002 4:30:00 PM 29 9/24/2002 4:45:00 PM 34 9/24/2002 5:00:00 PM 28 9/24/2002 5:15:00 PM 30 9/24/2002 5:30:00 PM 25 9/24/2002 5:45:00 PM 33 9/24/2002 6:00:00 PM 38 9/24/2002 6:15:00 PM 46 9/24/2002 6:30:00 PM 36 9/24/2002 6:45:00 PM 34 9/24/2002 7:00:00 PM 38 9/24/2002 7:15:00 PM 36 9/24/2002 7:30:00 PM 38 9/24/2002 7:45:00 PM 32 9/24/2002 8:00:00 PM 32 9/24/2002 8:15:00 PM 31 9/24/2002 8:30:00 PM 29 9/24/2002 8:45:00 PM 27 9/24/2002 9:00:00 PM 34 9/24/2002 9:15:00 PM 39 9/24/2002 9:30:00 PM 33 9/24/2002 9:45:00 PM 30 9/24/2002 10:00:00 PM 24 9/24/2002 10:15:00 PM 33 9/24/2002 10:30:00 PM 28 9/26/2002 10:58:15 AM Page 1 of 3 Date/Time Flow Rate (gPm) 9/24/2002 10:45:00 PM 24 9/24/2002 11:00:00 PM 26 9/24/2002 11:15:00 PM 23 9/24/2002 11:30:00 PM 19 9/24/2002 11:45:00 PM 18 9/25/2002 12:00:00 AM 15 9/25/2002 12:15:00 AM 15 9/25/2002 12:30-00 AM 17 9/25/2002 12:45:00 AM 11 9/25/2002 1:00:00 AM 11 9/25/2002 1:15:00 AM 11 9/25/2002 1:30:00 AM 14 9/25/2002 1:45:00 AM 13 9/25/2002 2:00:00 AM 17 9/25/2002 2:15:00 AM 14 9/25/2002 2:30:00 AM 10 9/25/2002 2:45:00 AM 11 9/25/2002 3:00:00 AM 11 9/25/2002 3:15:00 AM 9 9/25/2002 3:30:00 AM 9 9/25/2002 3:45:00 AM 10 9/25/2002 4:00:00 AM 10 9/25/2002 4:15:00 AM 10 9/25/2002 4:30:00 AM 9 9/25/2002 4:45:00 AM 10 9/25/2002 5:00:00 AM 9 9/25/2002 5:15:00 AM 16 9/25/2002 5:30:00 AM 21 9/25/2002 5:45:00 AM 17 9/25/2002 6:00:00 AM 16 9/25/2002 6:15:00 AM 21 9/25/2002 6:30:00 AM 23 9/25/2002 6:45:00 AM 24 9/25/2002 7:00:00 AM 37 9/25/2002 7:15:00 AM 37 9/25/2002 7:30:00 AM 32 9/25/2002 7:45:00 AM 33 9/25/2002 8:00:00 AM 30 9/25/2002 8:15:00 AM 27 9/25/2002 8:30:00 AM 31 9/25/2002 8:45:00 AM 34 9/25/2002 9:00:00 AM 27 9/25/2002 9:15:00 AM 29 9/25/2002 9:30:00 AM 28 9/25/2002 9:45:00 AM 36 9/25/2002 10:00:00 AM 37 9/25/2002 10:15:00 AM 34 9/25/2002 10:30:00 AM 33 9/26/2002 10:58:15 AM Page 2 of 3 rr r rr rr rr r� rs r s rr rr rr �r r r� rr r �r rr Date/Time Flow Rate __---AgP�_- 9/25/2002 10:45:00 AM 32 9/25/2002 11:00:00 AM 36 Average Flow Rate 26 Total 35581.6 gal 9/26/2002 10:58:15 AM Page 3 of 3 ' APPENDIX - C CALCULATIONS OF MAXIMUM SEWER DESIGN FLOW **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3 .1A Release Date: 2/17/92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:42 10/18/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * DEPTH OF FLOW CALCULATION FOR EXISTING 8" VCP SEWER ON WARNER AVENUE * MAXIMUM DEIGN FLOW FOR HALF FULL DEPTH ( .33 ' ) ; FLOW = 166 GPM * LOWES HUNTINGTON BEACH ************************************************************************** >>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) _ .670 FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .330 PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) _ .0028 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = . 011000 ' >>>>> NORMAL DEPTH FLOW(CFS) = 37 NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .33 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .17 FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) _ .670 ' FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 3 . 07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2 .158 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .072 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .26 FROUDE NUMBER = .749 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .40 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3 .1A Release Date: 2/17/92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15 :34 10/21/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * MAXIMUM FLOW FOR EXISTING 15" SEWER LATERAL * BASED ON HALF FULL DEPTH; FLOW IS 2.45 CFS (1100 GPM) * LOWES HUNTINGTON BEACH * "` ************************************************************************** >>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 1.250 PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) _ .0040 PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 2 .45 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .011000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .63 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .615 CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.250 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 29.10 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3 .981 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .25 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .49 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ . 87 NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .63 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .62 FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.250 FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 29.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3 . 949 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .242 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 FROUDE NUMBER = . 988 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .87 � �I � r Ij OCT 14 2003 VOLUME IV • w, • GAO F1 f ?�e°. �� LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT r O M ROVEMENT WAREHOUSE/NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND WARNER PROJECT >g City of Huntington Beach f s C + F t i� 1 October 2003 Fill : i 9 VOLUME IV t � r REsPONSE TO • No. 00-01 LOWE S HOME IMPROVEMENT 71 WAREHOUSE/NORTHEAST CORNER X A", OF BEACH AND WARNER PROJECT J - City of Huntington Beach i "N 1 Prepared For: is I i The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department J = 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, California 92648 i Prepared By: PCR Services Corporation RdOne Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618 lam= 5 October 2003 r n r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 ' II. COMMENT LETTERS..........................................................................................................5 ' III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS...........................................................................................43 IV. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR..........................................77 V. FINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................80 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM....................................................................94 ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 ' Page i LIST OF TABLES Pali Table I-1 Summary of Written Comments..............................................................................2 Table V-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................80 Table VI-1 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Summary Table.........................................................95 City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page ii - z - 0 V Q H z .. .. .. � � .. .. ■. .. � .� .. .. .. ■r .. �. ... � ' I. INTRODUCTION Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the Final EIR shall consist of: "(a) the ' Draft EIR or a revision of the draft; (b) comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; and (d) the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." The Final EIR for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner is comprised of the following: Volume I Draft EIR, Volumes II and III Technical Appendices to the Draft EIR, and this document,Volume IV Response to Comments. 1 The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and circulated for public review on May 2, 2003. The 45-day comment period required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 concluded on June 16, 2003. A public meeting on ' the Draft EIR was held on June 3, 2003. No formal verbal comments requiring response were received during the public hearing; however, comment cards were distributed and attendees were ' invited to provide written comments concerning issues/questions related to adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department received a total of three (3) comment cards from the public meeting, which have been addressed as comment letters, as well as nine (9) comment letters during the public review period. The letters included submissions ' from State, County, regional agencies, and the City, as well as from private individuals. Copies of the original comment letters are provided in Section II., Comment Letters, to this document. The text contained in the original letters is reproduced in Section III., Responses to Written Comments, of this document, and responses to each of the comments contained in the letters is also provided in Section III. The comments contained in each letter have been numbered in ' order to provide a corresponding response. For example, the first comment contained in Letter 1 from Cathy Van Doomum — President of the Ocean View Little League, is listed as Comment 1.1, and this corresponds to Response 1.1 from the City. A list of all the letters received, along with a summary of the general issues raised in each letter, is contained in Table I-1 on page 2. Issues identified as "other"relate to non-CEQA issues or issues that do not address adequacy or content of the Draft EIR. Comments received that did not address CEQA issues, but expressed general support or opposition to the project are identified as such. Section IV., Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR provides a description of all changes or additions made to the Draft ' EIR as a result of comments received. Section V., Final Executive Summary, of this document contains the Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures table, which has been revised to reflect changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received. None of the changes ' made to the Draft EIR affect the original conclusions related to potential environmental significance that were drawn in the Draft EIR. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 1 I. Introduction Table I-1 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS Comment Topic PC b c o z z o o 0 3 cc Cathy Van Doornum—President OVLL 6881 Steeplechase Cir 1 43 Huntington Beach,California 92648 Yvonne B.Fleming 16722 IRBY Lane 2 45 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Manilal D.Phdhiar 17101 Kampen Lane 3 46 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Christopher Wright,Associate Transportation Analyst Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street 4 47 P.O.Box 14184 Orange,California 92863-1584 Terry V.Wooldridge Gwen A. Woodridge 5 49 8141 Blaylock Drive Huntington Beach, California 92647-603 Jon R.Phillips 8372 Edam Circle 6 51 Huntington Beach,California 92647 City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 2 r� �r r■� �r �r �r �r it �r �r rr ri �r �r rr r �r ■� � I. Introduction Table I-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS Comment Topic � y V' O ed 9 x 0 c 0 C � � Z c. 0' N a .d w •v C ` O City of Fountain Valley 10200 Slater Avenue 7 52 Fountain Valley,California 92708-4736 Krone,Shawna 8 55 [NOTE: SENT VIA E-MAIL James R.Tarwater,Ed.D.,District Superintendent Ocean View School District 9 57 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach,California 92647-5569 Timothy Neely,Manager County of Orange Environmental Planning Services Division 10 61 300 North Flower Street P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana,California 92702-4048 Robert F.Joseph,Chief California Department of Transportation IGR/Community Planning Branch 11 66 District 12 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine,CA 92612-8894 City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 3 I. Introduction Table I-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS Comment Topic (7 ° CC b in ft ° w cn O Al Hendricker,Chairman Environmental Board 12 71 City of Huntin ton Beach City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 4 C/) W H H W H Z W • O V LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE/ NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND WARNER COMMENT ' `CARD (PLEASE PRINT) Name: ectiGiy Vclyi Dvorylvoi i?cesc� (fn-f U �. Address: to Sf t 5f eQ )ecflase Lip Date: 6 -3- 0 3 ' Comments: rn 1•h U a f?bn - R =Pose t-ylat i 1 ►`l _read- Pfi a r iv +he i s Syctoce )4 ' i"c, r)er Yt s fyr +1i?_ Dv'y2c d , �2rnt'ec{- , Oyi�'p mjs,t i 5v(e_ `t4411jr V' v ' f+ 2 Lea vc'_ w ii-11 t o -k-h,e r 6-n t,r A n c k o V i e w 5ch CC) I ' Please limit comments to issues/questions related to EIR adequacy. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (Additional space on back) Attn: Jane James 1 e� a �- one S fte JD accoryl oJoLF 0certo V;eiv 5(t-e fie, rC (OCaf �•�-�� Leccyve's � TO9v-0"IS c.�i�G1vv+ v► due karc+ Sh:�, Inv© ivec� -- C,�j N e�d S �tv �e �lez� �z�d --l-� site+ ress 4 OV L_L . ' DVS j..ola�c'S , ar4fh n'"�' a-f euev76 , f'ie/j �- ,m��1 y j,eshoos reg �y1Cl Ctl I'e S Cons; ), Ilf�PS i e • y � 1 7 i LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE/ . NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND WARNER COMMENT CARD - •3Y'ilr (PLEASE PRINT) ' Name: v o n ne- P. Address: ` I��� - 2 T�� ,� t + 2.1 ijVk'ki 4bn crcC CPt lU Date: l s Comments: r be(t�. - -tL4 4o5 - ,� dun �x F w;f! 1,z i-t,� f s fi._ ((' Wit! E /lei t ld't '� ry - f{L�f.Y t �11th TICr_.= 'L'l 1; fens+'&A. (9,ek,lwA +o ��a.? LZ�} LET ' ESA)• 1 .4}�iv Y.G�Cg•�L 4 't"��' -{'L,Z Ga11 ril.."1 L S-F l�.�r.�G� �0.%V•r ti E<tEti�JC ps�� rsy -i-rs.S C. �, C K Li-yT ct a e� r� �r;`� hGJri�r &V.4"e -baMo - _10rW'e (U•uC'81- ��+�¢ tg15 -�,-r qG,,,.Z Tl,, tJDiiC }CUiJ� S se.le,C ev4,&s4;.M— Please limit c mments to issuesiquestions related to FIR adequacy. �e've"l r a.M.. �I oT S•�V�s-iic S .dr :o• City of Huntington Beach 41.4 TtiMAL :w.. 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (Additional span on back) Attn: Jane James LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WARE, FUSE/ NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH AND :;= ::• .; .. COMMENT CARD �'�'�f15 20 , r " (PLEASE PRINT) ` ' Name: n1jAwitnt_ 7 PiAoi-i i wt2 Address: III(it I/'AmPt=iy r wbve 3 1L is ±w zl A,r+-tovw Picwctk CY3 -t-LA41 Date: A- &%%r- 03 Comments: W ,j cu Jw-a ht 1La W r4 kc-aka ttato I— i i,l -Olt"l c. ..;�✓1 Please limit comments to issuesiquestions related to EIR adequacy. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (Additional space on back) Attn: Jane James oC�A BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 5, 2003 Jf1I�r Tim Keenan Chairman Gregory7 winteroottom Ms. Jane James, Senior Planner Vice-chairman City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Arthur .Brown 2000 Main Street Director Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' Bill Campbell Director Subject: Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Cathryn De.Young Director Beach and Warner Project(EIR No. 00-01) Shirley McCracken Director Dear Ms. James: Chris Norby Director The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above Miguel A.Putido referenced document and has the following comments: Director James IV Silva The Draft Environmental Impact Report states that it is recommended that "B" Director Street be vacated from Wamer Avenue north to Robidoux Drive. However, the 4.1 CharlesV.Smith Director Site Plan (Figure II.C-3) shows two access driveways off of"B: street. If. In fact, the recommended alternative includes the vacation of "B" Street, the Mrchael Ward Dilector aforementioned access driveways should be deleted from the site plan and DenisR.Bilodeau consideration in the traffic study. Alternate Director Bev Perry OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Alternate Director Please contact me with any questions or concerns at 714-560-5749 or Thomas W.Wilson cwdght@octa.net. Attemate Director Cindy Own Sincerely, Governor's Ex-Oftio Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE LY4 Arthur".Leahy Christopher Wright Chief Executive Officer Associate Transportation Analyst Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/P.O.Box 14184/Orange/California 92863-1 584/(714)560-OCTA(6282) 8141 Blaylock Drive J, Huntington Beach CA 92647-6036 f I RECEPTED MAY 2 2 Luau.; _. May 20, 2003 I Jane James Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street P.O. BOX-190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ms. James: As a property owners,we are adamantly opposed to the building of the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse at the Warner and B Street location. Due to the increase of traffic conjestion, noise and air pollution and devaluation of the property values our quality of life will be lowered tremendously. 1< 5.1 Even your own impact study finds that the level of service at five of the intersections will be over capacity substantially since three of the five are already at that condition now. Our neighborhood will be difficult to both enter or leave.The proposed signal light between Rotterdam and B Street will stack up cars past B and probably impact A Street also increasing the inability to leave in a timely manner. Terry V.Wooldridge Gwen A.Wooldridge i May 14,2003 Jane James, Senior Planner, Judging from your public notice of May 1, regarding an EIR for Lowe's Home store,you sound as if you would appreciate comments from those of us who live near this project. Like most average residents I probably know very little about environmental issues, however I can state that I and my wife are 100% in favor of building this Lowe's store. In so far as loss of open space goes the old closed Rancho View school has 6.1 been an eye-sore for many years now and we'll be glad to see that gone. The Little League is already on notice that they eagerly want to play ball in the new sports complex south of the main library. Traffic on Warner Ave has been quite busy for years now and one more store or two won't make any noticeable difference. The neighbors that I know in our Dutch Haven tract are all glad to see the new Lowe's store plus a restaurant move within walking distance. Also, if they do put a traffic light at Warner and Rotterdam,it would be great for our tract making it easier, and safer,to turn left on Warner whenever we exit the neighborhood. Let's get all the paperwork done on this project and move ahead full steam. Sincerely Jon R Phillip s 8372 Edam Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 1 WTA CITY OF ]FOUNTAIN VALLEY 10200 SLATER AVENUE • FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708-4736• (714) 593-4400, FAX: (714) 593.4498 May 28, 2003 , 14.Y3 0 ZU - Mrs: Jane James City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street -_ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: LOWE'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .« Dear Mrs. James: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 00-01) for Lowe's Improvement Warehouse at the northeast comer of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The City of Fountain Valley has reviewed the document and has 7.1 the following comments: 1. Intersection analysis: • ICU calculations are flawed for the intersections of Wamer at Magnolia and Warner at Newland. The existing volumes are transposed..This affects the . existing LOS. See attached traffic counts. • Update tables 3 &9, as noted above. 7.2 „ • Update figure 4, as noted above. • Check Newland at Slater traffic counts, and ICU calculations. 2. The intersection of Warner at Magnolia is identified as a current and future unfounded "Hot Spot" in the STRATEGIC PLAN TECHNICAL REPORT for the ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS dated January 2002. Since existing trips are being added to an existing deficient intersection, 7.3 the percentage of traffic impact equation (P. 23 of Lowe's traffic report) requires modification and consideration of "Hot Spots". This modification also requires immediate construction. Mrs. Jane James —Lowe's EIR May 28, 2003 Page 2 3. The City of Fountain Valley will not contribute to any modifications required for the intersections of Magnolia and Warner, nor Warner at Newland. 7.4 4. Please be advised that a moratorium is in place for Magnolia from Warner to Slater within the City of Fountain Valley boundary. All of Fountain Valley's 7.5 requirements shall be met for any roadway modifications. 5. Page 7 of traffic study; Slater and Warner do not cross. I believe the intended ( 7.6 cross streets are Slater at Newland. I Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Please call me at (714) 593-4425 or Mark Lewis, City Engineer at 593-4435, regarding any questions you 7.7 may have in reference to the City of Fountain Valley's response to the Draft EIR. Sincerely, Andrew : e a Planning Uector AP:mg ^ransportatsor. Studies, ;nc. Foun;a2:; VaL'ey 172C E. tarry Avenue Study Nan-- 8490406E R:3 :).reat.o:. Macnol:a Street Suite 119 Site :ode 3000C92i H:M Warner Avertup Santa Ana. CA. 92705 star_ date 05%L4199 _sent :1L3, of POJ::Lblt. ,a._ey ?a9E 1 Ivzrsag Movements .Magnolia street warner Avenue Magnolia street Warner Avenue Soathbwx d Westbound :Northbound Eastbound S:1rt •:n�.v' Time Right Thru Left- Right Thru Left Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left Tota' Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 on 05/04/99 to 08:45 on 05/04/99 Time 07:IS 07.15 07:15 07:15 Vol. 166 965 374 38 708 69: 130 903 113, 70 1931 234 Pct: 1i.0 64.2 24.8: 4.6 86.8 8.4• 11.3 78., 9.8 3.1 86.3 10.4 Total iS05 815 1146 2235 High 07:4S 07:45 07:30 08:00 Vol. o? 283 99 20S iE 51 2'•5 28` 26 523 68 Tbtal 449 232 3S4 627 PIW 0.83v 3.082 0.809 0.905 Magnolia Street 166 963 374 1175 2689 Warner ftvenue 987 <— 95/94/99 38 9T:1 234 '�' e8.Vaasa � 708 3222 5761 2259 1931 "'� � 69 78 73, T 2435 Warner Avenue N 2259 y <1 T �1109 113 983 139 Magnolia Street .+�.rr•rva•.+ v...+v .a+...•r.r...• V.W V..\. ( MVG VL!VJ Transportation Studies, lac. City : IMINVON MACH 1120 R. Carry Aaeaue Study Nan 10018062 1/3 Direction : SPUR $1222T Suite Ili Site Code : 00000020 1/11 Direction : OIARDBR A411101 Santa In, CA. 92705 Start Date: 10/03/00 '!ieot : CITY OF"MUMS MCI Page i TOM19 NOMHHTS NRNLAND SMIT NARNHR A9HNOR NNNLAND slim NARNIR 1=1 Soutbbound katboand Nortbbouad lastbaanfl start !Intrvl. Wool 4 40 12 13 92 it i7 54 9 1 131 2 400 WIS1 14 97 25 13 134 16 22 111 15 2 171 4 617 1 06:38. 25, 241 35 20 217 23 20 128 25 11 323 5 971 20 7 48 21 313 31 19 lit 281 13 —472 is Moor 72 461 112 72 7S6 11 94 453 751 30 1102 27 1342 1 1 07:04 24 209 51 21 379 31, 12 245 15 24 919 -=?3 IsH 07:15 13 192 61 29 406 42 40 245 37 19 411 IS isle 07:30 6 152 63 24 329 19 30 174 21 1 412 11 1249 074S 14 117 sl 16 298 17 Is III it 12 Ili 21 1112 Bar, 51 710 237 97 1402 119 120 795 97 S3 1191 70 554] (1lRRA)<l --------------------- ......------•----•... .....................- ------ 11:30 6 13 34 21 221 27 ' 23 77 18 16 214 21 744 Hour 21 171 63 31 432 49 43 152 41, 23 470 19 Isis 1 12:00 27 76 21 29 2S4 49 17 l6 20 it 247 16 Iso MIS 12 70 22 21 212 29 24 74 22 i3 254 14 714 12:30 14 It 25 19 217 32 22 77 23 10 266 34 428 27 Noer 53 361 94 16 $74 136 11 304 14 51 1016 101 3193 13:00 9 63 17 i6 116 21 14 59 17 12 259 26 696 L 11:11 11 77 23 11 111 21 19 65 11 11 111 31 117 .• . -.• . -• - . Roar 20 140 48 34 182 48 31 124 35 23 519 57 1455 iHRHAI; ..................... ..................... ..................... ...... 14:00 17 125 32 14 295 46 27 13' 24 16 278 20, 1165 105 20 138 31 44 111 41 24 234 11 11 2S9 22 1151 16:31 22 111 36 41 286 it 31 154 22 21 261 13 1131 • '10a! • 1n S21' 132 169 717S 159: ' 219 112 'IS 71 ' 2011 '15 •4t96 i 17:00 34 151 10 41 34S 46 13 117 18 is 319 21 1270 17:15 14 175 30 52 373 61 39 111 11 13 264 19 1280 11:301 20 178 291 63 i4S 40 25 190 23 29 273 27 1250 T 21 lit is 2S 263 111- 1201 Boor 114 676 1111 119 1397 183 116 731 !0 302 IM 1011 soot ?raasportatisn Studied, Iat. City : S08TINGTON SSACB 1820 1. Garry Avenue Study Date: 30011062 1/9 Direction : NRIfM STRRST Suite 116 Site Code : 00001920 6/N Direction : UMk AVEDO$ Santa An, CA. 92705 Start Date: 10/03/06 "lient : CITY OF SONMIMN DUC1 page : 3 .. TWIN NOVRN MS III= STUIT DAMN 11M MMNLAND STRUT NARNB! ITEM Sontbbonad Neatbovad Nortbbonnd lastboaod Start iiatzvi. peak Naar Analysis SY btire Iatersectiaa for the Period: 16:00 as 10/03/00 to 07:4S oa 10/03/00 Tito 1 06:4S 06:45 16:45 06:45 Vol. I 68 730 211 107 1427 123 137 833 i09 54 1884 651 Pct. 4.6 71.7 21.5 6.4 16.1 7.1 12.6 77.1 10.1 2.6 94.0 3.21 Total 1017 i657 1079 2003 Bigb 07:04 07:15 07:IS 07:00 Vol. ' 20 219 SS 29 414 42 40 24S 37 14 519 23 Total 214 477 322 ? 356. .. PRP ; 0.895 0.46E 0.13? 0.910 726 2222 1699 E-- !86 '- 197 65 • E-- 14" $667 57SG 91g9? S4 —30. 2249 9 44 wm— tV 19" .. 987 4185 1a� ���► Sl4tl�T ... VJ.Lc•6uud '" -. 'a ........ v,Yi Li IV r►wG u.N u7 Traasportatim studies, Ue. City : RDMTIMGTOD DBICD 1820 B. Garry Aveaue Study Date: D0010062 D/S Direction : MUID STD86T Suite 116 Site Code : 00000920 11M Direction : Mom IBM Santa Ilea, Cl. 9270S Start Date: 10111/00 "lient : CITY Of WIXTON OUCR Page : 5 _ TOBDIDG M07BI46Di'S DBEm STBBBT VARM66 ITNE MUD STBBDT awl "MR soutbbouad Mestbmd �Dortbbouad Se6tbauad Start tatryl. l _ Peak lour Aaalysie 8y Bntire Intersection for the Period: 16:01 a 14/03/01 to 18:45 oa 10/03/00 'live � 17:00 17:00 17:01 17:00 Vol- 111 676 131 211 1397 183 lit 711 98 102 1139 I01 Pet. 21.4 74.2 14.3 12.1 77.E 10.1 14.2 76.3 9.4 7.6 84.8 7.5 :btal 911 1791 957 1343 High 17:30 17:15 17:01 17:08 vol. 11 171 29 52 173 60 43 117 it 15 319 24 Total 235 485 211 351 ply 0.169 0.127 0.964 1.937 676 141S1 1962 HARM womm, 1591 'E' 115• � 'L`' �19 2 101 � pM F• 129? 29aa 5=9 am - 1139 —3 � isa in T -3 1406 Deam�ls rrv>aHu N 1910 96i ?n MasteLFJgn gf deerlalHighways iTeyknicd Report Table 1 Curre`t System Deficiencies and-Locally-Identified "Hot Spots" Lanes Identified City Segment Jurisdiction Designation Lanes needed to 1989 ADT VIC. LOS Improvement Implementation Other Comments meet MPAII Project Constraint of-Spot Segments without Identified Improvement Projects Fountain B MPAH Current Current rookhurst Street from Garfield Avenue to . is Avenue Vac Major 6 _11 66,Q00 1.17 F airview R_uadlust north of 1.4U5 Costa Mesa moor G _-0 _ 53,000 0.94 L each Boulevard from Commonwealth Ave.to[At .96- Mirada Boulevard _ Buena Park Ma'or b_ 0 _ 54.63 000 1.12 E-F flcuch Boulevard from McFadden Avenue to Edinger venttc Weitminster Princi al 6 2 57-59,000 0.99. h ambers Avenue from State GolteSe Avcnuc to SR 57 Brea War �t _t1 _ SG,OitU 1.111 F Major(N of 91) each Boulevard from Orangethorpe Avenue to Principal(S o .92- 'rescentA%enuc Bu'naPark 91) h (1-2 52-58000 1.03 E-F Fountain Brookhurst Street from Talbert Avenue to 1405 _ _ Valley Major 6 �u 34.000 0.96 E .1 Toro Road from 1_5 to Rocktield Boulevard I.ake Forest Principal .6 2 _ 53,260 0.95 E partial/4-6 on Tustin Avenue from SR 91 to Miraloma Avenue___.._ Anaheim Major 4.6 (1-2 _ _ 53,000 0.95 1 _ southern portion - i 1.07- WS D on 6-In Hall Road from I.ewis Street to SR 57__ _ Anaheim Prima 4.6 __ 0 40.47,000 1.15 F irvine Boulevard cast of Newport Avcnuc , 'Tustin Major r 4 „ � _41$100 1.10 �F ,_-_ _ _ Anuhc at/Chun Brookhurst Street from Ball Road to Ccrrilos Avcnuc, `e Co. Major 4_ 2 36,300 0.97 I _ DO Obispo Street from Alipez Street to Camino Sdn Juan Capistrano _ t:ab istrano Second ,4 „1) 39 000 1.04 F Santa Ana Canyon Road from Fairmont B+wlcvard to Anaheim Hills Road I Andhcim Major 4 „2 38 000 1.01 1__ Y-aesthetics_- cw ft ravenue from 1-5 to Camino Rcal Tuslin Prima _4_ 0 35,200 0.94 E I Fountain + Valley/ j Huntington 1.32- aanolia Stract from Warner Avenue to Had Airnuc „_Qeach I Primary 4 _0 33.36,0W 1.43 F Bruadwa from I-$to Main lace Dr S its Ana Se6ond 4 1) 27.800 1 1.11 1 F Meyer.Mohaddes Associates.Inc, 11 Jun 20 03 03: 59P 3 P- James, Jane From: Krone, Shawna Sent: Wednesday, June 11,2003 3:42 PM To: James,Jane Subject: EIR for Lowe's Hi Jane, Sony about the delay, but I have a couple of changes on the Lowe's EIR. 8.1 Page 197 Paragraph 3 We have a sworn allocation of 234,not 236. Page 197, same paragraph. I The current information indicates that the response time for priority 1 calls are actually 7.4 minutes 8.2 If you have any questions, call me at X 5425 I 8.3 1 Jun 20 03 03: 59P P 4 9 Ocean Vi ew School District 17200 Pinehurst Lane District Superintendent Board of Trustees Huntington Beach James R.Tarwater,Ed.D. Barbara Boskovich,President California 92647-5569 Sharon Holland,Clerk 714/847-2551 Carolee Focht, Member o Fax: 714/847-1430 Pam Ogdon,Member "Equity and Web: www.ovsd.org Tracy Pellman, Member Excellence" ��.tt� R 's. June 13, 2003 J N 13 003 Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Hand Delivery Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: Draft EIR for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Dear Ms.James: The Ocean View School District has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report No: 00-01, Lowe's Horne Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Comer of Beach and Warner Project. As the owner 9.1 of the property, the School District is supportive of the Project. The School District offers the following comments and concerns for the City's consideration based on a mutual goal of minimizing environmental impacts to residents in the community: I. Page 6 - Table I-1, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure HZ-1 states that prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the groundwater production well and associated storage tank located at the northwest corner of Area A shall be abandoned pursuant to permit requirements, unless they are intended for future use. This information is repeated on page 120 of the report under HZ-1. 9.2 The School District contracted with General Pump Company for the proper abandonment of the well in August 2002. Our permit number 2-08-47 and the Well Completion Report Number 731240 have been filed with the Orange County Environmental Health Agency and California Department of Water Resources. The water storage tank has also been removed from the premises. Mitigation Measure HZ- 1 is thus unnecessary. 2. Page 12 - Table I-1. Recreation, Miti>ation Measure R-I states that prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the goal of OVSD should be to insure that all six Ocean View Little League fields within the former Rancho View School site are relocated at one site or in a manner that practically accommodates Ocean View Little League's programs without undue hardship. Page 211, Item 2, last paragraph states that the OVSD and the City of Huntington Beach have entered 9.31 into an Agreement to relocate the Ocean View Little League fields to Park View, a closed OVSD school site, and to the adjacent Murdy Park. This Agreement will provide for the relocation of the six , Ocean View Little League practice fields as well as accommodations for soccer and other sports. Page 215,Item 7 restates the above information concerning the Agreement and the Mitigation Measure R-1. J. Jun 20 03 03: 5916 P. 5 RE: Draft EIR for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Page 2 Mitigation Measure R 1 accurately reflects the language of the executed agreement entitled Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements Upon Certain Portions of City and District Property dated September 5,2000,as attached. It is my understanding that consideration is being given to modifying Mitigation Measure R-1. In summary,the School District is opposed to any proposed change in Mitigation Measure R-1 that would affect the timeline for relocating the Little League fields from the City issuance of the building permit for Lowe's construction to some other earlier target date. The School District would consider such a change in the timeline to be not in compliance with the negotiated agreement. Therefore, an 9.3 amendment to the Agreement would need to be mutually agreed to by the parties, and approved by the cont'd City Council and our Board of Trustees. The School District is working diligently to relocate the ball fields to Park View School/Murdy Park per the terms of the Agreement approved by the City Council and our Board of Trustees. Nuvis Landscape Architects and Planning estimated the cost of the relocation of the ball fields and site 1 amenities at$444,805 in 1998. An income stream provided by the Lowe's ground lease agreement is required to offset the relocation expenses, as well as, financial participation by the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View Little League in the relocation. It is the School District's intent to have the Little League fields relocated by the time the building permits are needed by Lowe's in accordance with the Agreement between the City and the School District and as correctly stated in Mitigation Measure R-1 of the Draft EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions regarding the School District's comments,please contact me at(714)847-2551 ext. 1309. Sincerely, �� - ames R. Tarwater, Ed.D. District Superintendent 7RT:sc Attachment c: Board of Trustees Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Jun 20 03 04: OOp p. 6 , AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS AND JOINT USE OF IMPROVEMENTS UPON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF CITY AND DISTRICT PROPERTY This Agreement is made and entered into this 5ch day of September ,2000,by and between, the CITY OF JRJNTINGTON BEACH,a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "CITY'), and the OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL.DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as"DISTRICT"). RECITALS WHEREAS,DISTRICT is a public school district operating within CITY,whose office is located at 17200 Pinehurst Lanc,Huntington Beach,California; WHEREAS,Education Code Section 10900,et seq. authorizes CITY and DISTRICT to organize,promote and conduct programs of community recreation as will contribute to the attainment of general educational and recreational objectives for children and adults in California and authorizes CITY and DISTRICT to contract with one another to establish, construct, improve,operate and maintain recreational facilities and programs; WHEREAS,the mitigation measures of EIR No.97-1 for the development of the Crest View School,located at 18052 Lisa Lane,Huntington Beach(hereinafter referred to as"CREST VIEW"), and Rancho View School,located at"B"Street and Warner Avenue,Huntington Beach (hereinafter referred to as "RANCHO VIEW'), sites*require DISTRICT and CITY to develop a phased,long-tern agreement to mitigate the loss of recreational facilities at both these school sites,which are anticipated to be developed with commercial uses,and require the following to be incorporated into an agreement: 1 g./jrnf/2000 AgreementslOVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/I9100 Jun 20 03 04: 00p p. 7 Phase I —Upon development of the CREST VIEW site,the facilities at Lake View School, located at 17451 Zeider Lane,Huntington Beach (hereinafter referred to as"LAKE VIEW")must be improved to accommodate the youth soccer and youth softball activities previously accommodated at CREST VIEW. This will require the relocation of two softball backstops and the installation of one soccer field at LAKE VIEW. This requirement has already been completed Phase II Upon development of the RANCHO VIEW site,the Ocean View Little League fields at RANCHO VIEW must be relocated to Park View Elementary School, located at 16666 Tunstall Lane,Huntington Beach(hereinafter referred to as"PARK VIEW'), and Murdy Park, located at 7000 Norma Drive,Huntington Beach(hereinafter referred to as"MURDY PARK"); WHEREAS, CITY's Council approved the concept design of the proposed improvements at the PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK sites contemplated by this Agreement,which are set forth in Exhibit"A",which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by this rcference, and authorized the Community Services Department of CITY to cooperate with DISTRICT in the construction and installation of the improvements at PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK,- WHEREAS,DISTRICT's Board of Trustees approved the concept design of the proposed improvements at the PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK sites(Exhibit"A")with the understanding that CITY and DISTRICT would develop an agreement for the purpose of implementing and jointly using these improvements; and CITY and DISTRICT now desire to enter into an agreement for the planning, construction, installation,operation, maintenance and use of the improvements at the PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK sites for community recreational purposes. 2 g:limV2000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7119/00 Jun 20 03 04: 00p P. NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed by and between CITY and DISTRICT as follows: I. IMPROVEMENTS. As set forth below,CITY and DISTRICT shall plan, i construct, install, operate and maintain all improvements agreed upon at PARK VIEW and NIURDY PARK. DISTRICT and/or CITY may accomplish their responsibilities by entering into separate agreements with youth sports groups,such as Ocean View Little League,to pay for I such improvements. �= (a) DISTRICT shall plan, construct, install,operate and maintain all improvements at PARK VIEW necessary to accomplish the relocation of the Ocean View Little League fields to PARK VIEW(hereinafter referred to as the"PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS"). The PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS also shall accommodate soccer and other sports so that the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS are multipurpose. DISTRICT agrees to complete the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS prior to CITY issuance of building permits at RANCHO VIEW. DISTRICT understands and agrees that it is obligated to complete the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS even if DISTRICT is unable to come to terms with a youth =* sports group, such as Ocean View Little League,to pay for or construct all or a portion of the PARK.VIEW IMPROVEMENTS. If DISTRICT enters into separate agreements with youth sports groups to construct and/or install the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS,DISTRICT shall insure that the youth sports groups comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,rules and regulations governing the construction and/or installation of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS. (b) CITY shall plan, construct,install,operate and maintain all improvements at MURDY PARK necessary to accomplish the relocation of the Ocean View Little League • fields to PARK VIEW and to accomplish making MURDY PARK's-fields multipurpose 3 g:/jrnf/2000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 I rAe Jun 20 03 04:0Op r P- 9 (hereinafter referred to as the"MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS"). CITY agrees to complete the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS prior to CITY issuance of building permits at RANCHO VIEW. (c) Because the fields at PARK VIEW and the fields at MURDY PARK overlap and work in conjunction with each other, CITY and DISTRICT shall be jointly responsible for the planning,construction and installation of any improvements,which overlap the boundaries of PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK. CITY and DISTRICT agree to use their best efforts to mutually agree in writing to an allocation of each party's respective responsibility for this overlap area. Notwithstanding the foregoing,CITY and DISTRICT understand and agree that this joint responsibility does not apply to each parry's maintenance obligations. 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. (a) DISTRICT agrees to be responsible for reviewing and approving all plans, specifications, engineering drawings, and cost estimates,competitively bidding the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS, and awarding and administering the contract associated with the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS. DISTRICT will be responsible for obtaining approvals from the Division of the State Architect,if necessary. The costs of preparation of plans,specifications and engineering drawings, and any fees,will be the responsibility of DISTRICT. DISTRICT agrees that CITY reserves the right to review all plans,specifications and engineering drawings for the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS prior to construction and installation. (b) CITY agrees to be responsible for reviewing and approving all plans, specifications, engineering drawings,and cost estimates,competitively bidding the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS,and awarding and administering the contract associated with the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS. CITY will be responsible for obtaining approvals from the 4 g1jmfl2000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 Jun 20 03 04: 01p p. 10 J Division of the State Architect,if necessary. The costs of preparation of plans,specifications and engineering drawings, and any fees,will be the responsibility of CITY. CITY agrees that DISTRICT reserves the right to review all plans,specifications and engineering drawings for the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS prior to construction and installation. (c) DISTRICT and CITY shall appoint a representative to act as liaison to the other for completion of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS and MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS to the satisfaction of both parties. 3. USE OF IMPROVEMENTS_ DISTRICT will own the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS. CITY will own the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS. DISTRICT at7ees to allow youth sports groups to use the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS after-school,on evenings and on weekends or as otherwise mutually agreed to in writing,(1)provided that such use is in accordance with established DISTRICT rules and regulations and that it shall be scheduled so as not to interfere with PARK VIEW's scheduled activities or interfere with the remaining portions of PARK VIEW's premises for school and related purposes, and (2)provided that Ocean View Little League is fully relocated from the RANCHO VIEW site. Prior to the construction/installation of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS,CITY and DISTRICT agree to establish a baseline schedule for use of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS and MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS by youth sports groups. In June of each year,CITY and DISTRICT shall mutually agree to a written schedule of public use of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS and MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS for the following school year beginning in September. I 4. MAINTENANCE. (a) DISTRICT agrees to provide at no cost to CITY the sa-me level of 5 gJjmV2000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 Jun 20 03 04: 01p p. 11 maintenance for the upkeep of tyre PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS as was provided to the PARK.VIEW site prior to the construction of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS. If DISTRICT enters into separate agreements with youth sports groups to maintain the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS,DISTRICT shall (I)supervise all such maintenance and(2)in that the youth sports groups comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,rules and regulations governing the maintenance of these improvements. (b) CITY agrees to provide at no cost to DISTRICT the same level of maintenance for the upkeep of the A4URDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS as was provided to the MURKY PARK site prior to the construction of the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS. If CITY enters into separate agreements with youth sports groups to maintain the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS,CITY shall (1) supervise all such maintenance and(2)insure that the youth sports groups comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,rules and regulations governing the maintenance of these improvements. 5. AGREEMENT CONSTRAINTS. Both parties understand and agree that this Agreement and all terms and conditions contained herein,including each party's obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement,are contingent upon CITY and DISTRICT,respectively, securing the necessary funding for completion of all the PARK VIEW RvIPROVEMENTS and the MURKY PARK IMPROVEMENTS. If the parties only secure partial funding for completion of all the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS and/or the MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS,the parties shall mutually agree in writing to a lesser scope of work on the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS and/or the MURKY PARK IMPROVEMENTS,which will satisfy the mitigation measures in EIR No. 97-1. 6 g1jmV20o0 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 Jun 20 03 04: 0ip 6. TERM. DISTRICT will allow public use of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS by CITY and youth sports groups,as set forth in the Agreement,concurrent with and as long as either or both the RANCHO VIEW and CREST VIEW sites are used for eOmmercial purposes. The parties understand and agree that CITY is subject to the debt limitation restrictions set forth in Article XVI,Section 18 of the California Constitution. CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with ninety(90) days prior written notice,if CITY determines that its indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeds in any year the income and revenue provided for such year. If CITY terminates this Agreement,DISTRICT shall have no responsibility for MURDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS or their maintenance. if DISTRICT determines that public usage of the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS substantially interferes with PARK VIEW's use as a school,both parties agree to use their best efforts to attempt to reconfigure the fields on both PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK to eliminate the interference with PARK VIEW's use as a school while maintaining the same number of fields on both the PARK VIEW and MURDY PARK sites. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs. If a mutually agreeable reconfiguration is not accomplished or if DISTRICT sells the PARK VIEW site,DISTRICT shall have the ability to move,at DISTRICT's sole cost and expense, the PARK VIEW IMPROVEMENTS to mutually agreed alternate site(s),as long as the alternate site(s)contain the same number of fields as the PARK VIEW site. 7. CITY'S OBLIGATION OF INDEMNIFICATION. Neither DISTRICT nor its �r Board of Trustees or any official,officer or employee of DISTRICT shall be responsible for any personal injury or property damage or liability occurring by reason of any negligent act(s), negligent ornission(s)or intentional act(s)on the part of CITY,its officers,employees or agents in connection with this Agreement. Additionally,CITY shall fully indemnify,defend and hold 7 gljmV2000 Agreernents/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 Jun 20 03 04: 02p p. 13 I)ISTRICT,'its Board of Trustees,officials,officers and employees harmless from and against any liability imposed as a result of any negligent act(s),negligent omission(s)or intentional act(s)on the part of CITY,its officers, employees or agents in connection with this Agreement_ CITY will conduct this defense at its sole cost and expense. CITY shall reimburse DISTRICT for all costs or attorney's fees incurred by DISTRICT in enforcing this obligation. 8. DISTRICT'S OBLIGATION OF INDEMNIFICATION. -Neither CITY nor any official, officer or employee of CITY shall be responsible for any personal injury or property damage or liability occurring by reason of any negligent act(s),negligent omissions) or intentional act(s)on the part of DISTRICT,its officers,employees or agents in connection with this Agreement. Additionally,DISTRICT shall fully indemnify,defend and hold CITY,its officials,officers and employees harmless from and against any liability imposed as a result of any negligent act(s),negligent omission(s)or intentional act(s)on the part of DISTRICT,its officers, employees or agents in connection with this Agreement. DISTRICT will conduct this defense at its sole cost and expense. DISTRICT shall reimburse CITY for all costs or attorney's fees incurred by CITY in enforcing this obligation_ 9. CITY'S INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS. CITY shall maintain general liability insurance,which maybe through a program of self-insurance,with a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars($I,000,000)per occurrence for the entire term of this Agreement and any extensions thereof. Such insurance shall name the DISTRICT,its Board of Trustees,officers, employees and agents as additional insureds; shall be primary with respect to insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by DISTRICT;and shall contain standard separation of insured's provisions. 8 g:/jmf/2000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 Jun 20 03 04: 02p p. 14 CITY shall furnish properly executed certificates of insurance or self-insurance to DISTRICT within thirty(30)days of entering into this Agreement,which certificates shall clearly evidence all coverages required above and provide that such insurance shall not be materially changed,terminated or allowed to expire except on thirty(30) days prior written notice to DISTRICT. 10. DISTRICT'S INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS. DISTRICT shall maintain general liability insurance,which may be through a program of self insurance,with combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000)per occurrence for the entire term of this Agreement and any extensions thereof_ Such insurance shall name CITY,its officers, employees , and agents as additional insureds;shall be primary with respect to insurance or self-insurance ` l.. programs maintained by CITY; and shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions. DISTRICT shall famish properly executed certificates of insurance or self insurance to CPTY within thirty(30)days of entering into this Agreement,which certificates shall clearly evidence all coverages required above and provide that such insurance shall not be materially changed, terminated or allowed to expire except on thirty(30)days prior written notice to CITY. 11. NOTICES. All notices given hereunder shall be effective when personally delivered or be sent via certified mail,return receipt requested,postage prepaid, and addressed to DISTRICT or to CITY at the respective addresses shown below: TO CITY: TO DISTRICT: Director of Cornmtmity Services Ocean View School District City of Huntington Beach 17200 Pinehurst Lane 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Asst. Superintendent,Business 12. PARTIAL INVALIDITY. If any term or provision of this Agreement or any extension or application thereof to any party by circumstances shall,to any extent,be invalid or 9 I g:(jmfl200o Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19!00 I, Jun 20 03 04: 02p p. 15 unenforceable,the remainder of this Agreement or any extension shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 13. WAIVER. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non- defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. The CITY's consent or approval of any action by DISTRICT requiring the CITY's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the CITY's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of DISIRWL The DISTRICT's consent or approval of any action by ' CITY requiring the DISTRICT's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the DISTRICT's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of CITY. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement_ 14. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties to this Agreement. is. HEADINGS. headings of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties and are not part of this Agreement_ They are intended for reference only, and no legal significance of any kind shall be attached to such headings. 16. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and shall be interpreted as if prepared by both parties hereto. 17. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof,each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. 18. ENTIRETY. The foregoing, and Exhibit"A"attached hereto,set forth the entire Agreement between the parties respecting the subject matter herein. No prior oral or written 10 g1jmf12000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 Jun 20 03 04: 02p p. 16 understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered by this Agreement. This Agreement may not be modified,altered or amended,except in a writing executed by the parties_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day,month and year first above written. OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,a municipal corporation of the State of California fly: /ern President,Board of Trustees Mayor BY: Superintendent ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk g_ chool's L aI Servic Claire Y.Morey,Cou seI APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 8 LL•cam 2210:�b U TTIA ROVED: r Director o ommunity Services REVIEWED AND APPROVED- 5 City Administrator ll g:/jmf/2000 Agreements/OVSD—Crest View and Rancho View 7/19/00 r yv1 —H`.W CONCRETE WALK r0 f:XltiTln'G PARKING LOT HEIACA I'CD(3ASKETDALL COUNTS- 4 �TOTAL GP F'GUR(b) C � i••;•r.;:r i4. !•1/ 17 C11R0 PARKinI(,SPACES nIUNC PAR,, SIDE OF NORMA DRIVE i ALCNG SC`IOOL 314E OF NI:W VANKINti LQr WI I IN, TlJNSTALL LANE SrFI:ET SPACES SPACE5 r0 CONNECT T4 O EXISTING?ARKINO LOT W ,• ' r.• �T':•�•••h"'k� �' EXISTING PAAKtNG ON WE57 SIOC OF T •i(. B �HRS API b�QRFI( ENNN COUNT 52 1,� j nrN:, rR��•.. .... .'3 i �,'.�.' �•i• fN•ISITE PARKING i II i ;i'np 4 M 4N6 O '. . OQM OENOtTI S TY�f� A CH r', LOCATION t>t oHGn)t zIS1:NG TENNIS CILut+. nlnrn -r1 ru p I DIN 'I ,: 7 '.m;?.i''='"';;' ,•1•u,CONY(!ZT TO PMKINf WI I H It NF W SPA(.1:. -' '.II;I 1 I to I vn III } r IIIN,I AI I ANI 1', IXI::IIN4WAIA'`INI III 611•tI:MIII ' : �.' ^Ii , t•~ _ ••� r..' ......_.... Ia 11r,rru t IAn'JIWn' fl R RI 1'1 At'1 it WI II I Nl W I N IIrY WAI. I:XIGIINI;!,UFIUNI fP,•I b$ArA1I• " ;; 5.; ,� ':;r ra DENOTESNEW RATtIN(.CAGt',IGIAI al• f IL RAIN WI Ili iq I A(III:NS R ORICK .L 1'• yt, ` C,.^'k'' 'TWO(2)ON SCH001.DIS'Iglc,,7 P18WENrx •� IILISI INPIN II'; r�•I % '�E• • I'At 11 It III1111'lt I:A1A•Mf I+I '• .. p;' .:i• .rf�1. SC11001913TbCf InCNIIY r, r ?:u; % "' .`•EXISTING PARKING ON NGpTII:i Ir1F(If- -•`.� I w.;r Im, TENNIS CMRI.10 ON:;fr Ali f f KIN r,51'A(.I:g u n . �J. .�:.y'' •.; vt`f. '•E 1 !01' .i '•'7` A1: I7l111 lk1AJ+.,)„M'.lU 7140, ElL,1$gICHEO •'LIGHT PPOrL�E��IryNMINOR ,I:. t�•� ,.�", .,,�:•• u.• """rrriil 1 I.1II::I IN,.I n•,r.It• :4'FLELO SH L BE.• .rIWp(2 P 14L•I;IItIX)M llnll., rnl; w I;•.�u••.I r tOPTBAI l iIEED,;'. OCATED WITH ? hT TK)0tt7 I 'AT10NS fk�.rtllI. I f nr(nrvrilnl I �i. IGHT FIXT�kUfHpI;S .1 f:S(ISru 0 ASw IALTIC CONCI+E Th.;'; I N-w nn•I 1 :r l b ROR TWQt2) ? t �` OASKETOALL COUNT SHAI.I.RLMAIN ' ` +;'r'.• fGHTING '^ ,� •tk;+? � a;;ii' iE t '.AI•.C••�, , ?- •NEWS4TTNG .._ LXISIIre;tAHKING GI r PA '•IN r fd,;If I N :. 7, LD G• 21NJSItI•PAM(ING � Cra(GKI tI.1•u•', - .�, .: ,iiH •• OF rE IN IT ;,. :•`�. GD 6 TOALL FIELD Ge A f1EI:Q ,SPACES I Dale .�', is.... L,'•a F I❑"'s r FY'W Ui7t.l•LCAGUP C.fINCLSS1gJ f':� �'FpLO.-T%r,'�: � n;l.n'.n;a, r,i ern�n SWLDIWG APPROXIMATELY Leo S.F., , �/p�g�{ o L - I nI .,,In of FI;u DEN ;ff 7HATaS114(,CNEMAIN 1 X1 T DGEOF ASPIInLrIC i �\ I q1f EMT LOCA71t)r15 MAJOR RIELO -4 ( •.{ 9• 16.LQT; At I,u u,N 1 I I / a OPEN SPACE F JS, •r7{ ,•- I r,g '1.�• ,cy ',. Y y(•:'7UPF PLAY AREA z: � 4 r e OkHIV E : IT t`f' '• ;',' r r�•��7 \. !•/ ,Gy f. :fr.� ''�.';•`la,l• ';.Y.�.pff'^_.^�'r!'.''>; '(;•7..I` t i 1:,, ./�. :•�fl:• •.1;/�,§!. :lt�(+'r .�'� .d �s'!�4i'.fr�'�'i.la;;.?, :. I If-BALL FIELD 17P.1 U9b'A Volt Pt mil MAttH•AI AILIN FNI It)I I NCT 1 _ :\''•�I{ky(,Irlb Rllll'ryl I•,AId'I I. DLAP•IAG11 VIANNEL / f I•XI1i1IN(, Mid 141XINI)ING IJIN I III 14I t,R1JK(1 TU I 1YPIC Al.UAC,KST01' �l ']'lflol'.A4'7fVILK;'; TYI•II:A'IJRICXDU31WITHTURF ti..._. rNO(ESP14ACTICL.SI'0141 1Gtl;SI•RAILI 111'X s.ul'',I)r(,l tiff IJO'IHAI L I'lll U WITH Irl 110 A1Ht bNfAtlti I ujif" /� �II•FII:LD OUTSI IE OF A�flvl IY AREAS NOTED TYPICAL OALLFIELO PENNANCN CIVY SHALL.Bit wEipoNSl01 F.rcR THI�SF PR'I ACrwt 9'QNIS 4!Glrr`;I1 THNN LrICA7ION ckC;I1No PI•UI';IItV,N A(t.LtIS-••• •••••_ .. .._.... /, FENCING Fr1 W!il,sd 11 h 61t()LNU(.0vr.N NM111 0-Iga)Ii:;IHiAN 4CCd:SS••_.-......- ,�„ »,-�,•_ rou• NOIk3 -' ,F,'X]SruyG I'ULC 8 u1:11 M,At rll U11 uL OI Y PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN I„Xk�climmY?AttA ALttv44Lll,Itt.n,4'A"An11 t0 ACtru+09nIE.U'. AAurRt.91 n',tA MU RDY PARK, W9N A MWI) G YN/Jry++.11lifi;ANIII I II 1N Iltt tun+It.tON rxrms rnl b+d qrw a I EXHIBIT "A" 1r•:LOf'SCALE PARKVIEW SCHOOL ,.►, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 0 40' 8G' t79 790 CC) Jun 20 03 04 03p o -- p 17 .. I I I ff F � .Lz 3 Jun 20 03 04: 04p p. 19 t EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE t Ocean 'View School District MEMORANDUM NUMBER: 73 . This Evidence of Coverage is used as a matter of infurmation only and confers no rights upon the Certificate Holder. This Evidence of Coverage does not amend,extend,or alter the coverage afforded by the memoranda listed below. CERTIFICATE HOLDER INFORMATION: City of Huntington Beach Attn: Cheryl Robinson 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' Coverage Period:eri Effective: 7.1- 0 Expires 12:01�ami �1-701 od: e 0 p This is to certify that the Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs(ASCIP)Memorandum of Coverages on insurance listed below have been issued to the Covered Patty named above for the period indicated. Notwithstanding any requirement,term,or condition of any contract or other&xument with respect to which this Evidence of Coverage may be used or may pertain,the coverages afforded by the Memorandum of Coverages described herein are subject to all the terms,exclusions,and conditions of such Memorandum of Coverages. TYPE OF COVERAGE LIMIT OF LIA.BILITY/COVERAGE General Liability $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Per Occurrence Should any of the above coverages for the Covered Parry be changed or withdrawn prior to the expiration date issued above,ASCIP will mail 30 days written notice to the Certificate Holder,but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon ASCIP,its agents,or representatives. If you have any questions,contact. Ms.Paula Chu Tanguay,Chief Administrative Officer ASCIP - 12750 Center Court Drive - Suite 220 - Cerritos,CA 90703 (562)403-4640 Ob. Authorized Representative: - Date Issued: 8-17-00 •ASCIP is a joint powers authority pursuant to Article 1(eormrtencing with Section 6500)of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code and Sections 39603 and 81603 of the Education Code. Rev 5-97 73-00101-07C t - / ` Iliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs IZ750 Center Court Drive,Suite 220,Cerritos,CA 90703(562)403-4640 t t Jun 20 03 04: 05p p_ 20 Additional Covered Party Endorsement F . District: Ocean View School District Endorsement No. 73-00lO1-07A Additional Covered Party: DescHP`tivn of Opeirati"k!*vehicle;or-Piroperty: City of Huntington Beach,its officers,employees,and As respects Agreement between the City and District for Joint agents Development of Improvements&Joint Use of Improvements upon certain portions of City and District Property Covera e°Period: Et 'ective:...7= -00 Ex'ies.12:0 ;`a:i�iN -' =1-01 g. P_ The coverage provided to the Covered Party is hereby extended by this endorsement to the Additional Covered Party named above in accordance with the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Coverage(MOC). The coverage extended hereby applies only with respect to liability arising out of activities in the Description of Operations, Vehicle,or Property noted above. It is intended by ASCIP in issuing this endorsement to defend and/or indemnify the Additional Covered Party only if the District is solely negligent. issuing this endorsement,ASCIP intends and agrees to extend coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of the MOC to the Additional Covered Party named above only to the extent that the Additional Covered Party faces liability arising out of claims, demands,or lawsuits claiming money damages on account of bodily injury or property damage as defined and limited in the ASCIP MOC. The limits of liability extended to the Additional Covered Party listed above is$1,000,000 per occurrence for liability. Authorized Representative: Date Issued: 8-17-00 ASCIP is a joint powers authority pursuant to Article 1(commencing with Section 6500)of Chapter 5 or Division 7 of Title I of the Goverument Code and Sections 39603 and 81603 of the Education Code. �- Rey 5197 A lliance of Schools for Cooperative insurance Programs � ' I2750 Center Court Drive,Suite 220,Cerritos,CA 90703(562)403-4640 r` Jun 20 03 04: 05p p. 21 oe•la•©3 c1 0 - County of Orange N`` 300N. FLOWER SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA �,� Planning & Development Services Department MAILING AD 9f IFOF 4048 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4046 NCL 03-055 June 16,2003 Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 SUBJECT: DEIR for Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Project Dear Ms. James: The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the City of Huntington Beach. The project is located at 8181 Warner Avenue(northeast comer of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue) and the project proposes the redevelopment and intensification 10.1 ' of 25.6-acres with commercial/retail,office, and restaurant uses and associated surface parking and landscaped areas. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR and offers the following comments.- FLOOD 1. The proposed project is the development of a commercial retail center at a former elementary school site. The change in land use is expected to result in increased runoff 10.2 and has the potential to adversely impact the Ocean View Channel(C06)that borders the project site to the north. Since the City of Huntington Beach is responsible for land use changes,the City should ensure that existing conditions along Ocean View Channel and areas adjacent to or within floodplains upstream and downstream of the project site are not made worse as a result of proposed project. 2. The Ocean View Channel was built in the 1960s and does not meet the Orange County Flood Control District's(OCFCD)current design criteria. In spite of the fact that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's(FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area indicates that the 100-year flood(based on existing land uses)is contained in the 10.3 existing channel,OCFCD's approved 100-year design discharges (based on ultimate land uses) are usually higher than the discharges used by FEMA for floodplain purposes. Due to this fact and the age of the facility,the City should,as condition of development, require the project proponent to protect the proposed development by ensuring that the development is indeed safe from flooding resulting from Ocean View Channel in a 100- 1 Jun 20 03 04: 06p p. 221 1 year storm event. If channel improvements are to be accomplished as part of this process 10.3 it should be done in consultation with the County's Flood Control Division. cont'd 3. A cursory review of the hydrology/hydraulic analyses for the proposed project showed that the analyses were inconsistent with the current criteria of the Orange County Hydrology Manual(OCHM),Addendum No. 1 to OCHM and the Orange County Local . Drainage Manual. The City will need to review the analyses and ascertain whether the 10.4 proposed mitigation measures are adequate to provide flood protection for the development, existing channel hydraulic conditions are not made worse and that any existing flooding problems upstream and downstream of the project site are not l transferred elsewhere or made worse. 4. The project proposes to connect storm drain systems "A'and`B"to Ocean View j Channel. Because of the deficiencies with Ocean View Channel(see 2 above)it will be necessary for project proponent to demonstrate that Ocean View hydraulics is not made 10.5 worse and that impacts if adverse are being mitigated appropriately. All work within the OCFCD right-of-way requires permit from the County's Public Property Permits Section. For information regarding permit application,contact Doug Witherspoon at(714)834- 2366. 5. Floodplains that could be affected by the proposed project should be analyzed and Letters 10.6 of Map Revision(LOMR)processed via Federal Emergency Management Agency. WATER QUALITY 6. The proposed project is considered a priority project pursuant to Section 7 of the 10.7 Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP). As such,appropriately sized treatment control Best Management Practices(BMPs)are required to be included in the WQMP consistent with the 2003 DAMP New Development Appendix. The treatment control BMPs must be sized appropriately based on storm volume or flow from the F proposed development. Guidance on treatment control BMPs can be found in Section 7 of the DAMP and exhibit 7-111. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEM If you have any questions,please contact I 10.8 Charlotte Hanryman at (714) 834-2522. Sincerely, imo y e y, ger Environmental P g Services Division Y' ch r- 2 Jun 20 03 04: 06p p- 24 eS.� 7J�C .CALIFC -�SK�F .�TR w�0[1RTATtON Au-L,�,1 son.A6Eld(Cy [�IYOAVL4 Cianmia DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' District 12 ___... 33'37 Michelson Drive,Suite 3t30 Irvine,CA 92612-0894 x lu: U,,.t�. (,s` .\L,�•L ' , i ;-2 Past-ir Fax Note 7671 ate PA ► R=Yo Bt ee+re rDc+snU -CO. 1l r i AM fax 0 r Junel6,2003 ,cane.tames File: IGRfCEGA City of Huntington Beach SCt-W. 2000071085 2000 Main Street Log#: 772A 7Z Huntington Basch, CA 92848 SR: 1-4051, SR-39 Subject: Lowe's Hom Improvarnent Warrehouse Dear Ms.James. rThank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact (EIR) Report for Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse dated May 2003. ' The proposed project consists of the redevelopment and intensification of a 2506-acre site consisting of three areas (A, 01 and B2). The applicant proposes to develop an approximate 159,3= square foot Lowe's Warehouse and an approximate 9,000 square foot restaurant on the former Rancho View School Site (Area A). No 11.1 development is proposed on Area Bl at this time, however the EIR analyzes the development of this 6.3-acre site to a mmmerciallrelad, office, and restaurant use. A zoning map amendment is requested on the former school bus maintenance facility (Area B2) but no development is proposed at this time. The project is located on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner in the city of Huntington 9each. The nearest state routes to the project site are 1-405 and SR-39. Caltrans District 12 status to a responsible agency on tMs project and has the following comments: 1. Existing Traffic Volumes: The existing traffic volumes used for the analysis are out dated by three years. In order to correctly determine current as well as future 11.2 LOS', the volumes need to be updated. Please update the traffic analysis accordingly. 2. Pagel, Second Paragraph: Indicated Opening Day is year 2002. Opening Day 11.3 should be re-scheduled and the analysis should be updated accordingly. 3. Page 2, Second Paragraph: A signal is proposed at the main entrance on the Warner Avenue, but tfle traffic signal warrant analysis for this location is not included in the teport. Our concern is the intersection spacing between this 11.4 location and BeachlWamer. Please refer to warrant 055 of the signal warrants ' analysis in Caltrans Traffic Manual. 4. Page 15, Third Paragraph: The analysis uses trip generatiurl estknales retrieved from SARA traffic model. Caltrans recommends ITE trip generation analysis. 11.5 1 -raltmnt imprrwnar nnhifi v acrom Cellfontlo" 1 r r Jun 2U U3 04: 07p p. 25 Date. June 16,2003 Page 2of2 F- Page 26. Table 9: The table indicates that, for the tong range, the intersection of 11.5 BeachMarner will be degraded to i.051F with Area B1, due to the project traffic. cont'd Additional traffic mitigation is required. I I 5. The traffic analysis addressed traffic impacts and mitigation measures for intersections only. Please include the Roadway links traffic impacts and 11.6 mitigation measures in the analysis. 6. If any project/work (e.g. street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound wails, storm drain construction, street connections, F- etc.) occurs in the vicinity of the Caltrans Right-of-Way, an encroachment permit would be required and environmental cone ms must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans 11.7 requirements, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with CalVws to meet requirements for any worts within or near Caltran& Right-of--Way. (See Attachment- F.nwrionmental Review Requirements for Encroachment Permits) '7. All work within the State Right of Way must conform to Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications for Water Pollution Control, including production of a Water Pollution Control Program(WPCP) or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required. Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right of Way from construction operations, or from the resulting project, must fully conform to the 11.8 current discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to avoid impacting water quality. Measures must be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of materials, which may fall or blow onto Caltrans roadways or facilities. (See Attachment: Water Pollution Control Provisions) Please continue to keep us informed of-this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact out transportation facilities. If you have any questions or 11.9 need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at(949)724-2267. Sincerely, Robert F. Joseph, Chief IGR/Community Planning Branch c: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Ron Helgeson, HO 1GR/Community Planning 5aied Hashemi,`fraffie Operations Leslie Mandersheid, Environmental Planning Jun 20 03 04: 07p lo 2S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Any Party,outside of Caltmns,that does work on a State Highway or Interstate Highway in California needs to apply for an encroachment permit. To acquire any encroachment permit,enviruimirtmial cortcems must be addressed. Environmental review of encroachment pertttit applications may take 3 weeks if the application Is complete or longer if the application is inr:nrnrlatw_ For soil disturbino activities(e.o.oeotechnical bofinvs,grading,usage of unpaved roads from which dirt and other materials may be tracked onto the State/Interstate highways,etc.).compliance with Water Quality and Cultural Resources Provisions are emphasized. Surveys may/may not be soil-disturbing activities,depending on the site and survey method. A compiete application for environmental review includes the following- 1. If an environmental document(CE,OROS,ND,etc,)has been completed for the project.copy of the final,approved document must be submitted with the application. 2. Water quality Provision: All work within the State Right of Way must conform to Caltrans Standard Plarts and Standard Specifications for Water Pollution Control including production of a Water Pollution Control Program or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as required.The applicant must provide Encroachments with a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)including Best Management Practices(BMPs)to be implemented for construction activities impacting Caltmna flight of Way,prepared for thie ae required by the MPDES Statewide Sturm W:;W Perrrrtt for General Construction Activities, it no SWPPP has been prepared for this project,then the applicant must follow the requirements ' described in the attached Water Pollution Control Provisions(please see attachment). 3. Cultural Resoum4m Provisions: if not included in the environmental document,before permit approval and project construction,the encroachment permit applicant.mkint rnmplPfP a ruftim3,{ftesourreA=ssment pursuant to Caltrans Environmental Handbook,Volume 2,Appendix 11-1,and Exhibit 1,as amended. The Cultural Resources Assessment ascertains the presence or absence of cultural resources within a one-mNe radius of the project area and evaluates the impact to any historicallcultural resource. Cultural Resources include"Muse resources significant in American history, architecture.archaeology,and culture,including Native American Resources"(Caltrans Environmental Handbook.Volume 7,c:harterl,as amended)),The Cultural Resource Assessment must include: a) a clear project description and map indicating project work,staging areas.site access,etc.; b) a Record Search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCC1C)located at California State University,Fulleitw+. Fui iiirun,Yietion call(714)270-5395; c) proof of Native American consultation. Consultation involves contacting the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC),requesting a search of their Sacred Lands Fee,and following the recommendations provided by the NAHC_ For information call(916)653-4082: d) documentation of any historic properties(e.g.prehistoric and historic sites,buildings,structures,objects,or districts Imed on,cligible for,or potentially eligible for listing on the National RvalstQr of Historic Places) within a one mile radius of the project area: e) and a survey by qualified archaeologist for all areas that have not been previously researched. The SCC/C and NAHC have an approximate tum around time of 2 weeks. 4. Biological Resources Provisions: Work conducted within Caltrans Right of Way should have the appropriate plant and wildlife surveys completed by a qualified biologist. If the information is not included in the environmental document, Environmental Planning requests that the applicant submit a copy or the biological study,a-cn v ry,of technical report by a qualified biologist that provides details on the existing vegetation and wildlife at the project site and any vegetation that is to be removed during project activities Offiriat lists and databases should also be consulted for sensitive species such as the California Natural Diversity Database and lists provided by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.Any impacts that affect waterways and drainages and/or open space during construction,or that occur indirectly as a result of the project must be coordinated wim the appropriate remuuice ayencies.As guidance,we a3k that the applicant include: n)riPar description of project activities and the project site b)completed environmental significance checklist(not just yes and no answers.but a description should be given as to the reason for the response), c)staging/storage areas t wted iul prroject plans, d)proposed time of year for work and duration of activities(with information available), e)any proposed mitigation(if applicable to,the project), f)and a record of any prior resource agency correspondence(if applicable to the project). r Jun 20 03 04: 08p p. 27 �) ATTACHMENT CALTRANS DISTRICT 92 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROVISIONS Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right of Way must fully conform to the current discharge requirements of the Regional Water duality Control Board (RWQCB) to avoid impacting water quality. Pcrmittee shall fully conform.to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systcw (NPDES) Stomp Water Permit, Ordcr No. 99•06 DWQ, NPDES No_ F` CAS000003, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on July 15, 1999, in addition to the OMPs specified in the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan (SNV P). When applicable, the Permittee will also conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Cnnstruction Activities, Order No. 99-08-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and any subsequent General Permit in effect at the time of issuance of this Encroachment Permit. These permits regulate storm water and non-storm water discharges associated with year-round construction activities. Please note that project activities should pay extra attention to storm water pollution control during the "Rainy Season" (October 1" — May I") and follow flit Water Pollution Control D1V1.1's to minimize impact to receiving waters. Measures trust be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of matcriel9, which may fail or blow onto Caltrans Right of Way. For all projects remelting in 2 hectares(5 acres)or more of soil disturbance or otherwise subject to the NPDES program, the Contractor will develop, implement, and maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the requirements of the Caltrans Specification Section 7- i.OIG "Water Pollution Control",Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit, the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities, and the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks "Storm Water Pollution - Prevention Plan (SWkPP) and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Manual", and "Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual" cff'ective November 2000, and �ubscqucnt revisions. in addition, the SWPPP must conform to the requirements of the CWR(-R Resolution No.2001-046, the Sampling and Analytical Procedures(SAP)Plan. For ail projects resulting in less than 2 hectares(5 acres)of soil disturbance or not otherwise subject to the requirements of the N`PDES program, the Contractor will develop, implement, and maintain a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) conforming to the requirements of Caltrans Specifications Section 7-1-.01G, "Water Pollution Control", and the Caltrans Storm Water Quality .Handbooks "Storm Water Pollution Prevention flan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Prograrr, (WPCP) Preparation Manual", and "Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual" effective November 2000,and subsequeut revisions. Copics of the Permits and the Construction Contractor's Guide and Spy ifirations of the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook may be obtained from the Department of Transportation, Material Operatinnc Branch. Publication Distribution Unit, t900 Royal Oaks Drive, Sacramento, California 95815,Telcpho»c. (916)445-3520. Copies of the Permits and Handbook are also available for review at Caltrans District .12, 3347 Michelson Drivc, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92612, Telephone: (949) 724-2260_ Electronic copies can be found at http://www.dot.ca.goy/hg/construe/stonnwater.btml Revised 10/23/01 Jun 20 03 04: 09p p. 28 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD June 12,2003 JfJN Ms. Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street,3Cd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE(EIR No. 00-01) Dear Ms.James: ' The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach is pleased to submit comments and recommendations regarding the subject Environmental Impact Report("EIR'). After reviewing 12.1 the EIR and discussing it at our June meeting,the Environmental Board voted to submit comments and reconunendations reflecting the issues discussed below. 1. It is unclear whether or not the Ocean View School District is required to find replacement facilities for loss of the baseball fields(approximately 6 acres) or just attempt to find available facilities at other sites by application of a goal. In addition,as described in the EIR,even though there will be a significant loss of open space,there 12.2 exists no requirement for replacement. As a minimum,replacement of the baseball facilities should be mandated as part of the project. Also,the Home Depot project, also located on Warner Avenue,constructed new facilities for sports activities at the remaining school site and we believe that a similar option should be considered for this project,if not at this site, then at other school district sites. 2. The project includes a requirement for clarifiers to be provided at each surface water drain inlet. However the discharge of all surface water drains is into nearby Ocean View Channel that already contains contaminated water adding to ocean pollution, a significant problem for the City of Huntington Beach. We believe that several additional requirements should be imposed on this project to protect water which discharges onto our beaches. 12.3 • All dry weather discharges should be collected and diverted into receptors that do not discharge into the ocean. Although diversion is recommended for the entire project during dry weather,this requirement would be of particular benefit for the LOWE's garden retail area of the warehouse, due to the potential contamination levels of fertilizer. • All clarifiers should be fitted with oil and grease separation facilities. Page 9 of 2 Jun 20 03 04: 09p p. 29 , 3. Due to extensive paving of the project area that is now grassland,we believe that efforts to maximize groundwater percolation should be included_ Surface water drainage from 12.4 the parking areas should be directed through landscaped(green vegetated)areas to assist in replenishment of the groundwater aquifer. In addition,utilization of paving materials that enhance percolation should be utilized. 4. Due to the significant impacts of traffic,there should be a requirement that all traffic mitigations be constructed and operational prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy for the warehouse facilities. We realize that due to cost sharing of traffic improvement mitigations, it may be more challenging to arrange for construction to be completed 12.5 within the timeframe specified. However,it would be reasonable for either the developer , or Ocean View School District to advance funding for total construction in order to allow completion. Other creative options should also be considered. S. Lastly,there is presently a lack of specificity of the future development of commercial �I facilities within the approximately G acres located adjacent to Beach Boulevard. As such, it is not reasonable for a review of the EIR as it applies to these facilities. Therefore,we recommend that when the developer has such definition and is prepared to move forward 12.6 with a project,that phase of the project should be evaluated as a portion of this overall " project and not as a stand-alone project. It may be necessary to circulate a revised EIR at that time and language should be included in this EIR to that affect. �I. Environmental Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and is available to 12.7 discuss these comments if appropriate. Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Yours truly, I Al Hendricker, Chairman r Page 2 of 2 �i. III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REsPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINALE17 r r III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1 LETTER NO. 1 ' Date Received: June 03, 2003 ' Cathy Van Doornum—President OVLL 6881 Steeplechase Cir Huntington Beach, California 92648 Comment 1.1 Mitigation—R-1 ' Propose that EIR read—Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, OVSD must insure that all six Ocean View Little League fields within the former Rancho View School site are relocated at one site to accommodate Ocean View Little League's programs without undue hardship. A meeting between all parties involved — City of HB, OVSD, Lowe's, & OVLL needs to be ' planned to address the many questions regarding timing of events, field layout, financial responsibilities, etc. Response 1.1 r While page 210 of the Draft EIR indicates that the project site contains a total of six fields currently being used by youth sports organizations for Ocean View Little League (OVLL) baseball, according to the Huntington Beach Community Services Department, OVLL has moved its Challenger Division to a field located in the City of Westminster,' and it is now only necessary to relocate a total of five (5)ballfields. Therefore, only five fields require relocation at t the Park View site. No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. Furthermore, based on comments on behalf of Ocean View Little League as stated above, as well as comments from Dr. James Tarwater, Ocean View School District, Mitigation Measure R-1 from the Draft EIR has been revised to specifically address relocation of the ballfields in more specific terms. The revised mitigation measure shall read as follows: Dave Dominguez, Manager, Facilities/Development and Concessions of the Huntington Beach Community Services Department,June 2003. ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 43 III. Response to Comments Prior to any disruption of Ocean View Little League's (OVLL) established use of Rancho View School, the following shall occur: j , In accordance with the 'Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements upon Certain Portions of City and District Property' as approved on September 5, 2000, five OVLL fields shall be relocated from the former Rancho View School site to Park View School with approximately 109 additional parking spaces provided at Murdy Park. The complete — relocation of all five fields shall occur prior to any building or construction activity at the Rancho View School site that disrupts OVLL's established use of the site. Currently, OVLL's established use of Rancho View School consists of tryouts in January with the baseball season commencing in February and ending in June. "Complete relocation" shall be defined as five fields finished and ready for use by OVLL. No loss of the baseball season for OVLL shall occur. Please refer to Section IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR. No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 44 III. Response to Comments ' LETTER NO. 2 ' Date Received: June 03, 2003 Yvonne B. Fleming 16722 IRBY Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 Comment 2.1 I believe that traffic on the 405 off-Ramp [sic] Warner exit will be impacted negatively. I believe that the noise, light & pollution level will be significantly more than what is reported. (Refering [sic] to page 224 Volume 1 EIR). I also believe that the current estimated Environmental [sic] impact of trash & run-off off of parking lot is Beverly [sic] underestimated. [Table IV.K-9] page 248 for above. The noise level is Beverly [sic] underestimated. In general I am NOT satisfied with the adequacy of the EIR. Thank you. Response 2.1 ' Regional access to the project site is provided via the San Diego Freeway (I-405) approximately one mile to the north and/or east. As previously described in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project, traffic from the proposed project that would be accessing the freeway via Beach Boulevard to northbound I-405 and Warner Avenue to southbound I-405 would utilize loop ramps where there is no restriction to the movements, either inbound or outbound movements to/from the project site. These ramps are free-flowing and could be equivalent to a "FREE" right turn movement. Under Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, a "FREE" movement is not included in the overall critical movement analysis; therefore, these ramps would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project and were not included in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project. As indicated in Section IV.K Traffic/Circulation of the Draft EIR, key roadways that serve the site were identified through a sensitivity analysis. The potential effects of the proposed project on these key roadways were analyzed in further detail. With regard to noise, light and pollution as noted by the commentor, page 224 Volume I of the Draft EIR contains a discussion of Traffic/Circulation, and not noise, light and pollution. ' Please refer to Sections IV.G. Noise, IV.A Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and N.B. Air Quality, of the Draft EIR for discussion of noise, light and pollution, respectively. The comments are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 45 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 3 Date Received: June 04, 2003 Manilal D. Phdhiar 17101 Kampen Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 Comment 3.1 Need a traffic light a [sic] Rotterdam St [sic] for us to make left turn—And Saftey[sic] of our kids. Thank you. Response 3.1 The Draft EIR acknowledges that no typical roadway widening improvements exist that could mitigate impacts at the intersections of Warner AvenueB Street and Warner Avenue/Rotterdam Lane. Therefore, as described in the Draft EIR, impacts to these intersections remain significant, unavoidable and adverse; however, if the Lowe's main access were to align with Rotterdam Lane, thus providing a signal at Rotterdam Lane, and B Street were vacated, significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. If B Street is not vacated, however, impacts at this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 46 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 4 Date Received: June 00, 2003 Christopher Wright, Associate Transportation Analyst Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street ' P.O. Box 14184 Orange, California 92863-1584 Subject: Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project(EIR No. 00-01) Comment 4.1 ' The Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced document and has the following comments: ' The Draft Environmental Impact Report states that it is recommended that `B" Street be vacated from Warner Avenue north to Robidoux Drive. However, the Site Plan (Figure II.C-3) shows two access driveways off of`B: street [sic]. If. [sic] In fact, the recommended alternative includes the vacation of`B" Street, the aforementioned access driveways should be deleted from the site plan and consideration [sic] in the traffic study. OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns at 714-560-5749 or cwright ct,octa.net. Response 4.1 Section IV.K., Traffic/Circulation, of the Draft EIR (page 244) acknowledges that the . current site plan identifies two driveways located on B Street to serve the Lowe's facility. This site design layout is proposed by the Applicant and therefore, has been evaluated in the Draft ' EIR. However, while future development within Area B1 of the project site has not been specifically defined nor future tenants identified, certain assumptions were made in the Draft EIR as to the type and amount of development that can reasonably be expected in this area, which is ' located directly west of Area A, the project area that would include the Lowe's facility. Therefore, in an effort to address potential buildout that would occur in Area B1 of the project site and the access and circulation relationship future development might have with the Lowe's facility, the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Appendix H of the Draft EIR) evaluated the possibility of B Street being vacated and made further recommendation that B Street in fact, be vacated. Therefore, while the Applicant proposes a site design layout that City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 47 III. Response to Comments identifies two driveway locations along B Street, based on the Traffic Impact Analysis findings, vacating B Street has been recommended,but not identified as a necessary mitigation measure. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 48 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 5 Date Received: May 22, 2003 Terry V. Wooldridge Gwen A. Woodridge 8141 Blaylock Drive ' Huntington Beach, California 92647-603 Comment 5.1 As a [sic] property owners, we are adamantly opposed to the building of the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse at the Warner and B Street location. Due to the increase of traffic 1 conjestion, noise and air pollution and devaluation of the property values our quality of life will be lowered tremendously. ' Even your own impact study finds that the level of service at five of the intersections will be over capacity substantially since three of the five are already at that condition now. Our ' neighborhood will be difficult to both enter or [sic] leave. The proposed signal light between Rotterdam and B Street will stack up cars past B and probably impact A Street also increasing the inability to leave in a timely manner. Response 5.1 In July 2003, new traffic counts were conducted at all of the study intersections that were previously analyzed in the Draft EIR to review the validity of the conclusions of the previous report and to update the analyses. The new traffic count data was compared with the previous ' count data found in Appendix H, Traffic Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR. The comparison indicated that the new count data was generally lower than the traffic count data used in the previous traffic study. Therefore, the previous study results represent a conservative evaluation of potential project impacts. Since new information was obtained, the project traffic impact analyses were updated to reflect the most recent data. As a result, a supplemental traffic study ' has been prepared to reflect the most recent data, which is included for review in Appendix A, Supplement to Traffic Study, of this document. According to the updated information, the Heil Avenue/Beach Boulevard intersection under its existing condition does not operate at an ' unacceptable Level(s) of Service (LOS); however, Warner AvenueB Street and Warner Avenue/Rotterdam Lane continue to operate at unacceptable LOS. Implementation of the ' proposed project would result in an unacceptable LOS at Heil Avenue/Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue/Beach Boulevard, and Warner Avenue/Newland Street. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the project would exacerbate the existing unacceptable LOS at Warner AvenueB Street and Warner Avenue/Rotterdam Lane. As described within Appendix A of this document, mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the significant project-related City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 49 M. Response to Comments impacts to the signalized intersections to a less than significant level. Additionally, as noted in Section IV.K, Traffic/Circulation, of the Draft EIR, in some cases, the recommended improvements mitigate not only the proposed project's impacts to signalized intersections, but also impacts caused by related projects and ambient traffic growth, as well as some existing deficiencies. With regard to the unsignalized intersections that would be affected by the proposed project, the Draft EIR acknowledges that no typical roadway widening improvements exist that could mitigate impacts at Warner AvenueB Street and Warner Avenue/Rotterdam Lane. Therefore, as described in the Draft EIR, impacts to these intersections remain significant, unavoidable and adverse; however, if the main access were to align with Rotterdam Lane, thus providing a signal at Rotterdam Lane, and B Street were vacated, significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 50 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 6 ' Date Received: May 15, 2003 Jon R. Phillips 8372 Edam Circle Huntington Beach, California 92647 ' Comment 6.1 Judging from your public notice of May 1, regarding an EIR for Lowe's Home store, you sound as if you would appreciate comments from those of us who live near this project. Like most average residents I probably know very little about environmental issues, however I can ' state that I and my wife are 100% in favor of building this Lowe's store. In so far as loss of open space goes the old closed Rancho View school has been an eye- sore for many years now and we'll be glad to see that gone. The Little League is already on notice that they eagerly want to play ball in the new sports complex south of the main library. ' Traffic on Warner Ave has been quite busy for years now and one more store or two won't make any noticeable difference. ' The neighbors that I know in our Dutch Haven tract are all glad to see the new Lowe's store plus a restaurant move within walking distance. Also, if they do put a traffic light at Warner and Rotterdam, it would be great for our tract making it easier, and safer, to turn left on Warner whenever we exit the neighborhood. Let's get all the paperwork done on this project and move ahead full steam. Response 6.1 ' The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 51 r III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 7 Date Received: May 30, 2003 City of Fountain Valley 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-4736 SUBJECT: LOWE'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Comment 7.1 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR - No. 00-01) for Lowe's Improvement Warehouse at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The City of Fountain Valley has reviewed the document and has the following comments: Response 7.1 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Comment 7.2 r 1. Intersection analysis: • ICU calculations are flawed for the intersections of Warner at Magnolia and Warner at Newland. The existing volumes are transposed. This affects the existing LOS. See attached traffic counts. • Update tables 3 & 9, as noted above. • Update figure 4, as noted above. • Check Newland at Slater traffic counts, and ICU calculations. Response 7.2 New counts were conducted in July 2003 at the study intersections of Wamer/Magnolia, Wamer/Newland and Newland/Slater to verify existing count data. The counts are included for r review in Appendix A of this document. As indicated in the comment, the previous traffic City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 52 ' III Response to Comments ' counts were flawed and the new counts compare reasonably to the 1999 counts provided by the City of Fountain Valley Based upon the new count data and a growth factor to the Year 2005 ' the analyses of these three intersections were updated The updated worksheets are also included for review in Appendix A of this document As indicated on the worksheets Wamer/Magnolia would still require a second northbound left turn lane to mitigate the project s impact which is shown in the traffic study however it would be warranted under project Opening Day and not under Buildout conditions The study intersection of Warner/Newland under post project conditions with the new count data would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during ' the P M (I 04/F) peak hour Under Buildout conditions the intersection of Warner/Newland would require the mitigation of adding a southbound right turn lane The intersection of Newland/Slater would continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service as previously ' indicated in the Draft EIR Comment 7 3 2 The intersection of Warner at Magnolia is identified as a current and future unfounded Hot Spot in the STRATEGIC PLAN TECHNICAL REPORT for the ORANGE ' COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS dated January 2002 Since existing trips are being added to an existing deficient intersection the percentage of traffic impact equation (P 23 of Lowe s traffic report) requires modification and consideration of Hot Spots This modification also requires immediate construction Response 7 3 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration The referenced report was prepared after the traffic impact analysis for the project was completed Therefore the study was not referenced in the report The comment is unclear in when it states existing trips are being added to an existing deficient ' intersection It would still appear that the methodology used in evaluating the project s fair share contribution towards the cost of the improvement may be needed in the near future though existing ICU analyses indicate a worst case operation of LOS D Based on CEQA requirements the revised analysis presents the factual information regarding the conditions and the direct nexus between the proposed project and necessary improvement including the fair share assessment Comment 7 4 3 The City of Fountain Valley will not contribute to any modifications required for the intersections of Magnolia and Warner nor Warner at Newland ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 53 III Response to Comments Response 7 4 ' The project applicant is responsible for satisfying the requirement of identified mitigation ' measures through a fair share contribution prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits Comment 7 5 4 Please be advised that a moratorium is in place for Magnolia from Warner to Slater within the City of Fountain Valley boundary All of Fountain Valley s requirements shall be met for any roadway modifications Response 7 5 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for ' review and consideration Any construction related to the proposed project will comply with the requirements of the moratorium ' Comment 7 6 5 Page 7 of traffic study Slater and Warner do not cross I believe the intended cross ' streets are Slater at Newland Response 7 6 The typographical error is acknowledged and Page 7 of the traffic study has been revised ' to read from Slater/Newland to Slater/Warner Please refer to Section IV Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the ' above described revision Comment 7 7 ' Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR Please call me at (714) 593 4425 or Mark Lewis City Engineer at 593 4435 regarding any questions you may have in reference to the City of Fountain Valley s response to the Draft EIR Response 7 7 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project ' Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 54 ' III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 8 Date Received: June 11,2003 Krone, Shawna Manager, Budget and Research City of Huntington Beach Police Department [NOTE: SENT VIA E-MAIL] Subject: Eir [sic] for Lowe's Comment 8.1 Sorry about the delay,but I have a couple of changes on the Lowe's EIR. Page 197 Paragraph 3 We have a sworn allocation of 234,not 236. Response 8.1 Page 197, paragraph 3, Section IV.I.2. Police Protection of the Draft EIR has been revised to indicate a sworn allocation of 234, not 236, as requested under Comment 8.1. Please refer to Section IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR. No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft ' EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. Comment 8.2 Page 197, same paragraph. The current information indicates that the response time for priority 1 calls are actually 7.4 minutes Response 8.2 Page 197, paragraph 3 and page 199, paragraph 3, Section IV.I.2 Police Protection of the 1 Draft EIR have been revised to indicate that the response time for priority 1 calls are 7.4 minutes instead of three to five minutes as identified in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 1V., Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR. No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 55 III. Response to Comments Comment 8.3 If you have any questions, call me at X 5425 Response 8.3 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. r City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 56 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 9 Date Received: June 13, 2003 James R. Tarwater, Ed.D., District Superintendent Ocean View School District 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647-5569 RE: Draft EIR for the Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse ' Comment 9.1 The Ocean View School District has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report No: 00- 01, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project. As the owner of the property, the School District is supportive of the Project. The District offers the ' following comments and concerns for the City's consideration based on a mutual goal of minimizing environmental impacts to residents in the community: Response 9.1 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Comment 9.2 1. Page 6 — Table I-1, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure HZ-1 states that prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the groundwater production well and associated storage tank located at the northwest corner of Area A shall be abandoned pursuant to permit requirement, unless they are intended for future use. This information is repeated on page 120 of the report under HZ-1. 1 The School District contracted with General Pump Company for the proper abandonment of the well in August 2002. Our permit number 2-08-47 and the Well Completion Report Number 731240 have been filed with the Orange County Environmental Health Agency and California Department of Water Resources. The water storage tank has also been removed from the premises. Mitigation Measure HZ-I is thus unnecessary. Response 9.2 Page 114, paragraph 1 of Section N.D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect that in August 2002, the School District contracted with General City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 ' Page 57 I11. Response to Comments Pump Company for the proper abandonment of the groundwater production well located at the northwest corner of Area A, and appropriate abandonment of the groundwater well was filed and documented with the Orange County Environmental Health Agency and California Department of Water Resources. Based on the information provided, it is acknowledged that Mitigation Measure HZ-1 is no longer necessary and therefore, has been deleted from the EIR. Please refer _--. to Section IV., Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised locations of this text in the Draft EIR. No other corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. r Comment 9.3 2. Page 12 — Table I-1, Recreation, Mitigation Measure R-1 states that prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the goal of OVSD should be to insure that all six f . Ocean View Little League fields within the former Rancho View School site are relocated at one site or in a manner that practically accommodates Ocean View Little League's programs without undue hardship. Page 211, Item 2, last paragraph states that the OVSD and the City of Huntington Beach have entered into an Agreement to relocate the Ocean View Little League fields to Park View, a closed OVSD school site, and to the adjacent Murdy Park. This Agreement will provide for the relocation of the six Ocean View Little League practice fields as well as accommodations for soccer and other sports. Page 215, Item 7 restates that above information concerning the Agreement and the Mitigation Measure R-1. Mitigation Measure R-1 accurately reflects the language of the executed agreement entitled Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements Upon Certain Portions of City and District Property dated September 5, 2000 as attached. It is my understanding that consideration is being given to modifying Mitigation Measure R-1. In summary, the School District is opposed to any proposed change in Mitigation Measure R-1 that would affect the timeline for relocating the Little League fields from the City issuance of the building permit for Lowe's construction to some other earlier target date. The School District would consider such a change in the timeline to be not in compliance with the negotiated agreement. Therefore, an amendment to the Agreement would need to be mutually agreed to by the parties, and approved by the City Council and our Board of Trustees. The School District is working diligently to relocate the ball fields to Park View School/Murdy Park per the terms of the Agreement approved by the City Council and our Board of Trustees. Nuvis Landscape Architects and Planning estimated the cost of the relocation of the ball fields and site amenities at $444,805 in 1998. An income stream provided by the Lowe's ground lease City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 58 III. Response o t Comm ents agreement is required to offset the relocation expenses, as well as, financial participation by the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View Little League in the relocation. It is the School District's intent to have the Little League fields relocated by the time the building permits are needed by Lowe's in accordance with the Agreement between the City and the School District and as correctly stated in Mitigation Measure R-1 of the Draft EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions regarding the School District's comments,please contact me at (714) 847-2551 ext. 1309. Response 9.3 As indicated previously under Response 1.1, page 210 of the Draft EIR indicates that the project site contains a total of six fields currently being used by youth sports organizations for Ocean View Little League (OVLL) baseball. However, according to the Huntington Beach Community Services Department, OVLL has moved its Challenger Division to a field located in the City of Westminster,2 and it is now only necessary to relocate a total of five (5) ballfields. Therefore, only five fields require relocation at the Park View site. Furthermore, based on comments on behalf of Ocean View Little League, as well as the comment from Dr. James Tarwater as stated above, Ocean View School District, Mitigation Measure R-1 from the Draft EIR has been revised to address relocation of the ballfields in more specific terms. The revised mitigation measure shall read as follows: Prior to any disruption of Ocean View Little League's (OVLL) established use of Rancho View School, the following shall occur: In accordance with the 'Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements upon Certain Portions of City and District Property' as approved on September 5, 2000, five OVLL fields shall be relocated from the former Rancho View School site to Park View School with approximately 109 additional parking spaces provided at Murdy Park. The complete relocation of all five fields shall occur prior to any building or construction activity at the Rancho View School site that disrupts OVLL's established use of the site. Currently, OVLL's established use of Rancho View School consists of tryouts in January with the baseball season commencing in February and ending in June. "Complete relocation" shall be defined as five fields finished and ready for use by OVLL. No loss of the baseball season for OVLL shall occur. Dave Dominguez, Manager, Facilities/Development and Concessions of the Huntington Beach Community Services Department,June 2003. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 59 III. Response to Comments Please refer to Section IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR. No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. r r. r, City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 , Page 60 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 10 Date Received: June 18, 2003 Timothy Neely, Manager County of Orange Environmental Planning Services Division 300 North Flower Street P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 SUBJECT: DEIR for Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Project Comment 10.1 The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Huntington Beach. The Project is located at 8181 Warner Avenue (northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue) and the project proposes the redevelopment and intensification of 25.6-acres with commercial/retail, office, and restaurant uses and associated surface parking and landscaped areas. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR and offers the following comments: Response 10.1 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Comment 10.2 FLOOD 1. The Proposed Project is the development of a commercial retail center at a former elementary school site. The change in land use is expected to result in increased runoff and has the potential to adversely impact the Ocean View Channel (C06) that borders the project site to the north. Since the City of Huntington Beach is responsible for land use changes, the City should ensure that existing conditions along Ocean View Channel and areas adjacent to or within floodplains upstream and downstream of the project site are not made worse as a result of proposed project. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 61 r-' III. Response to Comments Response 10.2 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The criteria utilized in the preparation of the drainage study and the design of the proposed project storm drain facilities, ensure that the existing conditions upstream and downstream along Ocean View Channel are not made worse by the development of the proposed commercial center. Existing site conditions were analyzed based on pre-1986 design criteria from the Orange County Hydrology Manual with the site as presently developed as a school site. This established a conservative base-line condition. Peak runoff values for 10, 25 and 100-year storm events were used to model expected runoff under fully developed conditions. The proposed drainage system is designed to limit storm discharge to the peak runoff of a 10- year storm using pre-1986 design criteria. All runoff exceeding this baseline is retained on site until it can be discharged when the peak flows have dissipated. Furthermore, the City Public Works Department has placed conditions of approval onto the proposed project, which also address the County's concern regarding runoff and the potential for the project to adversely impact the Ocean View Channel (C06). Please refer below to the specific conditions: Hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms and back to back storms shall be analyzed). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. r a. Flows leaving the site in the developed condition shall be restricted to pre- 1986 QIo runoff quantities. All other flows shall be retained on-site until the peak storm has passed. b. A maximum depth of 8 inches of water will be allowed to be retained and ponded on-site in the parking area of the project during major storm events, a maximum of 30 percent of the parking stalls may be inundated in the 100- year storm condition, the ponding shall be located in a remote portion of the parking lot, and one clear drive aisle between the main project entrance on Warner Avenue and the westerly driveway on B Street shall be elevated above the high water limit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall indemnify and defend the City from any claims for damages caused by the developer's decision to collect storm water on the parking area by recording a covenant on the property, and signs shall be posted within the parking lot warning patrons of potential flooding. The covenant n City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 62 III Response to Comments Nshall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney s Office prior to recordation Comment 10 3 2 The Ocean View Channel was built in the 1960s and does not meet the Orange County Flood Control District s (OCFCD) current design criteria In spite of the fact that the Federal Emergency Management Agency s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the ' area indicates that the 100 year flood (based on existing land uses) is contained in the existing channel OCFCD s approved 100 year design discharges (based on ultimate land uses) are usually higher than the discharges used by FEMA for floodplain purposes Due 1 to this fact and the age of the facility the City should as a condition of development require the project proponent to protect the proposed development by ensuring that the development is indeed safe from flooding resulting from Ocean View Channel in a 100 year storm event If channel improvements are to be accomplished as part of this process it should be done in consultation with the County s Flood Control Division Response 10 3 Section IV E Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR contains a discussion of drainage water quality and flooding The drainage study utilized design water surface elevations for Ocean View Channel (Facility C06) provided by the County of Orange and contained in Appendix A6 of the study Although the comment infers that the existing channel may not contain the 100 year flood neither the County nor FEMA has revised data or high water surface elevations that would indicate that the comment is correct According to FEMA s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated June 14 2000 the project site is located in Flood Zone X considered a minimal risk for flooding Development standards for properties located within flood zones are contained within Chapter 222 Floodplam Overlay District of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Because the subject property is located in Flood Zone X the development is not subject to flood proofing pad elevation or other unique flood protection standards Like other agencies the County of Orange was given the opportunity to review and comment on FEMA s FIRM map prior to adoption There is no nexus to require the project developer to incorporate flood control measures above and beyond those required by FEMA s FIRM map and the City s Floodplam Overlay District As discussed in the Draft EIR and in Response 10 2 storm runoff in excess of existing 10 year peak flows will be contained on site until the peak flows have dissipated The proposed storm drain system and associated improvements will not exacerbate flooding within the vicinity of the project Comment 10 4 3 A cursory review of the hydrology/hydraulic analyses for the proposed project showed that the analyses were inconsistent with the current criteria of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) Addendum No I to OCHM and the Orange County Local ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 63 III Response to Comments Drainage Manual The City will need to review the analyses and ascertain whether the proposed mitigation measures are adequate to provide flood protection for the development existing channel hydraulic conditions are not made worse and that any existing flooding problems upstream and downstream of the project site are not transferred elsewhere or made worse Response 10 4 The comment does not address specifically what criteria the County determined were inconsistent with the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) Addendum No 1 to OCHM and the Orange County Local Drainage Manual Therefore a specific response to this comment cannot be presented The criteria and methodology utilized in the drainage study is consistent with standard practices utilized to evaluate the impacts of development on storm drainage The criteria and methodology utilized for the drainage study were approved by the City Public Works Department after extensive review As discussed in the Responses 10 2 and 10 3 the design of proposed storm dram system and the implementation of City policies and requirements will ensure that hydraulic conditions in the existing channel are not made worse or impact flooding problems in other areas Comment 10 5 4 The project proposes to connect storm drain systems A and B to Ocean View Channel Because of the deficiencies with Ocean View Channel (see 2 above) it will be necessary for project proponent to demonstrate that Ocean view hydraulics is not made worse and that impacts if adverse are being mitigated properly All work within the OCFCD right of way requires permit from the County s Public Property Permits Section For information regarding permit application contact Doug Witherspoon at (714) 834 2366 Response 10 5 As indicated in the Response 10 3 the drainage study utilized design water surface elevations for Ocean View Channel (Facility C06) provided by the County The County has not documented alleged deficiencies in the existing Ocean View Channel and the project site is not located in a special flood hazard zone The drainage study presently demonstrates that the channel hydraulics is not negatively impacted by the project The proposed connections to the existing channel will require an OCFCD permit Comment 10 6 5 Floodplains that could be affected by the proposed project should be analyzed and Letters of Map Revision (LOMR)processed via Federal Emergency Management Agency City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 64 III. Response to Comments Response 10.6 As indicated in Response 10.3, the project site is located in Flood Zone X, according to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated June 14, 2000. Floodplains in the vicinity of the project site will not be affected by development of the proposed project and therefore a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR) is not required with FEMA. Comment 10.7 WATER QUALITY ' 6. The proposed project is considered a priority project pursuant to Section 7 of the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). As such, appropriately sized treatment control Best Management Plan Practices (BMPs) are required to be included in the WQMP consistent with the 2003 DAMP New Development Appendix. The treatment control BMPs must be sized appropriately based on storm volume or flow from the proposed development. Guidance on treatment control BMPs can be found in Section 7 of the DAMP and exhibit 7-II. Response 10.7 Water quality impacts of the proposed project were extensively discussed in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, Drainage Study, including the regulatory requirements, and summarized in Section IV.E., Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As described in the Draft EIR, the project will comply with the California Statewide NPDES permit during construction. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the New Development requirements of the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) will be required by the Conditions of Approval. Comment 10.8 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have any questions,please contact Charlotte Harryman at (714) 834-2522. Response 10.8 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. f� City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 65 III. Response to Comments LETTER NO. 11 Date Received: June 18, 2003 Robert F. Joseph, Chief California Department of Transportation IGR/Community Planning Branch District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Subject: Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Comment 11.1 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact _ (EIR) Report for Lowe's Home improvement Warehouse dated May 2003. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment and intensification of a 2506-acre site consisting of three areas (A, B 1 and 132). The applicant proposes to develop an approximate 159,3000 square foot Lowe's Warehouse and an approximate 9,000 square foot restaurant on the former Rancho View School Site (Area A). No development is proposed on area Bl at this time, however the EIR analyzes the development of this 6.3-acre site to a commercial/retail, office, and restaurant use. A zoning map amendment is requested on the former school bus maintenance facility (Area B2) but no development is proposed at this time. The project is located on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner in the city of Huntington Beach. The nearest state routes to the project are I-405 and SR-39. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments: Response 11.1 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Comment 11.2 1. Existing Traffic Volumes: The existing traffic volumes used for the analysis are out dated by three years. In order to correctly determine current as well as future LOS' [sic], the volumes need to be updated. Please update the traffic analysis accordingly. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 66 - III. Response to Comments Response 11.2 New traffic counts were conducted at all of the study intersections that were previously analyzed in the Draft EIR in July 2003 to review the validity of the conclusions of the previous report and update analyses. The count data is included for review in Appendix A of this document. The new traffic count data was compared with the previous count data found in Appendix H, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The comparison indicated that the new count data was generally lower than the traffic count data used in the previous traffic study. 1 Therefore, the previous study results represent a conservative evaluation of potential project impacts. Since new information was obtained, the project traffic impact analyses were updated to reflect the most recent data. As a result, a supplemental traffic study has been prepared to document the new information, analyses results, conclusions and recommendations (refer to Appendix A). Additional details are provided in the following responses to comments. Comment 11.3 2. Pagel, Second Paragraph: indicated opening Day is year 2002. Opening Day should be re-scheduled and the analysis should be updated accordingly. Response 11.3 As new counts were conducted (Year 2003), the ICU worksheets were updated with a growth factor to the Year 2005. The ICU analyses were re-analyzed and two of the study intersections, which were previously operating at an unacceptable Level of Service with the project (i.e., Warner/Beach and Wamer/Newland), are now operating at acceptable Level of Service under Opening Day plus project conditions. However, further analysis of Buildout conditions is required. Under the General Plan, Warner Avenue between Gothard Street and Magnolia Street is shown at Buildout as an eight-lane facility. The intersections along this stretch of Warner, between Gothard and Magnolia, which were analyzed, were recalculated to determine potential impact. The intersection analyses were recalculated with the General Plan lane configurations, and the results indicate that the three study intersections of Heil/Beach, Wamer/Beach, and Wamer/Newland would operate at unacceptable Levels of Service during the P.M. peak hours. Mitigation Measure T-1 and T-3 of the Draft EIR to address Heil/Beach and Warner/Newland, respectively, still apply to the project. Mitigation Measure T-2 to address WamerBeach has been revised to require contribution of the applicant's fair share to the addition of a northbound right turn lane rather than a westbound right turn lane. This improvement has been identified as a needed improvement within the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Furthermore, review of the existing car wash development that is located at the southeast corner of Warner/Beach also reflects that this improvement is needed. Please refer to Section IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for a description of revised traffic mitigation in the Draft EIR. No corrections to the conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 67 III. Response to Comments The updated ICU worksheets and the detailed analyses and results are presented in the supplement to the project traffic study dated September, 2003, included in Appendix A of this document. The two intersections of Warner/Magnolia and Warner/Gothard, which were shown to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service under Buildout conditions with the project, are now operating at acceptable Levels of Service with the eight-lane facility on Warner Avenue. Therefore, Mitigation Measure T-4 of the Draft EIR, which addresses Warner/Magnolia, would not be required under the Buildout condition, but as previously described under Response 7.2, would be required under project Opening Day conditions. Mitigation Measure T-5 to address Warner/Gothard is no longer required. Comment 11.4 3. Page 2, Second Paragraph: A signal is proposed at the main entrance on the [sic] Warner Avenue, but the traffic signal warrant analysis for this location is not included in the report. Our concern is the intersection spacing between this location and Beach/Wamer. Please refer to warrant#5 of the signal warrants analysis in Caltrans Traffic Manual. Response 11.4 A traffic signal warrant was completed for the main entrance to the proposed facility and Warner Avenue. Both Warrant 5 and Warrant 11 were utilized and indicate a need for signalization. The signal warrant worksheets are included for review. Comment 11.5 4. Page 15, Third Paragraph: The analysis uses trip generation estimates retrieved from r, SARA traffic model. Caltrans recommends ITE trip generation analysis. Page 26, Table 9: The table indicates that, for the long range, the intersection of Beach/Warner will be degraded to 1.05/F with area B 1, due to the project traffic. Additional traffic mitigation 1 is required. T� Response 11.5 The underlying basis for the rates utilized in the SARA model are trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation. When the model is performed, there is some interaction between the land use within the model in each zone which will provide for a slightly different trip generation output if a straight comparison is conducted between the rates generated by the model and those shown in the ITE publication. The following values are found in the updated traffic information provided in the supplement to the project traffic study dated September 2003 (Appendix A of this document). City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 68 III. Response to Comments The intersection of Beach/Warner under long-range conditions is shown to operate at an ICU/LOS of 0.96/E under long-range conditions without the project. When the project is added, the ICU/LOS increases to 0.99/E. Mitigation measures are recommended which would mitigate the project's impact back to a less than 0.02 impact, or 0.97/E. Additional measures, beyond what is indicated in the supplement, are not required to mitigate the project's impact. It is recognized that additional improvements would be needed to ensure that the intersection does not exceed the minimum level of service standard based on other area traffic volume increases, not attributable to the project. Comment 11.6 ' 5. The traffic analysis addressed in [sic] traffic impacts and mitigation measures for intersections only. Please include the Roadway Links traffic impacts and mitigation measures in the analysis. Response 11.6 ' Twenty-four hour directional counts were conducted at 17 locations with three locations along Beach Boulevard obtained from the Caltrans website. The count data is included in Appendix A of this document for review. Table A.1 in Appendix A of this document indicates the Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary. Based upon the results of the analyses, nine street segments would not meet the City's minimum level of service standard with the proposed project under post-project conditions. However, only two of the roadway segments, Warner Avenue from Beach to Newland and Warner Avenue from Newland to Magnolia would have a volume to capacity.(v/c) increase with the project of greater than 0.03, which is beyond the City's threshold. Neither of these road segments exceed the City's second criteria in evaluating street segments (terminal intersections of each segment not operating at an acceptable level of service); therefore, no further improvements are necessary. Under Buildout conditions, the road segment analysis results indicate that 10 of the road segments would not meet the City's minimum level of service standard with the proposed project. However, none of the road segments exceed the minimum threshold of a v/c increase with the project of 0.03 or less. No further improvements are necessary on the study road segments. Comment 11.7 6. If any project/work (e.g. street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound walls, storm drain construction, street connections, etc.) occurs in the vicinity of the Caltrans Right-of-Way, an encroachment permit would be required and environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans requirements, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 69 III. Response to Comments coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for any work within or near Caltrans Right-of-Way. (See Attachment: Environmental Review Requirements for Encroachment Permits) Response 11.7 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Comment 11.8 7. All work within the State Right of Way must conform to Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications for Water Pollution Control, including production of a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required. Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right of Way from construction operations, or from the resulting project, must fully conform to the current discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to avoid impacting water quality. Measures must be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking or materials, which may fall or blow onto Caltrans roadways or facilities. (See Attachment: Water pollution Control Provisions) Response 11.8 , The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Section N.E. Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the applicable programs and regulations related to water quality, drainage, and flooding that pertain to development of the project site, as well as an analysis of potential impacts related to stormwater hydrology and surface water quality resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Comment 11.9 Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Response 11.9 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 70 - III. Response to Comments rLETTER NO. 12 Data Received: June 16, 2003 Al Hendricker, Chairman City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE (EIR No. 00-01) ' Comment 12.1 The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach is pleased to submit comments and recommendations regarding the subject Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). After reviewing the EIR and discussing it at our June meeting, the Environmental Board voted to submit comments and recommendations reflecting the issues discussed below. 1 Response 12.1 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Comment 12.2 1. It is unclear whether or not the Ocean View School District is required to find replacement facilities for loss of the baseball fields (approximately 6 acres) or just attempt to find available facilities at other sites by application of a goal. In addition, as described in the EIR, even though there will be a significant loss of open space, there exists no requirement for replacement. As a minimum, replacement of the baseball facilities should be mandated as part of the project. Also, the Home Depot project, also located on Warner Avenue, constructed new facilities for sports activities at the remaining school site and we believe that a similar option should be considered for this project, if not at this site,then at other school district sites. Response 12.2 Page 210 of the Draft EIR indicates that the project site contains a total of six fields currently being used by youth sports organizations for Ocean View Little League (OVLL) baseball. However, according to the Huntington Beach Community Services Department, OVLL City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 71 III. Response to Comments has moved its Challenger Division to a field located in the City of Westminster,' and it is now only necessary to relocate a total of five (5) ballfields. Therefore, only five fields require relocation at the Park View site. Please refer to Section IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, based on comments on behalf of Ocean View Little League, as well as comments from Dr. James Tarwater, Ocean View School District, Mitigation Measure R-1 from the Draft EIR has been revised to address relocation of the ballfields in more specific terms. The revised mitigation measure shall read as follows: Prior to any disruption of Ocean View Little League's (OVLL) established use of Rancho View School, the following shall occur: In accordance with the 'Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements upon Certain Portions of City and District Property' as approved on September 5, 2000, five OVLL fields shall be relocated from the former Rancho View School site to Park View School with approximately 109 additional parking spaces provided at Murdy Park. The complete relocation of all five fields shall occur prior to any building or construction activity at the Rancho View School site that disrupts OVLL's established use of the site. Currently, OVLL's established use of Rancho View School consists of tryouts in January with the baseball season commencing in February and ending in June. "Complete relocation" shall be defined as five fields finished and ready for use by OVLL. No loss of the baseball season for OVLL shall occur. Please refer to Section IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR, of this document for the revised location of this text in the Draft EIR. No corrections to the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR are necessary due to the above-described revision. F- Implementation of the above-described mitigation will reduce potential impacts related to the loss of recreational uses to a less than significant level. Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that the proposed project would result in a loss of public open space within the City. As described on page 147, Section IV.F., Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, this impact cannot be mitigated and therefore remains significant and unavoidable. As such, a statement of overriding considerations is required to approve the project; the City as a responsible agency will consider the statement of overriding considerations document in rendering a decision on the project. i Dave Dominguez, Manager, Facilities/Development and Concessions of the Huntington Beach Community Services Department,June 2003. r City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 72 i III. Response to Comments rComment 12.3 2. The project includes a requirement for clarifiers to be provided at each surface water drain inlet. However the discharge of all surface water drains into nearby Ocean View Channel that already contains contaminated water adding to ocean pollution, a significant problem for the City of Huntington Beach. We believe that several additional requirements should be imposed on this project to protect water which discharges onto our beaches. • All Dry weather discharges should be collected and diverted into receptors that do not discharge into the ocean. Although diversion is recommended for the entire project during dry weather, this requirement would be of particular benefit for the LOWE's garden retail area of the warehouse, due to the potential contamination levels of fertilizer. • All clarifiers should be fitted with oil and grease separation facilities. Response 12.3 Water quality impacts of the proposed project were discussed in the drainage study, including current regulatory requirements. As described in the drainage report, the project will comply with the California Statewide NPDES permit to minimize short and long-term impacts on receiving water quality to the maximum extent practicable during construction. This will require the permittee to submit a Notice of Intent to comply with permit requirements and to ' develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges and to prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and leaving the construction site. CA Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the New Development requirements of the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) will be required by the Conditions of Approval. his plan will describe the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the project design and on-going operation of the facilities to control post- construction storm water impacts. The future WQMP will control non-storm water discharges and utilize both structural and non-structural BMPs to remove pollutants and improve storm water quality. The comment proposes that the project be required to divert dry weather discharges to the sewer system rather than allowing these discharges to enter the storm drain system. The comment further emphasizes that this would be of particular benefit for the garden center discharges. This recommended BMP, as well as many others will be considered when the WQMP is reviewed for approval. Several potential BMPs are available to minimize dry weather City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 73 M. Response to Comments discharges, including regular parking lot sweeping, use of efficient irrigation systems, preventing excessive fertilizer and pesticide use. As discussed in the drainage study, it is anticipated that a specialized Stormfilter filtration device will be utilized for the garden center. This BMP utilizes specialized filter cartridges that have the ability to filter out pollutants expected from the garden center including pesticides, fertilizers, organic material and sediment. It is also anticipated that r- the Stormeeptor devices discussed in the drainage report will be implemented as part of the final WQMP. These devices contain oil and water separators. r- Comment 12.4 3. Due to Extensive paving of the project area that is now grassland, we believe that efforts to maximize groundwater percolation should be included. Surface water drainage from the parking areas should be directed through landscaped (green vegetated) ea to assist in replenishment of the groundwater aquifer. In addition, utilization of paving materials that enhance percolation should be utilized. Response 12.4 The comment refers to the potential of diverting storm runoff to vegetated areas to enhance percolation and minimize runoff. In addition, the use of permeable paving materials is suggested as a possible BMP. The project design does not afford significant vegetated areas to allow detention and percolation of storm water flows. This type of BMP is typically utilized for larger projects significant areas can be safely set aside for detention and where adequate measures can be taken to protect ground water basins. The use of permeable asphalt is not consistent with the high traffic volumes and truck usage of the paved areas. However, the proposed drainage system is designed to limit storm discharge to the peak runoff of a 10-year storm using pre-1986 design criteria. All runoff exceeding this baseline is retained on site until it can be discharged when the peak flows have dissipated. Comment 12.5 4. Due to the significant impacts of traffic, there should be a requirement that all traffic mitigations be constructed and operational prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy for the warehouse facilities. We realize that due to cost sharing of traffic improvement mitigations, it may be more challenging to arrange for construction to be completed within the timeline specified. However, it would be reasonable for either the developer or Ocean View School District to advance funding for total construction in order to allow completion. Other creative options should also be considered. r City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 74 III. Response to Comments rResponse 12.5 The EIR appropriately identifies the potential significant adverse impacts of the proposed project and the measures required to mitigate significant adverse impacts. There are several methods by which the project can satisfy the mitigation measure requirements. The traffic 1 impact mitigation measures include several fair-share contributions, where the project itself is not entirely responsible for the implementation of the mitigation measure, or even the majority. Through the development of conditions of approval for the project under the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map process, appropriate conditions would be developed to address the details of either the implementation of the measures or the satisfaction of the measures with a fair share contribution. Generally, it would be the City's intent to pursue the improvement of impacted areas as soon as appropriate funding can be programmed either through the pooling of multiple fair share contributions or the use of other funds such as grants or the traffic impact fee fund as appropriate. However, from a CEQA processing standpoint, it is appropriate to identify the project's fair share responsibility towards an improvement and the requirement to satisfy the fair share contribution prior to completion of the project. The Environmental Board's recommendation will be considered in developing conditions of approval for the project. Comment 12.6 5. Lastly, there is presently a lack of specificity of the future development of the commercial facilities within the approximately 6 acre located adjacent to Beach Boulevard. As such, it is not reasonable for a review of the EIR as it applies to these facilities. Therefore, we recommend that when the developer has such definition and is prepared to move forward with a project, that phase of the project should be evaluated as a portion of this overall project and not as a stand-alone project. It may be necessary to circulate a revised EIR at that time and a language should be included in this EIR to that affect. Response 12.6 1 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Any future development project as proposed for Area B1 would be subject to CEQA regulations in effect at that particular time. Depending on the future development proposal, this CEQA documentation may involve an addendum to this EIR, subsequent, or supplemental environmental documentation. At a minimum, a detailed traffic impact analysis would be required as described in Mitigation Measure T-6 of the EIR. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 75 III. Response to Comments Comment 12.7 Environmental Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and is available to discuss these comments is appropriate. Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Response 12.7 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. r , r r ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 76 IV. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR i i 1 1 1 1 r IV. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ' In response to comments received during the public review period from various agencies and organizations, the following additions and corrections to the Draft EIR are provided. Modifications to the Draft EIR are listed under Section titles as presented within the Draft EIR. SUMMARY F. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS • Table I-1 Summaryof Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures included within the J p g Draft EIR has been revised to reflect changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received. Please refer to Section V., Final Executive Summary, of this document for Revised Table I-1. Revisions and additions are noted by ' redline/strikeout text. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ' D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Revise page 114, paragraph 1 of the Draft EIR to reflect that in August 2002, the School District contracted with General Pump Company for the proper abandonment of the groundwater production well located at the northwest corner of Area A, and appropriate abandonment of the groundwater well was filed and documented with the Orange County Environmental Health Agency and California Department of Water Resources. Note the following revisions to paragraph 1: One groundwater production well and an associated above ground storage tankr did previouslye xist d" ed at the northwestern corner of Area A. The school facility ' previously used the water from this well for drinking water and sanitary purposes-- however, in August 2002. the School District contracted with General Pump Com ally to properly abandon the groundwater production well. Procedures to appropriately abandon the uoundwater well were implemented and documentation was filed with the Orange County Environmental Health Agency and California Department of Water Resources (Permit #2-08-47 and Well Completion Report Number 731240). The associated rater City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 77 r- IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR storage tank also was removed from the site. �k) leakage was bs , ,ed u,O«„., tile tall1i. ,e- tanks re- observed en Area A. r-' 2. Revise page 119 of the Draft EIR, deleting the last paragraph, which indicates that a groundwater production well and associated storage tank located at the northwest corner of Area A could remain. 3. Page 120 of the Draft EIR — delete Mitigation Measure HZ-1, as it is no longer necessary. Replace with the following text: With adherence to applicable local, regional, states and federal laws and regulations as previously discussed, no mitigation measures associated with the handling use or storage of hazardous materials during project construction would be required 4. Page 120 of the Draft EIR, last sentence; delete reference to, "With incorporation of the mitigation measure outlined above." J. RECREATION 1. Revise Mitigation Measure R-1, which reads, "Prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the goal of OVSD should be to insure that all six Ocean View Little League fields within the former Rancho View School site are relocated at one —. site or in a manner that practically accommodates Ocean View Little League's programs without undue hardship." Revised Mitigation Measure R-1 shall read as follows: R-1 Prior to any disruption of Ocean View Little League's (OVLL) established r, use of Rancho View School,the following shall occur: In accordance with the 'Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements upon Certain Portions of City and District Property' as approved on September 5, 2000, five OVLL fields shall be relocated from the former Rancho View School site to Park View School with approximately 109 additional parking spaces provided at Murdy Park. The complete relocation of all five fields shall occur prior to any building or construction activity at the Rancho View School site that disrupts OVLL's established use of the site. Currently, OVLL's established use of Rancho View School consists of tryouts in January with the baseball season commencing in February and ending in June. "Complete relocation" shall be defined as five fields finished and ready for use by OVLL. No loss of the baseball season for OVLL shall occur. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 78 IV. Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR I.2. POLICE PROTECTION 1. Revise page 197, paragraph 3, second sentence of the Draft EIR to clarify that the Police Department has 234 sworn officers, not 236. 2. Revise page 197, paragraph 3, last sentence of the Draft EIR to clarify that high priority calls have a response time of approximately 7.4 minutes from the time they are dispatched, not three to five minutes. 3. Revise page 199, paragraph 3, first sentence of the Draft EIR to clarify that high priority calls have a response time of approximately 7.4 minutes from the time they are dispatched,not three to five minutes. K. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 1. Page 251; revise Mitigation Measure T-2 to read from, "Provide for a westbound right turn lane,"to "Provide for a northbound right turn lane." 1. Page 251; delete Mitigation Measure T-5, as it is no longer necessary. The proposed project would no longer operate at unacceptable Levels of Service under post-project conditions at the intersections of Warner/Gothard. 2. Page 252; delete reference to Mitigation Measure T-5, as it is no longer necessary. APPENDIX H. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Revise page 7 of the Traffic Impact Analysis to read from "Slater/Warner" to "Slater/Newland". C. FIRE HAZARDS AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES 1. Revise Table III.C-1 to clarify that Station 28, in addition to its 4-person truck company, also houses a three-person engine and a two-person paramedic squad as follows: City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 1 Page 79 V. FiNu. ExEcunve SUMMARY r r r rr rr rr r r rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr rr ar V. FINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table V-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation AESTHETICS a.Project Level The proposed project would completely alter the The proposed project is subject to the design Less than significant, character and use of the project site. guidelines and development standards as outlined in the City Urban Design Guidelines manual and the recommendations of the Design Review Board and City staff,which would ensure that development of the project would not introduce elements that would substantially detract from the existing aesthetic character. No mitigation measures are required. The overall loss of community open space is Refer to Section IV.F,Land Use and Planning of Less than significant. subjective. Due to this subjectivity, it is concluded this document that the loss of open space is not a significant aesthetic impact of the proposed project. It has however been determined to be a significant land use impact,as discussed in Section IV.F,Land Use and Planning, of this document. The proposed project would provide new sources of The project would implement Standard City Less than significant, illumination on the site,resulting in potential light Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no and glare impacts. mitigation measures are required. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 90 V Final Executive Summary Table V 1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation b Program Level Although future development within Area B 1 has The proposed project is subject to the design Less than significant not been specifically defined nor future tenants guidelines and development standards as outlined identified certain assumptions have been made as to in the City Urban Design Guidelines manual and the type and amount of development that can be the recommendations of the Design Review Board reasonably expected which would involve the and City staff which would ensure that intensification of land uses in Area B I development of the project would not introduce elements that would substantially detract from the existing aesthetic character No mitigation measures are required The development of Area B 1 would provide new The project would implement Standard City Less than significant sources of illumination on the site resulting in Policies and Requirements Therefore no potential light and glare impacts mitigation measures are required AIR QUALITY a Project Level The proposed project would result in short term AQ 1 During each phase of construction the use of Less than significant construction air quality emissions that may exceed heavy duty construction equipment shall be limited the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds to a comparable mix of equipment including concrete pumps off highway trucks scrapers cranes backhoes tracked loaders forklifts tracked tractors and dozers wheeled loaders compactors and motor graders as identified in Appendix B so as not to exceed SCAQMD s established thresholds of significance AQ 2 During construction trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would be kept with their engines off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions Construction emissions should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second stage smog alerts City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 81 r� �r r � �r r r r r� �r �r it r� r■� r� ri �r r� r� V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation The project's long-term operational regional No mitigation measures are available to reduce this Significant and unavoidable. emissions are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD daily significant impact to a less than significant level. significance threshold with regard to CO and NO, emissions. The proposed project could result in a potential The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. impact related to local CO emissions"CO hot Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no spots". mitigation measures are required. b.Program Level Similar to Project Level impacts—refer above. Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 Similar to Project Level—refer above. above. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a.Project Level The proposed project could result in potential, GS-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits for all Less than significant. although minimal, for non-seismic ground failure. areas of the project site,grading and site plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer shall be submitted to the Departments of Building and Safety and Public Works for review and approval. Such plans shall define the grading,excavation, and placement of fill on the project site,and shall incorporate the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report contained in Appendix C of the EIR. The proposed project could result in exposure of The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. people to seismic hazards. Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no mitigation measures are required. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 82 V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation b.Program Level Similar to Project Level impacts—refer above. Similar to Project Level mitigation measure. Similar to Project Level—refer above. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a.Project Level Impacts related to asbestos,lead-based paint,or The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. PCBs in existing Area A buildings would be Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no considered significant if demolition of any structures mitigation measures are required. found to contain such materials were to occur prior to appropriate stabilization and/or removal of the material in accordance with applicable regulations. Althotigh ilie. „1,.aiei-,,fedtietion n el-l-aild 14Z 1: Prior to the issuanee of a grading ing permit, th Less than s ,:f;n.,.,, lS9HE4,r,cc s cc.age ianh 1vcc,ec,r t,�4 g`vm"c ucei przc<c4ion well and-sv:o=iiteC-St61ftge .,I'A • A nnGm ­le tank t„n.,fed at,1,e ioitil.i..r._st , of A Fee A `hall f ,. .., fo.• rccrCrt'�—'evmc't— would .Use,C __ ______/ ___ _; __1, ,o suant to per-mil ', , The construction and on-going operation of the The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. Lowe's project may involve the use of hazardous Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no materials in the form of paint, adhesives,surface mitigation measures are required. coatings and other finishing materials, cleaning agents,and pesticides for landscaping purposes. In addition,potentially hazardous products may be stored on-site as store inventory. b.Program Level Similar to Project Level impacts—refer above. Similar to Project Level mitigation measures—refer Similar to Project Level—refer above. above. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 83 rr rr rr r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr r r■ rr �r rr rr V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a.Project Level The proposed development would increase the With implementation of the Standard City Polices Less than significant. amount of impervious surface area resulting in an and Requirements,other requirements set forth by increase in the rate and amount of surface runoff other regulatory agencies,and proposed drainage generated from the site. improvements,the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with hydrology,water quality or flooding. Grading and construction activities on the project With implementation of the Standard City Polices Less than significant. site have the potential to result in short-term water and Requirements,other requirements set forth by quality impacts. These activities may increase other regulatory agencies,and proposed drainage erosion and contribute sediment to surface waters. improvements,the proposed project would not Additionally, improper handling of construction result in significant impacts associated with materials and/or equipment could potentially result hydrology, water quality or flooding. in accidental spills that could adversely affect water quality. Operation of urban projects may produce street- With implementation of the WQMP,the project Less than significant. generated pollutants such as tire wear residue, oil would not result in a significant degradation of and grease, and metals,as well as fertilizers, surface water quality, and no mitigation measures pesticides, litter and dirt from landscaped areas. The are required. proposed project has the potential to result in long- term impacts to water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff and the increase in site activities. Project improvements would not substantially alter The proposed storm drainage system and associated Less than significant. the flooding potential of the area,which is already improvements would reduce flooding in the classified as minimal by FEMA. vicinity, which is already classified as minimal. Therefore,no mitigation measures are required. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 84 V Final Executive Summary Table V 1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation b Program Level Sinular to Project Level impacts—refer above Similar to Project Level mitigation measures—refer Similar to Project Level—refer above above LAND USE AND PLANNING a Project Level The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals No feasible mitigation Refer to Traffic and Significant unavoidable impact and policies of the Circulation Element Circulation below The proposed project is inconsistent with the No feasible mitigation Refer to Air Quality above Significant unavoidable impact General Plan goals and policies of the Air Quality Element The proposed project is inconsistent with the No feasible mitigation Significant unavoidable impact Environmental Resources/Conservation Element due to the loss of public open space b Program Level The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals Refer to Traffic and Circulation below Significant unavoidable impact and policies of the Circulation Element The proposed project is inconsistent with the Refer to Air Quality above Significant unavoidable impact General Plan goals and policies of the Air Quality Element NOISE a Project Level Noise disturbances in the areas located adjacent to Construction noise is exempt from municipal code Less than significant project site can be expected during construction requirements However the following mitigation measures are recommended City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 85 V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation N-1: The project contractor(s)shall place all stationary construction equipment as far as feasible from near-site residential receptors and situated so that emitted noise is directed away from those sensitive receptors located to the north, south,and east of the project site. N-2:The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging areas in the central portion of the site to create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and sensitive receptors during all project site preparation, grading,and construction activities. Noise disturbances associated with traffic can be The increase in noise is neither audible nor Less than significant. expected with implementation of the proposed significant based upon the referenced threshold project. standards. No mitigation measures are required. Noise disturbances associated with the long-term Noise generated by the long-term operation is not Less than significant. operation of the proposed project including loading expected to exceed allowable noise levels under the dock,customer loading,and staging area activities, City's Noise Ordinance. No mitigation measures and trash compactor noise can be expected. are required. b.Program Level Noise disturbances in the areas located adjacent to Refer to Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 above. Less than significant. project site can be expected during construction. Noise disturbances associated with traffic can be Although potential impacts are not anticipated, Less than significant. expected with implementation of the proposed future studies would be required at which time that project. future development applications are submitted. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 86 V Final Executive Summary Table V 1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation POPULATION AND HOUSING a Project Level There is no existing housing within Area A No mitigation measures are required No impact Therefore no housing would be removed as part of the project The project would not result in a significant increase No mitigation measures are required Less than significant in population and no additional housing would be needed to accommodate project employees Therefore the project would not substantially alter the location distribution density or growth rate of the population or housing in the area b Program Level Development of Area 131 would require the removal The project would implement Standard City Less than significant of nine occupied residential units Policies and Requirements Therefore no mitigation measures are required Development at the program level would not No mitigation measures are required Less than significant substantially alter the location distribution or growth rate of population or housing in the area PUBLIC SERVICES Fire a Project Level The proposed project could have the potential to The project would implement Standard City Less than significant result in a significant impact to the provision of fire Policies and Requirements Therefore no protection and emergency medical services mitigation measures are required City of Huntington Beach Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 87 rr r■� rr r +r rr r� rr rr r rr �r rr rr rr rr rr r� r V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation b.Program Level The proposed project could have the potential to The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. result in a significant impact to the provision of fire Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no protection and emergency medical services. mitigation measures are required. Police a.Project Level The proposed project could have the potential to The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. result in a significant impact to the provision of law Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no enforcement services. mitigation measures are required. b.Program Level The proposed project could have the potential to The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. result in a significant impact to the provision of law Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no enforcement services. mitigation measures are required. Schools a.Project Level Development of Area A would result in the removal No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant. of the former Rancho View School buildings and all associated uses,thereby eliminating the possibility that the Rancho View School could be re-opened. The project site has not served as an open education facility for students for the past 25 years and would not adversely impact the level of service presently provided. Implementation of the proposed project would not The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. appreciably increase the local population or generate Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no additional students that may affect school capacity. mitigation measures are required. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 88 V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation b.Program Level Implementation of the proposed project is not The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. expected to appreciably increase the local population Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no or generate additional students that may affect mitigation measures are required. school capacity. RECREATION a.Project Level The proposed project will result in the loss of ball ':o :^r*^tt a ^Ft.,:i t:^^�e- :*^ '^r Less than significant. fields that are currently used by youth sport teams. the proposed pr-ejeet,the goal of ONISD shoul aFe.-ele nted at one site o manner-tha League's pfegr-ams without undue hardship. R-1: Prior to any disruption of Ocean View Little Lea ug e's(OVLL)established use of Rancho View School,the following shall occur: In accordance with the'Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements upon Certain Portions of City and District Property'as approved on September 5,2000,five OVLL fields shall be relocated from the former Rancho View School site to Park View School with approximately 109 additional parking spaces provided at Murdy Park. The complete relocation of all five fields shall occur prior to any building or construction activity at the Rancho View School site that disrupts OVLL's established use of the site. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 89 V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Currently,OVLL's established use of Rancho View School consists of tryouts in January with the baseball season commencing in February and ending in June. "Complete relocation"shall be defined as five fields finished and ready for use by OVLL. No loss of the baseball season for OVLL shall occur. b.Program Level The future development of Area Bl would not result No mitigation measures required. Less than significant. in impacts associated with the loss or demand for parkland,open space or recreational opportunities. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a.Project Level The proposed project would have a significant T-1 Heil Avenue&Beach Boulevard—Provide a Less than significant. impact on traffic and circulation without the second westbound through lane(combination incorporation of mitigation measures. Several key through and right turn)and remove the westbound intersections(Heil Avenue/Beach Boulevard, right turn lane. Provide a second northbound left Warner turn lane and a second southbound left turn lane. Avenue/Beach Boulevard,Warner Avenue/Newland Street,Warner Avenue/Magnolia Street)would fall T-2 Warner Avenue&Beach Boulevard: Provide below the acceptable LOS. for a westl=ieun northbound right turn lane. T-3 Warner Avenue&Newland Street:Provide for a southbound right turn lane and a westbound right turn lane. T-4 Warner Avenue&Magnolia Street: Provide for a second northbound left turn lane. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 90 V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation The proposed project would have a significant No feasible mitigation measures. Significant and unavoidable. impact on traffic and circulation without the incorporation of mitigation measures to the intersections of Warner Avenue/Rotterdam,Warner Avenue/B Street. b.Program Level The Program Level development would have a T-6T-55 Prior to issuance of site development Significant and unavoidable. significant impact on traffic and circulation without permits,the applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact the incorporation of mitigation measures. Several Study as determined by City staff,to ensure that key intersections(Heil Avenue/Beach Boulevard, proposed development meets all applicable Warner Avenue/Gothard Street,Warner provisions of the Orange County Congestion Avenue/Beach Boulevard,Warner Avenue/Newland Management Program and the Growth Management Street,Warner Avenue/Magnolia Street,Warner Plan. The Traffic Impact Study shall provide Avenue/Rotterdam, Warner Avenue/B Street)would detailed mitigation measures as outlined in the fall below the acceptable LOS. CMP. The Traffic Impact Study shall also analyze and evaluate the effects on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. UTILITIES Electricity and Gas a.Project Level Development of Area A would result in a demand The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. for electricity and natural gas service to the project Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no site where currently none exists. mitigation measures are required. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 91 r r� r rr r r r r ■r rr ■r ■r r rr r r �r _ r rr V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation b.Program Level Development to occur within Area B 1 would result The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. in a demand for electricity and natural gas. Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no mitigation measures are required. Water a.Project Level Development within Area A as proposed could The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. result in significant impacts to water supply or Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no infrastructure. mitigation measures are required. b.Program Level Expected development to occur within Area B I The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. could result in significant impacts to water supply or Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no infrastructure. mitigation measures are required. Sewer a.Project Level Development within Area A as proposed could The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. result in significant impacts to sewer facilities or Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no infrastructure. mitigation measures are required. b.Program Level Expected development to occur within Area B 1 The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. could result in significant impacts to sewer facilities Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no or infrastructure. mitigation measures are required. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 92 V. Final Executive Summary Table V-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures _ Significance After Mitigation Solid Waste a.Project Level Construction and operation of uses within Area A The project would implement Standard City Less than significant, could result in significant impacts to solid waste Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no collection and disposal services,and landfill mitigation measures are required. capacity. b.Program Level Expected development to occur within Area B 1 The project would implement Standard City Less than significant. could result in significant impacts to solid waste Policies and Requirements. Therefore,no collection and disposal services,and landfill mitigation measures are required. capacity. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 93 i 1 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1 f 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 t i VI. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As of January 1, 1989, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for projects where mitigation measures are a condition of their approval and development. This program has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of CEQA. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project identifies the potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and specifies a series of measures designed to mitigate adverse impacts to the environment. Table VI-1 on the following page lists all the mitigation measures adopted in connection with approval of the proposed project. The MMRP describes the procedures the applicant will use to implement the mitigation measures and identifies at what point the mitigation measure is to be monitored. Monitoring refers to the observation of mitigation activities at the project site, in the design of plans or in the operation of the proposed project. Table VI-1 also identifies the agency or party responsible for implementation of the mitigation, ' and the monitoring agency or party. ' City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 94 VI. Mitigation Monitoring Program Table VI-1 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN SUMMARY TABLE Responsible Agency Monitoring Agency Mitigation Action Required When Monitoring to Occur or Party or Party AIR QUALITY Project Level and Program Level Construction Phase Mitigation SCAQMD Rule 403 and Standard City Policies and Requirements already incorporate all feasible fugitive dust and engine emissions control measures. It is recommended that the following mitigation measures be implemented to insure that construction-related NOx emissions remain below SCAQMD daily significance thresholds: AQ-1 During each phase of construction Limit use of heavy-duty During grading and Applicant City of Huntington the use of heavy-duty construction construction equipment to a construction activities Beach Department of equipment shall be limited to a comparable comparable mix of equipment Public Works mix of equipment including concrete pumps, including concrete pumps,off- off-highway trucks, scrapers,cranes, highway trucks,scrapers,cranes, backhoes,tracked loaders, forklifts,tracked backhoes,tracked loaders, tractors and dozers,wheeled loaders, forklifts,tracked tractors and compactors,and motor graders as identified dozers,wheeled loaders, in Appendix B so as not to exceed compactors,and motor graders. SCAQMD's established thresholds of significance. AQ-2 During construction,trucks and Trucks and vehicles in loading During grading and Applicant City of Huntington vehicles in loading and unloading queues and unloading queues should be construction activities Beach Department of would be kept with their engines off,when kept with their engines off,when Public Works not in use,to reduce vehicle emissions. not in use. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 95 r� rr rr rt rr rr r� rr r rr rr rs rr r r■r� rr rr r� r VI. Mitigation Monitoring Program Table VI-1 (Continued) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLE Responsible Agency Monitoring Agency Mitigation Action Required When Monitoring to Occur or Party or Party GEOLOGY AND SOILS Project Level GS-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for Submittal of grading and site Prior to issuance of grading Applicant Departments of all areas of the project site,grading and site plans to Departments of permits Building and Safety plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer Building and Safety and Public and Public Works shall be submitted to the Departments of Works,defining the grading, Building and Safety and Public Works for excavation, and placement of fill review and approval. Such plans shall on the project site and define the grading,excavation,and incorporating geotechnical placement of fill on the project site,and shall report recommendations incorporate the recommendations contained (Appendix C of EIR). in the geotechnical report contained in Appendix C of the EIR. NOISE Construction Phase Mitigation N-1 The project contractor(s)shall place all Place stationary construction During grading and Applicant City of Huntington stationary construction equipment as far as equipment away from near-site construction activities. Beach Public Works feasible from near-site residential receptors residential receptors so that Department and situated so that emitted noise is directed noise is directed away from away from those sensitive receptors located sensitive receptors. to the north,south, and east of the project site. N-2 The construction contractor shall locate Locate equipment staging areas During grading and Applicant City of Huntington equipment staging areas in the central in the central portion of the site. construction activities. Beach Public Works portion of the site to create the greatest Department distance between construction-related noise sources and sensitive receptors durine all City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 96 VI. Mitigation Monitoring Program Table VI-1 (Continued) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLE Responsible Agency Monitoring Agency Mitigation Action Required When Monitoring to Occur or Party or Party project site preparation,grading,and construction activities. RECREATION Project Level R-1 Prior to any disruption of Ocean View Relocate five OVLL fields from Prior to disruption of OVLL's OVSD City of Huntington Little League's(OVLL)established use of the former Rancho View School established use of Rancho Beach Planning and Rancho View School,the following shall site to Park View School with View School. Community Services occur: approximately 109 additional Departments parking spaces provided at In accordance with the'Agreement Between Murdy Park. the City of Huntington Beach and the Ocean View School District for Joint Development of Improvements and Joint Use of Improvements upon Certain Portions of City and District Property'as approved on September 5,2000,five OVLL fields shall be relocated from the former Rancho View School site to Park View School with approximately 109 additional parking spaces provided at Murdy Park. The complete relocation of all five fields shall occur prior to any building or construction activity at the Rancho View School site that disrupts OVLL's established use of the site. Currently,OVLL's established use of Rancho View School consists of tryouts in January with the baseball season commencing in February and ending in June. "Complete relocation"shall be defined as five fields finished and readv for use by City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 97 VI. Mitigation Monitoring Program Table VI-1 (Continued) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLE Responsible Agency Monitoring Agency Mitigation Action Required When Monitoring to Occur or Party or Party OVLL. No loss of the baseball season for OVLL shall occur.at one site or in a manner that practically accommodates Ocean View Little League's programs without undue hardship. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Project Level T-1 Heil Avenue&Beach Boulevard— Pay fair share cost contribution Prior to final inspection and Applicant City of Huntington Provide a second westbound through lane for improvements(18.7%) issuance of occupancy permit. Beach Public Works (combination through and right turn)and Department remove the westbound right turn lane. Provide a second northbound left turn lane and a second southbound left turn lane. T-2 Warner Avenue&Beach Boulevard: Pay fair share cost contribution Prior to final inspection and Applicant City of Huntington Provide for a northbound right turn lane. for improvements(34.5%) issuance of occupancy permit. Beach Public Works Department T-3 Warner Avenue&Newland Street: Pay fair share cost contribution Prior to final inspection and Applicant City of Huntington Provide for a southbound right turn lane and for improvements(34.5%) issuance of occupancy permit. Beach Public Works a westbound right turn lane. Department T-4 Warner Avenue&Magnolia Street: Pay fair share cost contribution Prior to final inspection and Applicant City of Huntington Provide for a second northbound left turn for improvements(30.6%) issuance of occupancy permit. Beach Public Works lane. Department City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 98 VI. Mitigation Monitoring Program Table VI-1 (Continued) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLE Responsible Agency Monitoring Agency Mitigation Action Required When Monitoring to Occur or Party or Party Program Level T-5 Prior to issuance of site development Provide a Traffic Impact Study Prior to issuance of site Applicant City of Huntington permits,the applicant shall provide a Traffic development permits. Beach Public Works Impact Study as determined by City staff,to Department ensure that proposed development meets all applicable provisions of the Orange County Congestion Management Program and the Growth Management Plan. The Traffic Impact Study shall provide detailed mitigation measures as outlined in the CMP. The Traffic Impact Study shall also analyze and evaluate the effects on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. City of Huntington Beach Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project Response to Comments/Final EIR October 2003 Page 99 ' APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENT TO TRAFFIC STUDY 1 1 f i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Oct 08 03 11 : 11a p. 2 '17042 lown(-Centre Utive, �utte 2/0 WILLDAN Foothill Ranch, California 92610 Serving Public.Agencies 949/470-8840 lax rya 9/770-9041 vvwwwilklanx-oni September 30, 2003 RECIEWED OCT 012003 Mr. Al Montes ...... Lowe's Companies Inc. 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 140 Z Carlsbad, CA 92008 �X& SUBJECT. SUPPLEMENT TO TRAFFIC STUDY LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER, Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Montes: This letter report is a supplement to the Lowe's Home Improvement Center traffic study previously prepared by Willdan, dated November 2001. This previously prepared traffic study initially had findings that under Project Opening Day(Year 2002), a total of four study intersections (Heil/Beach, Warner/Beach,Warner/Newland and Warner/Magnolia)would require improvements to mitigate the project impacts. As a result of the circulation of the Draft EIR for this project, comments were made regarding the period of time that had passed since the traffic counts had been conducted and that the projected opening day date had passed. The comment requested that the traffic analysis be updated accordingly. In orderto provide a thorough response, new traffic counts were conducted in July, 2003 at the signalized study intersections of Heil/Beach, Warner/Goldenwest,Warner/Gothard,Warner/Beach,Warner/Newland,Warner/Magnolia and Slater/Newland. The new intersection counts are included in Appendix A.1 attached to this letter. r Intersection Analysis A comparison between the previously completed counts (Year 2000/2001) and the new counts (Year 2003), indicate that for six of the study intersections, the newer count data is less than the previous count data. At the intersection of Magnolia/Warner the 2003 counts are higher than the 2000/2001 counts. The intersection analyses were recalculated with the new count data and the results are provided on Table 1A. As shown in Table 1A, all of the signalized intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service(LOS)during the AM and PM peak hour, under existing conditions. The unsignalized intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours. The updated ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix B.1. Anticipated development projects within the City of Huntington Beach were included in the previous traffic analysis. Due to the fact that approximately two to three years have passed since the original counts were taken, a number of the related projects have been F completed. In order to keep the scope of this update analysis manageable,the completed projects are included not only in the existing count data, but are also a part of the related project list or"other"volumes within the study. In addition, a growth factor of 2 percent per year was applied to the existing count data to the new opening day year (Year 2005). Again, the intersection analyses were re-calculated and the results are summarized in Table 1A. As indicated in Table 1A, the intersection of Heil/Beach would operate at an unacceptable LOS during the PM peak hour, but an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. The remaining signalized intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hour,with the intersection of Warner/Magnolia on a borderline (0.90/D) acceptable LOS during the PM peak hour. The project traffic, which has not changed from the original traffic study, was added to pre- project conditions and the ICU worksheets were re-calculated. As shown in Table 1A, the two study intersections of Heil/Beach and Warner/Magnolia would operate at unacceptable Levels of Service during the PM peak hours. The following mitigation measures which are also listed in the November 2001 traffic study would remain applicable to mitigate the project's impact. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum 2 City of Huntington Beach r r� r r r � �r r r■� r rr ■r r! r r r r r r TABLE 1A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROJECT OPENING DAY (YEAR 2005) Lowe's Home Improvement Center INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION(ICU)/LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) EXISTING+OTHER INTERSECTION EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING+OTHER EXISTING+OTHER +PROJECT CONDITIONS CONDITIONS +PROJECT CONDITIONS W/M1T/GATIONS AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR Signalized Intersections Heil & Beach 0.65/13 0.90/1) 0.70/13 0.96/E 0.70/13 0.98/E 0.69/13 0.94/E Warner& Goldenwest 0.54/A 0.59/A 0.56/A 0.61/13 0.56/A 0.62/13 - - Warner& Gothard 0.55/A 0.77/C 0.59/A 0.70/C 0.60/A 0.81/D - - Warner& Beach 0.68/13 0.70/13 0.71/C 0.76/C 0.76/C 0.81/D - - w Warner& Newland 0.66/B 0.75/C 0.69/13 0.80/C 0.69/13 0.82/D - - Warner& Magnolia 0.64/13 0.87/1) 0.67/13 0.90/D 0.67/B 0.92/E 0.67/B 0.85/D Slater& Newland 0.57/A 0.67/13 0.61/13 0.69/13 0.61/13 0.70/13 - - Warner& Signalized Project Driveway - - - - 0.62/13 0.70/13 - - Unsignalized Intersections Warner& B Street */F 445.8/F */F 605.5/F */F */F (1) (1) Warner& Rotterdam 533.8/F 272.7/F 607.6/F 329.3/F */F */F (1) (1) * Range Limits"in the HCS program have been exceeded, which results in LOS F. (1) It should be noted that this intersection is currently operating at an over capacity Level of Service and typical roadway widening type improvements would not mitigate this intersection since the impacts are related to the `tle/ay"in entering Warner(from B Street); e.g., less traffic on Warner is needed which is not within the project's control. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum City of Huntington Beach r Table 1A of this addendum letter and Table 3 located within the November 2001 traffic study, can be compared for a line by line comparison for changes. Proiect Opening Day- Mitigation Measures Heil & Beach - Add a second westbound through lane(combination through/right) and take out westbound right turn lane. • (Consistent with the November 2001 traffic study findings.) Warner& Magnolia - Add second northbound left turn lane. • (Consistent with the November 2001 traffic study findings.) Both of these mitigation measures were provided in the original November 2001 traffic study. Mitigation measures, within the November 2001 traffic study, listed as a requirement under project opening day at the intersections of Warner/Beach and Warner/Newland would not be warranted under project opening day conditions; however, these improvements would be required under Buildout conditions. Percent of Proiect Impact Due to the change of existing traffic volumes and growth, Table 8 within the November 2001 traffic study which indicates the percentage of net traffic impact by the project was revised and can be seen within this addendum as Table 2A. r, Buildout- Intersection Analysis Due to the fact that a model (SARA Model) was utilized for conditions without the project and the data was not based upon existing count data, the traffic volumes under Buildout conditions remained unchanged. Under the General Plan, Warner Avenue between Gothard Street and Magnolia Street is shown at buildout as an eight-lane facility. The intersections along this stretch of Warner, between Gothard and Magnolia, which were analyzed were re-calculated to determine the impact. Conditions with and without the project were analyzed. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum 4 City of Huntington Beach r r rTABLE 2A ' PERCENTAGE OF NET TRAFFIC IMPACT Lowe's Home Improvement Center 1 PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES CALCULATION IMPACT ' Heil VP= 114 100 (114) at Vr= 8,046 8,046 -7,431 18.5 % Beach Ve= 7,431 Warner VP = 119 100 (119) at Vr = 7,005 7,005-6,553 26.3 % Magnolia I Ve = 6,553 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES CALCULATION IMPACT Heil VP= 114 100 (114) at Ve= 7,431 8,663-7,431 9.3 % Beach Vb = 8,663 Warner VP = 310 100 (310) at Ve = 7,053 10,745- 7,053 8.4 % Beach Vb = 10,745 Warner VP = 255 100 (255) at Ve = 4,768 6,943-4,768 11.7 % Newland Vb = 6,943 r Proiect Opening Day Buildout Conditions Equation: 100(Vd 100 (Vd (Vd - (Vd (Vd - (Vd r Legend: 1 = Percent of Project Traffic Impact VP = Project Traffic Volumes ' V, = Cumulative Volumes for Study Period Ve =Existing Traffic Volumes ' Vb = Buildout With Project Volumes WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum City of Huntington Beach 5 - r The intersection analyses were recalculated with the general plan lane configurations, and the results are provided in Table 3A. As shown in Table 3A, the three study intersections of Heil/Beach,Warner/Beach and Warner/Newland would operate at unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS)during the PM peak hours. The updated ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix CA. The two intersections of Warner/Gothard and Warner/Magnolia, which were shown to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service under Buildout conditions with the project are now operating at acceptable Levels of Service with the eight-lane facility on Warner Avenue. Buildout Conditions - Mitigation Measures Heil & Beach Add a second northbound left turn lane. • (Consistent with the November 2001 traffic study findings.) Add a second southbound left turn lane. r- • (Consistent with the November 2001 traffic study findings.) Warner& Beach Add a northbound right turn lane. • (Identified as a needed improvement within the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, review of the car wash development located on the southeast corner also indicated that this improvement is needed.) Warner & Newland Add a southbound right turn lane. r. • (Consistent with the November 2001 traffic study findings. Shown under Project Opening Day Mitigation Measures.) Mitigation measures, within the November 2001 traffic study, for Warner/Gothard are no r longer applicable. WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum City of Huntington Beach 6 r rr r r r rr ■r rr r ar r r� r rr rr �■r r r r TABLE 3A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY LONG RANGE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Lowe s Home Improvement Center INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION(ICU)/LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) LONG RANGE LONG RANGE+PROJECT LONG RANGE+PROJECT INTERSECTION CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS (W/Mitigation) AM PK FIR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR i AM PK HR PM PK HR Signalized Intersections Heil & Beach 0 89/D 0 96/E 0 89/D 0 98/E 0 83/D 0 90/D Warner& Goldenwest 0 67/13 0 77/C 0 68/13 0 77/C Warner& Gothard 0 79/C 0 82/D 0 79/C 0 83/D Warner& Beach 0 76/C 0 96/E 0 78/C 0 99/E 0 78/C 0 97/E Warner& Newland 0 77/C 1 00/E 0 80/C 1 04/F 0 75/C 1 00/E Warner& Magnolia 0 67/13 0 85/D 0 67/13 0 85/D =Slater Newland 0 71/C 0 74/C 0 72/C 0 76/C WILLDAN Lowe s Home Improvement Center Job#12670 addendum City of Huntington Beach Road Seqment Analysis A volume to capacity analyses which relates to Level of Service (LOS) have been prepared for 22 road segments within the study area in order to respond to comments ' made during the circulation of the Draft EIR for this project In order to provide a thorough response 24-hour machine counts were conducted in July 2003 at the 22 road segments shown in Table 4A The ADT volumes and the City s classification of each roadways were utilized to determine each road segments LOS The roadway link capacities of each street classification according to the City s General Plan and Orange County s MPAH are shown below LOS E FACILITY TYPE NUMBER OF LANES DESIGN VOLUME* Smartstreet/ Principal 8 (divided) 75 100 Major Arterial 6 (divided) 56 300 Primary Arterial 4 (divided) 37 500 Secondary Arterial 4 (undivided) 25 000 Arterial Collector 2 (divided) 18 000 Collector 2 (undivided) 12 500 Vehicles Per Day(VPD) ' City Cntena Evaluation of Road Segment Analysis The following criteria for determining If a roadway segment is significantly impacted were provided by the City of Huntington Beach to be utilized in the road segment analysis Under conditions with the project If the road segment operates at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS D E or F) and the road segment will also experience a V/C Increase greater than 0 03 and The major terminal Intersections operate at an unacceptable level of service with or without mitigation unless the mitigation Includes the additional through lanes beyond the basic street cross section WILLDAN Lowe s Home Improvement Center Job#12670 addendum 8 City of Huntington Beach m aye s m r m m Sam m m m r m r m m m r TABLE 4A ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY City of Huntington Beach EXISTING(YEAR 2003)(" PRE PROJECT POST PROJECT LOS E ARTERIAL CAPACITY LANES DAILY DAILY DAILY LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO (e v/c)(21 1 Golden West St Slater Ave to Warner Ave 56 300 6U 31 154 055 A 32 414 058 A 32 514 058 A 2 Golden West St Warner Ave to Heil Ave 56 300 6U 33 705 060 A 35 065 063 B 35 255 063 B 3 Gothard St Slater Ave to Warner Ave 25 000 41-1 17 739 071 C 18 459 074 C 18 849 076 C 4 Gothard St Warner Ave to Heil Ave 25 000 4U 18 475 074 C 19 225 077 C 19 325 078 C 5 Beach Blvd D Slater Ave to Warner Ave 75 100 8D 60 000 080 C 63 670 085 D 65 320 087 (0 02) 110 6 Beach Blvd D Warner Ave to Heil Ave 75 100 8D 57 000 076 C 60 490 081 D 62 510 084 (0 03) 7 Beach Blvd D Heil Ave to Edinger Ave 75 100 8D 59 000 079 C 62 610 084 D 64 350 086 (0 02) 8 Newland St Talbert Ave to Slater Ave 25 000 4U 18 328 073 C 19 068 077 C 19 748 079 C 9 Newland St Slater Ave to Warner Ave 25 000 41,1 16 945 068 B 17 635 071 C 18 795 076 C 10 Newland St Warner Ave to Heil Ave 25 000 4U 17 919 072 C 18 639 075 C IL33 9 609 079 C 11 Magnoha St E Slater Ave to Warner Ave 37 500 4D 32 364 086 D 33 674 090 D 864 091 (0 01) 11 WILLDAN Lowe s Home Improvement Center Job#12670 addendum City of Huntington Beach TABLE 4A (Cont) ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY City of Huntington Beach EXISTING(YEAR 2003)") PRE PROJECT POST PROJECT LOS E ARTERIAL CAPACITY LANES DAILY DAILY DAILY LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO (a v/c)(2) 12 Magnolia St E Warner Ave to 1 405 SB Off 37 500 4D 34 896 093 E 36 306 097 E 36 596 098 (0 01) Ramp 13 Heil Ave D Gothard St to Beach Blvd 18 000 2D 14 696 082 D 15 286 085 D 15 476 086 (0 01) 14 Heil Ave Beach Blvd To Newland St 12 500 2U 9 000 072 C 9 360 075 C 9 360 075 C 15 Warner Ave Edwards St to Golden West St 56 300 6D 34 478 061 B 35 868 064 B 36 638 065 B 16 Warner Ave Golden West St to Gothard St 56 300 6D (STREET UNDER CONSTRUCTION COUNTS COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED) 17 Warner Ave o~ Gothard St to Beach Blvd 56 300 6D (STREET UNDER CONSTRUCTION COUNTS COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED) 18 Warner Ave D Beach Blvd to Newland St 56 300 6D 36 653 065 B 38 133 068 B 47 813 085 (0 17) 19 Warner Ave D Newland St to Magnolia St 56 300 6D 42 066 075 C 43 766 078 C 45 996 082 (0 04) 20 Warner Ave D Magnolia St to 1 405 SIB On 56 300 6D 45 556 081 D 47 396 085 D 48 946 087 (0 02) Ramp 21 Slater Ave Beach Blvd to Newland St 25 000 4U 18 569 074 C 19 319 078 C 19 319 078 C 22 Slater Ave Newland St to Magnolia St 25 000 4U 17 429 070 B 18 129 073 C 18 419 074 C (1) ADT volumes for Beach Boulevard were obtained from the Caltrans website and are for the Year 2002 (2) Where conditions with the project indicates an unacceptable LOS the change in V/C between pre project and post project is shown D= Divided Roadway U=Undivided Roadway WILLDAN Lowe s Home Improvement Center Job#12670 addendum City of Huntington Beach ss s M ss Ise ss M Im M ii M r M M ss tPost- Project Conditions Existing ADT volumes were combined with related project ADT a growth factor was ' applied to the existing ADT volumes then the project ADT volumes added to obtain Post- Project conditions Table 4A summarizes the daily roadway segment Level of Service rresults at the 22 road segments Based on the results of the analyses nine of the street segments would not meet the City s minimum level of service standard with the proposed project However only the two segments of Warner Avenue Beach to Newland and Warner Avenue Newland to Magnolia would also have a v/c increase with the project of greater than 0 03 Neither of these road segments meet the City s second criteria in evaluating street segment(terminal intersections of each segment not operating at an acceptable level of service) therefore ithe impact is not considered significant and no further improvements are necessary (General Plan) Buildout with Protect Conditions ADT volumes for Buildout conditions were referenced from the SARA traffic model The Buildout ADT volumes were reviewed for consistency and quality control In the case where the model ADT volumes were less than existing volumes a one percent (1%) positive growth percentage was applied to the existing ADT volumes and substituted wherever the raw model data indicated negative growth This method is consistent with the technique utilized with the Buildout peak hour volumes ' It should be noted that it is recognized that the Buildout volumes on some of the road ' segments may be less than pre-project conditions A reason for this is the roadway network in the future is significantly different from what is shown today New north/south connections will be made crossing the freeway and additional lanes on the road segments will result in traffic shifting to other routes which is reflected in the traffic model results WILLDAN Lowe s Home Improvement Center Job#12670 addendum City of Huntington Beach 11 Table 5A summarizes the daily roadway segment Level of Service results at the 22 road r segments under General Plan buildout conditions with and without the project Based on the results of the analyses 10 of the street segments would not meet the City s minimum level of service standard with the proposed project However none of the road segments meet the minimum threshold of a v/c increase with the project of 0 03 or less Therefore the impacts are considered less than significant No further improvements are necessary on the study road segments under buildout conditions We trust that this additional information will be of assistance to you If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me Respectfully submitted Willdan eSw &S��4 K--�, R Scott Bascikin P E , Division Manager Traffic , i 1 1 r WILLDAN Lowe s Home Improvement Center Job#12670 addendum 12 City of Huntington Beach TABLE 5A BUILDOUT ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY City of Huntington Beach BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT"' BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LOS E ARTERIAL CAPACITY LANES DAILY DAILY LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO L(e v/c)(Z) 1. Golden West St. Slater Ave. to Warner Ave. 56,300 61-1 31,900 0.57 A 32,000 0.57 A 2. Golden West St. Warner Ave.to Heil Ave. 56,300 6U 34,000 0.60 A 34,190 0.61 B 3. Gothard St. Slater Ave.to Warner Ave. 37,500 4D 27,200 0.73 C 27,590 0.74 C 4. Gothard St. Warner Ave.to Heil Ave. 37,500 4D 26,500 0.71 C 26,600 0.71 C 5. Beach Blvd. D Slater Ave. to Warner Ave. 75,100 8D 60,600 0.81 D 62,250 0.83 (0.02) w 6. Beach Blvd. Warner Ave.to Heil Ave. 75,100 8D 57,600 0.77 C 59,620 0.79 C 7. Beach Blvd. D Heil Ave.to Edinger Ave. 75,100 8D 59,600 0.79 C 61,340 0.82 (0.03) 8.Newland St. F Talbert Ave. to Slater Ave. 37,500 4D 38,200 1.02 F 38,880 1.04 (0.02) 9. Newland St. E Slater Ave. to Warner Ave. 37,500 4D 34,700 0.93 E 35,860 0.96 (0.03) 10.Newland St D Warner Ave.to Heil Ave. 37,500 4D 31,700 0.85 D 32,670 0.87 (0.02) 11. Magnolia St D Slater Ave.to Warner Ave. 37,500 41) 32,700 0.87 D 32,890 0.88 (0.01) 12. Magnolia St. E Warner Ave.to 1-405 SB Off Ramp 37,500 4D 35,300 0.94 E 35,590 0.95 (0.01) WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum City of Huntington Beach TABLE 5A (Cont.) BUILDOUT ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY City of Huntington Beach BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECTO' BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT LOS E ARTERIAL CAPACITY LANES DAILY DAILY LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO LOS VOLUME VIC RATIO (a v/c)(2) 13.Heil Ave. Gothard St.to Beach Blvd. 37,500 4D 23,300 0.62 B 23,490 0.63 B 14.Heil Ave. Beach Blvd.To Newland St. 37,500 4D 19,600 0.52 A 19,600 0.52 A 15. Warner Ave. Edwards St.to Golden West St. 56,300 6D 43,100 0.77 C 43,870 0.78 C 16. Warner Ave. Golden West St.to Gothard St. 56,300 6D 44,000 0.78 C 45,060 0.80 C 17. Warner Ave. Gothard St.to Beach Blvd. 75,100 8D 44,000 0.59 A 45,650 0.61 B N p 18. Warner Ave. Beach Blvd.to Newland St. 75,100 8D 45,100 0.60 A 54,780 0.73 C 19. Warner Ave. Newland St.to Magnolia St. 75,100 8D 49,300 0.66 B 51,530 0.69 B 20. Warner Ave. E Magnolia St.to 1-405 SB On Ramp 56,300 6D 50,200 0.89 D 51,750 0.92 (0.03) 21. Slater Ave. E Beach Blvd.to Newland St. 37,500 4D 34,200 0.91 E 34,200 0.91 (0.00) 22. Slater Ave. D Newland St.to Magnolia St. 37,500 4D 29,900 0.80 C 30,190 0.81 (0.01) (1)ADT Volumes for Buildout were obtained from the SARA Model. (Note:Where General Plan Buildout ADT volumes were less than existing volumes, a 1%growth factor was applied to the existing ADT volumes.) (2)Where conditions with the project indicates an unacceptable LOS,the change in V/C between pre-project and post-project is shown. D=Divided Roadway U=Undivided Roadway WILLDAN Lowe's Home Improvement Center Job#12670.addendum City of Huntington Beach APPENDIX A.1 ' YEAR 2003 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA 1 t Aug �05 03 02: 13p TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 2 -- Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: BEACH E/W STREET: HEIL CITY: HUNTINGTON BLVD AVE BEACH DATE: 7/29/03 DAY: TUESDAY FILENAME: 0731301A F . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 4 0 1 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 r 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 17 401 8 5 437 31 34 48 30 5 13 22 1051 15 AM 13 387 2 13 430 28 30 72 29 4 21 26 1055 30 AM 15 428 5 13 618 25 41 61 42 5 33 27 1313 45 AM 28 512 11 10 561 34 39 72 44 8 42 35 1396 8:00 AM 30 406 3 13 580 32 36 62 42 3 38 26 1271 15 AM 31 529 8 14 586 34 33 64 40 8 46 29 1422 30 AM 33 410 5 15 486 25 53 50 38 5 27 24 1171 45 AM 45 432 3 22 462 19 41 47 29 6 38 25 1169 9:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 "- VOLUMES = 104 1875 27 50 2345 125 149 259 168 24 159 117 5402 COMMENTS: ,ugt05 03 02: 13p TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 3 ' Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: BEACH E/W STREET: HEIL CITY: HUNTINGTON BLVD AVE BEACH DATE: 7/24/03 DAY: THURSDAY FILENAME: -------- - ---- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period -------------------------- Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL --------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 4 0 1 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 r2:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 56 712 17 38 669 55 66 66 38 12 41 29 1799 15 PM 67 775 21 38 626 54 53 100 42 15 64 46 1901 30 PM 55 711 11 38 637 59 46 54 45 12 85 37 1790 45 PM 59 678 7 33 598 45 39 68 46 9 74 22 1678 5:00 PM 72 740 10 43 730 49 48 95 49 10 80 .45 1971 15 PM 67 748 20 36 611 46 26 70 52 11 73 52 1812 30 PM 45 631 17 63 700 40 32 75 51 12 81 30 1777 45 PM 77 706 19 36 633 62 49 86 45 11 88 59 1871 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PM Peak Hr Begins at 1700 VOLUMES = 261 2825 66 178 2674 197 155 326 197 44 322 186 7431 ' COMMENTS: RuCN05 03 02: 14p TRRFFIC DRTR SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 4 r Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: GOLDENWEST E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON AVE AVE BEACH DATE: 7/29/03 DAY: TUESDAY FILENAME: 0731302A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period r- Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 r 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 21 134 16 48 158 12 17 218 14 15 87 12 752 15 AM 31 121 21 46 165 11 26 245 32 15 109 14 836 _. 30 AM 34 194 19 62 160 19 33 304 48 11 136 30 1050 45 AM 35 146 20 78 201 23 35 327 52 20 100 21 1058 8:00 AM 31 178 22 63 210 20 39 289 24 16 107 28 1027 15 AM 32 144 15 58 160 21 33 243 30 15 133 22 906 30 AM 39 168 24 68 174 15 24 268 23 31 123 24 981 45 AM 40 236 37 79 196 23 50 274 56 30 125 24 1170 9:00 AM F 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hr Begins at 800 VOLUMES = 142 726 98 268 740 79 146 1074 133 92 488 98 4084 COMMENTS: �ug ,05 03 02: 14p TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 5 ' Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: GOLDENWEST E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON AVE AVE BEACH DATE: 7/24/03 DAY: THURSDAY FILENAME: ------ --- - ---- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ' Period -------------- Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL E7 ER WL WT WR TOTAL ------------------------------------------------- -------------- LANES: 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 2:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 71 253 11 46 187 28 59 220 52 42 206 58 1233 ' 15 PM 54 196 15 51 219 39 46 201 37 28 158 43 1087 30 PM 55 190 16 75 198 33 43 214 42 27 206 62 1161 45 PM 50 221 13 78 194 39 52 260 48 38 246 53 1292 5:00 PM 57 232 11 59 202 45 57 195 40 41 264 -43 1246 15 PM 62 230 13 63 247 36 38 224 47 29 206 36 1231 30 PM 48 178 9 58 187 22 50 197 54 34 265 41 1143 45 PM 65 254 19 60 218 26 54 192 52 39 238 43 1260 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PM Peak Hr Begins at 1630 VOLUMES = 224 873 53 275 841 153 190 893 177 135 922 194 4930 COMMENTS: Aue, 05 03 02: 14p TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 6 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: GOTHARD E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH _ DATE: 7/24/03 DAY: THURSDAY FILENAME: 0731303A r ` ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound Westbound Period T Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 13 58 11 20 53 9 20 277 11 7 137 23 639 15 AM 14 63 10 19 98 17 31 281 36 16 143 24 752 30 AM 9 78 12 12 105 21 45 296 57 21 165 24 845 45 AM 15 79 18 19 116 24 41 308 54 29 179 32 914 8:00 AM 16 89 27 27 131 29 34 327 42 36 187 34 979 15 AM 19 92 23 21 126 24 31 301 44 24 153 36 894 - 30 AM 23 101 17 18 119 26 26 231 48 26 149 34 818 45 AM 25 111 15 15 108 27 27 243 36 29 147 42 825 9:00 AM r. 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 VOLUMES = 59 338 80 79 478 98 151 1232 197 110 684 126 3632 COMMENTS: rug , 05 03 02: 15p TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 7 r Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N S STREET: GOTHARD E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH ' DATE: 7/23/03 DAY: WEDNESDAY --FILENAME_-0731303P---- ----------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 r2:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 46 201 19 50 161 42 45 276 51 18 285 58 1252 ' 15 PM 46 175 19 35 140 30 23 245 53 16 290 45 1117 30 PM 48 179 18 52 116 39 38 225 38 18 332 27 1130 45 PM 44 126 21 37 141 31 36 264 39 21 314 41 1115 5:00 PM 62 207 16 65 168 48 34 254 31 26 328 •49 1288 r 15 PM 42 192 16 38 140 30 31 293 42 16 352 35 1227 30 PM 56 182 16 45 151 34 27 233 42 30 349 41 1206 45 PM 35 134 14 30 118 25 32 236 24 17 336 40 1041 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PM Peak Hr Begins at ' 1645 VOLUMES = 204 707 69 185 600 143 128 1044 154 93 1343 166 4836 rCOMMENTS: 1 r r i Ruc, 05 03 02: 15P TRRFFIC DRTR SERVICES INC (714) 541-2020 P. 8 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: NEWLAND E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH DATE: 7/29/03 DAY: TUESDAY FILENAME: 0731304A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 , . 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 12 85 23 46 84 14 11 304 5 20 128 12 744 15 AM 14 70 32 66 131 25 5 361 17 10 132 16 879 r . 30 AM 13 102 37 69 142 12 8 401 9 11 168 7 979 45 AM 21 101 35 66 163 31 12 313 16 21 207 16 1002 8:00 AM 15 59 22 59 130 20 11 333 10 21 182 23 885 15 AM 8 81 30 56 115 14 13 285 7 19 198 18 844 30 AM 13 76 25 58 118 21 12 335 8 23 163 6 858 45 AM 21 74 24 52 127 9 10 289 9 15 180 13 823 9:00 AM r . 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ AM Peak Hr Begins at 715 VOLUMES = 63 332 126 260 566 88 36 1408 52 63 689 62 3745 COMMENTS: ug . 05 03 02: 15P TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541-.2020 P. 9 ' Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: NEWLAND E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH DATE: _-7/24/03-----------------DAY:-THURSDAY------------FILENAME: _-0731304P-- - 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ' Period ---------------------------------- Beginning NL NT NR. SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 32 154 18 27 104 19 14 290 19 22 236 44 979 ' 15 PM 31 171 26 40 138 15 13 254 15 31 283 52 1069 30 PM 26 140 19 41 128 24 24 259 17 46 319 48 1091 45 PM 26 184 21 38 128 13 27 259 30 38 288 47 1099 5:00 PM 27 190 22 39 123 23 24 308 23 35 280 .55 1149 ' 15 PM 22 211 26 40 145 18 31 294 27 43 292 37 1186 30 PM 31 195 21 55 181 41 23 313 22 39 345 68 1334 45 PM 34 177 27 52 105 10 23 278 21 33 279 52 1091 ' 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PM Peak Hr Begins at ' 1645 VOLUMES = 106 780 90 172 577 95 105 1174 102 155 1205 207 4768 COMMENTS: Rug , 05 03 02: 15p TRRFFIC DRTR SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 10 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: MAGNOLIA E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH DATE: 7/24/03 DAY: THURSDAY FILENAME: 0731305A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET - ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2.5 0.5 2 2 1 2 4 0 2 3 1 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 14 190 34 85 121 28 48 412 15 28 182 . 5 1162 15 AM 19 204 46 62 134 25 37 374 11 21 180 11 1124 30 AM 17 211 41 119 192 26 50 510 29 28 203 8 1434 45 AM 18 195 34 121 213 35 44 396 25 18 198 14 1311 8:00 AM 20 187 27 102 183 49 38 359 17 32 234 10 1258 15 AM 15 181 18 77 176 36 43 390 21 33 193 8 1191 30 AM 29 216 33 63 168 32 58 410 35 29 217 9 1299 45 AM 37 235 26 79 177 60 56 309 37 44 242 20 1322 9:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM r- ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------ AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 VOLUMES - 70 774 120 419 764 146 175 1655 92 111 828 40 5194 COMMENTS: I ug. 05 03 02: 16P TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 P. 11 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: MAGNOLIA E/W STREET: WARNER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH ' DATE: 7/23/03 DAY: WEDNESDAY FILENAME: ---------- - --- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period ' Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER -WL---WT---WR---TOTAL -------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2.5 0.5 2 2 1 2 4 0 2 3 1 2:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 35 187 58 64 287 67 51 259 37 38 279 19 1381 15 PM 28 233 47 72 294 51 53 261 39 29 278 28 1413 30 PM 57 241 45 76 302 63 48 267 42 65 307 34 1547 45 PM 54 225 45 72 312 60 56 283 48 46 351 45 1597 5:00 PM 58 289 68 78 303 58 71 306 51 44 313 29 1668 15 PM 50 260 52 72 291 51 89 324 43 45 320 28 1625 30 PM 37 238 53 79 297 54 74 321 45 28 319 30 1575 45 PM 55 270 60 81 301 49 66 309 47 32 375 40 1685 ' 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PM 1 ---Peak-----Hr------------------------------------- ----------------------- Begins at ' 1700 VOLUMES = 200 1057 233 310 1192 212 300 1260 186 149 1327 127 6553 COMMENTS: Aug , 05 03 02: 16p TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 p. 12 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: NEWLAND E/W STREET: SLATER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH DATE: 7/24/03 DAY: THURSDAY FILENAME: 0731306A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL NT NR. SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 16 100 10 8 83 8 12 137 14 8 72 3 471 15 AM 18 109 16 25 112 9 9 181 19 14 63 3 578 30 AM 18 106 15 32 144 17 9 252 44 15 89 9 750 45 AM 23 115 13 27 146 19 12 184 27 8 110 9 693 8:00 AM 23 123 13 22 120 16 10 154 21 9 99 5 615 15 AM 33 97 16 12 118 15 6 176 27 9 69 6 584 30 AM 20 114 17 12 98 27 19 178 17 11 84 4 601 45 AM 25 120 24 7 122 32 18 182 14 8 130 10 692 9:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 VOLUMES 97 441 57 93 528- 67 37 766 119 41 367 29 2642 COMMENTS: �U& 05 03 02: 16P TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES INC (714) 541 -2020 P. 13 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS ' N/S STREET: NEWLAND E/W STREET: SLATER CITY: HUNTINGTON ST AVE BEACH ' DATE: 7/24/03--- ------- -- DAY_-THURSDAY ------FILENAME`-0731306P 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period tBeginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 27 169 13 10 144 21 18 140 23 27 142 21 755 15 PM 47 153 17 19 130 27 11 128 31 18 151 25 757 30 PM 29 162 14 9 141 19 26 170 36 15 171 15 807 45 PM 38 161 14 6 143 18 27 155 34 25 182 30 833 5:00 PM 31 204 16 12 141 20 46 174 46 28 191 .28 937 15 PM 37 198 18 8 164 23 34 137 29 23 190 26 887 30 PM 31 172 15 16 171 24 21 157 28 25 172 30 862 45 PM 28 188 24 11 125 19 18 131 36 32 190 24 826 ' 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM ------------------------- PM Peak Hr Begins at ' 1645 VOLUMES = 137 735 63 42 619 85 128 623 137 101 735 114 3519 COMMENTS: APPENDIX B.1 POST-PROJECT ICU WORKSHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: uOWs 'PROJECT OPENING DAY /wrsnvAL: xm PEAK HOUR /wrsensonow: *eIL Ave /BEACH BLVD. ... .................. ... .......... ............ ... ................. ................... ... .................. ................... .................... ... .................. ..... .................... ..... .................. .... .................... ..... ... UU| U|U N UN N UN N N NU N N e«onwo N Nsx+orHsnIII III sx~or*sn || UU| NN movsmswrNU sx/nrN pnop NU smonwo NnnopoosoNN sxmrINo N or*se N pnoJscr NU smonwo N III+OTHER N N+peoJso7 N N+pnoJEcT N UN NN NN Lxmse 0 Lxwso NU cxp«cn, 0 oxpAnnv UN voLoms N voLuws N voLuwe NU wc N N wu N |8 wc 0 N v/C-WLwp U| NN U|U ~~~~~~~~~ 0||~~~==~^ ~~~~ ~~~~ U| ~~~=~=~ Um ~~~=~~~~ |U ~~~~~~~~~ N ~~~~~~~~~ ||U ~~~~~~~~~ U|~~|U ~~~~~~~ ~ |||~~^U| ~~~~~~�~ U|~=^U| ~~~~~~~~~ |U~~^|UU NU mL NU 1 N VN� �nm|U 1nmUN m*N »N � �| ».»« N^ N »m N° K| «.m N^ |U »»/ 0^ UN NU ^n NN 4111 ^UN 6800111 680011111 1875111 102111 12 NN oon N N ou« N N ».»o N N oan N N0 NU mn UN 0111 » NU 0111 011111 27111 3111 » NU 0 0 N N N N N NU W0 oL UN I N 1 11111 1700 N 1nm NN 50111 8111 « NN «m N N u»» N N u»» N N uoa N N0 NU or UN 4111 411111 6800 N 680011111 2345 N 148111 »» NU o»» N^ N ua» N^ N o»o N^ N oon N^ NN 11111 nn NN ^N » NN « N »NU 125111 mN » 11111 0 N N N 0 N N U@ 110 EL NU " N 'I NN 1700111 1nm UN 149111 7111 » NN »»o 0^ N ««* N^ N «»o N^ N uoo N^ NN NN sr NU uN oNU 3400N 340011111 25e111 mN » NN »m N N om N N o.m N N nm N NN NU sn 011 oN oUN » N »NU 168111 12111 4 NU N N N N N N N NN UN wu NU 1 N , NU 1700111 170011111 mN 4111 « NN um N N »»» N N ono N N 000 N Um UN wr NN 1 N 211111 1700 N 3400 NU 159111 17111 » NN u»o N^ N «.m Ill` N um ill° N 000 ill 0N UN wn NN 1N »NU 1700111 011111 117111 rN » NN umN N «mN N o.o/ N N N N0 ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -..... ..... .... ... ............. ... -............ .... -............ .... NN ~ ~~~=�~~�~~ ~~~~~~~~~~�~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~�~~~~ ~=U|U .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U|U um | 0.46 | o/m | 0.46 NN ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME Hua | Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ||||| .................. sAnrxwsor CRITICAL SUMS~ N|| um | 0.19 | 0.19 | «m U0 w=NORTHBOUND,n~nourHoouwo ||||| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ----------------- ---- ------------------- -'- UU| s~sAaToouwo.w=wsnroouwo oLs«nxwns~ UU| «.»o | »os } ».»n | oos ||U| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT NU ��~~��� ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ �~~~~~~~ � ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~NU mn.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE |U|| »a» | ».m | »r» | ««» ||||| Loo~LEVEL opSERVICE Hill ------------------ ---- --'—------------ ---- ------------------ ---- ----------------- ---- N0 ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS uOS= ||N o a | a | e |U|| � | | ! � ! } � � ' / M m m W � � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: �nwE's'r-ROJc-7�TuPEwmsmw /wrsnv«L: pw PEAK HOUR /mrsensor/ow: *s/L AVE./BEACH BLVD. -' --............ ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -................. ... .................. -.................. -.................. ... .................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -... ... |� UN N ||m U| |UU N N 11111 |U N sx/enwa N ||| sx~orHsn || |U sx~or*snN ||N |� MovswswrNU sx/orN pnop NU smonwG NpnopooeoNU sxmrwm N or*se N pnnJsor NU sxmnwo N U|+or*sn N N+pnoJEnr 0 U|+pncusor N U@ ||N ||N LANES LANES o«nwonv N c«pAunv NN voLuMs N voLume N voLuws N|| wn N N wc U| N wo |U ||| «m-WL/Mp |U |UU UN ~~^~~~~~~ U0~~~~= ~~^~^===~ N ~=~~~ ~~ NU ~~~==~~~ N ~~==~~ ~~ m ==~~~~==~ NN ==~~~~~^~ N~~N ~~~~~~==~ N~~^N ~~~~~~~~~ N~~^N ~~~~ ~~~~ N~~^NN 11111 wL 11111 1 N '1 NU 1700 N 1nm NN 2e1 N 16111 / |lill 0.15 N° N 016 N` ||| 017 N^ 0 0.17 |||° 11111 U0 ^n U0 4111 411111 6800 N 680011111 2825 N 212 N m NN o/m N N o^m N N »«/ N N o«, N KN NN wn NU «N »NU » N 0110 «oN « N » NN N N N N N N m UN U0 su 0U I N , UN 1700111 1nm UN 178111 m N » NN um N N 0.11 N N 0.11 N N 0.11 N UN UN nr NU ^ N 411111 6800111 6800 NU um*N 183111 w N0 c/o N^ N u^m N^ @ u^m N^ N o^m N^ U@ NN sn NN » N «NN « N «NN 197111 mN o NN N N N N N 0 N UN NU EL UN / N 1 mU 1700 N 170011111 155 N 7111 » NN 000 N` N 0.10 N` N um N^ N om N` NU NU sr NN 2111 xNN awmN 340011111 zmN 15111 o NN 0.15 N N um N 0 um N N um N NU NN sn UN »N 11111111 0111 011111 197111 m N 5 0N 0 N 0 N N N N NU NU wL NU I N " mU 1700111 170011111 ^wN xN » NN u»» N N on» N N uo» N N o«» N UN NU wr NN 1111 zUN 1700111 340011111 ooN wN » 0111 o19 Ili^ N u:mN^ N uznN^ N um Ili^ NN NU wn KN 1 N ^NU 1700 N « NU 186 N m N » NN 0.11 N N uo N N «.o N 0 N NN — ................. ... ......... -.......... ... ................' -.................. ... ....... ........ ---............. -.................. Hill ~~~~~~~=~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~0U ---'----' monT*mouTH CRITICAL SUMS= U|| us/ | 0.e1 | oan | ».s UN ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME *&u | Hill ----------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ''------------------ ---- ------------------- -'- N|| -'------- sAorwvsor CRITICAL SUMS~ NU ouo | oon | 0.30 | ».s ||N w~NORTHBOUND,o=oourxonuwo ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' |UU s~sxSraoowD,w=wsoraoowo cLsxnxwus~ Hill uon | oox i uos | uox NU L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT UN~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~Ux| wa.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE ||||| 0.90 | 0.96 | ».«u | »a* ||||! Lon~LEVEL oFSERVICE Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Loo~ UU| o | s | s s UU| ,~.~�.~�,~~ ~.,.....,~�.. ..~. .,.....,., .~~. ..~.�..� ..... INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. ... .................. ... .......... ............ ... .................. ................... ... .................. --.................. --.................. -- ................. ..... --................. . ... --.................. --... --.................. --... ... IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII III III IIIII III III EXISTING III III EX.+OTHER III III EX.+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST III PROP IIIII EXISTING III PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING III OTHER III PROJECT IIIII EXISTING III III+OTHER III III+PROJECT III III+PROJECT III IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES III LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME IIIII V/C III III V/C III III V/C III III V/c-w IMP III IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=_____=III=====_=IIIII =_______= III =_______= IIIII ==______= III =_______= III =_=_____= IIIII =_______= III===III =_______= III===III =_______= III===III =_______= III=_=IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 2111 011111 3400 III 011111 142111 6111 011111 0.04 III III 0.04 III III 0.04 III III III' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 3 111 011111 5100 111 011111 726 111 29 111 011111 0.14 III' III 0.15 III' III 0.15 III' III III IIIII Hill NR IIIII 1111 011111 1700111 011111 98111 4111 211111 0.06 III III 0.06 III III 0.06 III III III IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 2111 011111 3400 III 011111 268111 14 111 411111 0.08 III' III 0.08 III' III 0.08 III' III III IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 3111 011111 5100 111 011111 740111 30111 011111 0.16 III III 0.17 III 111 0.17 III III III' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 0 111 011111 0 111 011111 79 111 3 111 011111 III 111 III III III III III IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 2111 011111 3400 III 011111 146111 9111 011111 0.04 III III 0.05 111 111 0.05 Ill 111 III' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 3 111 011111 5100111 011111 1074111 54111 1711111 0.24 III' III 0.25 III' 111 0.25 III' III III IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 0111 011111 0 111 011111 133111 5111 011111 Ill III III III III III III IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 2 111 011111 3400111 011111 92111 Gill 1 IIIII 0.03 III' III 0.03 III' III 0.03 III' III III IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3111 011111 5100111 011111 488111 38 111 511111 0.11 III III 0.12 ill 111 0.12 III III III' IIIII IIIII WR IIIII 0111 011111 0 111 011111 98111 7111 1 IIIII III III III III III III III IIIII -------------- --- ---------- ------------ --- ------------------ -------------------- --- -..........-.... --...........-...- -----.............. IIIII=__=______ ______________ _____=________ _ __=IIIII IIIII -------.......... NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= 0.22 1 0.23 1 0.23 1 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME 'J,'&G;^1 1 IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII ----------------•- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= Hill 0.27 1 0.28 1 0.28 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII------------------ ---- -------------------- ----- ------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.54 1 0.56 1 0.56 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII------------------ ----- ------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= Hill A I A ( A I IIIII i ml:: m � jw M m M M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJsor �uwsn reoJccTnpcw/woDAY /wrenv«L: pw PEAK HOUR /wrsnnsormw: mmnweex:e./aoLoewweor-'T -' .................. ... .......... -.......... ... ................. -.................. ... ....... ........ ''.................. -.................. ... .................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -... -.................. ''... ... NU UN U| UU| || NU U| N N|| N N sx/snwo N U| sx.+orHsnN ||| sx,+oTHsn |U NU NUMOVEMENT|1111 EXIST III PROP NU sx/onwo III PROPOSED NN sxmnwa N or*sn N pnoJsor |UU sxmnwo |U III+OTHER U| U|+peouscr U| |||+pn«Js«T U| 110 UN NN LANES III LANES NU CAPACITY III CAPACITY UU| vnLoms N voLoms N vnLuws NU wo N N Vic N N wu N III »m-WLmP@ 11111 NU nL UN 2111 11111 n/mu N 011111 2240 » N 011111 uor |U^ |U om N^ N »m N^ N |||` UU| NU wr NU 3111 UN 5100111 011111 873111 40111 »NN 0.17 N N um N N «m N N N VN NN wm UN I N NU 1700111 011111 53111 2111 211111 um N N o»a 0 N ».»» N N N NU UN sL NN » N NN 3400111 oNN 275111 11 N » NN »«» 0 N o»n N N u»o N N N UN NN »r 0W 3111 NN 5100 N 011111 nm N 44111 011111 0.19 N^ N ueo N^ N uuu 0^ N N^ NU 11111 n* UN 00 NU » N « NN 153111 sN 011111 N N N N N N N NU NN EL UN 2111 UN 3400 N 011111 190111 11 N 011111 »o« N^ N »»« N^ N uo« N^ N N^ U0 UN sr NN 3111 NU 5100111 011111 893111 45111 m NU 0.21 m N ueu N N 0.22 N N N NN NU sn NN « N NN o@ »NN 177111 / N »NU N N N N N N N NU UN wL UN 2111 11111 3400 N 011111 135111 7111 311111 um N N «zw N N ucw N N N NN NN wr QN 3111 UN moo N 011111 922111 56111 2711111 uso N^ N 0.23 N^ N uu* N^ N N` NN NU wn UN »N NU 00 »UN 19*111 »N 711111 N N N N N N N UN ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... - .............. - ................. -.................. NN ~~~~ ~=~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~ ~~ UN -''-----'' wonr*mour*CRITICAL SUMS~ NU ouo | 0.27 | ».»/ | «.»» 0N ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME vvue* | U|U ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- N|| ------'—' EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS~ |UU 0.28 i 0.29 | ».a» | oon UU| w~NORTHBOUND,o~aourHaouwo Hill ----- ----------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ||U| s~EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND cLsxnAwos= U|U onx | u»n | o«» | »«» UU L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT ~~~= ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~U|U w.o.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE 0U nso | 0a1 | 0.62 | ».»» |UU Lon=LEVEL opSERVICE UN ------ -— ------- -— --------- -— -------- -— NN ^oswOrsoremoxLmoveMswrm Loo= NU « | a | a | ||N ~~~~~~^~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~^~~ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJsor LoWcm'PROJECT OPENING DAY /wrsnvm': «m PEAK HOUR /wrsnnscr/ow: WARNER AVE./oorA^nooT. ... ................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... ..... ........... -.................. -........... ..... ... .......---..... -... -.................. -... -...... .......... -... -- .............. -... -' N|| 011 N 11111 |U ||U| |U N U|| N |U emonwo N 0 cu+or*eeN |U sx+onHsnN |||| NU MOVEMENT NU EXIST III PROP 1111| smanwo III PROPOSED NU sxmrINa N or*sn N pnoJscrNN ex/anwo N U|+ornsn U| N+pnoJecr U| N+pnoJeor |U N|| |UU 1111| LANES III LANES U|| CAPACITY III CAPACITY NU »nLowe N »oL»mE N «oLuws N|| wc N |U mc N N wc U| III v/C*L imp |U |UU NU ~~~^~~~^= NU~~~~~==N~~~~~~^NU ========= N ~==~~~ ~~ N0 ========= N ~~~^~~~~~ N ========= UN ~~~==~==~ N~~N ~~~ ~~~ ~ N~~^N ~~~~~~~ ~ N~~U| ~~~~~ ~^~ N~~^NU UN NL 11111 1111 » NN 1/00111 »NN :m |U /N 08111 «mN^ U| uo* N^ N ».o* N^ ||| N^ |U|| NU wr 110 2111 011111 3400111 011111 338111 20111 011111 0.12 N N 0-13 N N um N N N NN 011 wn NN » N « NN »N «NU »» N » N » NN N 0 N N N N N NN NU «L NN , N »NN 1700 N 011111 79111 Bill 211111 u«n N N ums N N oos N N N NU NU or NU 2111 011111 3400 N 011111 wn N oa N 011111 «n N^ N o.m N^ N 0.18 N^ N III` U@ NU n* NN » N »NU »N »NN o« N « N « NN N N N N N N N NN N0 EL NU 1 N 011111 1700 N 011111 151 N 7111 011111 »o» N N uoo N N uoo N N N^ UN NU er NN 3111 011111 5100111 011111 1232111 55111 »*NU u:w N~ 0 uuo N` N uun N~ N N @0 NN sn NU I N » NU 1700111 »NN 19/ 111 » N «NN 0.12 N N uo N 0 0.12 0 N N NN NN mIL UN 1 N « UN 1700111 »NN 110111 /N oNU 0.06 N` N um N^ N um N^ N N NU NN wT UN 3111 011111 o^o« N 011111 mw N 40111 711111 om N N 0.17 N N 0.1/ N N N^ KN UN wm NU 0111 011111 0111 011111 126111 7111 1 NU 0 N N N N N N UN — ------ — ---' ----' — —----- ------- — ------ ------- ------- NU ~ ~~U|U -------- NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ 11111 0.20 | 0.22 | ».ez | ».»« |||U ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME vv&o | Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' UN ____-- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS~ 0U o.»o | 0.32 \ ».m | »o» U|U w=NORTHBOUND,o~oour*oouwo NU------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' U|U s=sAoroouwo.vv=wsnraouwo oLsAnAwcs= NN ».co | 000 | «.»s | 0.00 |N| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,e~RIGHT Hill ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~= ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~U||| wa~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE ||U| «»« { «.n» | «a» | ».o» |||U Loa~LEVEL orSERVICE NU------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- |UU ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Lon~ NU A | A | A | |UU � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: /wrsnvxL: pw PEAK HOUR /wrsnuscrmw: WARNER AVE./omW*uar. '- -----'— -' --'—' -----' -' -------' --------' -' -----'-' ----'----- -'------- '- -------' -''' ------'-- --' ------'--- --' ---------' --' -' �| 11111 0 0K 0 11111 N N N|| N U| sx/onwo U| |U ex+orHsnN ||| EX.+orHEn0 ||||| UU| MOVEMENT NU EXIST III PROP ||U| sxsr/mo III PROPOSED UU| sx/snwo N oT*en N PROJECT |UU sx/anwo U| III+OTHER |U N+pncuscr N N+pnoJscT |U U|U KN NN LANES III LANES UN CAPACITY 0 CAPACITY UN voLums N voLuws N voLums 00 Vic N N wn N N wc N III «/C*»-MpN UN |N| ~==~~~~== U|U^~~~~~^|U~~~~~~|UU ~~~~~~~~~ ||| ~==~~~==~ NU ==~~^~~~~ |U ~~^~~~~~~ N ~~~~~~==~ NU ~~==~==~~ N^~^N ~~~~~~==~ N~~^0 ~~==~~~~~ ||~~^|U ~~==~==~~ N~~^mU UN xu WU 1 0 NU 1700 N 011111 204111 8111 011111 0.12 N° N 0.12 N N 0.12 N N N^ UN NN wr Um : N NU 3400111 »NU nnN /mN »NN nooN N 0.24111^ N 0.24111^ 0 N NN UN wn NN » N NN « N oNN noN *N uUN N 0 N N N N N NN NN cL UN , @ NU 1700 N 011111 185 N m N uUN 0.11 N N uo N^ N 0.112 N^ N N UN NN »r UN 2111 NU 3400 N 011111 600111 45111 011111 uzx N^ N oe» N N n.e» N N N` NU NU an 011 0111 NN 0111 011111 143111 7111 011111 N N N N N N N 0U UN EL Um 1 N UN 1700 N 011111 128111 5111 011111 ono N^ 0 u«o N^ N oo« N` N N^ UN U0 sr NU 3111 UN 5100 N 011111 1044111 47111 us NU uuo N N 0.21 N 0 uuu N N N NU NU en NU 1 N UN 1700111 011111 154111 11 N 011111 uou N N ».m N N 0.10 N N N UN UN wu NN I N UN 1700111 « NU »» N 4111 wNU u»» N N u»» N N «.m N N N N0 0U wn NU 3111 UN 5100 N 011111 1343 N 59111 3711111 uon N^ N 0.31 N^ 0 o»u N^ N ill N0 UN wn NU 0111 NU 0111 011111 166111 m N 311111 N N N N N N 0 NU - --'---'' - ---- ----' - ------' ------- - ------ ------- -------- NU ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~^~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ^~~~~ ~~~NN .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= UU| 0o4 | 0.36 | ».»o | »o» N|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME wua | UU| ------ -— -------' -— ------- -— ------- -— NU .................. s«onwsnr CRITICAL SUMS= NU uao | ».»» | 0.40 | »«« 11111 w=NORTHBOUND,n=onuryoOuwo |||| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill s~EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND oLsAnAmcs~ |U|| 0.05 | ono | oos | o»» VU| L.~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT U|| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~|0| w.o.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE N|| o.// | ».a» | 0a1 | ».»« ||||| Lon=LEVEL orSERVICE Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- UN ^osworsacnmo^Lmnvsmswra Loo~ U|U n | o | o | UU| ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJsor uzweo'PROJECT OPENING DAY /wrsnvxL: xw PEAK HOUR /wrenosnr/ow: WARNER AVE./BEACH BLVD. ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. — ...-...........' -.................. -.................. ... .............. - -... -.................. -... -...-............. -... -.................. -... ... UN |IIII |U ||N N N|| U| N 11111 U| N e«onwo N |U eX.+oryenN U| sx+oTHEnN ||K| UNMOVEMENT NNEXIST NPROP NU sxmrwo Nnnopoaso0N EXISTING N or*en N pnoJscr NU sxmrwo N N+or*en N N+pnouEor N |U+pnoJsor U| 0U N|| LANES LANES c«p«on' N ««p«c/r/ N|| »oLume N »oLums |U »oLums N|| wc ||| ||| wn ||| N wc |U N wc/w_/mP |U N|| NN xL NN oN 011111 3400111 011111 1:1 N mN 011111 «.cw N U| «o* N ||| 0o4 |U |U |U^ KK| mU mr UN 4111 011111 6800111 011111 `mm N cw N 011111 ou» N~ N uzs N^ N o.u* N^ N N U0 UN wn NN 0111 011111 0111 011111 su N 5111 3711111 N N N N N N N NN 110 SL 0111 2111 011111 3400 N 011111 371 0 15111 4511111 0.11 N^ N Oil N^ N «m N^ N N NU NN or NU 4111 011111 6800111 »NU 1603111 138111 »NN 0.:4 N N ».e« N N oun N N N^ NU UN on NN 1 N 0110 1760111 «NU o/ N 14111 011111 o»« N N um N N um N 0 N N0 NU EL 00 2111 011111 3400 N 011111 213111 n N 011111 o»s N N 0»7 N N «.m N N N^ U0 NU sr UN 3111 011111 mno N 011111 1275111 52111 3711111 uu» N° N uuo N° N 000 N~ N N UN NU en NU 0111 011111 0111 011111 66111 28111 «01 N N N N N N 0 NN NU mL UN 2111 »NU 3400111 011111 138111 wN 11 mU ocw N^ N ucw N^ N ons N^ N N NN UN wr NN 3111 011111 5100111 »NU mmN a»N 11 NU 0.15 N N um N N um N N N^ NK ` UN wn 110 »N » NN 00 « NU 126111 » N wNU 0 N N N N N N NN — ------ — ---' ----- — ------ ------- — ------ ------- ------- mU ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~� ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~||n| .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U||| 0.33 | o.o* | ».m | «.«o NU ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME vvae ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' UU| _—____ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= UU| ».»n | 0.32 | 0.34 | ».o» ||U| w~NORTHBOUND,o~nour*eouwo ||||| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' 0|| s~s«nreouwo.w=wsoroouwo oLsAnAwne= U|| ».»n | ».»s | o»« | «.»» U|U L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT Um ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~UU| w.e.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE |||| 0.68 | «n | 0.76 | ».»« U||| Loa~LEVEL cFSERVICE ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -'- |UU ^nsworsnonmo^Lmovsmswrn Lon~ NN n | c i c | UN ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~^~~~ ~ ~~~^ i � � ' � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pecusor: LnWc'w'rpcucnropsw/msDAY /wrsnvAL: nw PEAK HOUR /wTsRuscrmw: WARNER x:s./aexoHBLVD. ... .................. ... -....... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... .................. -.................. - ................. ... .................' -... -.................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -... ... ||U UN N N|| N UN N N UN N N smnnwo N |{| sx~or*snN U| sx~or*snN N|| NN MovswswrU|U sx/orN pnop UN sx/onwo U| nnopoasoNN sxmrINo N or*sn N pnoJEor NN sxmrwo N N+oTHsn N U|+pncusor U| |||+pRo«Eor N 0|| UN LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY voLoms N voLums N voLuws ||N w« N N wo ||| 0 wc N ||| «/C-WLmpN NU 11111 xL NU 2111 011111 3400|K 011111 xus N 29111 011111 ».m N ||| ».«o N |U «.»o N N U0 mr NU 4111 011111 6800 N 011111 umm N 194111 011111 ouo N^ N 0.35 N^ N «xn N^ N N NN N0 wn UN »N 0110 » N « UN 153111 oN »» NN N N N N N N N NN UN sL UN 2111 011111 3400 N 011111 117111 23111 4711111 000 N^ N ocw N^ 0 u»» 0~ N N N0 NN nr Um 4111 omU 6800111 »UN 1746111 ,ou N »NN u»o N N 000 N N uoa N N N^ NU 00 an 110 1 N 011111 1700111 »NN 145111 usN »UN u»n N N um N N om N N N NU NN EL NU 2111 011111 3400 N 011111 x*, N 25111 011111 um N N umy N N uou N N N^ NN NN sr NU 3111 011111 5100 N 011111 1000 N 40111 ou UN oow N^ N oos N^ N 0.26 N^ N N UN NU sn NU 0111 011111 0111 011111 zm N 23111 011111 N N N N N 0 N N0 UN wL NU uN 011111 3400 N 011111 205111 o*N 5811111 u»a 0^ N um N^ N u»» N^ N N U0 NN mT UN 3111 011111 5100 N »UN mwN 35111 58011 uun N N 0.e1 N 0 uuo N N N^ UN NN wn NN 0111 011111 »N 011111 145111 22111 n 0111 — ------ — --—' ----- — ------ ------- — ------ ------- ------- NN mm .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U|U oxo | 0.39 | 0.41 | «o» |U|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME wuu | UN------- -— ------- -— ------- -— -'------ -— NN ---'-----' sASr^wsnr CRITICAL SUMS~ UN uoo | 0.32 | oao | «.»» |N| w`NORTHBOUND,o=000rHaouwo UN ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -'- �| s=sxoreouND,w~wsnreouwo cLs«nAwnc~ NN 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | o.»o UN L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT ~~~~ ~=~|||U wa.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE UU| »./» | 0.76 | 0.81 | »o» N|| Loe=LEVEL opSERVICE UN ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Lon~ NU a | c | o | U|U INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWe'S ' PROJECT OPENING DAY /wrsnv*L: xw PEAK HOUR wrsnosor/ow: WARNER AVE./wswLAwoor -' ................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... .................. -.................. -.... ............ ... '-.......-...... -... -.................. -... ---------' --' ----'---'- --' — NU NU N NN ||| 11111 N N |||U N U| smeT/wo |U Nex+orHsn |U N sx.+or*snU| U||| NU MOVEMENT 0U EXIST III PROP U0 sxmnwo III PROPOSED NU sxmnwo 0 or*sn N pnoJeor NN smanwo N N+OTHER 'N N+pnousor K| N+pnooccr N U|U QU U@ L«wso N LANES cApAcnv 0 CAPACITY NU «oL»we N «oLumE N voLuwe KN wc N N wo N N wo U| |U vm-WLwp |U U|U N0 ^u Um 1111 » UN 1700111 »NU o»U| 4111 :mU|U u«* U| |U ».cw |U N ».»» N U@ *n NN 2111 011111 :400 N 011111 332111 28111 011111 um N` N 0.14 N° N om N^ N N UN NU wn 110 0111 011111 0111 011111 126111 5111 »N0 N N N N N N N NU NN SL 00 1 N 011111 1700 N 011111 mm N 11 N 011111 0.15 N^ N «m N° N 0.16 N~ N N 0U NN or UN uN « NN 3400111 « UN mmN «rN »NN omN N 0.e1111 N ozzN N NU on UN »N »UN »N » KN »oN «N :oNN N N N N N 0 N NN UN EL NN IN « NN 1700111 » NN osN *N /UN ucuN N «mzN N ozmN N N^ NU &N ET NN 3111 011111 5100111 »UN 1408 N 57111 m NN o:e N^ N oo» N^ N «»» N^ N N UN NU sn NU «N »NN »N « NN «uN »N » UN 0 N N N N N 0 NU UN wIL NU I N 011111 1700111 011111 63111 12111 011111 ucw N^ N ucw N^ N um N^ N N UN UN wn UN 3111 011111 5100111 011111 mm N 41 N 4911111 0.15 N N om N N 0.17 N N N^ VN 1110 wn NN »N »NU «N »NU 62111 *N »NN N N N N N N N UN ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... ..............—' -...............- -.................. Um ~~�~~ �~ ~~~~~~~~~�~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~�~~~~ ~~~~ ~�~~~~�~ ~~~NN .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= ||N 0.28 | 0.30 | ».»» | ».o» |U|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME vv&w | NV------------------ ---- -------------------�--- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- KN -----'--'- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS~ |UU no» | 0o4 | 0.34 \ ».o» N|| w=NORTHBOUND,o~anurHoouwo NN ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' |||/ e~sAaTeouwD,w~wsoraouwo oLsAnxwos~ ||||| »os } »»« | »o» | ».»« N|| L~LEFT,T~THROUGH,n~RIGHT NN~~~~~=~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~=~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~NU wo.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE UU| «.«* | oao | ««» | »o» UU| Lon~LEVEL orSERVICE Hill------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' NU ~oeworsaonmcALmovsmswro Los~ NU o | o ! e | N|| x ` m m m -m m m m m m m m m m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS � PROJECT: 1owcn ' pn��cropsw/wenxr INTERVAL: nw PEAK HOUR /wTsnasormw: WARNER::e./*ewLAwoo� ... .................. ... .......... ............ ... .................. .................... ... .................. -.................. .................... ... ................. ..... .................... ..... .................... ..... .................... ..... ... Hill IIII| N |U|| 0 |N| N N ||U| 0 ||| smonwo N III su~orHsnIII U| sx+nrnsn |U ||||| NN MOVEMENT UU| EXIST |U PROP ||||| sx/or/wo III PROPOSED|||| smonwo N OTHER N pnoJEorN0 smsr/ms N N+OTHER || |||+pnoJEcr |{| N+pnoJEor U| UU| Um NU LANES III LANES UN CAPACITY |U CAPACITY NU voLums N voLuws N voLoms 11111 mo N 0 wc N N wc N III »m-WLwpN 1110 NU ~~~~~~~~^ UN~~~~~~^U|~~~~~~^mU ~~~~ ~~~~ || ~~~~~~==~ VN ~~~==~~~~ N ~~~==~=== |U ~~~~~~~~~ Um ~~~ ~~~~ U|~~U| ~~~~~~~~~ |||~~^N ~~~~~~ ~~ N~~^N ~~~~~~~~~ |||~~~0|| |||U wL ||N I |U 011111 1700111 011111 106 N 8111 2711111 »o« N N «o/ N N »«o N N N^ 11111 11111 wr NN oN » UN 3400111 »NN nmN o« N »NN uxeN^ N 0.e80^ N «.x» N^ N N UN 110 wn NU »N » NN oN »NN ooN «N « NN N N N N N N N NN NN m- NN 1 N 011111 1700111 011111 172111 7111 011111 um N` N 0.11 N^ N 0.11 N` N 0 UN UN nr NU 2111 011111 3400 N 0011 577111 66111 011111 usm N N 0.22 N N 0.23 N N UN »n 110 0111 011111 0111 011111 95111 4111 2311111 N N N N N N N NN NN EL NU 1 N 011111 1700 N 011111 105111 5111 3411111 noo N^ N uon N N oo» N^ N N^ NN UN sr UN » N 011111 5100111 »NU 1174111 47111 m NN uun N N uen N^ N 0.28 N N N UN UN sn NN « N « NU »N »NN 102111 4111 41 NK N N N N N N N U@ NN wu 11111 1 N 011111 1700111 0011 ,ns N n N 011111 000 N N 0.10 N^ N um N N N NU NU w7 NU a N » UN 5100111 011111 1205 N 61 0 5211111 uon N^ N om N N «.o» N` N N^ NU NN Wn NN « N »NU » N »NU onN » N « NU 0 N N N N N N NN ... .................. ... ....................... ... �� -.................. ... .... � -�� -�� 11111 ~==~ ~ ~ ~==~ ~==11111 .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ UN 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.39 | ».o» |||| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME wuw | UN ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- U0 '-'--'---- sAnrxwsnr CRITICAL SUMS= UN on* | uaa | 0.38 | «o» UU| w~NORTHBOUND,o~sourHeouwo N|| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- N|| s~sAnroouwo.w~wsoroouwo oLsxnxwcs~ ||N 0.05 | 0.05 | uoa | ».«o UU| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT UN ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~||N wo.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE U|U 0.75 | ».»» | »»e | ».«» |||| Loa~LEVEL cFSERVICE NU ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Lon~ U|U « | o | o | ||N INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA ST. IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII III III IIIII III III EXISTING III III EX.+OTHER III III EX.+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST III PROP IIIII EXISTING III PROPOSED IIIII EXISTING III OTHER III PROJECT IIIII EXISTING III III+OTHER III III+PROJECT III III+PROJECT III 11111 IIIII IIIII LANES III LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME IIIII V/C III III V/C III III V/C III III V/c-w_IMP III IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=____==III=====_°IIIII ==______= III =_______= IIIII =____=== III =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III III =_______= III==°III =_______= III==°III =_______= III==°IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1III 211111 1700III 3400IIIII 70III 4111 411111 0.04 111 III 0.04 III III 0.05 III III 0.02 III IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 3111 311111 5100 111 5100 11111 774111 39 111 011111 0.18 111' 111 0.18 111' 111 0.18 III' III 0.18 III' IIIII 11111 NR IIIII 0 111 011111 0 111 011111 120 111 7 111 011111 111 111 111 111 III III III IIIII 11111 SL 11111 2 111 211111 3400 111 3400 11111 419111 19 111 011111 0.12 111' 111 0.13 111' 111 0.13 III' III 0.13 III' IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 2111 211111 3400III 340011111 764111 46111 011111 0.22 III 111 0.24 III III 0.24 III III 0.24 III IIIII IIIII SR IIIII 1111 111111 1700111 170011111 146111 11111 611111 0.09 III 111 0.09 III 111 0.10 III III 0.10 III IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 2111 211111 3400111 340011111 175111 7111 211111 0.05 111 III 0.05 III III 0.05 III III 0.05 III IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 4111 411111 6800111 680011111 1655111 67111 1011111 0.26 III' III 0.27 III' III 0.27 III' III 0.27 III' IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 0111 011111 0111 011111 92 111 4111 1 IIIII III III III III III III III IIIII 11111 WL 11111 2 111 211111 3400 111 340011111 111 111 9 111 011111 0.03 111' 111 0.04 111' 111 0.04 III' III 0.04 III' IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3111 311111 5100111 510011111 828111 39111 3411111 0.16 111 111 0.17 111 111 0.18 III III 0.18 III IIIII IIIII WR 11111 1111 111111 1700111 170011111 40111 2111 011111 0.02 III III 0.02 111 III 0.02 III III 0.02 III Ilill ... ---------••-----•- •-- .......... •........... ... .................. •................... •. .................. •....-............. --.................. IIIII=_________ _ _____________ _=__ ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.30 1 0.31 1 0.31 I 0.31 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME ;^d&M I IIIII -------------•---- -•--- ------------------•• ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII ---•------------•- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.29 1 0.31 1 0.31 1 0.31 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII ---------------- ----- -------------------- ----- ----------•--•------ ---- -- E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCEIIIII 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ _ _____________ ______________ ____ __________ ___11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= I1111 0.64 I 0.67 I 0.67 I 0.67 ------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII--------------•-- --•-- -•---•- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I B IIIII I ami: = m m m m m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJscr LoWEn ' pnuFor�r��/m�DAY INTERVAL: pm PEAK HOUR /wrsnasormm: WARNER x:e/MAGNOLIA ar — .................. ... .......- -.......... ... ................. -.................. ... .................. -.................. -.................. ... ...............- -... -................. -... -................. -... -.................. -... ... Hill 11111 N UN N |UU N U| N|| N N sxsrwo N ||| sx+orHsn ||| 0sx+oTHsnU| U|U NN MOVEMENT NU EXIST III PROP NU sxmnwo III PROPOSED UU| ex/nnwa N OTHER U| pncusorNU E*onwG N 0+OTHER N |U~pnoJecr |U U|~peoJEor ||| U||| U0 NK LANES III LANES NN CAPACITY III CAPACITY ||N voLuws N voLuws N voLoms UN wc N N wo N N wc N III »/C-WLwpIII NU |UK wL |V cNU 1700111 »^m» UN omU| « N o||U 0.12111^ |U 0.1e111^ |U ».oU|` N «ooN° UN NN wr KN »N oNU 5100111 510011111 1057111 630 »NN oxo 0 N ucr N N uz, N 0 oor N NN Nm wn NU » N » NN » N »WN 233111 wN »NN N N N N N N N NN UN aL 0N eN » NN nwmN 340011111 »mN mN »NN oon N N om N N um N N om N NN NN nr UN 2111 e NN 3400 N 340011111 1192 N nn N 011111 o»o N^ 0 o.m N^ N ».m N^ N u»r N^ NN NN SR NU 1111 111111 ,nmN 170011111 ouN mN / NN 0.12111 N 0.13111 N owN N uwN &N UN EL UN xN oNN 3400111 340011111 mmN 12111 1011111 unu Ill^ N uoo N^ N uoo N^ N »«e ill 0N NU sr NN 4111 411111 6800 0 680011111 1260111 51 0 5411111 0.21 N 0 uoo N N uon N N uea N NU UN sn NN »m »NN oN »NN 18e111 » N /NN N N N N N N N NN UN wL NV »N uNN 3400N 340011111 1/9111 mN »NU ucwN N oosN N uooN N nnsN NN NU wr NN 3111 311111 mno N mon NN 1327 N m N oo NN ouu N^ N uz, Ill` N uuo N^ N uc» Ill^ NU UN wn NN 1 N 1 NN 1700111 170011111 12/ N sN 0110 om N N oon N N «»o N N u»» N UN ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... .........- ..... -.................. -.................. U@ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~^NN .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ NU u^n | u/m | 0.50 | o.^m KN ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME wau | Hill------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- NU ------- sAarxwsar CRITICAL SUMS~ UU| oon | 000 | ».»r | ».«/ |||U w~NORTHBOUND,n~oourHaouwo Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- ||N s~sxoroouwo.w~wsnrepuwo oLsxnAwos~ U||| 0.05 | 0.05 | «.»» | »ou ||||| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT |0|=~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~=~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~|||U w.o.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE |U| n«r | «.o» | ».»» | «.»s |N| Loo~LEVEL opSERVICE NU ----- ----------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Loo o | o | s | o U|U - -�_ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJsoT: LnWs'S'PROJECT OPENING DAY /wrsnvAL: mw PEAK HOUR /wrsnnsor/ow: SLATER AVE./mawuwoor. --- --------------------- ---------- ----------- --- ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------ ---- ----------------------- ------------------- ---- ----------------------- - N| U|\ || U|| U |||| U || ||U U || s»ISnmo U U EX.+oTnsn || U sx+oT*snU N| |U| MOVEMENT Jill sx/or U pnoP 811 Exmrms U pnopooso N| smsnwo U or*sn || pnoJso` UU cmorINo U || +or*sn U U +pnoJsoT U || +pncuso7 U UU |||| |||| uwvso || uANso |U| oxPxcry || oApm:nv |U| voLuwE || VOLUME U «oL«ms N| mo U U wc U U mo U U V/C-W-mp U U|| |U| 1111======2||~~~~~~ |N ~~===~~~~ U N] ~~=~~~~~~ || ~~~~~~~~~ || ~~~~~~=~~ |||| ~=~~==~~ U�~8 ~~~~~~~~~ U=~U ~~=~~~~~= U~~^U ~~=~~=~~~ ||U wL UU 111 » U|| 170011 » UU 9711 aU » N| »zmU ^ || »on || ^ || »o» U ^ || || ^ UU |N wT UU 211 01111 3400 U 01111 441 U nm U 15 UU 0.1* U U »J« U U 016 U U U |N U|| wn U|| » || » |||| » || » U|| 5711 « || » U|| || U || U || || || U|| UU aL N| / U 01111 170011 01111 9311 511 z UU 0.05 U U 0.06 U U 0.06 || U U UU |U\ nT U|| zU » U|| o*o» || » ||U 52811 snU s |||| 0.18U ^ || 0.19 || ^ || 019 || ^ U U ^ |U| UU »n UU Oil 01111 Oil 01111 «/ U 411 » UU U U U U U || U N| UU EL N| 1 U 01111 170011 01111 3711 311 « |N 0.02 U U 0.02 U U 0.02 U U U ^ |N U|| ET N| « || » ||U suo» U » |||| 76611 «wU » |U| 0.2611 ^ U 0u711 ^ || 0.27 || ^ U U U|| UU se UU Oil 01111 Oil 01111 11911 511 « UU || U U U U U U N| N| mL UU 1 U 01111 1700 U 01111 'n U 2711 » UU »ou U ^ U 0.04 U ^ U »o* U ~ U U UU UU WT UU z || » |U| o*»» U » ||U 367 U 1711 » |U| 0.12 || U 0.12 U || 0.12 U U U ^ ||U UU Wn UU Oil 01111 » U 01111 zn U c U « UU U U U U U || U UU --- --------------------- ---------- ----------- --- ---------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------- 1111 ~== |||| ........_- ... NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U|| uu* | 0.25 | ozs | uon UU ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME suw | Jill --------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ---- Jill ------------------ sxoTxmsaT CRITICAL SUMS= UU 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.31 | »o» UU w~NORTHBOUND,o=oourHBouwo Jill -----------------'- ----------------------- ------------------- ---- ----------------------- III[ s=EASTBOUND,vv~WESTBOUND oLexn^woe~ U|| ».»» | oos | oza | 0.00 UU L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,R~RIGHT U|| ~ ~~ UU w.o.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE U|| 0.57 | um | 0.61 | uno U|| Lno=LEVEL orSERVICE U|| -------------------- ------------------- ---- ----------------------- ----------------------- Jill `DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Los~ U|| « | e | e | UU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~=~~~~=~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ i � � / ,::= m m = m = m = = m = m m = m m = m = INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS � � pnoJsoT �u�E En7oP�w|� 'a-pno� wo DAY � wrsnv^L: Pm PEAK HOUR nnsnosoTmw: SLATER AVE./ws104uANonr. -' ----------' ----- ------ -' -'-'---'--'---'-'------' ---'—'--'-----------------'--' --'—'---'--' -------'—--' ----'----'-- -'------'----' -' U|| UU || U|| U |U| U U UU U U smsT|wo || U sx+oTHsn U U sx+oT*sn || |U| |||| Movsmswr ||U smoT U PROP |U| EXISTING U pnnposso |U| sxmTmo U OTHER || PROJECT |||| Emsnwo || || +oT*En U U +pnoJsoT U U +pRousoT || |||| U|| N| uwEoU LANES Jill oxpxoTv |\ oxPxcnY \U| voLuws || voLums U voLuMe |||| mc || || wo U || mc || U »m-W-mp U ||U UU ~~=~~~~~~ 1111======z U~~~=~~^||U ~~~~~~~~~ || U|| ~~~~~~~~~ || —=~~~~~ U ~~~~~~~~~ UU ~~~~~~~~~ ||==|| ~~=~~~~~ U~~|| ~~~~~~~~~ ||~~^|| =~~~~~~~ U~~^|U| |||| wL |U| 111 UU 170011 « UU 13/ 11 711 » |U| Vou || ^ || ou» U ^ U 0.0811 ^ U || ^ |||| |N mT N| z U N| o*»» U 01111 735 U n« U 16 UU 0.23 U U 0.27 || U 0.28 U U U UU |||| wn |U| « U U|| » U » UU s» U 3711 o U|| U U U U U U U N| UU sL UU 1 U UU 1700 U » |N *z U 311 10 UU noz U U «o» U || «oo U U U UU UU »T U|| x U |N ouno U 01111 61911 5511 xw UU 0.21 U ^ U 0.22 U ^ U 0.23 U ^ || || ^ UU |U| »n ||U » U UU » || oUU »sU » || » |U| U || U || U || || U|| UU EL UU 1 U 0| 1700 U » N| 128 U » || » UU 000 U ^ U »o» U ^ U 0.08 U ^ || || ^ UU UU sr UU » U UU 3400 U « |N sm U 2511 » UU 0.22 || U 0.23 U U 0.23 U U U UU U|| sn |U| » || UU » || » UU 13711 sU « U|| || U || U || || || |U| UU mu UU 1 U UU 1700 U » UU 101 U «o U « UU noo U || 0.0/ U U 0o7 U || U UU UU Wr U|| z U UU »ao« U » UU 73511 n» U V UU 0.25 U ^ U 0.26 U ^ U »zn U ^ U U ^ |U| UU mm |||| « U N| » U » |U| n* || s || 7 |||| || || || U || U U ||U ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -..................... .......... .... -............... -...... .......... 1111 �= ~ �~ �� ~ �~ =�= ~ �� �� ~ � � ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U|| 0.29 | noo | oo/ | «um U|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME umw | N| ---------------------- ----------------------- -------'-— ----'----— |U| --------' sAnTxwsoT CRITICAL SUMS~ U|| 0.33 | o.o* | ».o* | «.«» U|| m~NORTHBOUND,n~onun*eouwo III] --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ---- ----------------------- Jill s~EASTBOUND,vv~WESTBOUND cLsARmwos~ UU oos | n»a | oon | 0.00 |||| L~LEFT,7~THROUGH,n~RIGHT U|| ~ ~~ U|| N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE ||U nar | 0.69 | »./« | »o» UU Lon~LEVEL orSERVICE ||U ---------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ---- Jill DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Lon o | o | a | UU APPENDIX C.1 ' BUILDOUT ICU WORKSHEETS r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: HEIL AVE./BEACH BLVD. - LONG RANGE --- -•--------------- --- -------- --=--------- --- -----------------• - ------------------ --- ----............. ------•--------•---- ---------•---------- --- ----•------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -- ----------------- ----- ---------------•••- ----- --- IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII GENERAL III III IIIII GENERAL III III G.P. III III GP+OTHER III III GP+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST Ill PROP IIIII EXISTING, PROPOSED IIIII PLAN III OTHER Ill PROJECT IIIII PLAN III III +OTHER III III +PROJECT III III +PROJECT III IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES Ill LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME IIIII V/C III III V/C III III V/C III III V/C-W-IMP III IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=_____=III=====_=IIIII =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III===III =_______= III===III =_______= III===III =_______= III===IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 Ill 211111 1700111 340011111 196 III !' III 1 IIIII 0.12 III' III 0.12 III' III 0.12 111' III 0.06 III' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 4111 411111 6800111 680011111 2--m Ill 0 III 1;r IIIII 0.33 III Ill 0.33 III III 0.33 Ill III 0.33 III IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 0 111 0 IIIII 0 111 011111 7" III 0 111 0 IIIII Ill III III III III III III IIIII liili SL IIIII 1 III 2 IIIII 1700111 3400 11111 !',1 III C.III 0 IIIII 0.11 III III o.11 III III 0.11 III III 0.06 III IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 4 111 411111 6800 ill 680011111 o 1 III 0 III :39 IIIII 0.44 III' III 0.44 Ill' ill 0.44 III' III 0.44 III' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII o III 011111 0111 011111 2c' III {% III 0 IIIII III III III III 111 III III IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 1 III 1 IIIII 1700111 1700 11111 17 e ill 0 111 0 IIIII 0.10 III' III 0.10 III' III 0.10 III' ill 0.10 III' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 2 111 211111 3400 ill 3400 11111 366 III 0 111 0 IIIII 0.16 III III 0.16 III III 0.16 III III 0.16 III IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 111111 0 IIIII 0111 011111 17ZS 111 !° III 4 IIIII III III ill III III III III IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 III 1 IIIII 1700111 170011111 114Ill 0111 {% IIIII 0.07 III III 0.07 III III 0.07 III III 0.07 ill 11111 IIIII WT 11111 ' Ill 211111 3400 Ill 340011111 471 111 0 111 0 11111 0.18 Ill` ill 0.18 ill' Ill 0.18 Ill' III 0.18 Ill` 11111 11111 WR IIIII 0 Ill 011111 0 111 011111 190 Ill 0 111 C. IIIII III III III III III III III IIIII --- ------------------ --- ---------- ------------ --- ------------------ -------------------- --- ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- IIIII=_________ _ _____________ ______________ ______________ __=11111 ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.56 1 0,56 1 0.56 I 0.50 illll ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FH&F,.a I Hill ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- 11111 -------------- EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.28 1 0.28 1 0.28 I 0.28 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ___IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.89 I 0.89 I 0.89 I 0.83 11111 LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII D 1 D I D I D IIIII 1 I P I 1 {I �I } � 1 m l::m m m m m m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: �ANc ' Pmec/ /wrsnvxL: �m PEAK HOUR /wrseoEormw HsuA:E /eexcHyLvo - 1-oNa*Awoe ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... ............----- ------------------- ------------------- --- ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- — |� UU| N U||| ||| U|U GENERAL U| |U |U|| oswseAL U| N np |U N op+orHse ||| N op+orHsn |U 1811 NN wovswswrNU sxmr 0 pnop NU smenwo N nnoPooso NU PLAN U| ornsn U| pncuEnr |U| pL»w U| N ~orHsn N || +pnoJsoT |U N +pncueor U| N|| NN LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY voLums U| voLums U| voLums |U| wc ||| U| w« U| || mc U| ill »/C-WLmpill NU N0 ~~~~~~^~~ Hill~~~~~~^N^~~~~~^NU ~~~~~~~~~ N ~^~~~~=== 0U ~~~~~==~~ N ~~~~~~==~ N ~~~~~===~ NU ~~===~~~^ N~~N ~~~==~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ N~~^N ~~~~~~~~~ N~==NU UN wL U|U 1 |U cU||| 1700111 340 |U|| r'nU| »|K r Hill ».wU| ` Illw»� |U^ Ill 0.15N^ ||| »»/ || 1811 NN wr NU 4111 *UN 6800111 680011111 1177N » N 61 0N u'mN N ».*» N N 0.49N N u/mN NN NN wn UN »N « NU » N »UN oiill oN » 00 N N N N N N N UN NN oL N0 1N uNN 1700111 340011111 2113N » N ^ NN umN N 0.13N N 0.13N N »»sN UN UN »r N0 � N 411111 6800111 68000111 7.078N ^N w U@ u«r Ill^ N o*r Ill` U| o^m Ill^ N u/m Ill` NN NN «* NU »N »NN » N »NN »wN »N » NN N N N N N N N NN NU EL NU 1 N NU 1700 N 1nm NN im N G.N o NU 0.11 N^ N 0.11 Ill N 0.11 ill N 0.11 0` 1110 NN sr UN :0 211111 3400 N 340011111 492111 0 N C. NN 0.22 N N 0.22 N N uuu N N o»u N NN mU s* NU 0111 n 0N 0111 011111 rn N C.N « 0111 N 0 N N N N N NU NN wL UN 1N " NN 1700N 170011111 ^nN »N » 0N n.naN N uoaN N uoaN N u.00N NU 0111 wr 8111 eN zNN 3400111 340011111 *61N : N » UN »1y ill^ N »1u ill^ N «e ill^ N »1y ill^ NU UN wm NU y N 011 .0111 011111 iw N » N ^ 110 N N N N N N N NU ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... .................. ''.................. -.................. NU~~~�~~�~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~�~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~U@ .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ 011 0.61 | o�61 | 0.63 | 0.55 |||| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME pHua.a | UN------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------ ExnnWsar CRITICAL SUMS~ ||N 0.30 | 0.30 | ».»o | ».»« ||U w~NORTHBOUND,S=eouT*Bouwo Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ''------------------ -'- U|| s~s«eroouwD,w~wseTamuwo cLs^nAwos= |||| 0.05 | oos | nos | «.«n NU L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT UU| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~NU w.o.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE 0N 0.96 | 0.96 | ».»» | ».»» UU| Loo~LEVEL OF SERVICE 0U------' -- ------- -- -'-----' -- -----'-- -- N0 ^oewoTsocmmc*Lmovsmswrn Loo= s | e | s | o 8U ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOLDENWEST ST. - LONG RANGE --- ------------------ --- ---------- ------------ --- ------------------ -------------------- --- ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- --- ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- --- IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII GENERAL III III IIIII GENERAL III III G.P. III III GP+OTHER III III GP+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST III PROP IIIII EXISTING III PROPOSED IIIII PLAN III OTHER III PROJECT IIIII PLAN III III +OTHER III III +PROJECT III III +PROJECT III IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES III LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME IIIII V/C III III V/C III III V/C III III V/C-W_IMP III IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=_____°III=====_°IIIII =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III==°III =_______= III==°III =_______= IIIII NL IIIII III 0IIIII 3400 111 011111 EI2III 0111 011111 0.02 III III 0.02 III III 0.02 III III III IIIII IIIII NT IIIII S III 0 IIIII 5100111 011111 728 III 0 III 011111 0.14 III' III 0.14 III' III G14 III III III IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 1III O11111 1700III 011111 04III 0111 211111 0.06 III III 0.06 III III O.06 III III III IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 2111 011111 3400 III 011111 353 III 0 III 411111 0.10 III' III 0.10 III' III o.11 III III III IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 3111 O IIIII 5100III 01110 %11 III 0 III ) IIIII 0.15 III III 0.15 III III 0.15 III III III' IIIII IIIII SR IIIII ()III 011111 0 111 0 11111 63 111 III 011111 III III III III III III III IIIII IIIII EL IIIII 2111 IIIII 3400 III 011111 234111 0 III 011111 0.07 III III 0.07 III 111 0.07 III III III IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 3 111 011111 5100111 011111 III 0 III 17 11111 0.34 III' III 0.34 III` III 0.34 III 111 III IIIII IIIII ER IIIII 0III 0IIIII 0111 011111 ;2; III " III 011111 III III III III III Ili III IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 2111 IIIII 3400 III 011111 '•!1 III 0111 1 IIIII 0.04 111' III 0.04 111' III 0.04 III' III III IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 3111 IIIII 5100111 011111 060III 0111 5 IIIII 0.23 III III 0.23 III III 0.23 III III III IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 1j III 011111 0 111 011111 -97 III C.III I IIIII III III III III III III III IIIII --- ------------------ --- ---------- ------------ --- ------------------ -------------------- --- ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- IIIII ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.24 1 0.24 1 0.25 1 0.00 Hill ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FAA&GW.a I IIIII ----------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII ------------------ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII------------------ ----- ------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT Hill __________ ______________ _ _____________ ______________ _ __11111 N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= Hill 0.67 1 0.67 1 0.68 1 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII----------------- ---- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII B I B I B I IIIII m = � m M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: it-OWc'S ' PHASE/ uoWE'x�m� INTERVAL: Pm PEAK HOUR /wrsnesormw: WARNER AVE./aoLoEwwsorS" - uu*ae«woe -' -------' — ---- -'----' -' -------' --------' — ------'— -'—'---'--' -................. '- --------- --' --------- --' ------------------ --' ------------------ --' -' &N |IIII N UU| N 110 osmEnm' ||| |U 11111 Gsmsn*L U| ||| op |U U| op+orHEn |U N op+ornEn U| N|| �| MOVEMENT NU EXIST III PROP NN smenwo ||| PROPOSED U0 pL^w N or*sn N pnoJEor0N PLAN N N +on+sn N N +pnoJsorIII III +pnoJsorIII 00 Hill 1111| LANES III LANES UU| oApxc/ry ||| cApwo/ry UU| voLoms U| voLums U| vnLums UU| wn |U |U wc U| ||| mc U| ||| »/C/w-IMP III |U|| U|U ~~~~==~~~ 011^~~====N^~~==~^1111 ~~~==~~~~ |U ~~~~~ ~~~ UN ~~==~~~~~ N ~~~~~~~~= |U ~==~=~~~ NU ==~~~~~~ |U~~~||| ~~~~~~==~ N~~U| ~~~~~~~~~ K|~~|| ==~~~~~~~ III~~~KN NV NILHill »N NU »400 N 011111 2fm N «N » NU ».»s N^ N » N «« ^ N N »�ms ` III N^ NU NN wr NU »N NN 5100111 « UN swN oN «NU 0.19 N N 019 N N 0.19 N N N NN &N wn UN I 0 NU 1700111 011111 m N C.N 211111 o»« N N u»a 0 N »»» N N N UN 110 *L NU uN NN 3*00111 « NU oaN « N ^ UN 000 N N «.o» N N ooa N N N NU UN nr U0 3 0 NN 5100 N 011111 70-N »N 011111 uus N` N 0.26 N^ N oue N^ N N^ 011 NN on NU » N UN » N »NN m, N «N «UN N N N N N N N NN UN EL NU 2111 011 3400111 011111 zo N « N 011111 o«» N~ N «»u N^ N o.»» N~ N N^ NN NU sr NN N UN mooN »UN 104` 111 ^N mNK »usN N o�esN N uusN N N UN NN sn NU « N NN » N «NN m»N oN »NN N N @ N N N N N0 NU wu NN cN NN 3400111 « NU *wN o0 » NU om N N uo/ N N um N 0 N NN NU wT NU 3111 NU moo N 011111 /«m N C.N o NN oau N^ N 0.32 N^ N 0.32 N` N N` NN NN wn 0N aN UQ »N »NU 1172111 »N / NN N N N N N N N NN ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -...............— --- ---------........ -................. -.................. Hill ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ^~NK ---'---'— NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ 11111 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | «�«» N|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME nwmow.a | NN------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------ ----- ---- ------------------- -- UN -_------ cxorxwEar CRITICAL SUMS~ N|| o.*o | 0.40 | 0.40 | »�«» U|U w=NORTHBOUND,a=oour*aouwo Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- UU| s~EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND cLsxnAwos~ UN 0.05 | 0.05 | «.»a | «.»» ||N L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT |U|| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~UU| wa.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE U|| 0.77 | «.// | «.// | ».»« ||U| Loa~LEVEL opSERVICE Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- NN ~oEwoTsooemnxLwovEwswrn Loo o | c | o | ||U| INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: WARNER AVE./GOTHARD ST. - LONG RANGE ••. ••-•--•-•••••----• -•• -••----••• •---------•- •-• -•-•••••-••---•-•• •-•••-••-•••••••-••• ••. ---•-••----•---••• ••-•••----------••-• -••••••-•-••--•--•• --• -•-•-•••••••••-•• ----- -•• ----•----- ----- -------------------- ----- -----------------•- ----- --- IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII GENERAL ill III IIIII GENERAL III III G.P. III III GP+OTHER III III GP+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST III PROP IIIII EXISTING III PROPOSED IIIII PLAN III OTHER III PROJECT IIIII PLAN III III +OTHER III III +PROJECT III III +PROJECT III IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES III LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME IIIII Vic III III V/C III III V/C III III V/C-W_IMP III IIIII Hill ========= 11111=======Ill======-11111 ========= Ill ========= 11111 ========= Ill ========= III ========= Hill ========= III==°III ========= III==°III ========= III==°III ========= III==°IIIII 11111 NL 11111 1 Ill 011111 1700 111 011111 197 111 0 111 011111 0.12 Ili' III 0.12 III` III 0.12 Ill' III Ill' IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 2 111 011111 3400 111 011111 681 Ill 0 111 011111 0•22 III III 0.22 III III 0.22 III III III IIIII 11111 NR 11111 0 Ill 011111 0 111 011111 70 111 0 111 911111 III Ill Ill III Ill Ill III IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1Ill 011111 1700111 011111 194III 0111 211111 0.11 III III o.11 III III 0.12 III III III IIIII ilill ST 11111 2 111 0 11111 3400 ill 011111 690 III 0 111 011111 0.26 iIl 111 0.26 111` III 0.26 111' 111 Ill` IIIII 11111 SR IIIII 0111 011111 0111 011111 192111 0111 011111 III III III III III III III IIIII Hill EL 11111 1 Ill 011111 1700 111 011111 179 111 0 111 0 hill 0.11 III III 0.11 ill Ill 0.11 III Ill ill` IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 4111 011111 6800 111 011111 1442111 0 111 2411111 0.25 III` III 0.25 111' III 0.25 III' III III IIIII IIIII ER 11111 0111 011111 0111 011111 234111 0111 011111 III III ill III III III III IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 1 ill 011111 1700111 011111 185111 0111 311111 0.11 Ill' III 0.11 III' III 0.11 III` III III IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 4 111 011111 6800 III 011111 1008111 0 111 711111 0.18 III ill 0.18 III III 0.18 ill ill III' IIIII 11111 WR IIIII 0 111 011111 0 111 011111 183 111 0 111 1 Hill III Ili III III III III Ill IIIII •-- -----•-••••---••-- ••• ------••• •-••-----••• ••. ••••••---•••••---- ••••••---------••- ••• ...........---••• --•••-•••-••---•---- •-•----••••-••-••-•- 11111__________ ____ __________ _ ___ __________ _ ___ __________ _ __IIIII ------------•• .. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.00 11111 ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&G I 11111 --------------- ----- ------------------= ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- 11111 --•-----••-•-----• EASTM/EST CRITICAL SUMS= 11111 0.36 1 0.36 1 0.36 1 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII ---•----•--------- ---- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -- -- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE_ IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 1 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT N,S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= 11111 0.79 1 0.79 1 0.79 i 0.00 11111 LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII ------------------ •---- --------•----------- ----- ------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= hill C I C I C 1 IIIII m = � m m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJEor Lows'S ' PHASE (LowemowL, INTERVAL: pw PEAK HOUR /wrsnaeor/om WARNER AVE./oorH«noor. ' Lowan«wos -' -------' — ---------- ----...... ... .................. -.................. ... ................. -.................. -.................. - ------------------ -- ----------........ -... -................. -... -...------------- ---- — �| NU K[ NN N NN GENERAL N N &N oswen»L |U N op ||| |U op+or*en ||| ||| op~or*sn U| |U|| U||| MOVEMENT|N| EXIST |UPROP U|| ex/mr/wo NpnopoosoUU| pLxw U| or*En U| pnoJscT |||| PLAN |U ||| +oT*sn U| U| ~pnoJEorN U| ~pnoJsor@ |||U UN UNLANES NLANES NN CAPACITY CAPACITY voLuws N voLuws K| voLuwe U|U mc U| || mo U| U| wc 0 ill «/C+v_wpill |U| NU~~~~~~^N~~~~~~^NN ~==~^~==~ N ~~~~~~~~~ UN ~~==~~~~~ 0 ~~==~~~~~ N ~~~ ~~~~~ @U ==~~^==~~ ~~~~~~~~~ N~~^0 ~~~==~~~~ N~~N ~~~~~~~~~ Ill~~UN UN wL NU 1N « NU n»»N »|UU zzs|U « U| » U||| 0.13111 |U ».mU| Ill ».1oN Ill ill~ U|U Nm wr UN 2111 011111 34» N »NU 908111 0111 011111 «.n» N^ N «.»« N^ N ns« N` 0 N NN UN wn NU » N » NU »N »KN 119111 » N » NN 0 N N N N N N N0 NN eu NU I 0 011111 1700111 011111 274111 0111 211111 0.16 N^ N 0.16 N` N 0.16 N^ N 0 NN NN nr UN 2111 011111 3400 N 011111 820111 0111 011111 0.29 N N oon N N 0.29 N N N^ NU NN »n 011 0111 011111 0111 011111 1/9 N 0111 011111 N N N N 0 N N NK NN EL 011 1 N »NU 1700111 011111 123111 oN »NN um 0^ N «.»/ N^ N o.m N^ N N~ NU NN sr NN 4111 « NN 6800111 « NU 942111 » N uaNN 0.18 N N 0.18 @ N 0.18 N N @ NB NN sn N0 00 » UN »N «UN mmN » N « NU N N N 0 N N N UN NN wu UN 1 N 011111 1700111 011111 75111 0111 w NN ucw N N ucw N N «.»« N N N UN N@ wn NN *N «UN 6800N «NN 1*9111 »N 3/00 0.24111^ N u2w Ill` N o»o Ill^ N N^ NN NN wm NN 0111 011111 0111 »NU 204111 0111 311111 N N N N N N N NU ... .................. ... .......... -...... ... .................. -................. ... .................. -.................. -- ------------- Jill ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~NN .................. wonT*/SourH CRITICAL SUMS~ U||| 0.46 | o./m | n./m | oon U|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME pWuo | NU ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ||||| .................. EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS~ NU 0.31 | 0.31 | ».«» | ».»» |||U w~NORTHBOUND,a~oourHaouwo Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- U|| s~sASrBouwo.vv~wsSTaouwo cLsAnAwcs~ ||||| 0.05 0.05 | ».»o | ».»» U|| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT 011~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~|Ux wa~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE U||| nnu | »«u | «.o» | ».»o U|| Loo~LEVEL opSERVICE NU ------------------ ---- ------------------- '--- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' UU ^osworsnoemoALmovsmswro Loo~ U|U o | o | o | ||U| INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pRoJcori Lows�S ' PHASE/ 0znweoONLY) /wrsnvxL: xm PEAK HOUR /wrsnnsorow: BEACH BLVD./*mnwsnAVE. ' Lowsn«wos — -------- '- ----- ------ — -------- --------- — .................. -.................. -.................. ... ................. -... -........'......... -... -.................. --' -.................. -... -' |||| ||N \|| |||| N 0111 oswsnm- N N U|U oswsnAL |U N G.P. N U| oP+or*sn ||| U| ap+oTxen ||| |U|| 0N movsMewr0U sx/or N pnop 11111 sx/oT/wo N pRopooso NU pL«m m oTxsn U| pnoJEor NU pL«w |U N +or*se N N +pnoJEor |U N ~pncusor |U N|| |||U ||||| LANES III LANES N|| CAPACITY III CAPACITY ||||| »»Lows U| »oL»ms U| »oLums N|| wc |U ||| wo U| || vm N U| wc-WL/mp ||| |U|| UU| wL ||N x |K 211111 »zm«N 340011111 264111 »N o ||U| «»o |U° N ».»oU|` U| »u« U|~ N «o» |U` U|U NN mr 0N *N 411111 6800111 680011111 19750 » N oUN 0.31111 N 031111 N 0.31111 N 0.29N N0 NU wn NN »N 1 Nm »N 170011111 129111 « N »/ NU N N N N N N »m N UN 0N aL NN 20 uUN 3*00111 340011111 *40 » N mNU «o/ N N ».»/ N N ««» N N »»e 0 NU NU n' UN 4111 411111 6800111 680011111 2190111 0111 011111 uoo N` N onz N~ N oac N` N uzz N^ NU UN on NN , N 111111 1700111 170011111 361111 »N 0011 0.21111 N 0.21111 N 0.21111 N 0.21N NU 11111 ez NN oN uNN 3400111 3400110 wmN »N «UN 0.12 N N 0.12 N N 0.12 N N 0.12 N UN N0 sr UN 3111 311111 5100111 s1«o NU 1073111 0111 m NN 0.21 N^ N 0.21 N` N uzz N` N uuo N^ NN NN sn KN I N I KN 1700111 1m»N0 450111 00 »KN uon N N uo» N N 0.26 0 N 0.26 m NU N|| wu ||N 2111 211111 »'m» N awm |1111 asc N 0111 11 NV ».m N^ N 010 U|^ ||| 0.11 U|` N 0.11 Ill^ K0 NN wr NN oN oNU 5100111 mo»NU mmN »N 1111111 0.160 N 0.16111 0 nmN N 0.1e0 NU NU wR NU I N I NN 1700111 170011111 zm N »N wUN om N N 0.13 N N om N N om N NN ... .................. ... .......... --....... ... .............---- ------------------- --- ---------........ -.................. -.................. NU ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~^~~�~ ~ ~~NU .................. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ 8N o,/m ! n./m \ 0.40 | o'm 8N ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME rnuwa | NN ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ----'-----' --' NN ____-_- sxenvveor CRITICAL SUMS~ UN 0.31 / 0.31 | o»o | ».o» N0 w=NORTHBOUND,n=soorHeouwo U||| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- --------------.... -... ||||| s~EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND oLsAnAwcE~ |U|| oos | 0.05 | noo | 000 U|U L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT ~~~UU| we.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE |U|| 0.76 | «./n | o.m | 0.78 |||U Loa~LEVEL oFSERVICE UN ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' |UU ^oswoTasonmcxLmovsmswra Loo~ UN u | o | o | « �| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ | ` / | m l:� Ml M m m m m INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pncusor: LoWE'o PHASE (Lnws'SowL, INTERVAL' PM PEAK HOUR /wrseasor/owi BEACH BLVD./w^nwsnAVE. ' Lowonxwos -' -------' -' --'-- ----- -' ------- '.................. - .................. -.................. -.................. '- .................. -... -.................. -... --................ -... -.................. -... -' NN mu N |N| N UN oswsnAL N N NK oswEn*L ||| ||| on |U Nsp~or*sn |U Nop+or*seN |N| U||| MOVEMENT U|UEXIST NPROP U|U sx/or/wo ||| pnopoosoNN PLAN N or*sn 0 pnoJEcrN|| pLxw N N ~orxsn N 0 ~PnoJscrN N +pnoJcor |U 0|| UU| LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY voLums U| voLuws U| voLums UN wc N N mn N U| V/o N III v/C-WL IMP III NU mm ~~~==~==~ nm~~~~~~^m^~~~~^Nx ~^~~~~~~~ N ~~~ ~~==~ NU ~~^~~~~~~ m ~^~~~~~~~ N ==~~==~~~ NU ========= N~=zN ~~~==~~~~ N~~N ~~~==~~~~ N~~^N ~~~~~~=~~ N~~^UN 11111 ^u NK 2111 211111 a'mo N 3400 1111| 351 N 0111 011111 0.10 N N »m N N ».m 0 0 ».m U| UN NU wr NU ^ N *NN 6800111 680011111 2484111 oN 0110 oo* N^ N o.xoN^ N 0.39111^ N «z« N^ 11111 NU w* NN 0111 1 NU 0111 170011111 160111 0111 3811111 N N N N N N 0.12 N UN NN eL NN 2111 211111 3400 N 340011111 455111 0111 4711111 0.13 111 N n.m N^ N um @^ N 0.15 N~ NN NN nr UN 4111 411111 6800111 omm NN 250*N 0111 011111 om N N «.m N N ».«/ N N uz/ N 11111 NU on UN ' N I KN 1700111 170011111 628111 »N 011111 oar N N om N N oor 0 N oar N NN NU EL 0111 »N uNU 3400111 340011111 wwN oN »UN 0.19N^ 0 0.19111` N umN^ N 0.19111^ U@ NK sr NN oN » NU mnoN »1»«NN «mN »N auNU 0.12 N N uo N 0 0.13 N N ».m N NU NN sn NU I N 1 NU 1700111 1nm KN »m N 0111 011111 om N N 0.19 N N 0.19 N 0 0.19 N NN � mIL 11111 uN 211111 3400111 340011111 mmN oN 5811111 uos N N 0.25 N N 0.27 N N ozr N 11111 Um wr 011 3111 » NU mno 0 s1nn mN 1013111 0111 on N0 usm N^ N uuo N^ N 0.21 N~ N uu, N^ UN NU wn NN I0 INU 1700111 170011111 w/N » N /100 o.zaN N ounN N 0.290 N omN UN - ------- - ---- ----' - ------ ''--'---- - ------ ------- ------'— NU ~ ~~~= ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~^~ ~ ~~UN __............ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ UN uoo | 0.52 | 0.54 | 0.52 ||||| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME Fnmw.a | |UU ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ----'----- -— --------- --' UU| --.__--' sxorxwsnrcnmo«L Suwo~ |� 0.39 ( uao / u*n | 0,40 Hillw~wonrngouwo.s~aoun+aouwo NU ---'---' -- --------'- --' --'------- -- -----''---- --' U||| s=sxnr000wo.w~wsoraouwo oLsxnxmcs~ |||| oon i 0.05 } 0.05 | «,»s U||| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,e~RIGHT ||||| ~ ~~UU| w.a~NOT SIGNALIZED /oovALos~ |||| 0.96 | oas | «.»» | o.o/ U||| Loa~LEVEL oFSERVICE Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill `DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Loo~ UU s | s | s | e 0N INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I(LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION. WARNER AVE./NEWLAND ST. - LONG RANGE IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII GENERAL III III IIIII GENERAL Ill III G.P. III III GP+OTHER III III GP+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT 11111 EXIST III PROP IIIII EXISTING III PROPOSED IIIII PLAN III OTHER Ill PROJECT IIIII PLAN III III +OTHER III III +PROJECT III III +PROJECT III IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES III LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME {{{{{ V/C ({{ {{{ V/C {1{ {{{ V/C {{{ 111 V/C-W_IMP III IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 III 1 IIIII 1700111 1700 11111 116 111 0111 2611111 0.07 III' III 0.07 III' III 0.08 {ii III 0.08 III' IIIII IIIII NT 11111 2111 211111 3400 III 340011111 614111 0111 011111 0.22 III Ill 0.22 ill III 0.22 III III 022 III IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 0111 011111 0111 011111 128111 0111 011111 III 111 III ill III 111 III IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1111 111111 1700111 170011111 85111 0111 011111 0.05 Ill 111 0.05 III 111 0.05 III ill 0.05 111 IIIII IIIII ST 11111 2 111 211111 3400 111 3400 11111 929 111 0 111 011111 0.31 III' Ill 0.31 III' III 0.32 III' III 0.27 III' IIIII IIIII SR 11111 0111 111111 0111 170011111 140111 0111 2211111 III 111 111 III 111 III 0.10 III IIIII IIIII EL 11111 1 111 1 IIIII 1700 111 1700 11111 99 111 0 111 711111 0.06 111 III 006 ill 111 0.06 111 Ill 0.06 ill IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 4111 411111 6800 111 680011111 1498 111 0 111 1511111 0.23 111' ill 0.23 111' ill 0.24 111' III 0.24 III' IIIII IIIII ER 11111 0 111 011111 0111 011111 88111 0111 811111 III III 111 III ill III III IIIII 11111 WL IIIII 1 III 1 11111 1700111 170011111 184111 0111 011111 0.11 111' III 0.11 III' 111 0.11 III' III 0.11 III' IIIII IIIII WT 11111 4111 411111 6800111 680011111 1060111 0111 4911111 0.17 111 111 0.17 111 111 0.18 111 111 0.18 Ill IIIII IIIII WR 11111 0 111 011111 0 111 011111 91 III 0 111 011111 111 Ill III III III III III IIIII --- ------------------ --- ---------- -- -----•--- --- --•--------------- -------------------- --- ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- IIIII =_________ ____ ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.38 1 0.38 1 0.40 1 0.35 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FW&N.a I IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -----------------•-- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII ------------------ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.34 1 0.34 1 0.35 1 0.35 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII__________ _ _____________ _ _____________ ____ N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.77 1 0.77 1 0.80 1 0.75 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- ------------------- ----- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I C IIIII INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pnoJEor Lows'S ' PHASE/<LowsaONLY) /wrsnvAL: pm PEAK HOUR /wrEnosonom WARNER AVE./wswLAwonT. ' LONG RANGE -' ------- - .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... .................. -.................. -.................. ... .................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -- — NU 11111 N |N| |U UN oswsnAL N U| 11111 GENERAL U| ||| op U| |U op~orHsn U| ||| op~orHEn U| |N| ||U| wovswcwrNN smnr U| pnmp ||N sx/nnwo |U pnopooso NU pLmm N nr*sn N pnoJsor 011 pLxw U| |U +or*En U| U| +pncusnr |U U| +pnoJcor N NU UU| U|U LANES III LANES||0 CAPACITY III CAPACITY U|U voLuws N voLums N voLumE NN wo N N wn N N wc N III v/C*LmpIII 0N ||N ~~^~~~~~~ U||~~~~~~^III^~~~~~^|UU ~~~~~~~~~ N ~~~~~~~~~ |UU ~~~~~~~~~ ||| ~~~~~~~~ |U ~~~~~~==~ |UU ^~~==~^~~ N~~m ~~~~==~~~ |U~~^U| ^~~~~~~~ |||~~^N ~~~~~~~~~ N~~UN NN Nu Um 1 N 1 NN 1700 N 1nm UN 250111 0111 o NN 0.15 N^ N 0.15 N^ N um N N 0.16 N` NU NN wr NK 2111 211111 3400 N 3400 0N 1252 N 0111 011111 uoo N N unu N N ooy N N ua» 0 NN 11111 wn NU » N » NN oN »NN e@ oN » NN N N N N N N N NU NU SL UN 1 N 1 NU 1700111 1700U111 eoN » N 0110 ».»« N N uou N N ooe N N «.os N NN NN nr NN 2111 211111 3400 N 3400 U0 1102111 0111 011111 0.35 N^ N uxa 0^ N «»u N^ N ua» N` N|| NN on NN 0111 1 NN 0111 170011111 90111 0111 uo NU N N N U| N N om N NN 0K EL NU 1 N 1 NN 1700 N 1nm UN 1m N 0111 3411111 uo» N @ o»e N N um N N 0.10 N 110 N0 sr NK 4111 411111 6800111 680011111 uw N 0111 ra UN 0.16 N` N 0.16 N^ N »m N^ N 018 N^ mN N0 sn 11111 0111 011111 0111 011111 138 N 0111 w NN N 0 N N N N N 0111 NN wL NN ^ N 1 00 1700 N 170011111 mm N 0111 011111 ouo N^ N o.u» N^ N uuo 0` N O�u* N^ NN UN wr NN 40 411111 6800111 680011111 1917111 «N o/NN 0.31111 N n.mN N o.neN N 0.320 NN NU wn UN 0111 011111 0111 011111 208111 0111 011111 N N N N N N N NU — ------ — ---' ---- — ------ -—----- — ------ -'------- ------- NN ~ ~~NN ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ UU| 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.52 | ».'m |N| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME rwuw.x | Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- -- ||U| -------'- sxnrwvsor CRITICAL SUMS~ |UU 0.45 | o^o | ».^n | «.«/ U||| w~NORTHBOUND,a~oour*ouuwo Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill s~EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND oLs»nxwoe~ UU| ou« | o.m | ».»o | ».«s ||||| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT U0 ~~~~~~~~^~~~~ ~ ~^~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~^~~~~~~~~ ~~~UN w.S.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE ||U| 1o0 | 1»0 | 1.04 | 1.00 UU| LOS~LEVEL OF SERVICE Hill------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Loo~ NU s | s | r | s |||U INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS nnoJeur LoWs'S ' PHASE/(LowenONLY) /wrsnv^L: Am PEAK HOUR /wrseosormw: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA oT. ' LONG RANGE -' ..............-- -' ----' ----' -' -'-----'-' --------- '- --'---'--' -'—'------ --'--'-'--' -' --'----- -'- --------- --' --------- --' ---------- --' -' |N| NU N |UK U| UU| oswsn*L N N U||| oswsnAL U| N G.P. N ||| op+or*snU| ||| up+orHsnU| U|U 0U wovswswrN| sx/ar |U PROP NU smarINo U| pnopoaso PLAN N orHsn N pRcus«r NK pL«m U| U| +orHsn U| U| +PnoJEor || |U +pncusor |U UN |� LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY »oLuws N »oL»ws U| »oLums U||| wn ||| |U wn |U N mc ||| ||| vm-WLmpU| NU NU wL NU e |U 011111 »°mN »NN 91N »N 411111 u»» N N u»» |U N ».»» || U| N` N|| UN wr 110 3111 011111 5100111 011111 mm N 0111 011111 0.21 N^ N 0.21 Ill^ N 0.21 0^ N 0 0N UN wn NN »N » NU « N »UN zmN « N » NN N N N N 0 N N NU NN «L NU 2111 0110 3400111 011111 «mN 0111 011111 ow N^ N 0.14 N` N ow N` N N NN NU or 011 2111 »NU 3*00 N 011111 n N »N »NN u»u N N ».»e N N onu N N Ill UN NN on UN 1 N oNN 1700111 »NN mwN » N « NU 0.17 N N on N N 0.1/ N N 0 &N NN EL UN 2111 011111 3400 N »U0 115111 0111 211111 o.»o N N u»» N N »»» N N N^ NU 0U sr 11111 *N 011111 6800111 011111 1545 N »N m NN 0.24 N^ N um Ill^ N »m N^ N 0 NU UN sn UN « N » NN » N » UN s»N »N 1 UN N N N N N 0 N 0N NN wL NN 2111 011111 :400 N 011111 93111 0111 011111 »»o N^ N o.o» Ill^ N o»» N^ 0 N 0U NU wr UN *N » NN 6860111 » NN 1006111 oN owNN 0.15N N 0.15N N 0.16N N N^ NN NN wn NU 0111 011111 0111 011111 40111 0111 »NN N N N N N N N mN ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... —............... -.................. -.................. NN ~~�~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~^~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~NU .............. NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ U|U ».»» | ».on | »o | ».»» ||U ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME pWuwa ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- UU| .................. s»nnvvsor CRITICAL SUMS~ |UU oxr | ».ur | 0.27 | »o« |||| w~NORTHBOUND,o~aour*eouwo Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ''-' N|| s=ExnToouwo.w=vvsoraouwo oLsxnAwos= UU| o.»« | ».»s | ».»n | 000 |N| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,e~RIGHT NU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~1111| ma~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE NN ».«/ | ».s/ | oar | ».«o ||N Loo~LEVEL opSERVICE |1111------------------ ---- ------------------- ''--- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' NU ^osworsSonmoALwovsmswrn Loa~ U|| a | o | e | UN � / INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . pRoJsor Lowsn ' PHASE/(Lows'SONLY) INTERVAL: pu PEAK HOUR /wrseoscrow: WARNER AVE./MAGNOLIA ST. ' LONG RANGE -' --'---- — --'-- -'---' -' --'---- ----'----- — -------- --------- --............... -' ----'---' --' -------- --' --------' -- -------- -- — |||| VN U| UU| N NU oswsn*L |V |U U||| oswsnAL U| ||| np U| || ap~oTHsn |U U| op+orHsn || U|U NNMOVEMENT UNEXIST NPROP UN 000rwo 0pnoponsoNU pLxw N OTHER N peoJscrNU PLAN N N +or*sR N N ~pncusor |U ||| +PRcusor |U ||||| NN LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY vouuws N vnLuwE U| voLums K|U mc U| N wo 0 U| mc U| N »/C-WLmp ||| ||||| oN ~~==~ ~~~ Um^~~~==^N~~~~~~UN ~~~~~~~^~ m ~~~~~~~== UN ~^~~~~~~~ N ~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~==~ NU ~~~==~~~~ N~~^N ==~~~~~~^ N~~^N ~~^~==~== N~~N ~~~^^~~~= N~~^NN Hill wL UU| u ||| »|U|| »wmN »|UU mm|U »U| sNU ».«« U|^ N U »�»s | ~ ||| «»* U|~ U| |||^ ||U| NN wr U@ » N » NN 5100111 « NN 1052111 »N oNN uxsN N 0.26111 N 0.260 N N NU NN wR 110 » N »U@ »N »NU omN «N »UN N N N N N N 0 110 NN cL UN eN 00111 3400111 0110 »mN » N »NN o»« N N »»« N N o.«« N N N UN 0111 sr UN 2111 011111 uwm N 011111 1339 N 0111 011111 0.39 N^ N ouo 0^ 0 o.m N` N N` NN 0U an UN 1 N 011111 1nm N 011111 376111 0111 711111 0.22 N N uxu @ 0 0.23 N N N UN UN EL UN 2111 011111 3*00 N 011111 119111 0111 m KN ucw N^ 0 ucw N^ N ucw N^ N N^ NU NN er UN * N » NU 68000 « NN 957111 »@ :wNN om N N »m N N um N N N 0N NN sn NN » @ « NU » N » UN onN »N /NU N N N N N N N NN UN wIL NN uN » KN 340 N « UN omN »N »UN 010 N N om N N um N N N NN NN wrr NU * N » 0U 6800 N « 0U 1958111 0111 3611111 0.31 N` N 0.31 N~ N o.m N` N N^ UN 011 w* &N 00 011111 »N »NN 125111 » N » &N N N N 0 0 N N NN — '------ — ---' ----' — '------ ------- — --'---'' ------- ------- 110 ~~~~ ~~~~~^~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~UN --------' NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS~ |N| n.*s | 0.45 | 0.45 | «.«« N|| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME pWuma } ||U| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill -----'-- sAarwvser CRITICAL SUMS~ N0 000 | 0.35 | 0.35 | ».»o U||| w~NORTHBOUND,o=oouTHaouwo UU| ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- UU| s~EASTBOUND,w~WESTBOUND oLsxnAwos~ NU 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 000 ||U| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT Hill ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~|N| w,o.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE U|U 0.85 | 0.85 | «.o« | «o» ||N Lon~LEVEL orSERVICE |UU ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Loe~ NN o | o | o | |||| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT: LOWE'S - PHASE I (LOWE'S ONLY) INTERVAL: AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION: SLATER AVE./NEWLAND - LONG RANGE --- ------------------ --- ---------- ------------ --- ------------------ ------------------- --- ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- --- ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- ------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- --- IIIII IIIII III IIIII III IIIII GENERAL III III IIIII GENERAL III III G.P. III III GP+OTHER III III GP+OTHER III IIIII IIIII MOVEMENT IIIII EXIST III PROP IIIII EXISTING III PROPOSED IIIII PLAN III OTHER III PROJECT IIIII PLAN III III +OTHER III III +PROJECT III III +PROJECT III IIIII IIIII IIIII LANES III LANES IIIII CAPACITY III CAPACITY IIIII VOLUME III VOLUME III VOLUME IIIII V/C III III V/C III III V/C III III V/C-w_IMP III IIIII IIIII =_______= IIIII=_____=III=====_°IIIII =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III =_______= III =_______= IIIII =_______= III===III =_______= III===III =_______= III===III =_______= III===IIIII IIIII NL IIIII 1 III 0 IIIII 1700111 011111 152 III ! III 011111 0.09 III• III 0.09 III' III 0.09 III' III III` IIIII IIIII NT IIIII 2111 1111111 3400 III 011111 P63 III 0111 15 IIIII 0.22 III III 022 III III 0.23 III III III IIIII IIIII NR IIIII 0 III 0 IIIII 0111 011111 92 III 0111 0 IIIII III III III III III III III IIIII IIIII SL IIIII 1III 011111 1700III 011111 E20III OIII 211111 0.07 III III 0.07 III III 0.07 III III III IIIII IIIII ST IIIII 2111 0 IIIII 3400 III 011111 III C.III s IIIII 0.22 III' III 0.22 III` 111 0.23 111' III III` IIIII IIIII SR IIIII III 0 IIIII 0 111 011111 F.F.III o 1II 011111 III III III III III III III IIIII IIIII EL IIIII I III 0 IIIII 1700111 011111 64 III 0 111 011111 0.04 III III 0.04 III III 0.04 III III III' IIIII IIIII ET IIIII 2111 0 IIIII 3400 111 011111 1002 III 0111 011111 0.33 III• III 0.33 III' III 0.33 III' III III IIIII IIIII ER IIIII - III OIIIII 0111 011111 .- III 1:1111 011111 III III III III III III III IIIII IIIII WL IIIII 1 III IIIII 1700111 011111 38 III 0 111 i1 IIIII 0.02 III' III 0.02 III' III 0.02 III• III III IIIII IIIII WT IIIII 2 III ^IIIII 3400 III 011111 438 111 0 III 0 IIIII 0.14 111 III 0.14 ill III 0.15 III III III' IIIII IIIII WR 11111 0 111 011111 0 111 011111 52 111 C.111 611111 III III III III III III III IIIII --- ------------------ --- ---------- ------------ --- ------------------ --..............--- --• ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- IIIII ------------------ NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= IIIII 0.31 I 0.31 I 0.32 I 0.00 IIIII ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME FS&N.a I IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- ------------------- ----- IIIII ------------------ EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 1 0.35 IIIII o.35 I 0.35 I 0.00 IIIII N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- ------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND CLEARANCE= IIIII 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.05 I 0.00 IIIII L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT IIIII __________ _ _____________ _ ___ __________ ____ __________ _ __IIIII N.S.=NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE= IIIII 0.71 I 0.71 I 0.72 I 0.00 IIIII LOS=LEVEL OF SERVICE IIIII ------------------ ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- -------------------- ----- IIIII DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS LOS= IIIII C I C I C I IIIII i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Pncwsor: Lowcn ' PHASE Kcmvcmnw�� /wrsnvxL: pw PEAK HOUR /NTEeneormw: oLx�e*xve./wewLxwo - uowaxAwsE ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... .................. -.................. ... .................. -.................. -.................. ... .................. -... -................. -... -.................. -... -.................. -... ... N|| 0N U| |||U |K NU oswsn^L U| N UN GENERAL || N op U| |U sp+or*sn N N op~orHsn ||| |N| NN wovemswrU0 sxmr U| pnop UU| eoenwo U| pnopooso U0 PLAN K| OTHER U| peoJsor UU| PLAN |U U| +oT*sn |U U| *`noJsor N N +pnoJsor |U ||U 0N LANES LANES CAPACITY CAPACITY voLuws |U voLums N voLuws UN wu N N mn N N wo N N «/C-WLMpN NN U|U ~~~~~~~~~ U|U~~~~~~^U|^~~~~~~NN ~~~~ ~==~ 0 ~~~~~~~~ 0N ~~==~~~~~ N ~~^~~~~^~ N ~~~~ ~~~~ 0|| ~~~~~~~~ |U~~~|| ~~==~~~~~ U|~~N ~~~==~~~~ N~~^N ~~~~==~~ U|~~^N|| U|| wL UU| I |U « N|| 1/00111 o||U| m� N «|U »||||| 0.11111 U| 0.11 ||| ||| 0.11111 ||/ |U~ |||!| UU| wr NU 2111 » |||U »wmU| »UN 10-46111 »|U '16UN o.»» N^ 0 oo» |U^ U| ».»aU|^ U| N ||U NN wn UN «N oNU oN »UN onN »N 0110 N 0 N N N N N UN NN eu KN ' N uNN 1700111 »NN (39111 «N wUN ocw Ill^ N ucwN^ N o»» N^ N N UN NN or NU uN » NN 3400111 011111 749111 ^N mUN ouoN N uunN N usmN 0 ill NN NN on NU »N oN0 »N »UN �ooill «N oNN N N N N N N N NN NK EL UN 1 N » UN 1700111 011111 119111 »0 011111 o�m 0^ N um N^ N um N` N N^ NV NU sr 011 2111 u NN 3400 N 011111 »« N ^N 011111 ».:s N N uos N N uu« N N N NN NU s* U@ » N 11111111 0111 011111 N 0111 ^NN N @ N N N N N 00 11111 wL NN 1 N o UN 1700111 011111 vw N 0111 « NN uou N N »os N N u»s N N N NU 0N *n NN rN 011111 3400 N 011111 xs N o N 011111 oea N^ N 0.25 Ill^ N uu» Ill^ N ill NN NU mm NU » N «NU p N 011111 "o N c N /NN N N N N N N N NN ... .................. ... .......... -.......... ... ................ -.................. ... .................. -.................. -.................. Hill ~~~�~~~� ~~^~~~~~�~~~~ ~^~~~~~~~�~~~ ~ ~~NU —'------ wonn*oour*onmcxL Suwa~ UU| 0.37 | o,»/ | ».»n | ».»o UU| ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME Fou�.a | Hill ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- |U|| .................. EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS~ UU| 0.32 | 0.32 | oaa | o.»» |||U w~NORTHBOUND,o~nourHeouwo 1111|------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- --' ||||| s~s«nraouwo.w~wsnroouwo oLsAnxwcs~ ' NU 0.05 | oos | 0.05 | «.o« UU| L~LEFT,r~THROUGH,n~RIGHT |||||~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~UU| wa.~NOT SIGNALIZED ICU VALUE U||| 0./4 | 0./4 | »./» | »o« ||||| Loa~LEVEL oFSERVICE ------------------ ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- ------------------- ---- Hill ^DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS Lno u | « | o | |||| PCR SANTA MONICA 233 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 130 Santa Monica California 90401 TEL 310 4514488 FAX 310 451 5279 _ EMAIL mfo@pernet com PCR IRVINE One Venture Suite 150 Irvine California 92618 TEL 949 753 7001 FAx 949 753 7002 EMAIL info@pernet com