Loading...
CC 2015-10-08_08a East Grand_Courtland Project MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL PARCELS INTO THIRTY-EIGHT (38) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE (1) COMMON AREA LOT, AND THREE (3) COMMERCIAL LOTS; LOCATION - SOUTWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANT - NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE – RRM DESIGN GROUP DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2015 Note: This is a re-hearing of the proposed project following the September 8, 2015 City Council meeting resulting from a noticing error. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Development Agreement 15-002. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Other action as deemed appropriate including, but not limited to, adoption of a Resolution adopting a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, approving General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14- 001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and introducing an Ordinance approving Development Agreement 15-002 (Attachment 1). IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The proposed project would cause a relatively neutral shift in property taxes for the site, as a majority of the site would be converted to single-family residential. Although commercial property taxes are typically higher than residential, the number of single- family residences is anticipated to help offset any reduction. Sales tax revenue for the proposed commercial development is anticipated to be approximately $25,000 annually, Item 8.a. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 2 based upon information provided by the City’s economic development consultant. However, this is speculative due to the lack of identified commercial uses as part of the project. Denial of the project would result in this tax revenue being unrealized as the project could not be constructed. This item is related to the City’s Economic Development efforts, which are directly related to the Critical Needs Action Plan. BACKGROUND: Location The subject property is identified as Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP), is zoned Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) with the BGSP overlay, is approximately 4.47 acres in size, and is the last remaining undeveloped piece of the BGSP. The BGSP has been amended several times, most recently in March 2011. That amendment and subsequent use permit approval allowed for construction of the thirty- six (36) unit Peoples’ Self Help Housing (PSHH) project on adjacent Subarea 4. Although a development proposal for Subarea 3 was under consideration at that time, the application was eventually withdrawn. As a result, the Specific Plan Amendment designated Subarea 3 as an unplanned subarea with no use restrictions or development standards, but subject to a future specific plan amendment. Item 8.a. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 3 A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision (California Environmental Resources Evaluation System [CERES], 1998). Project Description The proposed project (Attachment 2) would enable the build out of the remaining vacant area of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan with mixed-use and mixed housing types. When combined with Subarea 4, these housing types would include vertical mixed-use condominiums, small-lot single-family homes, and apartments. Subarea 3 will include two separate subareas. Subarea 3a would include the creation of three (3) parcels adjacent to East Grand Avenue with three (3) mixed-tenant commercial buildings totaling approximately 15,600 square-feet of commercial floor area with four (4) two- bedroom, second-story condominium units of approximately 1,000 square-feet in size in a vertical mixed-use arrangement over the western commercial building. Subarea 3b would include the creation of thirty-eight (38) parcels for construction of an equal number of high-density, single-family detached homes and one (1) common area lot to include driveways, parking areas, and a centrally located neighborhood green. A majority of the homes would be three bedrooms with four (4) different floor-plans and two (2) homes with four bedrooms. The proposed project is largely similar to the proposal considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2014 (Attachments 3 through 7). However, the City Council took no formal action on that proposal. Instead, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the developer to negotiate a development agreement for one of two development options including the previously considered project with an additional 5,000 square-feet of commercial space and a subsequent reduction in residential lots (Attachments 8 and 9). Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), the developer has chosen to pursue this development option in the proposed Development Agreement (Attachment 10). Staff Advisory Committee The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the revised project description on July 22, 2015. At that time, the SAC discussed changes made to the project, which included grade differences and fencing options between the uses on the site, clarified fire apparatus access through the residential portion of the site and emergency services access to adjoining sites, modified previously identified Conditions of Approval as necessary, and remained in support of the project with the revised project description. Item 8.a. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 4 Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project description on August 18, 2015 (Attachment 11). Commissioners discussed parking for both the commercial and residential components of the project, the design and density of the residential component, the on-site circulation particularly in light of constrained parking, design issues related to refuse collection and storage, the design of project cross sections of dissimilar uses, and circulation on South Courtland Street from the project site. The Planning Commission’s concerns regarding these items resulted in a tentative recommendation for denial, which was formalized by the adoption of a Resolution recommending the City Council deny the proposed project at their meeting of September 1, 2015. The findings for denial recommended by the Planning Commission are included in the prepared City Council Resolution. City Council The City Council considered the proposed project on September 8, 2015 (Attachment 12). At that meeting, the applicant provided a revised site plan that included the removal of two (2) additional residences in Subarea 3b and increased guest parking on Subarea 3b to thirty-seven (37) spaces, with a portion of those spaces located adjacent to Subarea 3a (Attachment 13). The Council voted 3-2 to adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project, as well as introduced an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement. The Council conditioned the project to remove the four (4) second-story condominium units in order to increase parking available for the commercial uses, eliminated Condition of Approval Nos. 40-43, and modified Condition of Approval No. 39 to require public improvements along the full frontage of the property to be constructed prior to recording the Final Map. On September 11, 2015, the City was served with a “Cure and Correct” notice for alleged violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Attachment 14). The notice identified several alleged issues with the project review. One of the issues regarded a public hearing courtesy notice sent to the Berry Gardens neighborhood on August 26, 2015, advising of the City Council’s action to continue consideration of the project from the August 25, 2015 meeting to the September 8, 2015 meeting. The courtesy notice mistakenly identified the City Council Chambers with the address of 300 E. Branch Street rather than the correct address of 215 E. Branch Street. Although the courtesy notice was not required to be sent, once the City determined to send the notice, it was necessary to provide the correct location of the hearing. As a result, consideration of the item has been rescheduled to be heard again and ensure that the Council hears the concerns of all interested parties before making a final determination on the proposal. In addition, the “Cure and Correct” notice alleged that the agenda item was vague and failed to inform the public that approval of the project was a viable alternative. As such, Item 8.a. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 5 the agenda description has been modified to include alternative action, including approval. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Development Agreement The development agreement is a tool by which local agencies and property owners enter into a contractual agreement identifying the intensity, timing, and conditions of development of real property. Development agreements provide an enhanced degree of certainty in the development process for both the property owner and the local agency, as items such as phasing are negotiated as part of the contractual agreement. In this instance, pursuant to the approved MOU, the proposed Development Agreement provides for the construction of 15,600 square-feet of commercial floor area and thirty- eight (38) high-density, single-family detached residences, with extensive on and offsite improvement requirements and project phasing conditioned and secured. General Plan Amendment The General Plan is the foundational development policy document for the City and defines the framework for how the physical, economic, and human resources are to be managed. The General Plan underwent a comprehensive update that was adopted by the City Council in 2001, with amendments and some individual Element updates since that time. As time passes from the original adoption date of the General Plan, it is important for the City to reassess included policies and ensure they reflect current trends and desired future for the City. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment due to an inconsistency wit h an implementation policy that relates specifically to the project site. The proposed project will amend implementation policy LU5-10.1, which states: LU5-10.1 Promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersection as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. The need for a General Plan Amendment results from the exclusion of single-family style detached housing, regardless of density, from the definition of mixed-use. The following amendment is intended to address the definition issue on the subject property while preventing carte blanche construction of single-family detached housing along East Grand Avenue as properties are redeveloped and continuing efforts to promote the high intensity development the City is seeking in this downtown mixed-use corridor (addition underlined): LU5-10.1 Promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersection Item 8.a. - Page 5 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 6 as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. Within the specific plan area, small lot single-family detached housing may be allowed at multi-family densities if integrated with and located behind a primary, distinctive, and attractive commercial/mixed-use gateway component. As the density is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element , the proposed modification will align City Policy with the needs of the site, would not create any inconsistencies with existing developments in the area or internally within the General Plan itself, and would limit the extent of replication, if any, of single-family detached housing along East Grand Avenue. Specific Plan Amendment The proposed amendment to the BGSP (Attachment 15) aims to set development standards for Subarea 3, is largely consistent with the previously considered amendment, and has been updated to account for the additional commercial building and reduction in residences. It should be noted that any project proposal would require an amendment due to Subarea 3 being designated as an unplanned Subarea of the BGSP. The amendment would define the boundaries of the two proposed phases of Subarea 3 for the commercial and residential developments (as generally shown above on the location map). Aside from the detached, small lot single-family homes, the proposed development standards for each subarea are equivalent to the development standards of the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) zoning district, which is the underlying zoning district for the property and is included for comparative purposes (Attachment 16). The following table summarizes the differences between development standards for the GMU zoning district and the proposed specific plan amendment (proposed standards that are more permissive are shown in bold text): Development Standard GMU Zoning District Proposed Subarea 3a Proposed Subarea 3b Maximum density 25 units/acre Consistent with GMU 20 units/acre Minimum lot size 20,000 square-feet 20,000 square-feet 2,000 square-feet Front yard setback 0-10’ 0-5’ minimum Boundary Lots: 10’ Interior Lots: 8’ Rear yard setback 0-15’ 0-5’ minimum Boundary Lots: 10’ Interior Lots: 2-8’ Interior side yard setback 0-5’ 0-5’ minimum Boundary Lots: 10’ Interior Lots: 4’ Street side yard setback 0-15’ 0-5’ minimum Boundary Lots: 10’ Interior Lots: 2’ Lot coverage 75% 50% 65% Floor Area Ratio 1.5 1.5 1.25 Building height 35’ 35’ 35’ The proposed specific plan amendment identifies that when future property owners desiring to modify individual residences after tract construction would require a Minor Item 8.a. - Page 6 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 7 Use Permit-Plot Plan Review from the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with the specific plan. Standards that are not identified in the specific plan would be required to conform to the requirements of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC). Vesting Tentative Tract Map The proposed tract map will subdivide Subarea 3 into forty-two (42) parcels, including three (3) commercial parcels of 25,521 square-feet, 18,047 square-feet, and 10,393 square-feet, forty-one (41) residential parcels with a minimum size of 2,000 square-feet, and one (1) common residential lot, including driveways, parking spaces, and the neighborhood green, of 48,469 square-feet. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the proposed specific plan amendment. The Map is additionally reserving the ability for the four (4) mixed-use units to be condominiums and sold individually as well. Conditional Use Permit The proposed conditional use permit will allow development of Subarea 3a with three (3) commercial buildings ranging in size from approximately 3,600-6,500 square-feet. Commercial building area totals approximately 15,600 square-feet, pursuant to the MOU approved by the Council. No tenants are currently identified as part of the conditional use permit. Additionally, the conditional use permit will allow the development of four (4) second-floor condominium style units of approximately 1,000 square-feet each above Building 1. This vertical mixed-use arrangement as well as the construction of new commercial buildings require the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the AGMC. The proposed buildings are consistent with the proposed specific plan amendment, as illustrated in the following table: Development Standard Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Front yard setback 0’-5’ 0’-5’ 0’-5’ Rear yard setback 22’ 24’ 5’ Interior side yard setback 70’ 245’ 5’ Street side yard setback 224’ 30’ 30’ Lot coverage ~22% ~24% ~35% Building height 31’ 28’ 28’ Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan The Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts (Design Guidelines) were adopted by the City Council in 2004, after the City’s mixed-use zoning districts were created. The Design Guidelines reference the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (Enhancement Plan), which was drafted and circulated in 2002, prior to creation of the City’s mixed-use zoning districts. The Enhancement Plan provides concepts and project considerations important to creating a successful project and revitalized corridor. Item 8.a. - Page 7 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 8 The Design Guidelines provide site and building design requirements and architectural concepts. The following excerpts pertain to the development of Subarea 3:  Include specially treated pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to buildings.  Buildings should enclose streets, plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable blocks. Building placement, streetscape elements and landscaping each define the public realm. Consideration should be given to connectivity between adjacent developments.  Projects should integrate porches, balconies, decks and seating areas that are located to promote pedestrian use of the street edge by providing weather protection, comfort security, and safety. Design shall incorporate handicap accessible access, considerations for walkers (e.g. lockers), bicyclists (e.g. bike racks) and transit patrons.  Parking shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by multiple owners/users.  The desired configurations and locations for off-street parking lots, in order of preference, are: o Shared double-loaded aisle to side or rear of building partially on-site and partially off-site on neighboring parcel; o Shared off-site or public parking lot within 500 feet; o Double-loaded aisle to side, rear, above or below building on-site.  Buildings shall be two to three stories, with active fronts (e.g. articulated entries, detailed facades). A three-story component may be appropriate within a project located on a large lot and when it can be appropriately integrated considering adjacent buildings and uses. The maximum height of a building should not exceed 35 feet except if additional height is needed to accommodate a design feature that contributes to both the character of the building and the surrounding area, and if upper-floors are recessed and/or massing is well articulated. For example, an additional story or tower element on a building at a key intersection may delineate a corner landmark building. Item 8.a. - Page 8 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 9  Ground floors should have clear articulation and a tall ceiling height (e.g. 10-15 feet.), and have a high percentage fenestration (arrangement of windows/doors – 40-60% of the facade). Awnings and overhangs are encouraged.  Emphasize three-dimensional detailing on façades such as cornices, window moldings, and reveals to cast shadows and create visual interest on the façade. The purpose of the Enhancement Plan is to “define a design framework for both future public improvements and further private developments that will enhance the functions and aesthetics of this particular area [properties adjacent to East Grand Avenue”. The following objectives of the Enhancement Plan apply to the development of Subarea 3:  Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial, offices, residential and other compatible uses, in size and scale to fit the “rural setting and small town character” of Arroyo Grande, without duplication of the function or character of other commercial areas.  Plan for a revitalized East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use corridor that has less of a strip commercial aspect and more consistent, coordinated mixed-use boulevard ambiance with district activity subareas: Highway, Midway and Gateway.  Include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by walking, bicycling and transit as well as automotive access, along the entire corridor.  Promote development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage with rear yard and side street parking. Include substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements.  Propose functional design including specialized open space such as squares, courtyards and plazas whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design such as proximity to public transit stops. Allow density bonuses and shared or public parking reduction to increase development intensity and enable more efficient utilization.  Propose designs for attractive streetscape including street trees and other landscaping, building façade improvements, better signage and more consistent and coordinated development design, including fewer driveways and enhancement of off-street parking areas. The proposed project addresses several of the goals and objectives of both the Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan. Specifically, the proposed project includes: Item 8.a. - Page 9 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 10  An outdoor patio area near the intersection of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street;  A paseo between the commercial buildings;  Enhanced pavement in areas along East Grand Avenue and onsite;  Landscape buffer along South Courtland Street and adjacent to the PSHH project; and  Enhanced ADA access from East Grand Avenue. Residential Density Municipal Code Subsection 16.36.030.C identifies residential density equivalents for residential projects located in the mixed-use zoning districts as follows: Residential Dwelling Unit Type Density Equivalent Live/Work Unit .5 Studio .5 1-bedroom .75 2-bedroom 1 3-bedroom 1.5 4-bedroom 2 Based on the proposed development, the total residential density of Subarea 3a and Subarea 3b are as follows: Number of Units Dwelling Unit Type Density Equivalent Total Density Equivalent Subarea 3a 4 2-bedroom 1 4 Subarea 3b 36 3-bedroom 1.5 54 2 4-bedroom 2 4 Subarea 3a: 4 Subarea 3b: 58 Density for the residential portion of the site is 18.53 dwelling units per acre. This is comparable to the multi-family residential densities identified in the General Plan and Municipal Code that range from ten (10) to twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre. For comparison, it is approximately four (4) units per acre denser than Walnut Grove on Woodland Drive, which is an attached multi-family development. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the design and density of Subarea 3b, indicating a preference for reduced density and increased area for guest parking. It is Item 8.a. - Page 10 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 11 important to note that the intent of the Mixed-Use districts is to provide high density housing if housing is to be constructed. The reason why higher density is planned for in Mixed-Use districts is that downtown corridors will be more successful when supported by high density housing. If the residential density becomes too low, it would fall below the anticipated density prescribed by General Plan Policies for the Gateway Mixed-Use district. Attainable Housing In the 2013 General Plan Housing Element update, the City identified the importance of providing housing to workers who are increasingly finding housing to be financially out of reach. This can cause issues for local businesses when they cannot recruit or retain qualified employees. The Housing Element considers this problem to be an issue of “Attainable Housing”. Policy A.14 mandates that the City shall promote infill housing opportunities through an attainable housing program. While the AGMC has not yet been amended to include a formal definition of “Attainable Housing”, the Housing Element identifies qualities anticipated to be part of the definition, including:  Projects in mixed-use districts;  Infill projects;  Projects that include elements that exceed the mandatory California Green Building Code Standards in Title 24;  Projects that include universal design elements;  Projects including single-room occupancy units; and  Projects with a high percentage of rental units. Under this outline of “Attainable Housing”, the proposed project meets several of these qualities and fills an important housing market niche in the community. Additionally, the project will pay its proportional share of affordable housing in-lieu fees to help develop affordable housing projects elsewhere in the City, such as the PSHH project to the south of the site. Signage Signage standards have been integrated into the proposed specific plan amendment (as opposed to a separate planned sign program), and would apply to both Subareas. As proposed, each business in each building will be allowed one wall sign per building face the business fronts, with a size not to exceed 1.5 sq. ft. of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage utilized for the business. Pedestrian scale and orientation of signs is encouraged in the specific plan amendment. The AGMC limits each business within a commercial complex to one (1) wall , canopy or projecting sign per street frontage. Individual signs are limited in size to seventy (70) square-feet. The proposed sign parameters of the specific plan amendment would Item 8.a. - Page 11 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 12 likely exceed the total number of signs allowed per business per the Municipal Code, as businesses in the corner of the building would be allowed to have a single sign on each of the three walls. Businesses in the interior of the buildings (i.e. not including the corner of the building) would be allowed two (2) signs; one sign facing East Grand Avenue and the second facing the parking lot. However, these deviations can be permitted under the specific plan amendment if it is found to be desirable by the Council. Business specific sign proposals would still require appropriate discretionary approval through the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with standards identified in the specific plan, as well as the Municipal Code for standards not identified in the specific plan. Architectural Character The commercial buildings are proposed as prime examples of the contemporary style and massing that lends itself to a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented development, which the City is seeking at the western Gateway. This includes smooth, flat surfaces with clean lines and a mixture of materials. Massing of the buildings is a uniform two-story height adjacent to the sidewalk, which is meant to enclose the street and create a more inviting, pedestrian friendly and distinguishable atmosphere. The massing and orientation of the buildings provides opportunities for several outdoor plaza spaces for pedestrian activity. The architecture type is consistent with the previously considered project and will require final architectural review by the Architectural Review Committee. The proposed residential buildings are designed with a more contemporary, mid-century style. The residences will utilize differing colors between five (5) styles, each with bold accent colors, corrugated metal roofing over the porches, asphalt shingle roofing over the remainder, white vinyl windows, and a variety of roof forms. According to the applicant’s proposal, the intent of the design is to provide lines of transition from the commercial development on East Grand Avenue to Berry Gardens, create a more urban atmosphere to complement the project density, be compatible with the PSHH project, and be visually distinct from Berry Gardens to preclude the development from appearing as an extension of the Berry Gardens neighborhood. Final review of the project’s architecture will be made by the Architectural Review Committee for a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Access The commercial component of the project proposes three (3) access points in total. This includes two (2) from East Grand Avenue and one (1) from South Courtland Street. Although the Enhancement Plan recommends design of fewer driveways in new developments, the proposed driveways are narrow, include decorative crosswalk treatment and aprons, and facilitate maneuverability of building space. The westernmost driveway would be designed to only allow vehicular egress in an eastbound manner. The center driveway (see Attachment 36, Sheet EX1) would only Item 8.a. - Page 12 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 13 allow vehicles to turn right into the development. The single driveway on South Courtland Street would allow full ingress and egress to the site. The residential project component would contain one (1) primary vehicular access point from South Courtland Street. Interior driveways are proposed to be private, maintained by a Homeowners’ Association, and contain fire lanes on both sides due to narrowness. Emergency access to and from the PSHH project would be maintained as part of the project. Pedestrian Access The proposed project eliminates pedestrian access between Subareas 3a and 3b. This does conflict with recommendations in the Design Guidelines that recommend connectivity between developments. The applicant has indicated this was necessary to rearrange residential lots to accommodate the additional commercial square-footage prescribed in the MOU approved by the Council and provide additional parking in Subarea 3b. Pedestrian connections between the two Subareas, as well as the remainder of Berry Gardens, would be increased with the installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the project frontage. Removal of the pedestrian connection also addresses a safety, maintenance, and liability issue previously identified by the applicant whereby members of the public could visit the commercial component of the project and make their way down to the neighborhood park maintained by a private Homeowners’ Association. Traffic Additional traffic will be generated as a result of the proposed project and impacts associated with traffic are identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The previously prepared traffic study was revised and finalized to include the modified project description (Attachment 17). While some of the peak hour trips changed as a result of the revised project description, no new impacts were identified and additional mitigation measures beyond those previously identified were not necessary. Therefore, impacts to the City’s circulation system will be adequately mitigated as to not result in a significant impact. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding available on-site parking and the validity of the traffic study regarding site circulation. The project’s traffic study did review site circulation with respect to site access controls from both East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. The traffic study did not assume that all onsite parking would be used and unavailable during peak hour traffic since the project is proposing to construct parking in excess of City Standards. The traffic study has been completed in compliance with the City’s draft guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Reports and reviewed by the Traffic Commission in 2014. Item 8.a. - Page 13 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 14 During the processing of the previous project in 2014, the City Council directed staff to investigate existing traffic concerns voiced by the residents of Berry Gardens. Staff commissioned a report to look at current vehicle volumes in the neighborhood and options available to address neighborhood concerns, namely speeding. The Draft study was completed by Omni-Means in April 2015. While there may be a perception that the neighborhood sees an unusually large number of vehicle trips and at relatively high speeds, the study concluded that the data does not support those claims and thus traffic calming measures are not warranted. Parking Parking requirements for the development are identified in AGMC Section 16.56.060. Parking requirements are dependent upon the use proposed, but for Subarea 3a requirements are generally one (1) space per 250 square-feet of gross floor area. The proposal of 15,600 square-feet of commercial floor area results in a requirement for sixty-two (62) parking spaces. The four (4) two-bedroom condominiums in subarea 3a require two (2) spaces per unit, totaling eight (8) spaces. In total, seventy (70) parking spaces are required for Subarea 3a. The developer is providing seventy-seven (77) parking spaces in Subarea 3a to accommodate the additional 5,000 square-feet of commercial floor area. This includes four (4) spaces reserved solely for the condominiums (1 space per unit) and seventy- three (73) open, unassigned spaces to exceed the total parking requirement. For Subarea 3b, parking is required per unit. Traditionally, this would include two (2) spaces per unit in an enclosed garage, as well as guest parking at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. For the proposed development, these requirements result in 19 guest parking spaces. Each residence in Subarea 3b contains 2 spaces in their respective garages, meeting the requirement for the residences. The applicant has provided twenty-three (23) guest parking spaces spread throughout the site, with a grouping of these spaces in the southwest corner. Parking provided in Subarea 3b exceeds the requirements of the AGMC. Concerns had been raised previously that Subarea 3b has a lack of parking due to garages being used for storage instead of parking and families having more than two cars. It should be noted that there is nothing within the AGMC that would require additional parking beyond the base requirements. Additionally, the development is required to have a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). Through active management of guest parking by the HOA, as is common in similar developments in other jurisdictions, these concerns can be reduced, although it is doubtful that they would be completely eliminated. Lastly, if residential projects are expected to require parking in front of garages, then the higher densities prescribed by the General Plan and mixed-use and multifamily districts are further constrained and lower-density residential projects will Item 8.a. - Page 14 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 15 result, thus limiting the potential for additional housing choices beyond the standard large-lot, single-family design, which is contrary to the General Plan for areas in the Mixed-Use land use category At the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 2015, Commissioners expressed concern that due to the strong possibility that a restaurant would be located in Subarea 3a, the parking provided in the commercial component will not be adequate. Below is a comparison of parking requirements by City and use for the seven (7) incorporated cities in the County. Grover Beach San Luis Obispo Atascadero Arroyo Grande Pismo Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Requirements 2/Unit 1/Unit for guests 2.5/3br unit 3/4br unit 1/5 units for guests 2.5/3br unit 3/4br unit 1/5 units for guests 2/Unit 0.5/unit for guests 2/Unit 1/4 units for guests 2/Unit 1/5 units for guests 2/Unit 1/5 units for guests Subarea 3b Units:76 Guest:38 Total:114 Units:96 Guest:8 Total:104 Units:96 Guest:8 Total:104 Units:76 Guest:19 Total:95 Units:76 Guest:10 Total:86 Units:76 Guest:8 Total:84 Units:76 Guest:8 Total:84 Arroyo Grande Grover Beach San Luis Obispo Atascadero Pismo Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Requirements General Commercial – 1/250 sq ft Restaurant – 1/100 sq ft accessible to public General Commercial – 1/250 sq ft Restaurant – 1/3 seats but not less than 1/200 sq ft General Commercial – 1/300 sq ft Restaurant – 1/60 sq ft accessible to public and 1/100 sq ft for food prep General Commercial – 1/300 sq ft Restaurant – 1/table for customer, 1/6 tables for staff, and 1/100 sq ft for food prep General Commercial – 1/300 sq ft Restaurant – 1/75 sq ft General Commercial – 1/300 sq ft Restaurant – 1/60 sq ft accessible to public General Commercial – 3/1000 sq ft Restaurant – 5/1000 sq ft Subarea 3b Total: 63 Total: 63 Total: 52 Total: 52 Total: 52 Total: 52 Total 47 As illustrated in the first table, of the seven (7) cities in the County, Arroyo Grande requires the fourth most parking for Subarea 3b, with the Cities of Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo, and Atascadero requiring more parking. As illustrated in the second table, Arroyo Grande is tied with Grover Beach by requiring the most parking for general commercial development. The parking required for restaurants is provided for reference but was not calculated due to project specific restaurant sizes not being currently known. Additionally, the parking requirements for the four (4) condominium units was not calculated for each jurisdiction due to the intricacies of each city’s parking requirements, allowances, and reductions and a desire to not misrepresent that information. Item 8.a. - Page 15 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 16 Landscaping/Open Space The proposed conceptual landscape plan includes both perimeter and interior trees and screening/ground cover plant material that meet the City’s drought tolerant landscaping requirements. Specific plantings in private yard areas of Subarea 3b are not identified and it is anticipated that these would be up to the homeowners to plant. Municipal Code Subsection 16.48.065.C.1 outlines requirements for open space for mixed-use projects at a minimum of 350 square-feet per unit. Forty-two (42) residential units for both Subarea 3a and Subarea 3b require a total of 14,700 square-feet of open space, which is met through a combination of private open space on each individual lot on Subarea 3b, as well as the approximately 12,000 square-foot neighborhood green. Residential Private Patios Homes surrounding the neighborhood green, as well as Lots adjacent to South Courtland Street, have a unique side patio feature that is important to highlight. Property lines are evenly spaced between the residential structures with four feet (4’) from the building to the property boundary. The developer proposes to include side yard patios for the sole enjoyment of one of the residences even though it would include part of the neighboring property. This would be accomplished through recordation of private easements for patio usage. This is a variation on the traditional zero lot line development concept where structures are placed directly on property lines and the buildings themselves help separate the properties. According to the applicant, the proposed variation allows for additional design considerations that would not normally be allowed in traditional zero lot line developments due to requirements of the Building Code. The remainder of the homes on the site would have four feet (4’) between property lines but no side yard patio due to having rear yards. Neighborhood Green Subarea 3b includes a centrally located neighborhood green, providing open space to the development. The neighborhood green measures approximately 12,000 square- feet and includes a neighborhood pavilion, a playground feature and flex spaces, sitting areas, and a mailbox area. Private Streets The applicant is proposing private interior streets in Subarea 3b. This allows for the design of streets outside of City Standards. Streets would be twenty-four feet (24’) in width, including 2-ten foot (10’) travel lanes and 2-two foot (2’) rolled curbs. Interior sidewalks would not be provided, but accessible paths of travel from the public way to the neighborhood green have been included in the project. Item 8.a. - Page 16 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 17 Fence Height The AGMC allows fences to be a maximum of six feet (6’) outside of required front yards. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for six foot (6’) fences to be placed on six foot (6’) retaining walls, totaling twelve feet (12’). This is likely to occur in the rear yards of residences adjacent to Subarea 3a and potentially residences on the western side of the development. A deviation in fence height of this magnitude would typically require a variance but can be included in the Specific Plan Amendment. Timing of Project Construction and Phasing With the previously proposed project, staff included Conditions of Approval Nos. 39-43, aimed at providing significant incentive for the property owner to develop the commercial component of the project. This included phasing of the subdivision map, payment of fees, and deposits of funds to be drawn upon in the event the commercial component remained unconstructed. Although these requirements are incentives to the developer to immediately develop Subarea 3a, it is important to note that this construction phasing is not guaranteed. Although Subarea 3a is identified as Phase I on the Tentative Map, the Subdivision Map Act does allow for modification of phasing after approval. Therefore, the City could see itself in a position where the residential component is constructed and the commercial component remains undeveloped, thereby requiring collection of the fees as outlined. An issue regarding Conditions of Approval Nos. 39-43 has been raised by the applicant. Although the applicant originally intended to construct the commercial phase of the project himself, the applicant is now intending to sell both the commercial and the residential portions of the project to two (2) separate buyers. Initially, the buyers will purchase the project as Tenants in Common, which means they would hold a shared ownership of the property. Subsequently, when the map is recorded, each buyer will own their portion of the property (residential phase or commercial phase) individually. If the phasing requirements remain as outlined and included in Conditions of Approval Nos. 39-43, the applicant indicated the buyer for the residential portion of the project would be unlikely to be able to acquire financing. This is due to the owner of the residential portion being dependent on an unrelated party (the commercial owner) performing their work before the residential owner could complete his/her project. Based on this premise, it is unlikely that a financial lender would advance money for the purchase of the residential property or the residential construction. Conditions of Approval Nos. 39-43 were included in order to provide an incentive for the applicant to develop the commercial component of the project. In an effort to address the applicant’s concerns about Conditions of Approval Nos. 39-43 and still preserve sufficient incentive for the construction of the commercial portion, staff and the applicant have discussed replacing Conditions of Approval Nos. 39-43 with an alternative method of encouraging the development of the commercial portion. Staff would support a Item 8.a. - Page 17 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 18 revised Condition of Approval No. 39, which would include the construction of additional infrastructure prior to the development of the residential portion in exchange for the deletion of Conditions of Approval Nos. 40-43. Subsections (f) and (g) of Condition of Approval No. 39 would be revised to require the construction of all frontage improvements along South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue prior to the recordation of the Final Map as follows in italics: Condition of Approval #39: The map may be phased in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. If such map phasing is to occur, the following improvements shall be made in accordance with the timelines included in each: a) Water – The public water main shall be extended from East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street to the boundary of Phase II as shown on the Utility Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. b) Sewer – The public sewer main shall be extended to the boundary of Phase I and Phase II along South Courtland Street as shown on the Utility Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. c) Storm Drains – The public storm drain main shall be extended and upsized as deemed necessary by the City Engineer to the boundary of Phase I and Phase II along South Courtland Street as shown on the Utility Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. d) Retaining Wall – The shared retaining wall between Phase I and Phase II shall be installed as shown on the Civil Site Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. e) Grading and Drainage – The drainage on Phase I shall be directed away from Phase II in a manner compliant with City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to recordation of either Phase. f) Prior to Final Map recordation, all frontage improvements must be installed along South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue, including: 1. Curb, gutter and sidewalk; 2. Street trees; 3. Traffic signal relocation; and 4. Final road sealing, striping and roadway signage. As revised, Condition of Approval No. 39 would require the applicant to complete all planned infrastructure, including the frontage improvements for both the residential and commercial portion prior to recordation of the Final Map. It is important to note that the Development Agreement stipulates a 5-year entitlement limitation. This means that both phases of the project are required to be constructed within that time frame. According to engineers’ estimates and information provided by the applicant, the investment in the commercial phase of the project is $1.3 million. The infrastructure costs associated with the commercial phase of the project, including the frontage improvements are estimated at $445,000. Given the level of investment in the commercial phase of the project, it would be unlikely for the commercial developer to fail to construct the commercial portion within the five years, allowing the Development Item 8.a. - Page 18 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 19 Agreement and project entitlements to expire, which would result in a significant loss in value of the project. The Planning Commission considered the financing issue but due to the Commission’s recommendation for denial, a recommendation on this issue was not provided. Water Use Concerns have been raised about the ongoing drought and if it should be a basis for denying the project. First, it is important to note the analysis of the issue of water in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and based on this analysis that there are sufficient water supplies available for the project and water related impacts are less than significant. This conclusion was based upon an analysis of the project’s water demand, as well as the 2012 Water System Master Plan, and was revised to reflect the increased commercial square-footage and decreased residential use. More importantly, it must be borne in mind that all new development in the City is required to either implement a water neutralization program or pay a water neutralization fee to offset increased water demand generated by the project. Accordingly, the determination is that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project. In addition, Chapter 13.05 of the AGMC contains the City’s Water Conservation provisions. Section 13.05.030 includes a wide range of permanent restrictions on water use that the residents and businesses located in this project will have to adhere to. The applicant has provided an information sheet outlining the project’s water conservation efforts (Attachment 18). These water conservation techniques include: Outdoor:  Drought tolerant plantings  No turf in yards  Minimized neighborhood common area turf  High efficiency irrigation; and  Amended soils for moisture retention Indoor:  Dual flush toilets;  Water saving dishwasher and faucet devices; and  Pre-plumbed for gray water systems On May 26, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution declaring a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency as well as adopting an Urgency Ordinance relating to penalties and enforcement of emergency water shortage restrictions and regulations. The Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency was enacted in part due to Executive Order B-29-15, implementing statewide mandatory water conservation requirements, which included a 28% water use reduction on the City (as an aside, the City is currently seeing a Item 8.a. - Page 19 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 20 reduction of approximately 36% in water use from 2013, which is a tribute to the conservation efforts of the residents of the City). In addition to the project water demand being accounted for in the General Plan build out, it is not anticipated that the additional demand will impact the City’s ability to continue to meet the 28% reduction requirements as the project totals 0.004% of supply. At the time the Stage 1 Emergency was enacted, the Council made the decision that while a moratorium on new development might be necessary in the future, it is not currently necessary, due to conservation efforts reducing consumption from 99% of water entitlements in 2008 to 73% of supply and long term build out projections. The Council decided that a moratorium at this time would seriously jeopardize the goals of meeting housing needs and achieving economic sustainability through infill development prioritized in the recent updates to the General Plan Housing and Economic Development Elements. It is for these reasons that development projects can continue to be approved even in light of the current drought conditions. Disabled Access for Subarea 3b At the August 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners had questions regarding ADA access for Subarea 3b. The City has adopted the 2013 California Building Code as referenced in Section 15.040.010 of the Municipal Code. The 2013 California Building Code is designed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act and State statutes. The California Building Code provides special consideration for privately funded and owned residential construction verses other types of construction. The California Building Code Section R320 provides guidance when ADA compliant facilities must be installed: Dwelling units in a building consisting of three or more dwellings units or four or more condominium units shall meet the requires of the California Building Code Chapter 11A. Covered Multifamily Dwellings include but are not limited to dwelling units listed in Section 1.8.2.1.2. Dwelling units within a single structure separated by firewalls do not constitute separate buildings. California Building Code Chapter 11A provides housing accessibility guidance for multifamily structures. California Building Code Chapter 11B provides guidance for Accessibility to Public Buildings, Public Accommodations, Commercial Buildings and Public Housing. This is again reiterated on the United States Access Boards web site in plain language as follows: Although private residential housing is not covered by the ADA, government- owned or operated housing and certain privately owned facilities that provide housing are subject to the ADA and its accessibility requirements. Government owned or operated facilities may include public housing, student Item 8.a. - Page 20 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 21 and faculty housing, employee housing, nursing homes, temporary housing provided in emergencies, and social service facilities, such as homeless shelters and halfway houses. In the private sector, the ADA’s coverage of housing is limited to places of public accommodation, such as social service establishments and housing provided on or behalf a place of education. The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments. (Many types of multi-family housing in the private and public sectors are subject to the design requirements of the Fair Housing Act.) Places of public accommodation located in residential buildings, such as rental and sales offices, commercial spaces, and hotel accommodations, are covered by the ADA Standards. The proposed project must comply with the California Building Code. Subarea 3b must provide accessible access from the Public Right-of-Way of Courtland Street to the area known as the neighborhood green in the residential portion of the development. Assessable access to the privately owned residential structures is not required by the California Building Code, State Statutes or Federal ADA requirements. Refuse Collection The Planning Commission also raised concerns regarding the collection of refuse on collection days. Due to the narrowness of the private street, Commissioners were concerned that with the addition of three (3) cans per household would constrict the travel way for emergency vehicles. Plan Modifications Following Planning Commission In response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the applicant has provided an alternate site plan for the Council’s consideration (see Attachment 13). Modifications to the project description offered as alternatives by the applicant include the removal of two (2) additional residences in Subarea 3b for a total of thirty-five (35) residences. The elimination of the residences results in a reduction in density from 18.53 dwelling units per acre to 17.41 dwelling units per acre. Guest parking would also be expanded for Subarea 3b from twenty-three (23) spaces to thirty-eight (38) spaces with a row between the Subareas in order to provide a buffer between the commercial and residential uses. The applicant is also proposing that all the residences, not just those located adjacent to the neighborhood green or South Courtland Street, include the modified zero lot line side yards. Item 8.a. - Page 21 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 22 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:  Adopt the prepared Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and Development Agreement 15-002;  Modify and adopt the prepared Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14- 002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and Development Agreement 15-002;  Adopt a Resolution adopting the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement 15-002 (see Attachment 1);  Modify and adopt a Resolution adopting the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14- 001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement 15-002; or  Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denying the proposed project would maintain the project site for a possible development consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, which could include multi-family residential development in an attached format, a full commercial development, or some combination thereof. DISADVANTAGES: Denying the proposed project would not allow the construction and would deprive the City of the generation of sales tax revenue while the property remains vacant, as well as not allowing the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to reach build out. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, staff has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the previously proposed project. Upon receiving a revised project description following the execution of the MOU, staff revised the Draft MND and concluded that the revised project description does not create any new significant impacts nor require additional mitigation measures and therefore adequately evaluates the current project (Attachment 19). Project denial would not necessitate action to be taken on the Draft MND. Item 8.a. - Page 22 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 23 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site, was published in The Tribune, and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on Friday, September 25, 2015. Additionally, staff mailed notices to the entirety of the Berry Gardens neighborhood to ensure the neighborhood was aware of the hearing. The agenda was posted at City Hall on October 1, 2015 and the staff report was posted on the City’s website on October 2, 2015. Communication has occurred with several neighbors regarding concerns over the density of the proposed project, lack of parking for the residences, traffic, water, and individual distaste for the project architecture. Correspondence has additionally been received from the public related to the project prior to and following the September 8, 2015 Council meeting (Attachments 20 through 33). Attachments (note that although not individually identified, several attachments have been renumbered for internal report consistency): 1. Alternate Resolution for project approval and Ordinance approving Development Agreement 2. Project narrative provided by applicant 3. Minutes from the July 8, 2014 Council meeting 4. Minutes from the August 12, 2014 Council meeting 5. Minutes from the November 18, 2014 Planning Commission meeting 6. Minutes from the December 2, 2014 Planning Commission meeting 7. Minutes of the December 9, 2014 Council Meeting 8. Minutes from the January 13, 2015 Council meeting 9. Minutes from the February 10, 2015 Council meeting 10. Memorandum of Understanding with NKT Commercial 11. Minutes from the August 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 12. DRAFT minutes from the September 8, 2015 Council meeting 13. Alternate Site Plan 14. Cure and Correct notice from Julie Tacker 15. Proposed Specific Plan Amendment 16. Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A) – Uses Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts 17. Final Traffic Impact Study 18. Project water conservation information 19. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20. Correspondence from John Lovern 21. Correspondence from Frank Allen 22. Correspondence from Michael Byrd 23. Correspondence from Steve Hollister 24. Correspondence from Mike O’Morrow Item 8.a. - Page 23 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCTOBER 8, 2015 PAGE 24 25. Correspondence from Kathy Tompkins 26. Correspondence from Judy O’Morrow 27. Correspondence from Anita Wasserman 28. Correspondence from Pamela Storton 29. Correspondence from Brent Christensen 30. Correspondence from Paula Renner 31. Correspondence from Pat Cusack 32. Correspondence from Patty Welsh 33. Correspondence from John Mack 34. Correspondence from Bill Cockshott 35. Correspondence from Daphne Manos 36. Project plans Item 8.a. - Page 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14- 001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NKT COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the project site is located in the area of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is identified as Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Specific Plan Amendment 14-001 to amend the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it relates to the development of Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed General Plan Amendment 14-002 to amend the General Plan Land Use Element as it relates to development in the area of the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street to include single-family detached housing at multi-family densities as part of mixed-use projects; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 to subdivide Subarea 3 into forty-two (42) parcels, including three (3) commercial parcels, thirty-eight (38) residential parcels, and one (1) common area parcel.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 14-009 to develop three (3) commercial buildings of 3,600-6,500 square-feet, four (4) second-floor condominiums of approximately 1,000 square feet-each in a vertical mixed-use arrangement; and WHEREAS, the applicant and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on February 10, 2015 for the negotiation of a development agreement for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Development Agreement 15-002 in accordance with the executed Memorandum of Understanding; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2015, recommending the City Council deny the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and Item 8.a. - Page 25 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: General Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan as it would allow single-family detached housing on a commercial parcel at a density and design that is incompatible with the nearby residential neighborhood and potential deterioration of the commercial corridor. 2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow single-family detached housing with a design as to create issues with open space and support facilities. 3. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to an insignificant level, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential impacts; The proposed General Plan Amendment and resulting project have been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for implementation of CEQA and the impacts of the proposed project have been included in a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 10, 2014, which was revised in July 2015, and have been reduced to an insignificant level. Specific Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would permit single-family detached housing in a commercial district which is not consistent with Land Use Element implementation policy LU5-10.1, which calls to promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersections as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. Item 8.a. - Page 26 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would permit single-family detached housing between commercial and multi-family residential development and would result in parking and circulation deficiencies due to the density of the detached housing style. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan; The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not implement the provisions of the General Plan, including Land Use Element implementation policy LU5-10.1, which calls to promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersections as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. 4. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in a project lacking sufficient parking for anticipated demand due to the density of single-family detached residential development. 5. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the Specific Plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan it is amending. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create any internal inconsistencies within the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is consistent with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it provides for both commercial and residential development. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, as well as any applicable specific plan, and the requirements of this title. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map would allow the subdivision of 4.47 acres into forty-two (42) lots consistent, including thirty-eight (38) for the development of single-family detached housing that is inconsistent with the General Plan, including Land Use Element implementation policy LU5-10.1, which calls to promote development Item 8.a. - Page 27 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersections as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land adjacent to one of the City’s main commercial corridors and is not physically suitable for the density of residential development proposed. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land adjacent to one of the City’s main commercial corridors and is not physically suitable for the design and density of single-family detached residential development proposed. 4. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the tract map is not anticipated to cause substantial environmental damage due to the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and revised in July 2015, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Regulations for Implementation of CEQA. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision results in a development overly dense for the subject property as there is insufficient space to provide facilities to support the development, including resident, guest, and customer parking. 6. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed tentative tract map or the alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. There are no easements for the public-at-large currently on the subject property. Emergency access easements to the multi-family housing project to the south will be modified and recorded to ensure adequate access is maintained for emergency response purposes. 7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements Item 8.a. - Page 28 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 as prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code. The proposed development will retain the 95th percentile of water discharge on site and excess discharge will be directed to an existing infiltration basin across South Courtland Street. No discharge of waste will result in a violation identified in Division 7 of the California Water Code. 8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the proposed tentative tract map to support project development. There are adequate provisions for public services to serve the project development and no deficiencies exist. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The proposed development for single-family detached housing on the subject property is inconsistent with the General Plan, including Land Use Element implementation policy LU5-10.1, which calls to promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersections as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The proposed single-family detached residential development is at too great a density to include adequate support facilities, which will impair the integrity and character of the surrounding area by resulting in increased overflow street parking demand. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land adjacent to one of the City’s main commercial corridors, is not physically suitable for the design and density of residential development proposed, and is not consistent with the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. Item 8.a. - Page 29 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 The provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities were examined during development and revision of the Initial Study and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and it was determined that adequate public services will be available for the proposed project and will not result in substantially adverse impacts. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed single-family detached housing is at such high densities as to create issues with open space and facilities necessary to support the development, including parking facilities. Development Agreement Findings: 1. The development agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed Development Agreement would facilitate development of single-family detached housing in a commercial district which is not consistent with Land Use Element implementation policy LU5-10.1, which calls to promote development of a high intensity, mixed- use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersections as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. 2. The development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located; The proposed Development Agreement would facilitate development of single-family detached housing in a commercial corridor segment known as Gateway, which is not consistent with Land Use Element implementation policy LU5-10.1. 3. The development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice; The proposed Development Agreement would facilitate development of single-family detached housing between commercial and multi- family residential development and would result in parking and circulation deficiencies due to the density of the detached housing style, therefore failing to conform to good land use practice. 4. The development agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare; The proposed Development Agreement would facilitate construction Item 8.a. - Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 of single-family detached housing is at such high densities as to create issues with open space and facilities necessary to support the development, including parking facilities. 5. The development agreement will not, in respect to the subject property or any other property, adversely affect the orderly development thereof or the preservation of property values; The proposed Development Agreement would facilitate development of single-family detached housing between commercial and multi- family residential development and without concurrent approval of a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment would result in parking and circulation deficiencies due to the density of the detached housing style, therefore failing to result in orderly development of the property. Required CEQA Findings: 1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 and Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and was subsequently revised to include Development Agreement 15-002. 2. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department. 3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the record as a whole, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council not take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration due to recommendation for the denial of the proposed project studied under the Initial Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14- 001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Development Agreement 15-002. On motion by Council Member _______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 8th day of October, 2015. Item 8.a. - Page 31 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 _____________________________________ JIM HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _____________________________________ DIANNE THOMPSON, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY Item 8.a. - Page 32 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14- 001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NKT COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the project site is located in the area of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is identified as Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Specific Plan Amendment 14-001 to amend the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it relates to the development of Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed General Plan Amendment 14-002 to amend the General Plan Land Use Element as it relates to development in the area of the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street to include single-family detached housing at multi-family densities as part of mixed-use projects; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 to subdivide Subarea 3 into forty-two (42) parcels, including three (3) commercial parcels, thirty-eight (38) residential parcels, and one (1) common area parcel.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 14-009 to develop three (3) commercial buildings of 3,600-6,500 square-feet, four (4) second-floor condominiums of approximately 1,000 square feet-each in a vertical mixed-use arrangement; and WHEREAS, the applicant and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on February 10, 2015 for the negotiation of a development agreement for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Development Agreement 15-002 in accordance with the executed Memorandum of Understanding; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2015, recommending the City Council deny the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and Item 8.a. - Page 33 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: General Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment would modify LU5-10.1 as it relates to the subject property to allow the development of single-family detached housing as part of a mixed-use project at a density comparable to multi-family densities. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the remainder of the General Plan and requiring development of housing comparable to the density of multi-family development is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. 2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; There is nothing contained within the proposed General Plan Amendment that will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, as the proposed General Plan Amendment involves the allowance of single-family residential development on the project site as part of a mixed-use development and at a density comparable to multi-family densities consistent with the Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation. 3. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to an insignificant level, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential impacts; The proposed General Plan Amendment and resulting project have been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for implementation of CEQA and the impacts of the proposed project have been included in a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 10, 2014, which was revised in July 2015, and have been reduced to an insignificant level. Specific Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow the development of Item 8.a. - Page 34 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 4.47 acres with commercial, mixed-use condominium residential, and single-family detached residential at a density comparable to multi-family density consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; There is nothing contained within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment contains mixed-use development standards which are consistent with the Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation, have single-family detached residential density comparable to multi-family density, and provide for an adequate buffer between dissimilar uses (commercial and residential); therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in an illogical land use pattern. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan; The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary to implement provisions of the General Plan regarding higher-intensity mixed-use development of 4.47 acres of vacant land along the City’s main commercial corridor (East Grand Avenue). 4. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations. The development standards contained within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations as they allow for development of a higher-intensity mix of uses, including commercial, mixed- use condominium residential, and single-family detached residential at a density comparable to multi-family density. 5. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the Specific Plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan it is amending. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create any internal inconsistencies within the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is consistent with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it provides for both commercial and residential development. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande Item 8.a. - Page 35 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 General Plan, as well as any applicable specific plan, and the requirements of this title. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map would allow the subdivision of 4.47 acres into forty-two (42) lots consistent with the General Plan and Berry Gardens Specific Plan for the development of commercial, mixed-use condominium residential and single-family detached residential with densities comparable to multi-family densities. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land adjacent to one of the City’s main commercial corridors and is suitable for the development of higher-intensity mixed-use development including commercial, mixed-use condominium residential, and high-density, detached single-family residential with densities comparable to multi-family densities consistent with the Mixed-Use land use designation of the General Plan and the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land and is identified with the Mixed-Use land use designation of the General Plan, which allow high density residential development. The proposed residential development will not exceed the maximum allowable density of the district and is comparable to multi-family densities. 4. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the tract map is not anticipated to cause substantial environmental damage due to the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and revised in July 2015, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Regulations for Implementation of CEQA. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, the design of the subdivision will be in compliance with the Mixed-Use performance standards of the Municipal Code, which will allow adequate design and separation of incompatible uses to prevent serious public health problems. 6. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed tentative tract map or the alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative Item 8.a. - Page 36 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. There are no easements for the public-at-large currently on the subject property. Emergency access easements to the multi-family housing project to the south will be modified and recorded to ensure adequate access is maintained for emergency response purposes. 7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements as prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code. The proposed development will retain the 95th percentile of water discharge on site and excess discharge will be directed to an existing infiltration basin across South Courtland Street. No discharge of waste will result in a violation identified in Division 7 of the California Water Code. 8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the proposed tentative tract map to support project development. There are adequate provisions for public services to serve the project development and no deficiencies exist. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The proposed development for commercial, mixed-use condominium residential, and high-density, single-family detached residential uses at a density comparable to multi-family densities is consistent with development standards for the Gateway Mixed-Use zoning district per Municipal Code Section 16.36.020, the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, and the Arroyo Grande General Plan. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. There is nothing contained within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment contains mixed-use development standards which are consistent with the Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation and provide for an adequate buffer between dissimilar uses (commercial and residential); therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in an illogical land use pattern. Item 8.a. - Page 37 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land and is identified with the Mixed-Use land use designation of the General Plan, which allow commercial and high density residential development. The proposed commercial and residential development will not exceed the maximum allowable density of the district and is comparable to multi-family densities. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. The provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities were examined during development and revision of the Initial Study and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and it was determined that adequate public services will be available for the proposed project and will not result in substantially adverse impacts. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as it will comply with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, all applicable codes and standards of the Municipal Code, and in accordance with conditions of approval specifically developed for the project. Required CEQA Findings: 1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 and Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and was subsequently revised to include Development Agreement 15-002. 2. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department. 3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the record as a whole, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this project. Further, the City Council find that said Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and Item 8.a. - Page 38 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 analysis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as set forth in Exhibit “B”, a full copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department and directs the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination, approves General Plan Amendment 14-002 as set forth in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, approves Specific Plan Amendment 14-001 as set forth in Exhibit “D”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14- 001 and Conditional Use Permit 14-009 as set forth in Exhibit “E”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member _______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 8th day of October, 2015. Item 8.a. - Page 39 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 _____________________________________ JIM HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _____________________________________ DIANNE THOMPSON, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY Item 8.a. - Page 40 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 EXHIBIT ‘A’ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009 SOUTHWEST CORNER OFEAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval authorizes the subdivision of 4.47 acres at the southwest corner of the East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street intersection for the construction of thirty-eight (38) single-family residences and three (3) commercial buildings of approximately 15,600 square-feet of floor area with four (4) second-story residential dwellings, in accordance with the plans presented to the City Council at the Public Hearing on October 8, 2015. 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures for General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009. 4. This application shall automatically expire on August 25-2017 unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 16.12.140 of the Development Code. 5. Development shall conform to the Gateway Mixed-Use zoning district requirements except as otherwise approved. 6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of October 8, 2015 and marked Exhibit “D”, on file in the Community Development Department. 7. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be Item 8.a. - Page 41 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 8. A copy of these conditions and mitigation measures shall be incorporated into all construction documents. 9. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations and landscape plan. 10. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development Code except as otherwise approved in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all illegal signs shall be removed, if any. 11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, “Fences, Walls and Hedges”; 16.48.120, “Performance Standards”; and 16.48.130 “Screening Requirements”, except as otherwise modified by this approval. 12. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified by these conditions. 13. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, “Parking and Loading Requirements”, except as otherwise modified by this approval. All parking spaces adjacent/parallel to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet. 14. Where off-street parking areas are situated such that they are visible from the street, an earthen berm, wall, landscaping, and/or combination wall/berm/landscaping three feet (3’) in height shall be erected within the required landscape area to screen the parking area. 15. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one-half foot- candle illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of darkness. 16. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials, and shall be made of an exterior finish that complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall accommodate recycling container(s). The location and function of the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by South County Sanitation prior to approval of the improvement plans. 17. Final architecture and design and location of the trash enclosure(s) shall be Item 8.a. - Page 42 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and approved by the Community Development Director. 18. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM Monday through Friday where adjacent to existing residential. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday where adjacent to existing residential. 19. At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide details on any proposed exterior lighting. The lighting plan shall include the height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090 of the Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient (e.g. LED). 20. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water and energy usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 21. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) and shall include the following: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5’) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants. iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller (weather based) technology. iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include drought Item 8.a. - Page 43 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 12 tolerant and/or native plants. v. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas. vi. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16.84.040 of the Development Code. 22. All planted areas shall be continuously maintained in a healthy, growing condition, shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming, and shall be kept free of weeds and debris by the owner or person in possession of such areas. Any damaged, dead or decaying plant material shall be replaced within thirty (30) days from the date of damage. 23. Trees shall be provided at a ratio of one tree for every five parking spaces. 24. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the developer shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this inspection. 25. All new commercial electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s). 26. All Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, adjacent to a fire access roadway, away from the public right-of-way, incorporated into the design of the site, and screened to the maximum extent feasible. 27. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within the respective building to which they serve. 28. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems be completely screened from public view. All roof-mounted equipment which generates noise, solid particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from residential properties. 29. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement action. If it is determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development Code Section 16.08.100. Item 8.a. - Page 44 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 13 SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS 30. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20 "Land Divisions". 31. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64 "Dedications, Fees and Reservations." 32. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.68 "Improvements". 33. The applicant shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association, formed by the applicant for the area within the subdivision. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to or concurrently with the final map. At a minimum, the CC&R's shall: a. Provide for maintenance of the driveways, common areas, sewer lines and other facilities; b. Prohibit additions to the units; c. Require garages to be kept clear for parking cars at all times; and d. Inform residents of the water conservation requirements placed on this project. 34. The applicant shall remove all structures in conflict with new lot lines. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING 35. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.80 “Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements”, which includes the appropriate in-lieu fee be paid prior to issuance of the first ministerial permit, including but not limited to grading, demolition, or building permit for all or any part of the project. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 36. Crosswalks across South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue from the project site shall be upgraded or fair share in-lieu fees provided to include flagstone patterned, color stained concrete, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. 37. All aisles, approach lanes, and maneuvering areas in the parking lot of Subarea 3a shall be clearly marked with directional arrows to simplify vehicular movement. 38. A minimum of one (1) motorcycle parking space shall be provided in Subarea 3a. Item 8.a. - Page 45 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 14 39. The map may be phased in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. If such map phasing is to occur, the following improvements shall be made in accordance with the timelines included in each: a. Water – The public water main shall be extended from East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street to the boundary of Phase II as shown on the Utility Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. b. Sewer – The public sewer main shall be extended to the boundary of Phase I and Phase II along South Courtland Street as shown on the Utility Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. c. Storm Drains – The public storm drain main shall be extended and upsized as deemed necessary by the City Engineer to the boundary of Phase I and Phase II along South Courtland Street as shown on the Utility Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. d. Retaining Wall – The shared retaining wall between Phase I and Phase II shall be installed as shown on the Civil Site Plan, prior to recordation of either Phase. e. Grading and Drainage – The drainage on Phase I shall be directed away from Phase II in a manner compliant with City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to recordation of either Phase. f. Frontage Improvements, Phase I – Phase I shall install: i. Its immediate street frontage improvements at East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street (including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, and sidewalk); ii. A transition to the existing curb on South Courtland Street; and iii. A pedestrian path along the frontage of Phase II along South Courtland Street, as necessary and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to recordation of Phase I. g. Frontage Improvements, Phase II – Phase II shall install: i. Its immediate street frontage improvements at South Courtland Street (including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, and sidewalk); ii. A transition to the existing curb on South Courtland Street; and iii. A pedestrian path along the frontage of Phase I along South Courtland, as necessary and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to recordation of Phase II.. 40. Prior to final inspection of any of the structures of Subarea 3b, the applicant shall first deposit an amount equal to ½ of all estimated development impact fees and permit fees associated with the development of Subarea 3a (the “Deposit”); if the development of Subarea 3a has not been commenced within six (6) months following the final inspection approval of the Subarea 3b improvements, then the Deposit shall be unconditionally forfeited to the City of Arroyo Grande, and shall not be applied to any permit fee or development impact fee associated with Subarea 3a. 41. Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall deposit $250,000 with the City to Item 8.a. - Page 46 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 15 be placed in an interest bearing account at an agreed upon local bank (the “Deposit”). If building permits to construct all of Subarea 3a have not been issued within 12 months of final map recordation, the City shall have the right to withdraw $25,000. In each successive year, if Certificates of Occupancy have not been issued for all of Subarea 3a, the City shall have the right to annually withdraw an additional $25,000, until the Deposit is exhausted. 42. If construction has not been completed and Certificates of Occupancy issued for all of Subarea 3a within 10 years, the applicant shall convey the property of Subarea 3a to the City, in fee, free and clear of any monetary encumbrances 43. As an alternative to Conditions of Approval #39 through #42 above, Subarea 3a must be built prior to or concurrently with Subarea 3b. 44. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall reimburse the City for the proportionate costs associated with expansion of the Poplar Ponding Basin. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS CBC/CFC 45. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the International Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. FIRE LANES 46. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. 47. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS 48. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 49. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards and per the California Fire Code. 50. The developer shall relocate the existing fire hydrant at the west end of the project site on East Grand Avenue to be adjacent to the west end of the western commercial building. 51. The applicant shall install a new fire hydrant per City Standards approximately Item 8.a. - Page 47 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 16 halfway between East Grand Avenue and the residential project entrance, adjacent to South Courtland Street (at approximately Lot 9). 52. The developer shall install a new fire hydrant per City standards immediately south of the residential project entrance (at approximately Lot 18). SECURITY KEY BOX 53. The applicant must provide an approved "security key vault," per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code. FIRE SPRINKLER 54. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code. 55. Provide Fire Department approved access or sprinkler-system per National Fire Protection Association Standards. ABANDONMENT / NON-CONFORMING 56. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. DEMOLITION PERMIT / RETAINING WALLS 57. A demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued. All asbestos and lead shall be verified if present and abated prior to permit issuance. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 58. The Applicant shall provide fully improved secondary means of emergency access from the southwest corner of the project site leading to/from the People’s Self Help Housing to South Courtland Street. Access shall be provided in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix Section D107 and the previously recorded access easement. Minimum clearances and turning movements shall accommodate the Fire Department’s ladder truck. 59. The development shall provide safe accessible paths of travel to the satisfaction of the Building Official, in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS Item 8.a. - Page 48 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 17 All Engineering conditions of approval as listed below are to be complied with prior to recording the map or finalizing the permit, unless specifically noted otherwise. GENERAL CONDITIONS 60. The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning City streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site. The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day’s work or as directed by the Director of Public Works, the Community Development Director or his/her representative. 61. For work requiring engineering inspections, perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7 A.M. to 5 P.M.), for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or approved by the Community Development Director. The City may hold the developer or contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these hours. 62. Trash enclosure area(s) shall have a roof structure (grease trap) to reduce stormwater pollution runoff. 63. Trash enclosure area(s) shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials, and shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling container storage. Interior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be capable of withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks. 64. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-residential project noise, in compliance with the City’s noise regulations. 65. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 66. The property owner shall provide maintenance of all landscaping placed in and adjacent to the development, including in bulb outs. 67. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director. One (1) set of mylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required. As-built plans shall be required prior to release of the Faithful Performance Bond. 68. Submit three (3) full-size paper copies and one (1) full-size mylar copy of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction. Item 8.a. - Page 49 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 18 69. If adequate public right-of-way does not exist beyond the back of sidewalk and/or curb ramp, a public pedestrian access easement may be required. The easement(s) shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The applicant shall provide any required exhibits necessary to define the area of the easement along with current ownership information and a legal description . 70. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.24.110 for Stormwater Management, the Registered Civil engineer shall provide certification of the best management practices (BMP's) used and shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards in the ordinance, prior to approval of the final map/improvement plans. 71. Show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking per Municipal Code Chapter 16.56 and any project specific conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks and all dimensions and clearances to obstructions per city standard. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 72. Improvement plans (including the following) shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and approved by the Public Works or Community Development Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control. b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. c. Public utilities. d. Water and sewer. e. Landscaping and irrigation. f. Other improvements as required by the Community Development Director. (NOTE: All plan sheets must include City standard title blocks) 73. The site plan shall include the following: a. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. b. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. c. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. d. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. e. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. 74. Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right-of-way, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 75. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed utilities. Item 8.a. - Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 19 76. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development Director for walls not constructed per City standards. 77. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 78. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right-of-way (City or Caltrans). STREET IMPROVEMENTS 79. Obtain approval from the Public Works Director prior to excavating in any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal. 80. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. 81. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test or recommendation by a soils report, but shall not be less than 3” of asphalt and 6” of Class II AB. 82. The developer shall show that emergency vehicles can negotiate streets through the several right angle turns. 83. All plans shall show the City’s complete right-of-way on South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue. 84. Guest parking shall be spread throughout the development due to street parking not being available on the project site. 85. The developer shall provide a striping plan to include a five foot (5’) bike lane, turn lane and travel way on South Courtland Street. 86. The developer shall provide Type 2 Slurry Seal or Microsurfacing on full road width of South Courtland Street for the entire length of project frontage and on East Grand Avenue for the entire length of project frontage to the median. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 87. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. Item 8.a. - Page 51 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 20 88. In special designated zones, including where driveways cross pedestrian sidewalks, new facilities shall be color and/or installation of exposed aggregate concrete finish shall be as directed by the Community Development Director. 89. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are compliant with State and City Standards. The project shall include sidewalk and ADA compliant paths consistent with State Standards. 90. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement(s) when the ADA sidewalk extension does not fall within the City’s right-of-way. 91. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. 92. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 93. A private/public (fire, water main, sewer, open space, drainage) easement shall be reserved on the map. 94. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 10 feet wide adjacent to all public streets. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. 95. A blanket Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated over the project site. (CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS) 96. Street tree planting and maintenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all street right-of-ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet beyond the right-of-way and PUE, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered by public utility easements. 97. Access shall be denied to East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street except at designated entries. The access denial shall be offered by the property owner and recorded on the map or other document as is acceptable to the City. 98. A ten foot (10’) sewer main and/or water main easement(s) shall be dedicated to the City via an agreement or the Tract map. 99. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 Item 8.a. - Page 52 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 21 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The Developer shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing. 100. The developer shall obtain agreement from Peoples’ Self Help Housing for the disposition of Item No. 6 in the Title Report. 101. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The subdivision agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 102. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit two (2) copies of the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements. 103. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance. 104. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. Provide a complete drainage report. 105. The developer shall provide appropriate documentation stating the projects compliance with the post-construction requirements set by the State Water Resources Control Board and Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 68. The statement shall clearly identify the level of compliance with each of the applicable Performance Requirements the project is subject to. The statement shall be signed and stamped by the Engineer of Record and shall include any identified deficiencies, per Performance Requirements. 106. Submit a soils report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 107. The Developer shall provide specific design for drainage systems in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements and Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 68. 108. The applicant shall: A) Provide on-site storm water retardation facilities designed and constructed to Public Works and Community Development requirements, and the following: Item 8.a. - Page 53 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 22 a. The facilities shall be designed to reduce the peak flow rate from a post-development 100-year storm. b. The 100-year basin outflow shall not exceed the pre-development flow. c. The 100-year basin outflow shall be limited to a level which does not cause the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities to be exceeded. d. The basin design shall include freeboard equal to 20 percent of the basin depth, to a minimum of 12 inches. e. The basin shall be fully constructed and functional prior to occupancy for any building permit within the project. f. The basin shall be maintained by the property owner. g. The basin shall be maintained by a homeowner’s association. The City shall approve the related language in the association CC&R’s prior to recordation. h. The basin shall be maintained by a landscape maintenance district. The maintenance district shall be recorded concurrently with the map. i. The basin design shall include landscaping and irrigation. j. The basin shall be fenced around the perimeter. Fencing shall be six feet (6’) tall. OR B) Connect proposed drainage facilities to the existing Poplar Basin designed and installed in accordance with City Standards and State Water Resources Control Board Post-Construction requirements, including retention of the 95th percentile on site. WATER 109. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains. 110. The applicant shall extend the public water main to adequately serve the project across the property frontage. 111. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the (structure and/or landscape irrigation). (Commercial development only). 112. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on the water service line. Fire Department Connections (FDC) must be remote and locations to be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief. Item 8.a. - Page 54 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 23 113. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other locations for the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community Development. 114. Each parcel shall have separate water meters. 115. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. If the units are to be fire sprinkled, a fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters. 116. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Public Works Director. 117. Unpermitted fill was placed at the northwest of the property. This fill will have to be removed or provide certifications from a Civil Engineer. SEWER 118. The applicant shall extend the sewer main to adequately serve the project across the property frontage. All new sewer mains shall be a minimum diameter of 8”. 119. All sewer laterals within the public right-of-way must have a minimum slope of 2%. 120. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Public Works Director. 121. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for the appropriate use, minimum 4”. 122. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City standards. 123. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the development’s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance. 124. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District prior to relocation of any District facilities. 125. The developer shall evaluate the capacity of sewer lift station #7 to take the additional flow of the development. PUBLIC UTILITIES Item 8.a. - Page 55 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 24 126. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities. 127. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. 128. Public Improvement plans/Final Map/Parcel Map shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 129. Street lights shall be placed 200’ – 250’ apart on streets 40’ or less in width. On streets greater than 40’ in width, a street lighting plan shall be designed and submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. FEES AND BONDS FOR ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following: 130. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL a. Map check fee for Tract Map. b. Map check fee for Parcel Map. c. Plan check for grading plans. (Based on an approved earthwork estimate) d. Plan check for improvement plans. (Based on an approved construction cost estimate) e. Permit Fee for grading plans. (Based on an approved earthwork estimate) f. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans. (Based on an approved construction cost estimate) g. Plan Review Fee (Based on the current Building Division fee schedule) 131. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, involving water connection or enlargement of an existing connection. b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.04.030. Item 8.a. - Page 56 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 25 c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code 6-7.22. d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with - (not correct). e. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 461 C.S., Res. 3021. f. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 346 C.S., Res. 1955. g. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.12.190. h. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection fee in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.12.180. i. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being developed. j. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current parks development fee for each unit approved for construction (credit shall be provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Ord. 313 C.S. k. Construction Tax, the applicant shall pay a construction tax pursuant to Section 3-3.501 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. l. Alarm Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development in accordance with Ord. 435 C.S. m. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development in accordance with State mandate. n. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development in accordance with Title 8 of the Municipal Code. 132. FEES TO BE PAID OR LAND DEDICATED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP/PARCEL MAP a. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current park development fee, and/or donate land in-lieu of, for each lot approved, in accordance with City Ordinance 313 C.S. b. Park Dedication, the developer shall dedicate, in accordance with City Ordinance 313 C.S., land for park purposes. c. Park Improvement fee, the developer shall pay the current park improvement fee, for each lot approved, in accordance with City Ordinance 313 C.S. Item 8.a. - Page 57 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 26 133. Preliminary Title Report, a current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to checking the map. A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to recording the Map. BONDING SURETY 134. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential construction requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/or restoring the site. 135. The applicant shall provide bonds or other financial security for the following. All bonds or security shall be in a form acceptable to the City, and shall be provided prior to recording of the map, unless noted otherwise. The minimum term for Improvement securities shall be equal to the term of the subdivision agreement. a. Faithful Performance, 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. b. Labor and Materials, 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. c. One Year Guarantee, 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. d. Monumentation, 100% of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. e. Tax Certificate, In accordance with Section 9-15.130 of the Development Code, the applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector’s office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property f. Accessory Structures, the applicant shall remove or bond for removal of all accessory structures not sharing a parcel with a residence. g. Garages, the applicant shall construct, or bond for construction of a two-car garage and driveway for the existing house on lot_____. h. Curb cuts, the applicant shall construct or bond for construction of individual curb cuts and paved driveways for parcels. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 136. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant to submit exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval. 137. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post Item 8.a. - Page 58 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 27 handicapped parking, per Police Department requirements. 138. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary [or robbery] alarm system on commercial buildings per Police Department guidelines, and pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee of ($94.00). Annual renewal fee is $31.00. 139. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for any parking lots available to the public located on private lots, the developer shall post private property “No Parking” signs in accordance with the handout available from the Police Department. MITIGATION MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. MITIGATION MEASURES: MM III-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel- fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:  Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location.  Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM III-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM III-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5 minute idling limit. MM III-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive Item 8.a. - Page 59 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 28 requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development):  Staging a queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;  Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and  Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. MM III-5: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402):  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;  Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible;  All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;  Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be shown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23'114;  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed Item 8.a. - Page 60 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 29 water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;  A listing of all required mitigation measures should be included on grading and building plans; and,  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. MM III-6: Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for equipment to be used during construction by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. MM III-7: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. MM III-8: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. MM III-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:  Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal.  Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.  Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.  During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance.  Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. Item 8.a. - Page 61 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 30 MM III-10: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include the establishment of a ‘no idle’ zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques:  Each delivery vehicle’s engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering.  The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible.  Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the ‘no idle’ zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies.  Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines.  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted.  Use of alternative-fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible.  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Public Works Dept., Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM V-1: Any areas where native (non-stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. Prior to construction activities and if cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit MM V-2: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Item 8.a. - Page 62 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 31 Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts; fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the appropriate Information Center and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. MM V-3: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s office shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered remains. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during grading activities MM VI-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. MM VI-2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and updated geotechnical study based on the study prepared for the project by GSI Soils Inc. dated April 2006. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit MM VII-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures: Item 8.a. - Page 63 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 32  Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools.  Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees.  No residential wood burning appliances.  Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended.  Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used.  Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted.  Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.  Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible.  Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.  Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design).  Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters.  Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®).  Utilize double-paned windows.  Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium).  Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.  Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats.  Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.  Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting.  Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended.  Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel-powered TRUs at the loading docks.  Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. Item 8.a. - Page 64 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 33 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Building Division; APCD Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit MM IX-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:  Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system.  Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels.  Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities . Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain.  Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning. Commercial/industrial facilities or multi- family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer.  Car Washing. Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary sewer or wastewater reclamation system.  Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system.  Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. Item 8.a. - Page 65 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 34  Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas should be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self- contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas.  Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.  Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit.  Loading Dock Controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the area. Position roof downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain.  Street/parking lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XII-1: All store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of South Courtland Street shall be maintained. Item 8.a. - Page 66 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 35 MM XII-2: Any residential structures that would have a direct line of sight to store delivery areas shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty (30) decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developers. MM XII-3: Delivery truck drivers shall be instructed to turn off diesel engines when trucks are parked or being unloaded. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XIV-1: The applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District impact fee. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XVI-1: For the intersection of Brisco Road and East Grand Avenue, the applicant shall restripe the westbound approach to include a dedicated westbound right turn lane, which will require two 11’ travel lanes and a 10’ turn lane. MM XVI-2: For the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real, the applicant shall:  Restripe the westbound left turn lane as a shared left/through lane;  Restripe the westbound shared through-right lane to a dedicated right turn lane;  Provide overlap phasing for the westbound right turn movement; and  Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn movement. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Item 8.a. - Page 67 EXHIBIT “B” INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Full copy on file in the Community Development Department) Development Agreement 15-002, General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 & Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street November 2014 (Revised July 2015) Item 8.a. - Page 68 EXHIBIT “C” LU5‐10.1 Promote development of a high intensity, mixed‐use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersection as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. Within the specific plan area, small lot single-family detached housing may be allowed at multi-family densities if integrated with and located behind a primary, distinctive, and attractive commercial/mixed use gateway component. Item 8.a. - Page 69 1  Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment – Subareas 3a and 3b 07.15.15  Purpose and Objectives The purpose and objectives for Subareas 3a and 3b of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan include the  following:  a.Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Arroyo Grande’s General Plan; b.Promote high‐quality mixed‐use commercial/retail development within the City of Arroyo Grande’s Gateway Mixed‐Use District; c.Increase the City of Arroyo Grande’s supply of entry‐level/workforce housing stock; and d.Produce a functional, aesthetically pleasing project that will serve as a landmark in the City of Arroyo Grande’s western gateway and complete build‐out of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Subareas Defined Subareas 3a and 3b consists of APN 077‐131‐052 and APN 077‐131‐054 (reference Exhibit 3‐4.A).  Land Use Designations and Property Development Standards Subarea 3a – Mixed‐Use Commercial Subarea 3a provides for mixed‐use commercial/retail and/or office development of approximately 1.24  acres. Unless otherwise specified in this Specific Plan, allowed uses shall be consistent with those allowed  within the Gateway Mixed‐Use (GMU) zoning district, subject to the same level of review as required by  Municipal Code Section 16.36.030. All development within Subarea 3a shall conform to the following  standards:  1.Minimum Front Yard Setback (East Grand Ave): Shall be a minimum of 0‐5’, consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed‐Use Districts. The front yard is that side which is closest to East Grand Avenue (reference Exhibit 3‐4.B). 2.Minimum Street Side Yard Setback (South Courtland Street): Shall be a minimum of 0‐5’. The street yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street (reference Exhibit 3‐4.B). 3.Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (City Limit Line and Subarea 3b): Shall be a minimum of 0‐ 5’. The interior side yard is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line and Subarea 3b (reference Exhibit 3‐4.B). 4.Minimum Rear Yard Setback (along Subarea 3b): The primary commercial buildings shall be a minimum of 0‐5’. The rear yard is that side which is closest to Subarea 3b (reference Exhibit 3‐ 4.B). 5.Maximum Lot Coverage: Shall be 50%, inclusive of all enclosed structures. 6.Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Shall be 1.5, inclusive of total floor area. 7.Maximum Building Height: Shall be 35’. Total height including any architectural features shall not exceed 40’. EXHIBIT "D" Item 8.a. - Page 70 2    8. Parking: Shall be provided at a minimum ratio of one (1) space for every 250 square‐feet of  commercial building area, with one (1) designated parking space required for each residential  unit, and one (1) shared parking space for each residential unit. The shared spaces will be available  for use by the adjacent commercial uses.     9. Prohibited Uses: The following uses shall be prohibited in Subarea 3, due to the proximity to  residential uses:     • Standalone Coffee Roasters;  • Nail Salons;  • Dry‐cleaners;  • Gasoline stations;  • Furniture refurbishing/refinishing;  • Any use involving the application of spray paint.    10. Lighting: Lighting in Subarea 3a shall be shielded to minimize overflow of light into the adjacent  residential neighborhood of Subarea 3b.     11. Signage:  Up to one wall sign per building face. Total area for each tenant’s building sign on each  building face shall not exceed 1 ½ sf of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage for the  business.  Consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use Districts, additional  awning and hanging signs are encouraged to reflect City Character and pedestrian scale with a  maximum of one awning or hanging sign per building face. Signs are subject to discretionary  review and approval.   Subarea 3b ‐ Residential Subarea 3b provides for entry‐level/workforce housing residential development of approximately 3.12  acres. All development within Subarea 3b shall conform to the following standards:    1. Maximum Density: Shall be a maximum of 20 units per acre.    2. Minimum Lot Size: Shall be 2,000 square‐feet. No subdivision resulting in lots less than this  minimum size shall be allowed.    3. Project Boundary Setbacks:  a. Minimum Project Front Yard Setback (South Courtland Street): Shall be a minimum of 10’.   The front yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street (reference Exhibit 3‐ 4.B).  b. Minimum Project Interior Side Yard Setback (between Subarea 3a commercial and 3b  residential; between Subareas 3b and 4): Shall be a minimum of 10’ (reference Exhibit 3‐ 4.B).  c. Minimum Project Rear Yard Setback (City Limit Line): shall be a minimum of 10’. The rear  yard of the property is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line (reference Exhibit  3‐4.B).    4. Interior Yard Setbacks:  a. Courtyard/common open space area setback: Shall be a minimum of 8 ’  b. Side yard setbacks: Shall be a minimum of 4’  c. Interior private drive setback: Shall be a minimum of 2’     Item 8.a. - Page 71 3      5. Maximum Lot Coverage: Shall be 65%, inclusive of all enclosed structures.    6. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Shall be 1.25, inclusive of total floor area.    7. Maximum Building Height: Shall be 35’ or two (2) stories, whichever is less. Total height including  any appurtenances shall not exceed 40’.    8. Parking: 2 spaces shall be provided per unit within an enclosed garage and guest spaces shall be  provided at a minimum ratio of 0.5 per unit. Two of the guest parking spaces may be provided in  driveways where feasible    9. Minimum Open Space for Subarea 3b: Shall be 35%.     10. Signage: Shall comply with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040‐A, Subsections A.1 (Single‐family  neighborhood identification) and be subject to discretionary review and approval.  East Grand Avenue Frontage Development of Subarea 3 shall implement objectives of the General Plan, Design Guidelines and  Standards for Mixed‐Use Districts, and the project’s fair share of the recommendations in the Grand  Avenue Enhancement Plan relating to streetscape character along the East Grand Avenue frontage.   Green Building and Energy Efficiency All new development shall be accompanied by a summary outlining energy use calculations, design  features and/or operational measures that exceed minimum standards in order to make the development  more ‘green’ and energy efficient.  Access and Circulation   1. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access will be from East Grand Avenue to South Courtland Street.    2. Emergency Access:  An emergency access driveway will connect Subareas 3b and 4. The design of  which shall be subject to Fire Department approval. Vehicular access to the driveway may be  optionally restricted to emergency vehicles only through the use of bollards, a gate, or other  mechanism approved by the Fire Chief.    3. Fire Access: Shall be provided per the strict application of the California Fire Code and its  appendices, as approved by the Fire Chief.    4. Pedestrian Connections: Sidewalks shall be provided along East Grand Avenue and South  Courtland Street with connections to interior of the site. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided  in Subarea 3b through the neighborhood green. Sidewalks are not required adjacent to the private  drive.      5. South Courtland Street:  The private access drive for Subarea 3b shall be aligned with the existing  commercial development driveway across South Courtland Street. Development of each Subarea  shall include widening of South Courtland Street to its ultimate width along that Subarea’s  frontage. The southwestern curb return at East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street shall  be rebuilt as a part of the South Courtland Street widening.     Item 8.a. - Page 72 4    6. Bicycle Lanes:  Shall be provided on South Courtland Street along the project frontage.  Street Trees and Landscaping Trees shall be provided along South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue within 10’ of curb edge  where feasible. Internal landscaping for each Subarea shall be subject to discretionary review and  approval and should include drought‐resistant plants and low impact development techniques.  Fences and Walls Interior fences and walls shall be limited to 6’ in height. To accommodate compact higher density  development, 6’ fence may be combined with an 18 inches retaining wall (exposed wall height) on interior  lots.     Retaining walls (exposed wall height) shall be limited to 6’ in height with discretionary approval.  Fencing  above retaining walls is allowed up to 6’ in height (maximum of 12’ combined fence and wall height) when  located adjacent to commercial (lots  4 and 23‐27) and/or along western edge of property (lots  17‐23) to  buffer from large wall expanses of existing buildings. Fencing located adjacent to commercial and/or along  the western edge of the property shall be double sided.     Perimeter fencing or walls along the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street frontages shall be  limited to 3.5’ in height unless the portion over 3.5’, up to 6’, is 75% light emitting, or combined with a  raised planter. All fences and walls shall be subject to discretionary review.   Storm Drainage and Water Quality Facilities Each drainage subarea shall incorporate post‐construction storm water management measures consistent  with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. Project water quality measures shall be provided  on‐site and include low‐impact design features such as disconnected downspouts, rain gardens and/or  other measures promoting storm water infiltration through surface and/or sub‐surface infiltration basins.  Mitigation of post‐development peak storm water run‐off shall be directed to the east, across South  Courtland Street to the Poplar Basin, which was designed and built to accommodate development of the  Subareas.   Architectural Design Guidelines Subarea 3a   1. Buildings: No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea  3a shall reflect a mixed‐use commercial character consistent with the Gateway Mixed‐Use District  objectives.    2. Site Design: Site design shall include plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable  street frontage. Buildings should line East Grand Avenue with parking located on the side and/or  rear of building.     3. Parking: Parking within Subarea 3a shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by  multiple owners/uses.  Subarea 3b   1. Buildings: No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea  3b shall reflect a residential character and be compatible with the Berry Garden Neighborhood.   Item 8.a. - Page 73 5      Phasing of Development The two Subareas and/or properties within the Subareas may be developed concurrently or separately,  provided that all applicable requirements are met (emergency access, etc.).  Developers will enter into a  development agreement or similar binding agreement, financing or other leverage mechanism with the  City to ensure the commercial parcel will be developed prior to the residential or within a reasonably  sufficient timeframe.   Item 8.a. - Page 74 Subarea 4Subarea4 1 : 100 Exhibit 3-4.A - Subareas SO U T H C O U R T L A N D S T EAST GRAND AVE Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Item 8.a. - Page 75 Subarea 4Subarea4 SO U T H C O U R T L A N D S T 1 : 100 Exhibit 3-4.B - Allowed Project Boundary Setbacks Rear (0’-5’) Side (10’) Rear (10’) Side (0’-5’) Side (10’) Front (10’) Front (0’-5’) Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Subarea 3a Rear (10’) Side (10’) Side (0’-5’) Side (10’) Front (10’) Front (0’-5’) Rear (0’-5’) Side (0’-5’)Side (0’-5’) EAST GRAND AVE Item 8.a. - Page 76 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON 4 28 5 29 30 31 6 7 8 910111213141516 3517 34 33 32 36 3719 20 38 39 21 22 23 24 25 2627 40 41 18 BUILDING 2 6,500 SF BUILDING 3 3,600 SF BUILDING 1 5,500 SF EX1Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 30’ (24x36 sheet) SCALE: 1” = 60’ (12x18 sheet) 01530 60 120 UP MARSH S T R E E T BROADSTREET - --- - --- 4' - 0 " 10' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 26' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 12' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 12' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 20 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 6' - 2 1 / 2 " 16 ' - 9 " 15 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 53' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 25' - 6 " 50 ' - 0 " 99' - 0 " 49 ' - 9 " 84' - 0 " 6' - 2 5 / 8 " P: (8 0 5 ) 5 4 3 - 1 7 9 4 | F : ( 8 0 5 ) 5 4 3 - 4 6 0 9 | w w w . r r m d e s i g n . c o m 3765 S o u t h H i g u e r a S t . , S t e . 1 0 2 , S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 A Ca l i f o r n i a C o r p o r a t i o n | V i c t o r M o n t g o m e r y , A r c h i t e c t # C 1 1 0 9 0 | J e r r y M i c h a e l , P E # 3 6 8 9 5 , L S # 6 2 7 6 | J e f f F e r b e r , L A # 2 8 4 4 N:\2 0 1 4 \ 2 0 1 4 0 0 2 - 6 6 7 - M a r s h - S t r e e t - R e t a i l - O f f i c e - D e v e l o p m e n t \ A rch i t e c t u r e \ C u r r e n t T a s k \ M o d e l \ 2 0 1 4 0 0 2 - 6 6 7 - M a r s h - S t r e e t . r v t 9/9/ 2 0 1 4 1 2 : 0 1 : 4 8 P M A1 20140 0 2 - 6 6 7 M A R S H SCHE M A T I C G R O U N D F L O O R /SIT E P L A N 09/08 / 2 0 1 4 1/8" = 1 ' - 0 " A-5. 1 A 1 GRO U N D F L O O R P L A N 1 1/A3 EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT PORCH Graphic Legend SIDEWALK COMMON YARD PRIVATE YARD EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN 2/A3 4/A3 5/A3 3/A3 EXHIBIT "E" Item 8.a. - Page 77 EX2Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL SITE SECTIONS Section 1-Commercial West Section 5-Commercial West/South Section 2-Residential West Section 3-Commercial/Residential Section 4-Residential South 6” 5’0”3’0”5’0” 10’0” MIN. SETBACK 6” EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WALL (2’ HIGH) EXISTING GRADE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING GRADE AND PAD TO MATCH PROPOSED PAD PROPOSED PARKING 5’ TO 6’ FENCEPROPOSED PARKING EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOT PROPOSED WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 2’-8’)PROPOSED WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 3’-5’)PROPOSED WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 5’-6’)2’ TO 3’ PLANTER COMMERCIAL LOT RESIDENTIAL LOT EXISTING PEOPLE’S SELF HELP HOUSING SITE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOT 10’ RESIDENTIAL SIDEYARD 5’ COMMERCIAL SIDEYARD EXISTING GRADE PROPERTY LINE 5’ TO 6’ FENCE Item 8.a. - Page 78 EX3Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN Item 8.a. - Page 79 EX4Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Item 8.a. - Page 80 EX5Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL UTILITY PLAN Item 8.a. - Page 81 EX6Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Item 8.a. - Page 82 EX7Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COMMERCIAL PERSEPECTIVE Grand Avenue Elevation Perspective View of Building 2 Item 8.a. - Page 83 EX8Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COMMERCIAL PERSEPECTIVE Perspective View of Building 1 Item 8.a. - Page 84 EX9Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COURTLAND PERSEPECTIVE SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0” (24x36 sheet) SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0” (12x18 sheet) 048 16 32 Perspective View of South Courtland Street Item 8.a. - Page 85 EX10Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COMMERCIAL PERSEPECTIVE Perspective View of Building 3 Item 8.a. - Page 86 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of real property consisting of approximately 4.47 acres identified as Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the property has been the subject of several development applications in recent history; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner and City of Arroyo Grande desire to facilitate the development and construction of a mixed-use project on the property; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner and City of Arroyo Grande entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on February 10, 2015 to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of a Development Agreement ; and WHEREAS, a development agreement is a contractual agreement which specifies the intensity, timing and conditions of development of real property; and WHEREAS, development agreements are used to provide an enhanced degree of certainty in the development process for both the property owner/developer and the public agency; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 16.16.150 addresses development agreements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.150, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 18, 2015; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.150, the Planning Commission, on September 1, 2015 adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council deny a development agreement for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.150, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City Council has determined that the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner: 1. The development agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Item 8.a. - Page 87 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 In conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, polices, general land uses, and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. 2. The development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located; In conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the uses authorized in the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) district, including commercial development and high-density, single-family detached residential development consistent with mixed-use and multifamily densities prescribed in the Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Element and Municipal Code. 3. The development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice; In conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with the uses authorized in the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) district, including commercial development and high-density, single-family detached residential development consistent with mixed-use and multifamily densities prescribed in the Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Element and Municipal Code, and therefore is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice. 4. The development agreement is will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare; In conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, there is nothing contained within the proposed Development Agreement that will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, as the proposed development agreement is in conformity with the uses authorized in the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) district, including commercial development and high-density, single-family detached residential development consistent with mixed-use and multifamily densities prescribed in the Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Element and Municipal Code. 5. The development agreement will not, in respect to the subject property or any other property, adversely affect the orderly development thereof or the preservation of property values; Item 8.a. - Page 88 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 The proposed Development Agreement and subsequent permit approvals will complete development of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan Area and in conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development thereof or the preservation of property values as the resulting development is in conformity with the uses authorized in the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU district, including commercial development and high-density, single-family detached residential development consistent with mixed-use and multifamily densities prescribed in the Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Element and Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement with NKT Commercial, LLC as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. On motion by Council Member __________, seconded by Council Member __________, and on the following roll call vote to wit: Item 8.a. - Page 89 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this _____ day of ____________ 2015. Item 8.a. - Page 90 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 _______________________________________ JIM HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ______________________________________ DIANNE THOMPSON, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________________ HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY Item 8.a. - Page 91 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Arroyo Grande Attn: City Clerk 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement’) dated as of this ___ day of _____, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”), a municipal corporation, and NKT Commercial, LLC a California limited liability company (“Property Owner”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of real property consisting of approximately 4.47 acres identified as Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan located in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and WHEREAS, Property Owner and City desire to facilitate the development and construction of a mixed use (commercial and office/residential) project on the property (the “Project”) in order to accomplish three shared important goals: 1) Provide NKT with sufficient flexibility to induce investment related to the Project; 2) Generate economic revitalization of the Grand Avenue corridor through a high quality Gateway development project; and 3) Preserve the adjacent neighborhood’s residential character; and WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code §65864; and WHEREAS, City, in order to accomplish the same, enacted Arroyo Grande Municipal Code §16.16.150, setting forth the required process for reviewing, processing and approving development agreements; and WHEREAS, The City has determined that the Project is a development for which a development agreement is appropriate. A development agreement will eliminate uncertainty in 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Non Recording Fee – Exempt) EXHIBIT "A" Item 8.a. - Page 92 the City’s land use planning for, and secure orderly development of, the Project and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes of the city. In exchange for the public benefits and other benefits to the City and the public, Owner desires to receive vested rights, including, without limitation, legal assurances that the City will grant permits and approvals required for the development. Occupancy and use of the Project over the Project’s estimated development period in accordance with the Existing City Laws (as defined in this Agreement), subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. In order to effectuate these purposes, the City and Owner desire to enter into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City published a notice of intention to consider adoption of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section §§65090 and 65091 and duly held a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City finds the following: a. This Agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. b. This Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the 2015 Specific Plan Amendment in which the Project is located. c. This Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. d. This Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare. e. This Agreement will not, in respect to the Property, or any other property, adversely affect the orderly development thereof or the preservation of property values; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. ____, the City approved this Agreement with property Owner, setting forth the permitted uses of the Property, design guidelines, density and intensity of use, and the maximum height and size of building. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, City and Property Owner agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are hereby incorporated into the body of this Agreement as though set forth in full herein. Section 2. Term and Periodic Review. This Agreement shall be effective immediately upon the Effective Date and shall expire five (5) years from said date, unless otherwise extended by City in writing pursuant to Section 7. 2 Item 8.a. - Page 93 a. City shall, not less than every twelve (12) months from the Effective Date, comprehensively review Property Owner’s efforts to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Section 3. Development Entitlements. The Property Owner agrees to develop and construct Alternative 2 described in the MOU between City and Property Owner dated February 10th, 2015, and as described in further detail in Exhibit “B” and by this reference hereby incorporated. For the term of this Agreement, the Project is hereby approved subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein and in the adopted Negative Declaration dated November 14, 2014 on file with the office of the City Clerk, located at 300 E. Branch Street, and as further set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The entitlements set forth above will include various additional conditions and requirements including, but not limited to additional discretionary and ministerial approvals, with which Property Owner will be required to comply in order to develop the Property and construct and operate the Project. Such approvals shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, California Environmental Quality Act and all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. Section 4. Vested Right. Property Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Project in accordance with this Agreement. Section 5. Fees. Property Owner shall pay to City all fees, including, but not limited to building permit, plan check, inspection, water and sewer connection fees, encroachment permit, improvement plan, application and processing or other City development related fees. Development impact fees shall be payable at the time of the issuance of the permit for such construction activities on the site, as permitted in the City municipal code. Section 6. Referendum. The parties acknowledge that City’s approval of this Agreement is a legislative act subject to referendum. Section 7. Amendment or Cancellation. This Agreement may be amended, or canceled in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties subject to compliance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section §16.16.150.F.2. Notice of intention to amend or cancel any portion of the Agreement shall be given in a manner provided by Government Code Section §65867. Section 8. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, staff has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project dated _____________ 2015. Section 9. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses. In any litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding in law or equity by which one party to the Agreement seeks to enforce its rights under the Agreement, to resolve any alleged dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement, to seek a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Agreement, or to interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing 3 Item 8.a. - Page 94 party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party actual attorneys’ fees incurred to resolve the dispute and to enforce the final judgment, award, decision, or order and such fees, costs; or expenses shall be in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. Section 10. Notices. To be effective, all notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person or by certified mail, postage prepared, return receipt requested. Notice is deemed effective on delivery if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given and delivery if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and properly addressed as set forth below. Any correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the party to be notified shall be deemed effective as of the first date that said notice was refused, unclaimed, or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities. The addresses for purposes of giving notice are as set forth below but each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. If to Property Owner: NKT Commerical, LLC Attn: Nicholas Tompkins 684 Higuera Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 If to CITY: City of Arroyo Grande Attn: City Manager 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0550 Section 11. Authorizations. All officers and individuals executing, this Agreement and other related documents on behalf of the respective parties do hereby certify and warrant that they have the capacity and have been duly authorized to so execute said documents on behalf of the entity so indicated. Section 12. Headings and Captions. The captions and headings of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed a part of this Agreement and shall not be used in interpreting this Agreement or in determining any of the rights or obligations of the parties to this Agreement. Section 13. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall be or become illegal, invalid, null, void, unenforceable, or against public policy, in whole or in part, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, null, void, unenforceable, or against public policy, in whole or in part, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, null, or void, or against public policy, the term, provision, covenant, or condition shall be deemed severable, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired, invalidated. The term, provision, covenant, or condition that is so invalidated, voided, or held to be unenforceable shall be modified or changed by the parties to the extent possible to carry out the intentions and directives set forth in this Agreement. 4 Item 8.a. - Page 95 Section 14. Counterpart Execution. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties pertaining to the Agreement and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, promises, representations, warranties, understandings, or undertakings by either of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature. No party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, nor is any party relying on, any representation or warranty outside those expressly set forth in this Agreement. Section 16. Ambiguities. Each party and its counsel have participated fully in the review and revision of this Lease. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement which shall be deemed effective as of the first date set forth above. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By: Jim Hill, Mayor Date: NKT COMMERCIAL, LLC By: Nicholas Tompkins, Managing Member Date: Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Date: As Approved to Form: Paul F. Ready Date: As Approved to Form: Heather K. Whitham, City Attorney Date: 5 Item 8.a. - Page 96 Exhibit “A” Legal Description 6 Item 8.a. - Page 97 Exhibit “B” For purposes of clarity, the Project is described as two separate areas; Subarea 3a and Subarea 3b. Subarea 3a will refer to the mixed-use commercial portion of the Project fronting onto East Grand Avenue, while Subarea 3b will refer to the residential portion of the Project fronting onto South Courtland Street. a. Project Specifics: i. Subarea 3a will include approximately 15,600 square feet of commercial or office space divided among three (3) separate buildings, representing a 5,000 square foot expansion from the Project submitted to the City Council on December 9, 2014. The buildings will be located on three (3) separate lots ranging in size from approximately 10,000 square feet to approximately 26,000 square feet. The western building will front onto East Grand Avenue and will include approximately 5,500 square feet of mixed-use commercial or office space with four (4) residential units located on the second story. The eastern building will front onto East Grand Avenue and will include approximately 6,500 square feet of commercial or office space. The third building will be located along South Courtland Street and will include approximately 3,600 square feet of commercial or office space. Parking for Subarea 3a will be located behind and to the side of the two buildings fronting onto East Grand Avenue. In addition, three (3) outdoor plaza/paseo spaces at ground-level will be incorporated within Subarea 3a and will provide opportunities for outdoor dining. The central plaza spaces located along the central driveway will incorporate planters, furnishings, and/or other features to separate the plaza spaces from the central driveway. The plaza space at the corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street will incorporate a low wall feature to minimize noise and will include planters, furnishings, and/or other features. Front yard setbacks for the commercial buildings fronting East Grand Avenue will be between zero (0) to five (5) feet. The side yard setbacks for the commercial buildings along South Courtland Street and the interior side yard setbacks along the City Limit Line will be a minimum of zero (0) to five (5) feet. Rear yard setbacks for the commercial buildings along Subarea 3b will be a minimum of zero (0) to five (5) feet. ii. Subarea 3b will include thirty-eight (38) single-family residential units in a small lot, detached format that includes driveways, on- and off-street parking, and a centrally located Neighborhood Green. This represents a reduction in area devoted to housing by three (3) units from the Project submitted to the City Council on December 9, 2014. The minimum lot size for the single-family residential parcels will be 2,000 square-feet. Front yard setbacks for residential units fronting onto South Courtland Street will be a minimum of ten (10) feet. Residential units adjacent to Subarea 3a parking areas will have a minimum setback of ten (10) feet. Units with a rear yard to the City Limit Line will have a minimum setback of ten (10) feet. Those units facing the private drive will 7 Item 8.a. - Page 98 have a minimum street setback of two (2) feet, with a minimum side yard setback of four (4) feet. Units fronting onto the Neighborhood Green will have a front yard, open space setback of eight (8) feet. b. Architecture and Design i. All buildings located within Subarea 3a will be designed in a contemporary architectural style. Building designs will include changes in wall planes, glazing at ground level, a variety of materials, awnings, and signage. Materials will include but are not limited to brick, plaster, steel, and aluminum. Street/Parking lot lighting and wall lighting will be incorporated within Subarea 3a. Signage will allow for up to one (1) wall sign per building face with the total area for each tenants sign on each building face not exceeding one and a half (1.5) square feet of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage for the business. The four (4) mixed-use residential units located above the western building will be accessed from the rear of the building. All mixed-use residential units will have a minimum of one (1) balcony. Perimeter fencing or walls along the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street frontages will be limited to three and a half (3.5) feet in height unless the portion over three and a half (3.5) feet, up to six (6) feet, is 75% light emitting, or combined with a raised planter. All fences and walls will be subject to discretionary review. Maximum allowed building height for Subarea 3a, including all architectural features, will not exceed 40 feet in height. ii. Subarea 3b will be designed in a contemporary, mid-century architectural style that complements Subarea 3a. Color and material selection will be consistent with the mid-century architectural style. Materials will include but are not limited to plaster, fiber cement siding, asphalt shingles, corrugated metal, and natural wood. Street/Parking lot lighting, bollard path lighting, and wall lighting will be incorporated within Subarea 3b. Those residential units facing onto South Courtland Street will include porches that address the street. Residential units facing the Neighborhood Green will address the common open space. Those units surrounding the Neighborhood Green and four (4) units fronting onto South Courtland Street will have a side yard reciprocal easement that creates a useable eight (8) foot patio space for said units. Units adjacent to Subarea 3a and the City Limit Line will include a maximum six (6) foot retaining wall with six (6) foot fences placed on top, for a maximum height of 12 feet, where appropriate. Fencing between Subarea 3a parking and Subarea 3b residential units will be double sided to buffer between parking areas and residences. Perimeter fencing or walls along the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street frontages will be limited to three and a half (3.5) feet in height unless the portion over three and a half (3.5) feet, up to six (6) feet, is 75% light emitting, or combined with a raised planter. All fences and walls will be subject to discretionary review. Maximum allowed building height for Subarea 3b will not exceed 35 feet or two-stories, whichever is less. Total building height including all architectural features will not exceed 40 feet. 8 Item 8.a. - Page 99 c. Neighborhood Green i. The Neighborhood Green will be centrally located in Subarea 3b and will include a pavilion, sitting areas, play structure, flex spaces, and mailbox area. A mixture of hardscape and greenscape will be included with the landscape palette focused on drought tolerant plantings. Pedestrian pathways will be incorporated to provide access to the Neighborhood Green throughout Subarea 3b. d. Density i. As calculated by AGMC Subsection 16.36.030.C, Subarea 3a will have 3.23 units per acre while Subarea 3b will have 18.59 units per acre. e. Circulation and Access Improvements to streets and intersections shall be generally limited to the proposed improvements associated with Proposed General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14- 001. i. Subarea 3a will include three (3) access points, two (2) along East Grand Avenue and one (1) along South Courtland Street. The westernmost driveway along East Grand Avenue will be designed to only allow vehicular egress in an eastbound manner. The center driveway along East Grand Avenue will be designed to allow two-way access but only in a right-ingress and right-egress configuration. The single driveway along South Courtland Street will allow full ingress and egress to Subarea 3a. ii. Subarea 3b will include two (2) access points, one (1) along South Courtland Street and one (1) emergency access from the People’s Self Help Housing Development located to the south. The South Courtland Street private drive will allow full ingress and egress to Subarea 3b and will be aligned with the existing commercial driveway to the east. The private drive will allow shared use by vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The emergency access drive will only allow emergency vehicle access to and from the People’s Self Help Housing Development and will be maintained as part of the Project. f. Parking i. Subarea 3a will include a total of seventy-seven (77) parking spaces. Sixty-nine (69) will be open, unassigned parking spaces for commercial use. Eight (8) additional parking spaces will be provided for the mixed-use residential units, of which four (4) spaces will be specifically signed and dedicated for use by said units. All parking spaces will be located to the rear and the side of Subarea 3a buildings. ii. Subarea 3b will include a total of ninety-nine (99) parking spaces. Seventy-six (76) will be enclosed, off-street parking spaces, representing two (2) spaces per unit. In addition, twenty-three (23) guest parking spaces will be provided, representing 0.6 guest parking spaces per 9 Item 8.a. - Page 100 unit. Guest parking spaces will be dispersed throughout Subarea 3b with a majority located in the southwest corner. g. Pedestrian Improvements i. Pedestrian improvements will include improved and widened sidewalks for the project frontage along East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street. Street trees will be provided along East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street within ten (10) feet of curb edge where feasible. South Courtland Street will be widened and will allow for on-street parallel parking along the Project frontage. A Class II bicycle lane will be provided along the Project frontage on South Courtland Street. The Project’s fair share of cross walk enhancements at the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street will also be incorporated. h. Storm Drain i. Each drainage subarea will incorporate post-construction storm water management measures consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. Project water quality measures will be provided on-site and include low-impact design features such as disconnected downspouts, rain gardens and/or other measures promoting storm water infiltration through surface and/or sub-surface infiltration basins. Mitigation of post-development peak storm water run-off will be directed to the east, across Courtland Street to the Poplar Basin, which was designed and built to accommodate development of the Subareas. j. Timing i. Property Owner will commence construction of both Subarea 3a and 3b within five (5) years of approval. 10 Item 8.a. - Page 101 EXHIBIT A Order Number: 4001-4741519 (LI) Page Number: 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: (Certificate of Compliance 2009-038585) (A.P.N.: 077-131-052 and 077-131-054) A portion of Block 86, Block 114 and Rockaway Avenue of the Town of Grover, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed November 23, 1892 in Book A, Page 6 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, and that portion of Remainder of Tract 2471, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed August 16, 2004 in Book 24, Pages 9, 10 and 11 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 1 of Tract 2158, in the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed May 2, 1994 in Book 17, Page 23 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along the Easterly line thereof and along the East line of the land described in deed to John Bradley Forde and Anita Madeline Forde in Document No. 2003122906 filed October 22, 2003 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, South 03°14'51" West, 645.07 feet to the Northwest Comer of Lot 7 of said Tract 2471; thence along the Northerly line of said Tract 2471 and the Northerly line of Tract 2260 Phase I, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed November 3, 2000 in Book 19, Page 43 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County thereof, South 86°45'35" East, 411.86 feet to a point on the Westerly line of an existing 50-foot Easement for Road Purposes, as shown on Parcel Map AG 00-301, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed June 25, 2002 in Book 56, Page 54 of Parcel Maps, in the office of County Recorder of said County, which point is South 86°45'35" East, 7.00 feet from the Northeast Comer of Lot 84 of said Tract 2260 Phase I; thence along the Westerly line of said 50-foot Easement for Road Purposes, North 03°14'46" East, 645.00 feet to a point along the Southerly Right-of-Way of East Grand Avenue; thence along said Southerly Right-of-Way line thereof, North 86°45'00" West, 411.84 feet to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the South 172.25 feet thereof. APN: 077-131-052 and 077-131-054 First American Title Item 8.a. - Page 102 Matthew Downing, Assistant Planner City of Arroyo Grande Planning Division 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Project Development Agreement Submittal Dear Mr. Downing, On behalf of our Client, NKT Commercial, RRM Design Group submits this Development Agreement and accompanying application materials for the Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential project for Alternative Two as outlined within the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the City of Arroyo Grande and NKT Commercial on February 10, 2015. Background The Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential project last appeared before the City Council on December 9th, 2014. At that time, a number of potential issues with the project were identified, and ultimately, the project was not approved by the City Council. Before you is a revised project containing a number of changes that evolved out of comments and feedback taken from the December City Council meeting and those outlined within the above referenced MOU. Project Revisions The revised Mixed-Use Commercial portion of the project contains a total of 15,600 square feet of commercial/retail and/or office space, representing a 5,000 square foot increase over the project previously reviewed by the City Council. The additional 5,000 square feet has been incorporated within a new commercial/retail and/or office building along South Courtland Street and within the two buildings fronting onto East Grand Avenue. Parking spaces for the Mixed- Use Commercial area have been increased by 11 parking spaces, over the required 66 parking spaces, for a total of 77 parking spaces provided. In order to accommodate the expanded Mixed-Use Commercial square footage and the additional parking spaces, the stairway connection between the two project areas has been eliminated but both areas remain connected through pedestrian and bicycle improvements along South Courtland Street. Furthermore, the expansion of the Mixed-Use Commercial square footage and additional ATTACHMENT 2 Item 8.a. - Page 103 parking spaces also corresponds with a reduction in the total area and number of single-family, workforce housing units contained within the Residential portion of the project. This letter and attached package of materials represents the Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential project submittal for review and use by the Staff Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. A more detailed submittal with updated landscape plans, building elevations, and other required materials will be provided at the time of submittal to the Architectural Review Committee. In addition to this letter, this package contains the following information:  Draft Development Agreement  Revised Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)  Revised Architectural Site Plan;  Site Sections  Revised Vesting Tentative Map Package (VTM) o Grading and Drainage Plan o Site Plan o Vesting Tentative Map o Utility Plan  Revised Commercial Perspective/Grand Avenue Elevation  Revised Commercial Perspective (Perspective View of building one – Mixed-use)  Courtland Perspective;  Commercial Perspective of Building 3 We appreciate your careful consideration of this request and look forward to continuing to work with you on this project. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions you may have regarding this revised Development Agreement submittal at (805) 543-1794, Ext. 222. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Debbie Rudd, LEED AP Principal cc: Nick Tompkins, NKT Commercial Item 8.a. - Page 104 ATTACHMENT 3 Item 8.a. - Page 105 Item 8.a. - Page 106 Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, August 12, 2014 Action: Council Member Barneich moved to adopt a Resolution entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING A “NO TRUCK PARKING” ZONE ON CERTAIN AREAS OF BELL AND BENNETT STREETS”. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Barneich, Costello, Brown, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.j. Consideration of an Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement with Omni- Means for On-Call Engineering Consultant Services Related to Traffic and Circulation. Recommended Action: Approve Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement with Omni-Means for on-call traffic and circulation engineering consultant services. Staff responded to questions by Council Member Brown regarding the contract process. Action: Council Member Brown moved to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement with Omni-Means for on-call traffic and circulation engineering consultant services. Council Member Barneich seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Barneich, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10.CONTINUED BUSINESS Mayor Ferrara declared a conflict of interest due to ownership of real property near the project, stepped down from the dais and left the room. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie took over as Presiding Officer. 10.a. Continued Consideration of Pre-Application No. 14-002; General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit for Subdivision of Two (2) Commercial Parcels into Forty-Two (42) Residential Lots, One (1) Common Area Lot, and Two (2) Commercial Lots; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant: MFI Limited & NKT Commercial. Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended that the Council review the conceptual plans and provide comments to the applicant. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Debbie Rudd and Scott Martin of RRM Design Group; and Nick Tompkins, applicant for the project. Council Member Barneich suggested eliminating the second driveway; favored modern buildings for the commercial component; favored mid-century modern style for the residential ATTACHMENT 4 Item 8.a. - Page 107 Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, August 12, 2014 component; favored smaller residential units above the businesses; and commented she would favor affordable residential units. Discussion ensued regarding the center driveway in relation to the bus stop nearby. Council Member Costello commented on the pedestrian orientation within the project and favored the center driveway; favored the mixed-uses with residential units above both buildings; favored patio seating on Grand Avenue, and favored the proposed mid-century style. Council Member Brown expressed concern with the General Plan amendment and that the project is revenue neutral; however, he favored detached housing and the project overall. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided favorable comments for the overall project; favored the front and side yards; favored the modern style architecture; supported elimination of the center driveway; and favored the interior patio. City Manager Adams provided a summary of staff’s involvement with the project. No formal action was taken on this item. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie called for a break at 7:52 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:04 p.m. Mayor Ferrara returned to the dais. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Consideration of a Resolution Upholding the Appeal of the Decision of the San Luis Obispo County Health Department, Thereby Approving the Pool Plans Submitted by Best Western Casa Grande Inn. Community Development Director McClish presented the staff report and recommended that the Council adopt a Resolution upholding an appeal of the decision of the San Luis Obispo County Health Department, thereby approving the swimming pool plans submitted by the Best Western Casa Grande Inn. Building Official Hurst explained the construction that had taken place and the his interpretation of the Building Code. Curt Batson, Director of Environmental Health representing the County Health Officer, explained reasons for the denial of the project. Ray Bunnell, owner of the Best Western Casa Grande Inn, stated that he would remove boulders on either side of the waterfall. Council questions of the appellant ensued. Mayor Ferrara invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Gail Lightfoot, stating that as a retired RN she felt that CPR could safely be administered. Building Official Hurst provided an interpretation of the relevant Code. Item 8.a. - Page 108 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2014 regarding amending the Telecommunication Facilities Siting Requirements and amending Condition No. 8 to specifyprotection of the equipment cabinet. Associate PlannerHeffernonresponded to questions from the Commission regardingthe proposed project. RussellStory /NSA representing VerizonWireless, responded to questions fromthe Commission regardingthe proposedproject. Vice ChairSperowopened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, she closedthe public hearing. Action: Commissioner Goss moved to continue this matter to a date uncertainand directedstaff to return withsiting guidelines that include small cell facilities, more informationregarding the cost associated with underground vaulting and bollard specifications. Commissioner George seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll vote: AYES: Goss, George, Keen, Russom, Sperow NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Russomrecused himself from Item 8.b. duetohaving a conflict of interest and stepped down fromthedais. 8.b. CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14 -002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14 -001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 14 -009, AND VESTING TENTATIVETRACT MAP 14 -001; SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIALPARCELS INTO FORTY -ONE (41) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE (1) COMMON AREA LOT, AND TWO (2) COMMERCIAL LOTS; LOCATION — SOUTHWESTCORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUEAND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANTS — MFI LIMITED AND NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE — RRM DESIGN GROUP Assistant Planner Downingpresented the staff report and recommended that thePlanning Commission review theproposed project and make a recommendation to the City Council. Assistant Planner Downing and Director McClish responded to questions from the Commission regarding the proposedproject. Debbie Rudd representative, and Scott Martin, architect, RRM Design Group, presented the proposed project to theCommission. Nick Tompkins, owner /applicant, responded to questions from the Commission regarding the proposed project. Andy Magano, applicant, responded to questions from theCommission regarding the costs of the proposedhomes. Vice ChairSperow open the public hearing. John Fowler, CEO, Peoples' Self Help Housing, referred to his written correspondence and spoke in support of theproposed project. ATTACHMENT 5 Item 8.a. - Page 109 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2014 LeAnn Akins, Cornwall Avenue, stated the project is beautiful, but not for this location; expressed concern regarding lack of revenue from theproposed commercial development; water; sustainability; theentry level work force cannot afford the cost of the homes; and unsure if the proposed project shouldmove forward. BrendaGoroski, StrawberryAvenue, expressed concernwith safetyoffoot traffic on Courtland Street and CourtlandStreet not being wideenough for on- street parking. JohnMack, Loganberry, thanked the developer and the team for the proposedproject; stated he isin support of the proposed commercialdevelopment but stated he thought the residential needed some refinements including, driveways need separation; more parking is needed; driveway needs to be aligned with the accessacross Courtland Street; pedestrian circulation needs to be addressed; and guest parking is remote. The Commissiontook a break at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m. Nick Tompkins and Andy Magano addressed concerns of the Commission. Individual Commissioners provided thefollowing: directedstaff and developer to take another look at thedriveways on Courtland Street; investigate room for on- streetparking on Courtland Street; look into a crosswalk on Courtland Street; check on sufficient lighting in the housing development; indicated that internal pedestrian walkways are a safety issue; potentially widen plaza and put in and out in themiddle; and see if play structure in green area is feasible. Action: Commissioner Goss moved to continue this item to a date certain of December 2, 2014. Commissioner Sperow seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Goss, Sperow, Keen, George NOES: None ABSENT: Russom 9. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM None 10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NOVEMBER 4, 2014 None 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner George askedthatwhen the Commission has large projects to review can they get the packet earlier. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Community Developer Director McClishstated that on an upcoming City Council agenda, there is tentatively scheduled to be consideration of an emergency water ordinance. 13. ADJOURNMENT On motion by Commissioner Goss, seconded by Commissioner George and unanimously carried, the meeting adjourned at 9:17p.m. ATTEST: DEBBIEWEICHINGER SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Approved at PC Mtg December 2, 2014) LISA SPERO ICE CHAIR Item 8.a. - Page 110 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2014 Director McClish stated staff would like to amend the recommendation and continue to a date uncertain an ordinance adding Chapter 16.86 to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to performance standards for deemed approved alcoholic beverage commercial sales. Action: Commissioner Keen moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. Commissioner Sperow seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Keen, Sperow, George, Russom NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Russom recused himself from Item 8.b. due to having a conflict of interest and stepped down from the dais. 8.b. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 14-009, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001; SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL PARCELS INTO FORTY-ONE (41) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE (1) COMMON AREA LOT, AND TWO (2) COMMERCIAL LOTS; LOCATION – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANTS – MFI LIMITED AND NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE – RRM DESIGN GROUP Assistant Planner Downing addressed the Commission’s concerns from the November 18th Planning Commission meeting and stated the Architectural Review Committee recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the City Council. Assistant Planner Downing and Director McClish responded to questions from the Commission regarding the proposed project. Debbie Rudd, representative, RRM Design Group, addressed the Commission’s concerns from the November 18th Planning Commission meeting. Joshua Roberts, Project Civil Engineer, responded to questions from the Commission regarding the proposed project. Vice Chair Sperow opened the public hearing. Aaron Henkel, South Alpine Street, expressed the following concerns/comments: the ingress/egress is too close to the traffic signal; the applicant should issue a template for semi- trucks in and around without blocking traffic; feels most traffic will exit on East Grand Avenue and drivers desiring to go west on East Grand Avenue will have to make a u-turn; the traffic lanes are narrow for the housing project; there is lack of parking for the residents and guests; and would like to see cross section at Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue to make sure it will fit everything . LeAnn Akins, Cornwall Avenue, stated she is against the project; feels people will buy homes for vacation homes; and indicated there are 30 vacant commercial buildings on East Grand Avenue. ATTACHMENT 6 Item 8.a. - Page 111 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2014 Vice Chair Sperow closed the public hearing. Individual Commissioners provided the following: make sure delivery truck radius are correct; there should be a crosswalk for pedestrians walking on South Courtland Street; eliminate parking on Courtland up to East Grand Avenue; ensure use of LED lighting; in favor of alternative 2 with center driveway ingress and western driveway egress; the commercial property is very well designed; tenant improvements are expensive elsewhere on East Grand Avenue; in favor the of the plaza option; and concern with the amount of parking. Scott Martin, architect, RRM Design Group, stated the residential entrance may be moved to add additional guest parking. Action: Commissioner Sperow moved to adopt a resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY MFI LIMITED AND NKT COMMERCIAL” as modified to include a crosswalk across Courtland Street; use of LED lighting; and commercial driveway alternative 2 be considered. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. After Commission discussion, Commissioner Sperow amended the motion to include restricting commercial vehicles from exiting through the East Grand Avenue entrance. Commissioner George seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Sperow, George, Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Russom 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM None 10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NOVEMBER 18, 2014 This is a notice of administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals, denials or referrals by the Community Development Director. An administrative decision must be appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission by a majority vote. Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Planner TUP 14-027 Hopper Family Christmas Trees 1587 El Camino Real Christmas Tree Lot A H. King 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None Item 8.a. - Page 112 Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.46 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to Exemptions and Vacation Rentals and Homestays. Acting City Manager Malicoat presented the staff report and recommended that the Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 3.46 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to provide that the same exemptions that apply to the Transient Occupancy Tax apply to Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District assessments and amend the definition of “lodging” to include vacation rentals and homestays. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Hill opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public hearing. Council Member comments ensued in support of the proposed Ordinance, acknowledgment of the protest letters received; the benefits of the Tourism Business Improvement District, and that the revenue collected benefits all lodging businesses. Council Member Harmon expressed concern about the protest letters, acknowledged they were not present, and stated she would have liked to hear directly from the people who submitted protest letter if their position on the proposed Ordinance had changed. Action: Council Member Brown moved to adopt an Ordinance entitled: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.46 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW”. Mayor Pro Tem Barneich seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Barneich, Guthrie, Hill NOES: Harmon ABSENT: None 9.b. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009; Subdivision of Two (2) Commercial Parcels into Forty-one (41) Residential Lots, One (1) Common Area Lot, and Two (2) Commercial Lots; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicants: MFI Limited and NKT Commercial; Representative: RRM Design Group. Assistant Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended that the Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001; and Conditional Use Permit 14-009. Staff responded to questions regarding the history of the project; clarification regarding the General Plan Amendment; allowable uses on the site; additional traffic on S. Courtland; commercial traffic; fire department approval; water use and impacts; development impact fees; ATTACHMENT 7 Item 8.a. - Page 113 Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 guest parking; pedestrian connection between the project and the Peoples’ Self Help Housing project; and clarification regarding workforce versus attainable housing as defined in the Housing Element. Mayor Hill called for a break at 7:35 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Mayor Hill invited the applicants to address the Council. Debbie Rudd from RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the project including an overview of the project timeline and public meetings held; site context; site plan; providing viable commercial along E. Grand Avenue; providing attainable housing; areas of concern expressed by the Architectural Review Committee, Traffic Commission, and Planning Commission that have been addressed in the project, including parking requirements and proposed alternatives; architectural renderings of the proposed project; E. Grand Avenue access to the commercial component; fencing design; Courtland Street Residential access; lighting throughout the development; adding an option for a play structure in the neighborhood green area; an overview of the project benefits; and requested additional direction from the Council regarding parking, Grand Avenue access, and the play structure. Nick Tompkins, applicant, provided a business and family background; projects in Arroyo Grande from 2007 to today, reviewed previous proposals submitted; stated the site is not viable for increased retail use or a large commercial center; stated this project could fill in existing commercial vacancies along E. Grand Avenue; requested approval of the proposed mixed use project, stating this project would have the lowest traffic impact for S. Courtland. Council questions ensued regarding delivery truck access; shortening the timeline required to build the commercial component; restaurant square footage; housing with deed restrictions requiring owner occupied units for first year to encourage home ownership; the proposed Homeowners Association and maintenance by a professional management company; hours for loading; additional parking spaces on S. Courtland; and street width as it relates to bike lanes, parking and a sidewalk. Mayor Hill opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Aaron Henkel, Arroyo Grande, who expressed concerns about delays in the development of the commercial component, width of bike lanes; and turning pockets; John Mack, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerns about lack of neighborhood involvement, reviewed prior concept plan for the site, favored commercial development on the site, provided suggestions for mixed uses in the Gateway District, opposed high density residential separated by a fence with commercial, lack of transition between the residential and commercial components, no pedestrian pathways, not enough parking, opposed architecture and style of residential component, lacks neighborhood services, and urged a continuance; Patty Welsh, Arroyo Grande, spoke in opposition to the proposed project stating it does not meet the General Plan, that it is a commercial corridor not residential, expressed concerned with fire and emergency access, traffic through Berry Gardens, parking, HOA fees, and fencing; LeAnn Akins, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerns about the residential component as it relates to attainability and affordability; Steve Hollister, spoke in support of the proposed project, stated it mitigates traffic impacts to Berry Gardens with a smaller commercial component; Linda Drummond, spoke in opposition to the project expressing concerns with current traffic flow through Berry Gardens, generating more traffic through the neighborhood, water impacts, and traffic circulation; Chris Richardson, spoke in Item 8.a. - Page 114 Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 support of the proposed project; Michael Morrow, spoke in support of the proposed project; Shirley Gibson, spoke about Mr. Tompkins and the Rooster Creek project, stating she respects his integrity and quality of his work. Mayor Hill called for a break at 9:20 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. and resumed the public hearing Cheryl Schweitzerhof, Arroyo Grande, opposed the play structure and expressed concern about parking constraints, lighting and architecture; Glenn Martin, supported development in concept, but expressed concerns about the residential component, favored more commercial, stated parking is an issue, and acknowledged that commercial generates more traffic but advocates more commercial on this site, and commented on delivery trucks; Beatrice Spencer, Arroyo Grande, expressed concern that of the 5 acre parcel, providing only 11,000 square feet of commercial is inadequate, the project should be 2/3 commercial and 1/3 residential as originally proposed, there is a lack of green space within the project, inquired where service trucks would park, and opposed the General Plan Amendment; April McLaughlin, expressed concern about aesthetics and layout of the residential component, and said it should remain as commercial; Julie Tacker, acknowledged the quality developers and that they could do better, that the site should be used for commercial, there should be an Environmental Impact Report for economic impacts of the project, and that more public outreach is needed; Joshua Roberts, project Civil Engineer, responded to comments regarding truck delivery and turning movements, bike lanes, and that traffic stacking on S. Courtland would not exceed past the commercial driveway and “stay clear” zone; a Berry Gardens resident commented on traffic impacts, loss of revenue for the City, and the potential for developing the gateway to the City. Upon hearing no further comments, Mayor Hill closed the public hearing. Debbie Rudd, from RRM Design Group provided closing statements in support of the project. Nick Tompkins commented on the wish list for tenants and costs for new construction as it relates to costs for tenants. Council comments ensued as follows: Council Member Harmon supported the commercial component of the proposed project; did not support the residential component as proposed; there are too many exceptions for mitigation; noted there is a paradigm shift for this type of housing; and stated that this is one of the last vacant commercial parcels in the City. Council Member Brown acknowledged previous discussion with Mr. Tompkins about the project; acknowledged improved parking design; the commercial design is good; vertical mixed use is favorable and would like to see more; if commercial component is increased, traffic will increase in the neighborhood; more commercial at front of property; this is a mid block project, not a gateway project; need for transition and buffer between residential and commercial; does not support the proposed General Plan Amendment; there is a need for more connectivity and pathways within the project; and could not support the project as proposed. Council Member Guthrie stated there is a lot of history with this parcel; spoke of efforts to create pedestrian friendly projects; previous projects were more intensive traffic generators; supported Item 8.a. - Page 115 Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 the General Plan Amendment; commented on circulation, additional parking in the residential component, architecture, supported zero lot lines; commented on traffic, stated that the play structure should be a Homeowners Association decision; and supported the project as proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Barneich commented on the history of past proposals for the site; noted the six month review of this project; commented that the current General Plan requires all apartments or all commercial at this location; that the developer has put forth immense effort; that the City does not currently provide the type of residential as proposed in this project and the Housing Element encourages all types of housing; that the project is a good compromise; that pedestrian connectivity can be pursued; recommended that a three year timeline be required to build out the commercial component; supported the proposed architecture, noting that Grand Avenue is different than the Village; favored the driveway into the commercial component from Grand Avenue, and supported the project as proposed. Mayor Hill referred to the General Plan Amendment, noted this was one of the last commercial parcels in the City; favored buildings facing Grand Avenue, stated that more commercial is needed, commented that this project is a commercial veneer in front of high density residential; may have supported a smaller market project; expressed concern with traffic, noting that if there were more commercial, traffic would go toward Grand Avenue and not Berry Gardens; acknowledged the need to revitalize the commercial corridor in the City; that 60% of the site should be commercial with 40% residential; that more planning is needed to mitigate traffic and water impacts; that the negatives outweigh the positives and he could not support the project as proposed. Mayor Hill noted that Council policy requires a unanimous vote to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Action: Council Member Brown moved to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m., Council Member Harmon seconded, and the motion passed by voice vote. In response to concerns expressed by Mayor Pro Tem Barneich, discussion ensued regarding the desired time for ending the meeting. Action: Council Member Harmon moved to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. and to end the meeting no later than 12:00 a.m. Council Member Brown seconded, and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Action: Council Member Brown moved to take tentative action to deny the project without prejudice and direct staff to bring back a supporting Resolution. Council Member Harmon seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Harmon, Hill NOES: Guthrie, Barneich ABSENT: None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. Item 8.a. - Page 116 8.k. Consideration of Approval of Final Parcel Map 14-001, Subdividing One Parcel into Two (2) Parcels at 1450 Chilton Street; Applied for by Patrick Kimball and Carlos Castaneda. Ac tion: Approved Final Parcel Map 14-001; subdividing one (1) parcel into two (2) parcels at 1450 Chilton Street; applied for by Patrick Kimball and Carlos Castaneda. 8.l. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the First Amendment to Development Agreement 09-002 to Modify the Legal Description of the 5-Acre Property Located at the Northeast Corner of West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road (APN 007-011-056). Action: Adopted an Ordinance entitled: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 09-002 TO MODIFY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY”. 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Preliminary Approval of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2015. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended that the Council provide preliminary approval of proposed projects to be funded with the City’s allocation of CDBG funds for the Year 2015. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Hill opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public hearing. Action: Council Member Brown moved to: 1) provide preliminary approval of proposed projects to be funded with the City’s allocation of CDBG funds for the year 2015; and, 2) send a letter to the County Board of Supervisors in support of CDBG funding for the Family Care Network. Mayor Pro Tem Barneich seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Barneich, Guthrie, Harmon, Hill NOES: None ABSENT: None 10.CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. Consideration of a Resolution Denying Without Prejudice General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicants – MFI Limited and NKT Commercial; Representative – RRM Design Group. Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution denying without prejudice General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14- 001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009. Brief Council comments ensued regarding the proposed project review at the December 9th meeting, alternatives identified for Council consideration in the current staff report, and ATTACHMENT 8 Item 8.a. - Page 117 continuing the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to submit a revised project description. Action: Council Member Brown moved to approve Alternative No. 4 to not adopt the Resolution, and to request concurrence from the applicant to reopen the public hearing for a future date after providing adequate notice. Mayor Hill seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Hill, Guthrie, Harmon, Barneich NOES: None ABSENT: None 10.b. Consideration of Adoption of a Policy to Have a Moment of Silence or a Moment of Reflection at the Beginning of City Council Meetings. Assistant City Attorney Hirsch presented the staff report and recommended that the Council consider the adoption of a policy of having a moment of silence or a moment of reflection instead of an invocation at the beginning of City Council meetings. Mayor Hill invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Ron Dee, Harvest Church, in support of continuing the invocation; Linda Osty, Arroyo Grande, in support of continuing the invocation; Randy Ouimette, St. John’s Lutheran Church, in support of continuing the invocation; Greg Steinberger, Arroyo Grande, in support of continuing the invocation; David Leidner, Atheist United of San Luis Obispo, in opposition to continuing the invocation; Pastor Wayne Riddering, Peace Lutheran Church, in support of continuing the invocation; Paul Rinzler, Atheist United, in opposition of continuing the invocation; LeAnn Akins, Arroyo Grande, in support of continuing the invocation; Dan Feldman, spoke regarding traditions vs. policy regarding the invocation; Joseph Scott, James Way, spoke in support of continuing the invocation; Mike Rice, in support of continuing the invocation; Paul Jones, in support of continuing the invocation; Robin Rinzler, in opposition of continuing the invocation; and Kim McGrew, Atheist United, in opposition of continuing the invocation. Upon hearing no further comments, Mayor Hill closed the public comment period. Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to direct staff to change the agenda to have a moment of reflection on all future agendas. Mayor Pro Tem Barneich seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Barneich, Hill NOES: Brown, Harmon ABSENT: None 10.c. Consideration of Agreement with Regional Government Services for Interim City Manager Services. Acting City Manager Malicoat presented the staff report and recommended that the Council execute an agreement with Regional Government Services to provide Interim City Manager services. Mayor Hill invited public comment. No public comments were received. Item 8.a. - Page 118 Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Action: Council Member Brown moved to appoint Gregory King to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mayor Hill seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Hill, Guthrie, Harmon, Barneich NOES: None ABSENT: None 11.b. Presentation on Southern California Gas Company Pipeline Safety Enhancement Project and Consideration of a Waiver of the Five Year Pavement Trench Cut Prohibition. Public Works Director English presented the staff report and recommended that the Council receive and comment on a presentation from Southern California Gas Company staff about the proposed Pipeline Safety Enhancement project; and approve a waiver of the Five Year Trench Cut Prohibition on new pavement for sections of West Branch Street and El Camino Real. Tim Mahoney, Public Affairs Manager, Mark Holden, Project Manager, and Olga Quinones, Community Education and Outreach Manager, representing Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), provided a presentation on the Pipeline Safety Project in which SoCalGas will be pressure testing or replacing pipelines at various locations in Arroyo Grande. They explained that customers would be notified via a public outreach campaign when pressure testing or replacement activity is coming to their neighborhood and other efforts to minimize impacts on the community. The Pipeline Safety Project is scheduled to begin in early 2015 and is expected to take 10 to 12 weeks. Staff and SoCalGas representatives then responded to questions from Council. Mayor Hill invited public comment. No public comments were received. Action: Council Member Barneich moved to approve a waiver of the Five Year Trench Cut Prohibition on new pavement for sections of West Branch Street and El Camino Real. Council Member Brown seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Barneich, Brown, Harmon, Guthrie, Hill NOES: None ABSENT: None 11.c. Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding with NKT Commercial Regarding Development of the Vacant Lot at the Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street. Assistant Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended that the Council approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NKT Commercial regarding negotiating a Development Agreement for the development of a mixed use project on the vacant lot at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street and provide general direction to staff and the developer. Council questions of staff and the applicant ensued regarding the proposed alternatives listed in the MOU. ATTACHMENT 9 Item 8.a. - Page 119 Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Mayor Hill invited public comment. Speaking from the public was John Mack, Arroyo Grande, in support of Alternative 1; and Michael Morrow, Arroyo Grande, in support of the proposed MOU and Alternative 2. No further public comments were received. Council comments ensued in support of the MOU containing both Alternatives, acknowledgement that this area of the City contains commercial uses; clarification that any future project applications would still need to go through the application, planning, and environmental review process; that flexibility is needed in both alternatives; that Alternative 1 is more in line with the General Plan; Alternative 2 seems vague and is similar to the prior proposal for the site; some opposition was expressed regarding high density residential on the site; development of the site is essential for economic development of the City; that a small segment of vertical mixed use on the site is desired; concern regarding traffic if a future proposal contains all commercial use; that alternative housing options are needed in the City; and that a project on this site would encourage revitalization of the rest of Grand Avenue. Action: Council Member Brown moved to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with NKT Commercial regarding negotiating a Development Agreement for the development of a mixed use project on the vacant lot at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street. Council Member Harmon seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brown, Harmon, Guthrie, Barneich, Hill NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Hill called for a break at 7:55 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:05 p.m. 11.d. Status Update and Consideration for Short Term and Long Term Operation of Elm Street Park Off-Leash Dog Park. Interim City Manager McFall presented the staff report and recommended that the Council: 1) Direct staff to either: 1) Keep the Elm Street Dog Park open using contract staff to perform basic maintenance functions; or 2) Close the Dog Park until a determination is made on the long term operation of the Dog Park; 2) Approve an appropriation of $7,800 for maintenance costs if the Council directs to keep the Dog Park open; and 3) Refer the evaluation of long term alternatives for the on-going maintenance and operation of the Dog Park to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff then responded to questions from Council. Mayor Hill invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Ann Stalcup, Pismo Beach, expressed concern about donated funds for operation and maintenance of the park, that she is willing to volunteer at the Park, thanked those who served on Five Cities Dog Park Association Board, hoped the park would remain open, and that the donations should remain with the park to support it; Patricia Williams, expressed concern with large dogs using the small dog park area; Patty Welsh, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerned with donated funds for park improvements and requested staff contact the Association to request those funds be provided to the City; Jan Scott, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerned with the current wood chips, broken glass in the large dog area, big dogs in the small dog area, and stated that the volunteers want to continue working; Beatrice Spencer, Arroyo Grande, expressed concern about the perception of loss of volunteers and the desertion of the Association with no notice, suggested an online scheduler for volunteers, stated that donations to the Park were intended for renovations, and Item 8.a. - Page 120 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING NEGOTIATION OF DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT FOR MIXED USE PROJECT THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") dated as of this 104'4' day of February, 2015, is by and between the City of Arroyo Grande ("City"), a municipal corporation, and NKT Commercial, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Property Owner") (each individually a "Party" and, collectively, the "Parties"), RECITALS WHEREAS, PropertyOwner is the ownerof real property consisting of approximately 4.47 acresidentified as Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan located in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the Property"); and WHEREAS, Property Owner and City desire to facilitate the development and construction of a mixed use (commercial and office/residential) project on the property the "Project") in order to accomplish three shared important goals: 1) Provide NKTwith sufficient flexibility to induce investment related to the Project; 2) Generateeconomic revitalization of the Grand Avenuecorridor through a high quality Gatewaydevelopment project; and 3) Preservethe adjacent neighborhood's residential character; and WHEREAS, in furtheranceof the Project, Property Owner and City desire to reach a Development Agreement in accordance withthe provisionscontained in California Government Code Sections 65864et seq. and Arroyo GrandeMunicipal Code Section 16.16.150; and WHEREAS, priorto executing a Development Agreement, thePartieswish to enter into this non-binding MOU to set forth a framework for the parameters and terms to be negotiated. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, thereceipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, City and Property Owner agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. Theabove recitals are hereby incorporated into the body of this MOU as though set forth in full herein. • Section 2. Preservation of City and Property Owner Discretion. By execution of this MOU, City is not committingitself to or agreeing to undertake any acts or activities requiring the subsequent independent exercise ofauthority or discretionof City orany body or department thereof. Property Owner is not committing itself to or agreeing to undertake anyacts or activities. Execution of this MOU is merely an agreement to enter I. ATTACHMENT 10 Item 8.a. - Page 121 into a period of good faithnegotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretions and approval by theCity and Property Owner as to any Development Agreement, Project Entitlements (as defined below), and all necessary and required proceedings and decisions in connection therewithrelating to theProject. Nothing in this MOU creates a binding.obligation, and no binding agreement will exist unless the Parties sign a final and definitive agreement. Each Party expressly acknowledges and agrees that this MOU creates no obligation on thepart of any Party to: (i) enter into a Development Agreement; (ii) grant any approvalsorauthorizations required for the Project; (iii) agree to any specificterms or obligations; or (iv) proceed with the developmentof the Property. All of the terms set forth in this MOUare preliminary in nature and subject to approval by the City and Property Owner and memorialization in an executedDevelopment Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that theProject may be revised as theenvironmental and planning processes proceed. In particular, the Parties further acknowledge the following statutory and local ordinance requirementswhich must be complied with in order for theProject to proceed: a. The provisions of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), including but not limited to project alternatives or mitigation measures, as well as the alternative of notgoing forwardwiththeProject; b. The provisions of Government CodeSections 65864 et seq. and Arroyo Grande Municipal CodeSection 16.16.150 relating to the approval of development agreements, including the requirement for publichearings and requiring that certain findings be made; c. The provisions of Government Code Sections 65300 et seq. and Arroyo Grande MunicipalCodeSection 16.16.020 relating to theapproval of general plan amendments. d. The provisionsof Government Code Sections 65450 et seq. and Arroyo Grande MunicipalCodeSection 16.16.030 relating to the approval of specific plan amendments. e. The provisions of Government Code Sections 66410 et seq. and Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.20.10 et seq. relating to divisions of land. f. The provisions of Government Code Sections 65901 and ArroyoGrande Municipal CodeSection 16.16.050 relating to conditional use permits. Section 3. Good Faith Negotiation of a Development Agreement. Duringthe term of this MOU, Property Owner and Cityshall negotiate in goodfaiththe terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, subject to the retained discretion described in Section 2, above. Any such Development Agreement resulting fromnegotiations 2 Item 8.a. - Page 122 hereunder shall only become effectiveafter, and if, the Development Agreement has been considered and approved by the City in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. and ArroyoGrande Municipal Code Section 16.16.150 and approved by Property Owner. If such Development Agreement is approved and executed by City and Property Owner, it shall thereafter govern the rights and obligations of the Parties with respect to the Project. Best efforts will be exercised by both the City and PropertyOwner to completethe referenced Development Agreement within 60 days of theadoptionofthis MOU. It is contemplated that the Development Agreement will include the followingterms: a. Term. The term of the Development Agreement will be negotiated but in no event shall the term be for a period less than 3 years, and it shall also include provisions to comply with the requirement in Government CodeSection 65865.1 relating to periodicreview of the DevelopmentAgreement. b. Project Development. The Development Agreement will includethe specifics regardingtheProject that Property Owner would agree to develop and construct. Alternative 1 is expected to include the following: 1) No less than 70% of the land area will be developed with commercial uses and supporting parking with parkingnot lessthan required by theCity municipal code, including allowable reductions, and no more than 30% of the land area will be developed with high density residential units, continuing care retirement community units, (or similar assisted living facilities) and supporting parking, either with apartments for rent, assisted living units for hire or rental, or residential units for sale with a density of no lessthan 20 units peracre; 2) Any stand alone office or residential/retirement orassisted living development willbe at therear of the Project, awayfrom East Grand Avenue, and may onlycommenceafter building construction has commenced on the front portion of the Project and after all public improvementsthat are the responsibility of the Property Owner have been completed; 3) Commercial building square footage is estimated to be approximately 55,000 square feet if the Project is entirelycommercial, and in no case lessthan 38,500 square feet; 4) No individualbuildingsmay exceed 40,000 square feet; 5) Commercial buildingsmayinclude office, including medical use, and other commercial uses identified in the City municipalcode; however, theoffice use must be located behind and/or above retail and may not exceed 55% of the land area; 3 Item 8.a. - Page 123 6) No less than tworetail commercialbuildings shall be located on East Grand Avenue; 7) Vertical mixeduse is stronglyencouraged butnot a requirement of the Project; 8) TheProject architecture will be consistent with theBerry Gardens Specific Plan, the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts, and the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan, or as agreed to by the City and Property Owner. Alternative 2 is expected to consist of the project that wasreviewed by City Council on December 9, 2014, as modified by a minimum of 5,000 s.f. of additionalcommercial or officespace and a corresponding reduction of area devoted to single family detached housing, or continuing care retirement community units, (or similar assisted living facilities) and supporting parking. It is recognized and acknowledged that theProject descriptions contained in this MOU are not completeat this point. The Development Agreement shall includeprovisions relating to the density and intensity of use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings which shall be consistent with this MOU, a plan of development and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for publicpurposes. c.City Approvals. TheProject is anticipated to require the followingreview: Staff Advisory Committee, Architectural Review Committee, Traffic Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. The Project is anticipated to require the following approvals and entitlements: Mitigated Negative Declaration, Specific Plan Amendment, VestingTentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit. d. Project Public Improvement Requirements. Anticipated improvements to streets and the intersection will be limited to the improvements contained in theprior conditions of approval for the MH1 and NKT project. e. Development Impact Fees and Reimbursement for Costs incurred by the City. Thetiming of payment of applicable development impact fees shall occur following entitlement at the time of issuance of a permit for construction activities on the site, as permitted in theCitymunicipal code. In addition, a Specific Plan Amendment will be required. Property Owner agrees to pay the costs incurred by the City in preparing the revised Specific Plan. Section 4. Notices. To be effective, all notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or permitted under this MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Notice is deemedeffective on delivery ifserved personally on theParty to whom notice 4 Item 8.a. - Page 124 is tobe given and delivery is confirmed by a receipt. Notice is deemedeffective on the second day after mailingif mailed to the Party to whom notice is tobe given, by first class mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and properlyaddressed as set forthbelow. Anycorrectly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the Party to be notified shall be deemedeffective as of the first date that said noticewas refused, unclaimed, or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities. The addresses for purposes of giving notice are as setforth below but eachParty may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. If to Property Owner: NKT Commercial, LLC Attn: Nicholas Tompkins 684 Higuera Suite B SanLuis Obispo, Ca. 93401 If to CITY: City of Arroyo Grande Attn: City Manager 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA93420 Section 5. Authorizations. All officers and individuals executing this and other documents on behalf oftherespective Parties do herebycertify and warrant that they have the capacity and havebeen duly authorized to so execute said documents on behalf of the entity so indicated. Section 6. Headings and Captions. The captions and headings of this MOUare inserted forconvenience only and shall not be deemed a part of this MOUand shall not be used in interpreting this MOU or in determining any of therights or obligations of the Parties. Section 7. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this MOU shall be or become illegal, invalid, null, void, unenforceable, or against publicpolicy, in whole or in part, or shall be held by anycourt of competentjurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, null, or void, or againstpublic policy, theterm, provision, covenant, or condition shall be deemed severable, and theremaining provisions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired, or invalidated. The term, provision, covenant, or condition that isso invalidated, voided, or held to be unenforceable shall be modifiedor changed by the Parties to the extent possible to carryout the intentions and directives set forth in this MOU. Section 8. Counterpart Execution. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 9. Entire Agreement. This MOU constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the MOU between theParties pertaining to the MOU and 5 Item 8.a. - Page 125 supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, promises, representations, warranties, understandings, or undertakings by either of the Parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature. No Party has been induced to enter into this MOU, nor is any Partyrelying on, any representation or warrantyoutsidethose expresslyset forth herein. Section 10. Ambiguities. Each Party and its counsel have participated fully in the preparation, review and revision of this MOU. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the draftingParty shallnot apply in interpreting this MOU. IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of Understandingwhich shall be deemedeffective as of the first date set forth above. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NKT COMMERCIAL, LLC 1 f JI HILL, IC OLAS TOMPKINS, AYOR MANAGING MEMBER ATTEST: KELL 'WE4f MORE, CITY CLE" A: ' ' • y l, CONTENT: AMEN' B B McFALLI INTERIMCITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TOFORM: Rr TIM THY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 6 Item 8.a. - Page 126 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2015 THE BURKE FAMILY TRUST”. Commissioner Fowler-Payne seconded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Martin, Fowler-Payne, George NOES: Mack ABSENT: Keen 8.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002; SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL PARCELS INTO THIRTY-EIGHT (38) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE (1) COMMON AREA LOT, AND THREE (3) COMMERCIAL LOTS; LOCATION – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANT – NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE – RRM DESIGN GROUP Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed project and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration; Adopt a resolution certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 and adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement 15-002. Associate Planner Downing and Community Development Director McClish responded to questions from the Commission on the proposed project. Debbie Rudd, RRM Design Group, applicant representative, presented the proposed project. Nick Tompkins, applicant, stated that the macro market for retail has changed and responded to questions from the Commission. Darin Cabral and Scott Martin, RRM Design Group, applicant representatives, responded to question/concerns from the Commission. Chair George opened the public hearing. The following people spoke against the proposed project and provided the following comments: Patty Welsh, Pradera Court, stated the print was too small to read on the posted signs; would like the item to be continued to a date when there is a full Commission; traffic will increase; and asked that the proposed project be denied. April McLaughlin, questioned where delivery trucks will go; doesn’t think delivery trucks can make the turn from Courtland; and concern with parking. Beatrice Spencer, Collado Corte, presented to the Commission a copy of an excerpt from Berry Gardens Specific Plan, stated the commercial use has decreased; concerned with large trucks; stated parking will be a problem; and the proposal is too dense. Aaron Henkel, South Alpine, stated parking is a problem; would like to see street cross sections; does not see template for trucks; worried about the developer completing the commercial site; did not see a traffic study; and would like to see this item continued to get clarification. ATTACHMENT 11 Item 8.a. - Page 127 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2015  Linda Drummy, Blackberry, concern with traffic circulation; suggested a designated right hand turn lane from Courtland onto East Grand Avenue; concern with creating low end/low rent housing; not appropriate for this neighborhood; does not want a fast food restaurant or smoke shop; suggested a water moratorium; and asked that the proposed project be denied.  Mary Beedle, Blackberry Avenue, the homes do not fit the extension of Berry Gardens; stated the homes are not appropriate for young families; perimeter elevations are unattractive; does not want to see the high density homes in this area; and she does not have a problem with the commercial.  Lloyd Gilmore expressed his concern with density and vehicle parking. Additional comments from the public included: Jim Hill, referred to the February 10, 2015 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between the City and NKT Commercial, LLC, and made a point of clarification regarding the amount of commercial development under one of the options. Terry Berkeley, Cedar Street, expressed his concern with traffic flow of the project; need turn lanes; need street parking on the north side; bike lanes are required on the right side of the road, either eliminate or have on both sides of the road; vehicles will park in the bike lane; concern with commercial traffic; concern with oversize of delivery trucks; and Courtland Street should be posted “No Commercial” traffic south of the project. Michael Omorrow, Raspberry Avenue, stated traffic has increased on Courtland Street; objects large trucks from commercial; he is in favor of the proposed changes; and supports the project. Nick Tompkins, applicant, stated he knows some functional specifics need to be worked out; explained financial reasons why if more commercial is wanted the project will not work; this is the lowest impact for traffic; would install all the improvements starting with East Grand Avenue first; and added he is committed to making sure the commercial is done. Hearing no further comments, Chair George closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mack stated he likes the commercial architecture; the massing of the building; the Commission has to make sure there is parking; did not see on site queuing in the Omni-Means Traffic Study; parking is necessary for a successful commercial restaurant; concern with residential with commercial wrapped around it; handicap needs to be accommodated; and need to conform to the enhancement plan. [On September 1, 2015, the Commission voted unanimously (John Keen absent) to amend the August 18, 2015 minutes to include the following comments by Commissioner Mack] Commercial parking lot is way under parked for the uses proposed. Minimum of 120 parking stalls to take in consideration peak times for the restaurant and employee parking. Vehicle circulation needs to stay contained in the project parking lot, if project is phased the commercial component needs to be constructed first prior to any single family homes. Residential component accessible guest stalls to each unit, units need adequate setback from a private street for pedestrian walking and community services such as trash pickup to not occur in a fire lane. Looking for site sections to show the existing commercial and proposed commercial buildings in the back ground of the Item 8.a. - Page 128 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2015 residential units to see a true representation of the proposed project. The proposed ratio of residential acreage to commercial is too great and should be reversed. Findings: That the proposed added language for LU5-10.1 – in not acceptable and leads to the deterioration of our future and existing commercial core. “Within the specific plan area, small lot single-family detached housing may be allowed at multi-family densities if integrated with and located behind a primary distinctive, and attractive commercial/mixed-use gateway component. Commissioner Fowler-Payne suggested a senior housing project and said parking is an issue. Commissioner Martin stated he likes the commercial; concern with parking; the parking requirements and standards in the Municipal Code are inadequate; the density of residential is not functional; and not enough parking for the residential; cannot support the project as it is, could support 28 units instead of 38 units; trash pick up needs to be addressed; and design details need to be worked out. Commissioner George stated she would like to see more commercial like Ember and Figueroa Mountain; the City is growing in commercial; concern about trucks; commercial vehicles; the City needs housing; questioned if the proposed homes are affordable; would like to see less than the 38 units and would like to see Option One and Two from the MOU. Action: Commissioner Martin moved to deny the resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NKT COMMERCIAL” due to lack of residential parking, the parking needs to be more evenly distributed; circulation, queuing at the corner, the lack of turn lanes, location of trash pickup, and would like to review and comment on the wall designs. Commissioner Mack seconded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Martin, Mack, Fowler-Payne, George NOES: None ABSENT: Keen 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM None 10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 4, 2015 This is a notice of administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals, denials or referrals by the Community Development Director. An administrative decision must be appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission by a majority vote. Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Planner TUP 15-013 St Patrick School 900 W Branch Use of parking lot for annual St. Patrick School BBQ A S. Anderson TUP 15-014 Donna’s Interiors 1069 E Grand Temporary placement and use of a tent 30’ x 50’ for annual labor day sale A S. Anderson 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Payne reported she attended ARC and HRC meetings. Item 8.a. - Page 129 DR A F T Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, September 8, 2015 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Continued -- Consideration of General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Development Agreement 15-002; Subdivision of Two (2) Commercial Parcels into Thirty-Eight (38) Residential Lots, One (1) Common Area Lot, and Three (3) Commercial Lots; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant: NKT Commercial; Representative – RRM Design Group. Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14- 002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Development Agreement 15-002. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Hill invited the applicant to make a presentation. Debbie Rudd, RRM Design Group, reviewed the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and stated that Alternative 2 was selected as the applicant’s preferred project; that the proposed project is consistent with the MOU; that they had addressed community and Commission feedback and explained how the project was revised from the 2014 project; displayed site plans for both the 2014 plan and the 2015 plan; stated that the applicant has proposed a further reduction of housing units to 36 units to provide for additional parking within the project; spoke about attainable housing/affordable housing costs; reviewed the proposed commercial parking spaces and noted there are an additional 18 on-street parking spaces available above the number of required parking spaces; reviewed the double-sided fencing to create a buffer between the residential and commercial uses; reviewed residential parking spaces which includes increased guest parking; commented on circulation and improvements to South Courtland Street to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, and noted access realignment with the commercial development across the street; stated the proposed project generates 113 fewer PM peak hour trips than other General Plan allowed uses; reviewed water conservation measures included within the project; reviewed the design of the residential side yards; and displayed the project’s proposed architectural styles. Scott Martin, project architect, and Nick Tompkins, applicant, responded to questions from Council concerning the residential side yard setbacks for the perimeter lots; liability as it relates to the shared easement; trash placement; and emergency access. Paul Reddy, attorney for the applicant, explained that homeowners insurance would cover any liability issues resulting from the use of the patio. Mayor Hill opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Linda Drummy, Arroyo Grande, regarding the need for entry signs as specified in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, and expressed concerns about inadequate parking, and water usage required for the project; Paula Renner, Arroyo Grande, spoke in opposition to the project; Debbie Peterson, Grover Beach, stated she would like to see the project in Grover Beach; Cheryl Schweitzerhof, spoke in opposition to the project; Patty Welsh, spoke in opposition to the project; Judith Bean, Chamber ATTACHMENT 12 Item 8.a. - Page 130 DR A F T Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, September 8, 2015 of Commerce, spoke regarding the advancement of businesses in the community; Mike O’Morrow, spoke in support of the project and submitted additional signatures from Raspberry Avenue residents in support of the project; Sandy Sathrum, commented that this is a Gateway property that would bring revenue to the City; Helen Guillory, Arroyo Grande, stated that HOA enforcement of regulations is not always effective and expressed concern with parking; Steve Hollister, spoke in support of the project and stated more affordable housing is needed in the City; Beatrice Spencer, opposed recent proposed projects at this location and expressed concerns with parking, delivery truck circulation within the project, the placement of single family residences between high density housing and commercial uses; John Ziomek, Arroyo Grande, supported the commercial component and expressed concerns about residential parking and stated that affordable housing needs to be deed restricted; Aaron Henkel, Arroyo Grande, commented that on-street parking spaces cannot be counted in the parking calculations, expressed concern about parking and truck access turning radius, and expressed concern about the street plan, striping plan and the commercial component; Mike McAustin, Arroyo Grande, spoke in support of the project; John Mack, Arroyo Grande, commented that the Planning Commission needs to review the changes that have been made to the project, referred to Grover Beach’s parking standards, and expressed concern with parking and trash pick-up; Frank Schiro, Arroyo Grande, spoke in support of the project; and Lynn Hill, referred to the commercial building and asked if it would be built first. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Hill closed the public hearing. Council comments ensued regarding the proposed project, including the history of Berry Gardens, the development of East Grand commercial, and the senior affordable housing project on North Courtland; concerns about parking; that a restaurant would bring revenue to the City; a suggestion to eliminate the vertical mixed use residential units to provide additional parking; that the traffic impacts from the proposed project are significantly less than a full commercial project, that the internal circulation within the project will function; that the HOA can monitor issues relating to trash containers; emergency access to the project; that water conservation efficiency measures are built into the project; that entry signage for Berry Gardens was eliminated ten years ago; that parking will regulate itself; that the project is affordable by design; that this site is not a prime commercial location; that more residential would generate less traffic; support for the project’s proposed architecture; that the project would provide for attainable/affordable housing; that the project will increase business on East Grand Avenue; acknowledgement of the Planning Commission’s review and concerns about the project; that the previously proposed higher residential density was not favorable and that with the modifications that have been presented, the developer listened; that the commercial in front is appropriate with a separation into residential; support for entry signs as identified in the Specific Plan; support for the reciprocal easement in the residential component; support for additional density reduction to 36 units which would provide additional parking; support for revision of Condition #39 regarding phasing in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act; acknowledgement of the public comment and letters received in support and in opposition to the project; that an empty lot/corridor does not benefit anyone; and that to attract commercial uses, the City must have viable residential. Concerns expressed in opposition to the project related to the residential component, sufficient parking availability, that there should be a guarantee that the commercial gets built first, and that the revisions in the project should go back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Item 8.a. - Page 131 DR A F T Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, September 8, 2015 In response to a question by Mayor Pro Tem Barneich regarding the Alternate Resolution in the Agenda report, City Attorney Whitham noted the revised site plan on Page 110, and stated the condition #6 would need to be revised to state that development would occur in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications presented to the City Council at the meeting of September 8, 2015, identified as revised Exhibit EX-1, on file in the Community Development Department; and that throughout the Resolution references to the previous project description would have to be revised. Action: Mayor Pro Tem Barneich moved to adopt a Resolution entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NKT COMMERCIAL” with the following modifications: that in General Condition No. 6, change the date from December 9, 2014 to September 8, 2015 and change the Exhibit to revised Exhibit Ex-1; that Condition 40 through 43 be deleted and that subsections f. and g. of Condition 39 be combined to reflect the revised language presented by staff and to remove the four mixed use vertical apartments and use the parking to maximize the commercial. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Barneich, Guthrie, Harmon NOES: Brown, Hill ABSENT: None City Attorney Whitham noted that the proposed Ordinance would also need to be modified to reflect the revised project description and to correct the typographical error in the date of the Planning Commission’s review (from August 4, 2015 to August 18, 2015). Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to introduce an Ordinance entitled: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15-002 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET”, as modified to reflect the changes as noted by the City Attorney. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Harmon, Barneich NOES: Brown, Hill ABSENT: None Mayor Hill called for a break at 9:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 10. OLD BUSINESS 10.a. Consideration of Temporary Closure of the Highway 101 at Brisco Road Ramps. City Engineer Horn presented the staff report and recommended that the Council: 1) Receive update on the planning status of the temporary closure of the Highway 101 at Brisco Road Item 8.a. - Page 132 NE I G H B O R H O O D C O M M O N 4 26 5 27 25 28 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 32 17 31 30 29 3334 19 20 35 36 212223 24 37 38 39 18 BU I L D I N G 2 6, 5 0 0 S F BU I L D I N G 3 3, 6 0 0 S F BU I L D I N G 1 5, 5 0 0 S F EX1 Co u r t l a n d & G r a n d Mi x e d U s e P r o j e c t DA T E : S e p t e m b e r 4 , 2 0 1 5 #1 0 1 4 0 3 0 CI T Y C O U N C I L S U B M I T T A L AR C H I T E C T U R A L S I T E P L A N SCALE: 1” = 30’ (24x36 sheet)SCALE: 1” = 60’ (12x18 sheet)0153060120 1/ A 3 EX I S T I N G CO M M E R C I A L DE V E L O P E M E N T EX I S T I N G CO M M E R C I A L DE V E L O P E M E N T EX I S T I N G AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G DE V E L O P E M E N T Commercial/Mixed Use ResidentialTotal Commercial = 15,600sf Residential Units = 4 units Proposed Parking = 77 Required Min. Parking = 70 Proposed Lots = 36 Proposed Guest Parking = 37 Required Min. Guest Parking = 18EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN 2/ A 3 4/ A 3 5/ A 3 3/ A 3 ATTACHMENT 13 Item 8.a. - Page 133 Item 8.a. - Page 134 RALPH M.BROWN ACT CURE &CORRECT DEMAND ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCILMEETING:SEPTEMBER8,2015 2 Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Development Agreement 15-00. Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Development Agreement 15-002”. A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site and all neighbors in the Berry Gardens neighborhood. The notice was mailed in a sealed envelope to approximately 200 addresses on August 26, 2015 via U.S. Mail.This legal notice forthe continued hearing was sent on August 26, 2015 by Kitty Norton, theDeputy City Clerk.2 The notice advised interested parties that the hearing would take place on September 8, in “City Council Chamberslocated at 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande.” The City Council Chambers is at 215 E. Branch Street. The notice gives the wrong address for the meeting place, instead identifying Arroyo Grande City Hall. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources § 21092 requires an accurate public notice be distributed to the properties within 300’ feet of a project seeking a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The city failed to provide an accurate notice when it misstated the address of the council chambers. It is critical for the public to know where they can participate. If just one person was unable to participate due to this mis-noticing,the item should be reagendized and heard denovo. Additional confusion surrounding the approval is in the agenda posting itself, wherein the public was led to believe that the Arroyo Grande City Council would endorse the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial of the project. The language, “Recommended Action:The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying General Plan Amendment 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009, and Development Agreement 15-00, misleads the public wherein there wasno indication that the council could or would overturn the Planning Commission’s recommendationfor project denial. The Ralph M. Brown Act frowns upon tricking the public, intentional or otherwise. On page 21 of the 22 page staff report for item 9.a., staffmerely mentions the council could approve the project under “Alternative”bullet points 3 and 4 on its list of possible options. On page 22 in the list of “Alternate Resolution” is listed as its 15th attachment. The “Alternate Resolution” itself can be found buried 102 pages into the lengthy 238 staff packet. Additionally,the council further disenfranchised the interested publicwhenit accepted a newly revised site plan made available on the day of the hearing,and for most,first seen 2 Please see the attached legal notice. Item 8.a. - Page 135 RALPH M.BROWN ACT CURE &CORRECT DEMAND ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCILMEETING:SEPTEMBER8,2015 3 during the hearing--without the benefit of the 72-hour agenda posting with all other materials available on Friday, September 4. Furthermore, the council made projectmodifications that affectthe visual nature of this very important city “gateway”that could be negativeto the overall project. No visual simulations or renderings were available to the public or the councilfor removing thesecond story apartmentscomprising the mixed-use component. The Mayor’s failed motion to send the project back to the Planning Commission would have cured the problems created by the mis- noticing, vague agenda language and given the opportunity for the applicant to return with visual simulations modified to depict what is now an unknown for all the citizens affected by the “gateway” project. II Violationsofthe RalphM.BrownAct The naturesoftheviolationsoftheBrownActwithrespecttotheSeptember 8meetingof theArroyo Grande City Council are as follows: 1)The council acted on item 9.a. without the benefit of the interested public’s input due to the mis-noticed meeting location. 2)The notice is legally defective due to the mis-noticed meeting location. 3)The agenda item as noticed on the agenda is vague and fails to inform the public that approval of the project was a viable alternative. TheArroy o Grande City Council mustnotsimplytakenoteoftheBrownAct duringitsmeetings;itmust comply withthe Brown Act rigorously. III Criminal Culpability Please take notice: Gov.Code§54959.Eachmember of alegislativebodywhoattendsa meetingofthatlegislative bodywhere actionistakeninviolationofany provisionofthischapter,andwherethemember intendstodeprivethe publicofinformationtowhichthe member knowsor has reasontoknow the public is entitledunder this chapter,isguilty ofamisdemeanor. Item 8.a. - Page 136 RALPH M.BROWN ACT CURE &CORRECT DEMAND ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCILMEETING:SEPTEMBER8,2015 4 IV NoticeandDemandforCure orCorrection TheBrown Actprovides alegal remedy for actions illegally taken, namely thejudicial invalidation of actionsupon properfindings offact andconclusionsof law.(§54960.1) Pursuant tosuch provision,Ihereby demandtheArroyo Grande City Council takeall necessary actions tocureand correct the illegally takenactions(supra)as follows: 1) Hear the item denovo on afutureagenda at aproperly noticed hearing location and identifiedas such in a properly noticed agenda. 2) Additionallyensurethatfinalactionistakeninaproperlyagendizedopen session. Youhave30daysfrom thereceiptofthisdemandtocureandcorrectthechallenged actionsorinformmeofyour decisionnot todoso(§ 54960.1.)Ifyoufail tocureand correct asdemanded,suchinactionwillserveasevidence thatan“actual controversy” existsbetweenuspursuanttoCode ofCivilProcedure section1060,leavingmeno recourse buttoseeka judicialinvalidationofthechallengedaction.Inthiscase,awardofcourtcosts andreasonable attorneyfeesisavailable (§ 54960.5,CodeofCiv.Proc.§ 1021.5.) Furthermore,section54960affordsredressbymandamus,injunction,ordeclaratory reliefforthepurposeof stoppingor preventing violations orthreatened violations ofthe Brown Act,orto determinetheapplicability ofthe Brown Act to actions or threatened futureactionsof the Arroyo Grande City Council.Again,award of costs and fees is available as aremedy. Re-hearing the matter de novo in a properly noticed meeting will have the effect of curing and correcting the procedural missteps made to date and give the public the opportunity to become fully informed and participate in shaping their community. Sincerely, Julie Tacker Attachment Item 8.a. - Page 137 1  Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment – Subareas 3a and 3b 07.15.15  Purpose and Objectives The purpose and objectives for Subareas 3a and 3b of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan include the  following:  a.Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Arroyo Grande’s General Plan; b.Promote high‐quality mixed‐use commercial/retail development within the City of Arroyo Grande’s Gateway Mixed‐Use District; c.Increase the City of Arroyo Grande’s supply of entry‐level/workforce housing stock; and d.Produce a functional, aesthetically pleasing project that will serve as a landmark in the City of Arroyo Grande’s western gateway and complete build‐out of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Subareas Defined Subareas 3a and 3b consists of APN 077‐131‐052 and APN 077‐131‐054 (reference Exhibit 3‐4.A).  Land Use Designations and Property Development Standards Subarea 3a – Mixed‐Use Commercial Subarea 3a provides for mixed‐use commercial/retail and/or office development of approximately 1.24  acres. Unless otherwise specified in this Specific Plan, allowed uses shall be consistent with those allowed  within the Gateway Mixed‐Use (GMU) zoning district, subject to the same level of review as required by  Municipal Code Section 16.36.030. All development within Subarea 3a shall conform to the following  standards:  1.Minimum Front Yard Setback (East Grand Ave): Shall be a minimum of 0‐5’, consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed‐Use Districts. The front yard is that side which is closest to East Grand Avenue (reference Exhibit 3‐4.B). 2.Minimum Street Side Yard Setback (South Courtland Street): Shall be a minimum of 0‐5’. The street yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street (reference Exhibit 3‐4.B). 3.Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (City Limit Line and Subarea 3b): Shall be a minimum of 0‐ 5’. The interior side yard is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line and Subarea 3b (reference Exhibit 3‐4.B). 4.Minimum Rear Yard Setback (along Subarea 3b): The primary commercial buildings shall be a minimum of 0‐5’. The rear yard is that side which is closest to Subarea 3b (reference Exhibit 3‐ 4.B). 5.Maximum Lot Coverage: Shall be 50%, inclusive of all enclosed structures. 6.Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Shall be 1.5, inclusive of total floor area. 7.Maximum Building Height: Shall be 35’. Total height including any architectural features shall not exceed 40’. ATTACHMENT 15 Item 8.a. - Page 138 2    8. Parking: Shall be provided at a minimum ratio of one (1) space for every 250 square‐feet of  commercial building area, with one (1) designated parking space required for each residential  unit, and one (1) shared parking space for each residential unit. The shared spaces will be available  for use by the adjacent commercial uses.     9. Prohibited Uses: The following uses shall be prohibited in Subarea 3, due to the proximity to  residential uses:     • Standalone Coffee Roasters;  • Nail Salons;  • Dry‐cleaners;  • Gasoline stations;  • Furniture refurbishing/refinishing;  • Any use involving the application of spray paint.    10. Lighting: Lighting in Subarea 3a shall be shielded to minimize overflow of light into the adjacent  residential neighborhood of Subarea 3b.     11. Signage:  Up to one wall sign per building face. Total area for each tenant’s building sign on each  building face shall not exceed 1 ½ sf of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage for the  business.  Consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use Districts, additional  awning and hanging signs are encouraged to reflect City Character and pedestrian scale with a  maximum of one awning or hanging sign per building face. Signs are subject to discretionary  review and approval.   Subarea 3b ‐ Residential Subarea 3b provides for entry‐level/workforce housing residential development of approximately 3.12  acres. All development within Subarea 3b shall conform to the following standards:    1. Maximum Density: Shall be a maximum of 20 units per acre.    2. Minimum Lot Size: Shall be 2,000 square‐feet. No subdivision resulting in lots less than this  minimum size shall be allowed.    3. Project Boundary Setbacks:  a. Minimum Project Front Yard Setback (South Courtland Street): Shall be a minimum of 10’.   The front yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street (reference Exhibit 3‐ 4.B).  b. Minimum Project Interior Side Yard Setback (between Subarea 3a commercial and 3b  residential; between Subareas 3b and 4): Shall be a minimum of 10’ (reference Exhibit 3‐ 4.B).  c. Minimum Project Rear Yard Setback (City Limit Line): shall be a minimum of 10’. The rear  yard of the property is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line (reference Exhibit  3‐4.B).    4. Interior Yard Setbacks:  a. Courtyard/common open space area setback: Shall be a minimum of 8 ’  b. Side yard setbacks: Shall be a minimum of 4’  c. Interior private drive setback: Shall be a minimum of 2’     Item 8.a. - Page 139 3      5. Maximum Lot Coverage: Shall be 65%, inclusive of all enclosed structures.    6. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Shall be 1.25, inclusive of total floor area.    7. Maximum Building Height: Shall be 35’ or two (2) stories, whichever is less. Total height including  any appurtenances shall not exceed 40’.    8. Parking: 2 spaces shall be provided per unit within an enclosed garage and guest spaces shall be  provided at a minimum ratio of 0.5 per unit. Two of the guest parking spaces may be provided in  driveways where feasible    9. Minimum Open Space for Subarea 3b: Shall be 35%.     10. Signage: Shall comply with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040‐A, Subsections A.1 (Single‐family  neighborhood identification) and be subject to discretionary review and approval.  East Grand Avenue Frontage Development of Subarea 3 shall implement objectives of the General Plan, Design Guidelines and  Standards for Mixed‐Use Districts, and the project’s fair share of the recommendations in the Grand  Avenue Enhancement Plan relating to streetscape character along the East Grand Avenue frontage.   Green Building and Energy Efficiency All new development shall be accompanied by a summary outlining energy use calculations, design  features and/or operational measures that exceed minimum standards in order to make the development  more ‘green’ and energy efficient.  Access and Circulation   1. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access will be from East Grand Avenue to South Courtland Street.    2. Emergency Access:  An emergency access driveway will connect Subareas 3b and 4. The design of  which shall be subject to Fire Department approval. Vehicular access to the driveway may be  optionally restricted to emergency vehicles only through the use of bollards, a gate, or other  mechanism approved by the Fire Chief.    3. Fire Access: Shall be provided per the strict application of the California Fire Code and its  appendices, as approved by the Fire Chief.    4. Pedestrian Connections: Sidewalks shall be provided along East Grand Avenue and South  Courtland Street with connections to interior of the site. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided  in Subarea 3b through the neighborhood green. Sidewalks are not required adjacent to the private  drive.      5. South Courtland Street:  The private access drive for Subarea 3b shall be aligned with the existing  commercial development driveway across South Courtland Street. Development of each Subarea  shall include widening of South Courtland Street to its ultimate width along that Subarea’s  frontage. The southwestern curb return at East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street shall  be rebuilt as a part of the South Courtland Street widening.     Item 8.a. - Page 140 4    6. Bicycle Lanes:  Shall be provided on South Courtland Street along the project frontage.  Street Trees and Landscaping Trees shall be provided along South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue within 10’ of curb edge  where feasible. Internal landscaping for each Subarea shall be subject to discretionary review and  approval and should include drought‐resistant plants and low impact development techniques.  Fences and Walls Interior fences and walls shall be limited to 6’ in height. To accommodate compact higher density  development, 6’ fence may be combined with an 18 inches retaining wall (exposed wall height) on interior  lots.     Retaining walls (exposed wall height) shall be limited to 6’ in height with discretionary approval.  Fencing  above retaining walls is allowed up to 6’ in height (maximum of 12’ combined fence and wall height) when  located adjacent to commercial (lots  4 and 23‐27) and/or along western edge of property (lots  17‐23) to  buffer from large wall expanses of existing buildings. Fencing located adjacent to commercial and/or along  the western edge of the property shall be double sided.     Perimeter fencing or walls along the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street frontages shall be  limited to 3.5’ in height unless the portion over 3.5’, up to 6’, is 75% light emitting, or combined with a  raised planter. All fences and walls shall be subject to discretionary review.   Storm Drainage and Water Quality Facilities Each drainage subarea shall incorporate post‐construction storm water management measures consistent  with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. Project water quality measures shall be provided  on‐site and include low‐impact design features such as disconnected downspouts, rain gardens and/or  other measures promoting storm water infiltration through surface and/or sub‐surface infiltration basins.  Mitigation of post‐development peak storm water run‐off shall be directed to the east, across South  Courtland Street to the Poplar Basin, which was designed and built to accommodate development of the  Subareas.   Architectural Design Guidelines Subarea 3a   1. Buildings: No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea  3a shall reflect a mixed‐use commercial character consistent with the Gateway Mixed‐Use District  objectives.    2. Site Design: Site design shall include plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable  street frontage. Buildings should line East Grand Avenue with parking located on the side and/or  rear of building.     3. Parking: Parking within Subarea 3a shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by  multiple owners/uses.  Subarea 3b   1. Buildings: No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea  3b shall reflect a residential character and be compatible with the Berry Garden Neighborhood.   Item 8.a. - Page 141 5      Phasing of Development The two Subareas and/or properties within the Subareas may be developed concurrently or separately,  provided that all applicable requirements are met (emergency access, etc.).  Developers will enter into a  development agreement or similar binding agreement, financing or other leverage mechanism with the  City to ensure the commercial parcel will be developed prior to the residential or within a reasonably  sufficient timeframe.   Item 8.a. - Page 142 Subarea 4Subarea4 1 : 100 Exhibit 3-4.A - Subareas SO U T H C O U R T L A N D S T EAST GRAND AVE Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Item 8.a. - Page 143 Subarea 4Subarea4 SO U T H C O U R T L A N D S T 1 : 100 Exhibit 3-4.B - Allowed Project Boundary Setbacks Rear (0’-5’) Side (10’) Rear (10’) Side (0’-5’) Side (10’) Front (10’) Front (0’-5’) Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Subarea 3a Subarea 3b Subarea 3a Rear (10’) Side (10’) Side (0’-5’) Side (10’) Front (10’) Front (0’-5’) Rear (0’-5’) Side (0’-5’)Side (0’-5’) EAST GRAND AVE Item 8.a. - Page 144 Ul c 'O '? z 9 .oo ;;; S5 Vl w .;::. Table 16.36.030(A) Uses Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts IMU =Industrial Mixed Use District (El Camino) FOMU =Fair Oaks Mixed Use District TMU = Traffic Way Mixed Use District HMU = Highway Mixed Use District VCD = Village Core Downtown District OMU =Office Mixed Use District VMU = Village Mixed Use District RC = Regional Commercial District GMU =Gateway Mixed Use District HCO = Historic Character Overlay District (Design Overlay Dis- trict 2.4) P =Permitted Use MUP =Minor Use Permit CUP= Conditional Use Permit PED =Not permitted in pedestrian oriented storefront locations on ground floor facing E. Grand Avenue, East/West Branch Street or prime real estate space within shopping centers NP= Not Permitted Permit Required By District AH new commercial buildings or third-story components require a CUP VMU VCD D-2.11 Allowed Land Uses and Permit TMU HCO HCO OMV' Specific Use Standards Requirements---I~AND USE IMU D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU D-2.20 RC2 and other references A. SERVICES -BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, PROFES- SIONAL ATM NP p MUP MUP p p p p p Bank Financial Services NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP CUP Medical Services -doctor's of· NP MUP MUP/ MUP MUP/ MUP MUP p CUP fice PED PED Medical Services -clinic, lab, NP MUP CUP/ MUP MUP/ MUP MUP MUP CUP urgent care PED CUP/ PED Medical -hospital NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP ....... ?" w O'\ 0 w 0 ATTACHMENT 16 Item 8.a. - Page 145 Vi w v-. er; .§ ? z 9 N ,oo c1 "" Allowed I.and Uses and Permit Requirements-LA'.'.'D LSE Office -accessory Office -government Office -processing Office -professional Veterinary clinic., animal hospi- taJ B. SERVICES -GENERAL Adult day care -14 or fewer clients Adult day care -15 or more clients Automotive and vehicle ser- vices -Major repair or body work Automotive and vehicle ser- vices -minor maintenance or repair including tire services Catering services Child day care center -14 or fewer Chiid day care center -15 or n10re Drive-through services Equipment rental Kennel, animal boarding Lodging-Bed & breakfast inn I:Yl:U MUP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP NP MUP MUP MUP NP NP NP MUP CUP NP VMU VCD D-2.11 TMl: HCO HCO D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 p l\WP MUP CGP MUP MUP CUP CUP MUP ~1UP MUP MUP CUP NP CUP NP MUP/ 'vfUP PED NP NP NP ML:P NP NP MUP NP NP MUP MUP/ MUP PED NP MCPi MUP PED NP MUP/ MUP PED CUP NP CUP CUP NP CUP CUP NP CL'P MUP MUP MUP GML fOIVIli HMU PIPED p p CUP CUP CUP MUP/ MUP CUP PED MUP/ MUP MUP PED CUP CUP CUP MUP/ MUP NP PED CUP/ CUP NP PED NP NP MUP NP NP MCP MUP/ MUP MUP PED MUP/ MUP NP PED MUP/ MUP NP PED NP NP CUP NP "JP CUP NP NP CUP MUP MUP MUP OMC 1 D-2.20 p MUP p p MUP MUP CUP NP NP MUP MUP CUP CUP CUP CUP MCP RC2 p CUP NP CUP CUP NP NP NP NP NP MUP NP cup ND ' NP CUP NP Specific Lse Standards and other references 16.52.120 16.52.120 16.52.210 16.52.210 16.52.120 16.52.100 16.52.080 0\ '"" 0\ 0 w 0 Item 8.a. - Page 146 i z 9 "' ·°" -;-' :;;: Vl \.;.J O'I Allowed Land Uses and Permit Reqnirements-LAND USE Lodging-Hotel or motel Lodging-Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park Maintenance services-client site services Mortuary, funeral home Personal services Personal services-Restricted Public safety facility Repair service-Equipment, large appliances, etc. Social services organization Tele-communication facilities (commercial) Vacation rentals and homestays C. INDUSTRY, MANUFAC- TURING AND PROCESS- ING, WHOLESALING, STORAGE Agricultural product processing Construction yard Drive-thru services Furniture and fixtures manu- facturing, cabinet shop Industrial research and <level- opment IMU NP NP MUP CUP NP NP MUP MUP NP CUP NP CUP MUP NP MUP CUP VMU VCD D-2.11 TMU HCO HCO D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 CUP CUP CUP NP NP NP MUP NP MUP NP NP NP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP NP p MUP/ p PED MUP NP CUP CUP NP CUP MUP NP CUP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP CUP NP NP NP CUP NP CUP NP NP NP NP NP NP GMU FOMU HMU CUP CUP CUP NP NP NP NP MUP MUP NP NP NP MUP MUP MUP NP NP CUP p p p CUP MUP MUP CUP/ MUP CUP PED CUP CUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP CUP NP MUP NP NP NP NP OMU1 D-2.20 CUP NP MUP CUP MUP NP p NP MUP CUP MUP NP NP CUP NP NP RC2 NP NP NP NP MUP NP p NP NP CUP NP NP NP CUP NP NP Specific Use Standards and other references See General Plan Pol- icy LU7-4 16.52.030 16.52.230 16.52.240 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 ....... ?" \.;.J ?" 0 \.;.J 0 Item 8.a. - Page 147 V1 w -._.] [/) " :g z c t0 2" -;" "'" Allowed Land Lses and Permit Requirements-LAND USE Laboratory -Medical. analyti- caL research and development Manufacturing or Processing - Light Printing and publishing Recycling -scrap and disman- tling yard Recycling -Small collection facility Storage -Outdoor Storage (mini -storage) Wholesaling and distribution Winery D. RETAlL TRADE Accessory retail uses Adult business Alcoholic beverage sales Artisan shop Auto. vehicle and heavy equip- ment sales & rental Auto, vehicle parts sales wl in- stallation services Auto. vehicle parts sales with- out installation services IMU CUP MUP MUP CUP CUP MUP MUP CUP CUP p CUP NP MUP - MUP MUP MUP VMU VCD D-2.11 TYIU HCO HCO D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 CUP NP NP CUP NP NP MUP NP NP NP NP NP MUP MUP/ MUP PED MUP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP CUP NP NP p p p NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP MUP NP NP MUP NP NP GMt: FOML H:vIU NP NP CUP NP NP CUP CUP CUP MUP NP NP NP MUP/ MUP MUP PED NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP CUP p p p NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP MUP NP NP MUP CUP/ CUP/ MUP PED PED OMU1 D-2.20 RC2 MUP NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP MUP MUP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP p p NP NP CUP CUP MUP CUP/ PED NP NP NP CUP NP CUP Specific Lse Standards and other references 16 52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52.095 16.52 095 16 52 095 Subject to Business License clearance Subject to Section 16.52.030 for location parameters and devel- opment standards 16.52.060 16.52.070 PED= Use not allowed within 200 feet of E. Grand Avenue Front- age °' w °' 0 ~ 0 Item 8.a. - Page 148 1£1 -5 ? :z: ? '" ,oo -;-' -;;: Vl w 00 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements-LAND USE Building and landscape materi- ais sales-indoor Convenience store Drive-through retail Extended hour retail Farm supply and feed store Farmers market Formula Business Fuel dealer (propane for home and farm use) Gas station General retail-5,000 sf or less General retail -5,001 to 19,999 sf General retail -20.000 sf to 102.500 sf General Retail-Restricted IMV MUP CUP NP CUP MUP CUP Permit required as identi- fied by underly- ing land use CUP CUP NP NP NP CUP v:wu VCD D-2.11 TML HCO HCO D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 MUP CUP CUP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP NP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP CVP MUP MUP MUP Permit NP NP For required D-2.4 as identi- fied by underly- ing land use CUP NP NP CUP NP NP MUP p p CUP MUP CUP MUP NP NP NP NP NP GML FO:VIU HMlJ MUP/ MUP MUP PED MUP MUP MUP CUP3 NP CUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP CUP CUP CUP MUP Permit Permit Permit required required required as identi-as identi-as identi- fied by fied by fied by underly-underly-underly- ing land ing land ing land use use use NP NP CUP NP NP CUP p p MUP MUP MUP MUP CUP CUP CUP NP NP CUP OMV D-2.20 RC2 NP MUP MUP MUP CUP CUP MUP MUP NP CUP CUP CUP Permit Permit required required as identi-as identi- fied by fied by underly-underly- ing land ing land use use NP NP NP NP MUP p CUP p NP p NP NP Specific Use Standards and other references 16.52.090 LU7-4 16.52.170 Section 8.38 P-Subject to Business License clearance Section 8.38 P-Subject to Business License clearance Note: Maximum Building Size per/dis- trict, Section 16.52.220 and Section 8.38 Subject to Section 16.52.030 for location parameters aud <level- oprnent standards -CJ'-, w 0--- 0 w 0 Item 8.a. - Page 149 Vi ,_,., \Cl './' .§ ? z 0 t;; -;-' "" Allowed Land Cses and Permit Reqnirements-LAND USE Groceries, specialty foods - 20,000 sf or less Groceries, specialty foods 20.000 sf to 102.500 sf Outdoor retail sales and activi- ties Mobile home, boat, or RV sales Produce stand Restaurant, cafe. Coffee shop Second hand store Shopping center Warehouse retail E. RECREATION, EDUCA- TION & PUBLIC ASSEM- BLY USES Bar/tavern/night club Club, lodge, private meeting hall Commercial recreation or sports facility -Indoor Commercial recreation or sports facility -Outdoor Community center Conference/convemion facility Equestrian facility Fitness/health facility Library, museum Park, playground IMU NP NP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP NP CUP CUP NP CUP CUP NP NP CUP NP NP NP vivn; VCD D-2.11 T\UJ HCO HCO D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 MUP CUP CUP CUP NP I NP MUP MUP MUP Cl.IP NP NP MUP MUP MUP MVP MUP MUP NP MUP MUP NP NP CUP CUP NP NP CUP CUP CUP MVP MVP CUP MUP CUP CUP CUP NP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP NP CUP NP NP CUP CUP CUP CUP MUP MUP CUP CUP CUP GMU FOMt; HMU MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP CUP CUP MUP NP NP CUP MUP MVP MUP MVP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP CUP CUP NP NP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP MUP/ MUP MUP PED CUP CUP MUP NP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP NP NP CUP MUP MVP CUP MVP MUP MUP CUP CUP CUP ocvrn 1 D-2.20 CUP NP NP NP MUP MUP MUP NP NP I NP CUP NP NP CUP CUP NP CUP MUP CUP RC 2 MUP CUP CUP NP CUP CUP NP CUP CUP CUP NP CUP/ PED NP NP CUP NP CUP NP NP Specific Use Standards and other references Note: Maximum Building Size per/dis- trict and Section 16.52.220 16.52.220 16.52.180 LU7-4 16.52.160 ...... °' '..;.) ;:::" 0 w 0 Item 8.a. - Page 150 gi ~ z !" N ,oo -;-' :;;: V1 ~ Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements-LAND USE Religious facility School -Elementary, middle, secondary School -Specialized education/ training Studio -art, dance martial arts, music, etc. Theater, auditorium F. RESIDENTIAL USES Assisted Living Home occupation Multi-family housing not lo- cated within a mixed use proj- ect Multi-family housing in a mixed use project TMU IMU D-2.11 NP CUP NP NP MUP MUP NP MUP NP NP NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP NP VMU VCD D-2.11 HCO HCO D-2.4 D-2.4 GMU CUP/ CUP CUP/ PED PED NP CUP NP CUP/ CUP CUP/ PED PED MUP MUP MUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP/ PED p p p NP CUP CUP/ PED MUP/ MUP CUP/ PED PED OMU1 FOMU HMU D-2.20 CUP CUP CUP NP NP CUP CUP MUP CUP MUP MUP MUP CUP NP CUP CUP/ NP CUP PED p MUP p CUP/ CUP (on CUP (on PED lots lots >20,000 >20,000 square square feet feet) CUP/ CUP CUP PED RC2 NP NP NP MUP/ PED CUP NP NP NP NP Specific Use Standards and other references 16.16.090 Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district) required by Housing Element is not re- quired on lots fronting E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU dis- tricts. Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district) required by Housing Element is not re- quired on lots fronting E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU dis- tricts. _. °' w °' 0 w 0 Item 8.a. - Page 151 Vi ~ 0 ,...... [/) ::'. ~ "' z ? \0 yo :!:'. .,. YVIU VCD D-2.11 Allowed Land Cses and Permit T~tU HCO HCO Requirements-LAND lJSE IML D-2.11 D-2.4 D-2.4 GMl! FOMC Residential care facility, 6 or NP NP MUP/ MUP MUP/ MUP less clients PED PED Residential care facility, 7 or NP NP CUP/ CUP CUP/ CUP/ more clients PED PED PED Single family residential within NP NP NP MVP NP NP a mixed use project Requirements of this section supercede corresponding requirements in the PD 1.1 district. 2 Requirements of this section supercede corresponding requirements in the PD 1.1 district and PD 1.2 district. 3 Drive-through retail only allowed within shopping centers with three or more major tenants. OMC1 Specific Use Standards HMU D-2.20 RC 2 and other references NP MUP NP NP CUP NP NP NP NP °' \.;..) °' 0 w 0 Item 8.a. - Page 152 Courtland and Grand Mixed Use Project Prepared for: City of Arroyo Grande Prepared by: <“‘omni -means ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS ATTACHMENT 17 Item 8.a. - Page 153 COURTLAND AND GRAND MIXED USE PROJECT Prepared For: City Of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch Street Arroyo Grande,Ca 93420 Prepared By: Omni-Means,Ltd. 943 Reserve Drive,Suite 100 Roseville,Ca 95678 916-782-8688 JULY 2015 25-1275-30 R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 154 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page i City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3  Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 5  Existing Transportation System ........................................................................................... 5  Data Collection & Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 6  Existing Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................... 6  Existing Transit Services ..................................................................................................... 6   Traffic Analysis Parameters ....................................................................................... 7  Existing Traffic Operations ................................................................................................ 10  Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 13  Project Site Access ............................................................................................................ 14  Site Access Evaluation ............................................................................................. 15  Trip Generation & Distribution ........................................................................................... 15  Existing Plus Project ................................................................................................................... 17  Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................ 19  Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 19  Cumulative Plus Project .............................................................................................................. 21  Project Impacts and Mitigations .................................................................................................. 24  Existing Plus Project Conditions .............................................................................. 24  Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................. 24  TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................5 Existing Transportation System ...........................................................................................5 Data Collection &Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................6 Existing Pedestrian &Bicycle Facilities ...............................................................................6 Existing Transit Services .....................................................................................................6 Traffic Analysis Parameters .......................................................................................7 Existing Traffic Operations ................................................................................................10 Project Description ......................................................................................................................13 Project Site Access ............................................................................................................14 Site Access Evaluation.............................................................................................15 Trip Generation &Distribution ...........................................................................................15 Existing Plus Project ...................................................................................................................17 Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................19 Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................19 Cumulative Plus Project ..............................................................................................................21 Project Impacts and Mitigations ..................................................................................................24 Existing Plus Project Conditions ..............................................................................24 Cumulative Conditions .............................................................................................24 Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page i City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA 002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 155 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page ii City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map .................................................................................. 4  Figure 2 - Existing Control and Lane Geometrics ....................................................................... 11  Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 12  Figure 4 - Trip Distribution .......................................................................................................... 16  Figure 5 - Existing Plus Project Volumes .................................................................................... 18  Figure 6 - Cumulative No Project Volumes ................................................................................. 20  Figure 7 - Cumulative Plus Project Volumes .............................................................................. 22  LIST OF TABLES Table 1: LOS Criteria and Definition For Intersections ................................................................. 8  Table 2: Existing Conditions: Intersection LOS ........................................................................... 10  Table 3: Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 15  Table 4: Existing Plus Project conditions: Intersection LOS ....................................................... 17  Table 5: Cumulative No Project Conditions: Intersection LOS ................................................... 19  Table 6: General Plan And Proposed Project Trip Comparison ................................................. 21  Table 7: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Intersection LOS ................................................. 23  Table 8: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Mitigated Intersection LOS ................................. 24  APPENDIX Project Site Plan Level of Service Worksheets LIST OFFIGURES Figure 1:Project Location and Vicinity Map..................................................................................4 Figure 2-Existing Control and Lane Geometrics .......................................................................11 Figure 3-Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................12 Figure 4-Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................................16 Figure 5-Existing Plus Project Volumes ....................................................................................18 Figure 6-Cumulative No Project Volumes .................................................................................20 Figure 7-Cumulative Plus Project Volumes ..............................................................................22 LIST OF TABLES Table 1:LOS Criteria and Definition For Intersections .................................................................8 Table 2:Existing Conditions:Intersection LOS ...........................................................................10 Table 3:Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................15 Table 4:Existing Plus Project conditions:Intersection LOS .......................................................17 Table 5:Cumulative No Project Conditions:Intersection LOS ...................................................19 Table 6:General Plan And Proposed Project Trip Comparison .................................................21 Table 7:Cumulative Plus Project Conditions:Intersection LOS .................................................23 Table 8:Cumulative Plus Project Conditions:Mitigated Intersection LOS .................................24 APPENDIX Project Site Plan Level of Service Worksheets Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page ii City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 156 Title of Report Page 3 Client R1923TIA002.docx Introduction This report has been prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande (City) to present the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) performed by OMNI-MEANS for the proposed Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project (Project). The proposed project contains 15,600 square feet, four 650 square feet residential units above outdoor plaza, and 38 townhome residential units. Figure 1 illustrates the project location and vicinity map. The following scenarios are analyzed as a part of the TIAR, as established in the original Scope of Work: Existing Condition Existing Plus Project Condition Cumulative No Project Condition Cumulative Plus Project Condition The Existing conditions analyzes current traffic operations within the study area. Traffic counts were taken at all study locations in order to simulate typical weekday conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The Existing Plus Project conditions builds upon the Existing conditions analysis by generating trips for the proposed project over the Existing intersections volumes. The Cumulative No Project conditions analyzes future traffic forecasts using the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, assuming full build-out of the City's General Plan land uses and circulation network. The City's General Plan land use on the proposed project site is "Mixed Use" which allows for development of commercial uses and multi-family housing. The Cumulative Plus Project conditions analyzes buildout of the City's General Plan with the proposed project land uses substituted for the allowable development under the General Plan. Since the proposed project proposes single family housing, the project will require a General Plan amendment, and will result in a less intense mix of uses than allowed under the existing General Plan. Therefore, the Cumulative Plus Project condition will result in fewer new trips generated at the project site than under the Cumulative No Project analysis, which simulates buildout of allowable General Plan land uses. Introduction This report has been prepared for the Cityof Arroyo Grande (City)to present the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis Report (TIAR)performed by OMNl-MEANS for the proposed Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project (Project).The proposed project contains 15,600 square feet,four 650 square feet residential units above outdoor plaza,and 38 townhome residential units.Figure 1 illustrates the project location and vicinity map. The following scenarios are analyzed as a part of the TIAR,asestablished in the original Scope of Work: 0 Existing Condition 0 Existing Plus Project Condition 0 CumulativeNo Project Condition 0 Cumulative Plus Project Condition The Existing conditions analyzes current traffic operations within the study area.Traffic counts were taken at all study locations in order to simulate typical weekday conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The Existing Plus Project conditions builds upon the Existing conditions analysis by generating trips for the proposed project over the Existing intersections volumes. The CumulativeNo Project conditions analyzes future traffic forecasts using the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model,assuming full build-outof the City's General Plan land uses and circulation network.The City's General Plan land use on the proposed project site is "Mixed Use"which allows for development of commercial uses and multi-family housing. The Cumulative Plus Project conditions analyzes buildout of the City's General Plan with the proposed project land uses substituted for the allowable development under the General Plan. Since the proposed project proposes single family housing,the project will require a General Plan amendment,and will result in a less intense mix ofuses than allowed under the existing General Plan.Therefore,the Cumulative Plus Project condition will result in fewer new trips generated at the project site than under the CumulativeNo Project analysis,which simulates buildout ofallowable General Plan land uses. Title ofReport Page 3 Client R1923TIA 002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 157 ATLANTIC CITY AVE W GRAND AVE LONGBRANCH AVE E~ (I) E Q) PROJECT LOCATION \\ASH ST FARROLL A VE HIGHLAND WA Y THE PIKE StudyArea Map '3’3'23‘‘4,453V K.EF‘RJR‘923$”Qfl‘xTWBEIT'Gfil‘Z“DWI; Courtland and Grand Mlxed Use Project Transportation Improvement Study FAIR OAKS AVE Figure 1 Job No:254275-50 1923 Item 8.a. - Page 158 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 5 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Existing Conditions The City of Arroyo Grande is an incorporated community located with the "Five Cities" area of San Luis Obispo County, California. The city is located approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo, along the US 1901 coastal corridor. The City is 5.84 square miles in area and is at an elevation of 114 feet. The City is located contiguous with the incorporated areas of the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest and the City of Grover Beach to the west. Based on the data provided by Census 2010, population in the City has increase roughly 1,400 from 15,851 in 2000 to 17,252 in 2010, a 9% increase. The proposed project is located on the southwest corner of Courtland Street and E Grand Avenue. Existing Transportation System The following roadways provide primary circulation within the City for Arroyo Grande and in the vicinity of the propose project. US 101 is a major north-south freeway facility that traverses along coastal California. US 101 serves as the principal inter-regional auto and truck travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County (and other portions of the Central Coast_ with the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the Los Angeles urban basin to the south. Within San Luis Obispo County, US 101 provides major connection between and through several cities. Through the "Five Cities" area of the San Luis Obispo County, US 101 represents a major recreational as well as commuter travel route and has a general four-lane divided freeway cross-section with 65 mph posted speed limits. Within the City of Arroyo Grande, US 101 forms full-access interchanges with Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue/Branch Street as well as direction interchange access at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue. El Camino Real is a two to three lane northeast-southwest arterial that operates as a frontage road on the southwest side to US 101. Oak Park Boulevard is a general five lane north-south street that runs along the northwestern City limit line, defining Arroyo Grande's boundary with the adjacent Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach. Oak Park Boulevard forms a full-access interchange with US 101, and extends south of US 101 into the City of Grover Beach, approximately defining the City of Arroyo Grande's southwestern City limit line. North of the City of Arroyo Grande, Oak Park Boulevard forks into Old Oak Park Road, which extends north into County lands, and into Noyes Road which extends in a northeasterly direction to connect with SR 227. E Grand Avenue is a four to five lane road that runs in the east-west direction. E Grand Avenue starts at the City Limits and continues east until it connects to SR 227. Courtland Street is a north-south road that starts at Newport Avenue to the north and terminates at Ash Street to the south. Courtland Street is a two lane collector roadway. Elm Street is a north-south road that terminates 500 feet north of Brighton Avenue and Cabrillo Highway to the south. Elm Street is a two lane collector throughout. Halcyon Road is a north-south road that terminates at US 101 to the north and continues into the City of Callender. Halcyon Road is two lane major collector throughout. Existing Conditions The Cityof Arroyo Grande isanincorporated community located with the "Five Cities"area of San Luis Obispo County,California.The city is located approximately10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo,along the US 1901 coastal corridor.The City is 5.84 square miles in area and isatan elevation of 114 feet.The Cityis located contiguous with the incorporated areas of the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest and the City of Grover Beach to the west.Based on the data provided by Census 2010,populationin the City has increase roughly 1,400 from 15,851 in 2000 to 17,252 in 2010,a 9%increase. The proposed project is located on the southwest corner of Courtland Street and E Grand Avenue. Existing Transportation System The following roadways provide primary circulation within the City for Arroyo Grande and in the vicinity of the propose project. US 101 is a major north-south freeway facility that traverses along coastal California.US 101 serves as the principal inter-regional auto and truck travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County (and other portions of the Central Coast_with the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the Los Angeles urban basin to the south.Within San Luis Obispo County,US 101 provides major connection between and through several cities.Through the "Five Cities"area of the San Luis Obispo County,US 101 represents a major recreational as well as commuter travel route and has a general four-lane divided freeway cross-section with 65 mph posted speed limits. Within the City of Arroyo Grande,US 101 forms full-access interchanges with Oak Park Boulevard,Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue/Branch Street as well as direction interchange access at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue. El Camino Real is a two to three lane northeast-southwest arterial that operates as a frontage road on the southwest side to US 101. Oak Park Boulevard is a general five lane north-south street that runs along the northwestern City limit line,defining Arroyo Grande's boundary with the adjacent Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach.Oak Park Boulevard forms a full-access interchange with US 101,and extends south ofUS 101 into the City of Grover Beach,approximately defining the City of Arroyo Grande's southwestern City limit line.North of the City of Arroyo Grande, Oak Park Boulevard forks into Old Oak Park Road,which extends north into County lands, and into Noyes Road which extends in a northeasterly direction to connect with SR 227. E Grand Avenue is a four to five lane road that runs in the east-west direction.E Grand Avenue starts at the City Limits and continues east until it connects to SR 227. Courtland Street is a north-south road that starts at Newport Avenue to the north and terminates at Ash Street to the south.Courtland Street is a two lane collector roadway. Elm Street is a north-south road that terminates 500 feet north of Brighton Avenue and Cabrillo Highway to the south.Elm Street is a two lane collector throughout. Halcyon Road is a north-south road that terminates atUS 101 to the north and continues into the City of Callender.Halcyon Road is two lane major collector throughout. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 5 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 159 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 6 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Data Collection & Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic impact analysis for the Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project focuses on seven study intersections. The study intersections were selected based on consultation with City staff and a twenty (20) project-trip threshold, consistent with the Draft City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, whereby a study intersection is analyzed if 20 or more project-generated trips are projected to travel through it. Intersection counts for the AM and PM peak hour were conducted on Wednesday September 24, 2014. They were the following locations: 1. Oak Park Boulevard & W Grand Avenue/E Grand Avenue 2. Courtland Street & E Grand Avenue 3. Elm Street & E Grand Avenue 4. Brisco Road & E Grand Avenue 5. Oak Park Boulevard & El Camino Real 6. Oak Park Boulevard & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch Street 7. Courtland Street & Ash Street The AM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and the PM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. under typical weekday conditions. Existing Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities The City of Arroyo Grande recently adopted the 2012 Bicycle & Trail Master Plan which includes proposed bicycle and pedestrian trails, as well as on-street bicycle facilities to complete the partial network already in place in the City and County. The plan encourages the use of walking and bicycling and recognizes three classes of bikeways: Class I Multi Use Path typically known as bike paths, Class I facilities are multi-use facilities that provide a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class II Bike Lane known as bike lanes, Class II facilities provide a striped and signed lane for one way bicycle travel on each side of a street or highway. The minimum width for bike lanes ranges between four and five feet depending upon the edge of roadway conditions (curbs). Bike lanes are demarcated by a six-inch white stripe, signage and pavement legends. Class III Bike Route known as bike routes, Class III facilities provide signs for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway. Bike routes may be enhanced with warning or guide signs and shared lane marking pavement stencils. While Class III routes do not provide measures of separation, they have an important function in providing continuity to the bikeway network. In the project vicinity, there are currently Class II Bike Lanes on E Grand Avenue, El Camino Real, and Oak Park Boulevard. A Class II Bike Lane will be added to Courtland Street to connect this project to E Grand Avenue and to the Berry Gardens Neighborhood. Existing Transit Services The City of Arroyo Grande public transportation is provided by South County Area Transit (SCAT), a branch of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority's (SLORTA). SCAT routes 21, Data Collection &Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic impact analysis for the Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project focuses on seven study intersections.The study intersections were selected based on consultation with City staff and a twenty (20)project-trip threshold,consistent with the Draft City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, whereby a study intersection is analyzed if20or more project-generated trips are projected to travel through it.Intersection counts for the AM and PM peak hour were conducted on Wednesday September 24,2014.They were the following locations: Oak Park Boulevard &W Grand Avenue/E Grand Avenue Courtland Street &E Grand Avenue Elm Street &E Grand Avenue Brisco Road &E Grand Avenue Oak Park Boulevard &El Camino Real Oak Park Boulevard &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch Street Courtland Street &Ash Street The AM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 am.and 9:00 a.m.,and the PM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 pm.and 6:00 pm.under typical weekday conditions. Existing Pedestrian &Bicycle Facilities The City of Arroyo Grande recently adopted the 2012 Bicycle &Trail Master Plan which includes proposed bicycle and pedestrian trails,as well as on-street bicycle facilities to complete the partial network already in place in the City and County.The plan encourages the use of walking and bicycling and recognizes three classes of bikeways: Class |Multi Use Path typically known as bike paths,Class |facilities are multi-use facilities that provide a completely separatedright-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrianswith cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class II Bike Lane known as bike lanes,Class IIfacilities provide a striped and signed lane for one way bicycle travel on each side of a street orhighway.The minimum width for bike lanes ranges between four and five feet depending upon the edge of roadway conditions (curbs).Bike lanes are demarcatedby a six-inch white stripe,signage and pavement legends. Class III Bike Route known asbike routes,Class III facilities provide signs for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.Bike routes may be enhanced with warning or guide signs and shared lane marking pavement stencils.While Class III routes do not provide measures of separation,they have an important function in providing continuity to the bikeway network. In the project vicinity,there are currently Class II Bike Lanes on E Grand Avenue,El Camino Real,and Oak Park Boulevard.A Class II Bike Lane will be added to Courtland Street to connect this project to E Grand Avenue and to the Berry Gardens Neighborhood. Existing Transit Services The City of Arroyo Grande public transportation is provided by South County Area Transit (SCAT),a branch of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority's (SLORTA).SCAT routes 21, Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 6 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 160 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 7 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx 22, 23, and 24 serve major roadways in the City. Out of those routes, SCAT routes 21 and 24 directly serve the project area with a bus stop that will be relocated in front of the proposed commercial development on E Grand Avenue. Additionally, route 23 is within close proximity and will also provided transit options for the development via Oak Park Boulevard. Route 10 is a regional transit route that is served by these three routes and a park and ride at Halcyon Road and El Camino Real. Traffic Analysis Parameters This TIAR provides a "planning level" evaluation of traffic condition, which is considered sufficient for CEQA/NEPA clearance purposes. The "planning level" evaluation incorporates appropriate heavy vehicle adjustment factors, peak-hour factors, and signal lost-time factors. LOS operations have been determined using HCM-2010 methodologies for determining intersection delay, incorporating the aforementioned factors. The following subsections outline the methodology and analysis parameters used to quantify traffic operations at study intersections. Intersection LOS Methodologies Levels of Service (LOS) have been calculated for all intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Traffic operations have been quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade A through F is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. For signalized intersections and All-Way-Stop- Controlled (AWSC) intersection, the intersection delays and LOS are average values for all intersection movements. For Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersections, the intersection delays and LOS is representative of those for the worst-case movement. LOS definitions for different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 1. Synchro 8 Modeling The Synchro Version 8 software suite by Trafficware has been used to implement the HCM- 2010 analysis methodologies. The peak hour capacity tables contained in this report present the intersection delay and LOS estimates as calculated using the Synchro software. 22,23,and 24 serve major roadways in the City.Out of those routes,SCAT routes 21 and 24 directly serve the project area with a bus stop that will be relocated in front of the proposed commercial development on E Grand Avenue.Additionally,route 23is within close proximity and will also provided transit options for the development via Oak Park Boulevard.Route 10is a regional transit route that is served by these three routes and a park and ride at Halcyon Road and El Camino Real. Traffic Analysis Parameters This TIAR provides a "planning level"evaluationof traffic condition,which is considered sufficient for CEQA/NEPA clearance purposes.The "planning level"evaluation incorporates appropriate heavy vehicle adjustment factors,peak-hour factors,and signal lost-time factors. LOS operations have been determined using HCM-2010 methodologies for determining intersection delay,incorporating the aforementioned factors.The following subsections outline the methodology and analysis parameters used to quantify traffic operations at study intersections. Intersection LOS Methodologies Levels of Service (LOS)have been calculated for all intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual,2010.Traffic operations have been quantified through the determinationof "Level of Service"(LOS).Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions,whereby a letter grade A through F is assigned to anintersectionor roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions.For signalized intersections and All-Way-Stop‑ Controlled (AWSC)intersection,the intersection delays and LOS are average values for all intersection movements.For Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC)intersections,the intersection delays and LOS is representative of those for the worst-case movement.LOS definitions for different types ofintersection controls are outlined in Table 1. Synchro 8 Modeling The Synchro Version 8 software suite by Trafficware has been used to implement the HCM‑ 2010 analysis methodologies.The peak hour capacity tables contained in this report present the intersection delay and LOS estimates as calculated using the Synchro software. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 7 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 161 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 8 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx TABLE 1: LOS CRITERIA AND DEFINITION FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Type of Flow Delay Maneuverability Stopped Delay/Vehicle Signalized Un signalized All-Way Stop A St a b l e Fl o w Very slight delay. Progression is very favorable, with most vehicles arriving during the green phase not stopping at all. Turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 B St a b l e Fl o w Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Vehicle platoons are formed. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. >10.0 and < 20.0 >10.0 and < 15.0 >10.0 and < 15.0 C St a b l e Fl o w Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted >20.0 and < 35.0 >15.0 and < 25.0 >15.0 and < 25.0 D App r o a c h i n g Un s t a b l e Fl o w The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Maneuverability is severely limited during short periods due to temporary back-ups. >35.0 and < 55.0 >25.0 and < 35.0 >25.0 and < 35.0 E Un s t a b l e F l o w Generally considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Indicative of poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. There are typically long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection. >55.0 and < 80.0 >35.0 and < 50.0 >35.0 and < 50.0 F Fo r c e d F l o w Generally considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. Often occurs with over saturation. May also occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios. There are many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors. Jammed conditions. Back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement. Volumes may vary widely, depending principally on the downstream back-up conditions. > 80.0 > 50.0 > 50.0 References: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual TABLE 1: LOS CRITERIA AND DEFINITION FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Type of Service Flow Delay Stopped DelayNehicle Un All-Way Maneuverability Signalized signalized Stop Very slight delay.Progression is very favorable,with most Turning movements are easily made,ando AE5 vehicles arriving during the green nearly all drivers find <10'0 <10'0 <10'0 5E phase not stopping at all.freedom ofoperation. Vehicle platoons are Good progression and/or short formed.Many drivers >100>100>100 cycle lengths.More vehicles stop begin to feelB...andand and(D than for LOS A,causing higher somewhat restrictedE..<20.0 <15.0 <15.0m5levelsofaveragedelay.Within groupsof aE vehicles. Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle Back_ups may lengths.IndiVidual cycle failures develop behind >200 >150>150 C may begin to appearat this level..h.IMddd The number of vehicles stopping tuImng ve'0 63'OSI ananan.....drivers feel somewhat <35.0 <25.0 <25.0(D is significant,although many still restricted E5 pass through the intersection 5E without stopping. The influenceof congestion becomes more noticeable. Efir'ligeeégri'fiiiEiyorfifilémb.e Maneuverabi'iw ismressionIonCOlelenthsseverelylimited >35.0 >25.0>25.0 D o,p’gy.g.’during short periods andand andEorhighvolume-to-capaCIty ratios.due to temporary <55 O<35 O<35 O ‐C (D Many vehicles stop,and the '''EE ..back-ups.om proportionof vehicles not a “a E stopping declines.Individual 0.C2 ..<3 IL cycle failures are noticeable. Generally considered to be the ;limit ofacceptable delay.There are typically 5 Indicative of poor progression,long queues of >550 >35.0>35.0 E (D long cycle lengths,and high vehicles waiting andand and E volume-to-capacity ratios.upstream of the <80.0 <50.0 <50.0 “:73 Individual cycle failures are intersection. 5 frequent occurrences. Generally considered to be Jammed conditions. unacceptable to most drivers.Back-ups from other Often occurs with over locations restrict or saturation.May also occur at prevent movement. Fa high volume-to-capacity ratios.Volumes may vary >80.0 >50.0 >50.0 E There are many individual cycle widely,depending 13 failures.Poor progression and principally on theo3longcyclelengthsmayalsobedownstreamback-up .E major contributing factors.conditions. References:2000 Highway Capacity Manual Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 8 City of Arroyo Grande R1923T/A002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 162 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 9 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Level of Service Thresholds The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element specifies minimum level-of-service standards for all the streets and intersections within the City's jurisdiction. In section CT2, the City establishes the following performance standards for acceptable LOS: CT2. Attain and maintain Level of Service (LOS)’C’ or better on all streets and controlled intersections. CT2-1 Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS ‘D’ at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS ‘C’ (LOS ‘E’ or ‘F’ unacceptable = significant adverse impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time. In addition to the City of Arroyo Grande designated LOS “C” as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on City facilities, Caltrans LOS policy for state highways will also be implemented. The Caltrans published Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (dated December 2002) states the following: “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.” Consistent with Caltrans policies quoted above and City policies, LOS “C” has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadway segments maintained by the City, and LOS “D” has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadways maintained by the State. Level of Service Thresholds The Cityof Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element specifies minimum level-of‐service standards for all the streets and intersections within the City's jurisdiction.In section CT2,the City establishes the following performance standards for acceptable LOS: CT2.Attain and maintain Level of Service (LOS)'C'or better on all streets and controlled intersections. CT2‐1 Where deficiencies exist,mitigate to an LOS ‘D'at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS ‘C’(LOS ‘E'or ‘F'unacceptable =significant adverse impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerationsor CEQA Findings approved).The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time. In addition to the City of Arroyo Grande designated LOS “C”as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on City facilities,Caltrans LOS policy for state highways will also beimplemented.The Caltrans published Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (dated December 2002) states the following: “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C”and LOS “D”on State highway facilities,however,Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.” Consistent with Caltrans policies quoted above and City policies,LOS “C”has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadway segments maintained by the City,and LOS “D”has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadways maintained by the State. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 9 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 163 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 10 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Existing Traffic Operations The Existing condition analysis investigates current traffic operation within the City of Arroyo Grande in the vicinity of the project site. Figure 2 shows existing intersection lane geometries and control, while Figure 3 shows existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations are quantifies using intersection lane geometrics and traffic volumes. Table 2 shows the peak hour intersections level of service operations at study locations under existing conditions. TABLE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd & E Grand Ave SignalC 22.6C-29.3C- 2 Courtland St & E Grand Ave SignalC 20.4C-22.4C- 3 Elm St & E Grand Ave SignalC 18.0B-26.0C- 4 Brisco Rd & E Grand Ave TWSCC 11.5B-15.2C- 5 Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real SignalC 18.6B-31.5C- 6 Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch StSignalD 22.8C-16.2B- 7 Courtland St & Ash St TWSCC 11.3B-13.0B- Notes: Intersection Control Type1,2# 1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control Target LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for Signal As presented in table 2, all study intersections are currently operating acceptably. Existing Traffic Operations The Existing condition analysis investigates current traffic operation within the City of Arroyo Grande in the vicinity of the project site.Figure 2 shows existing intersection lane geometries and control,while Figure 3 shows existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations are quantifies using intersection lane geometries and traffic volumes.Table 2 shows the peak hour intersections level of service operations at study locations under existing conditions. TABLE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LOS AMPeak Hour PM Peak Hour c°ntr°l Target Warrant Warrant #Intersection Type1’2 Los Delay Los Met?’Delay Los Met?’ 1 Oak Park Blvd &E Grand Ave Signal C 22.6 C ‐29.3 C ‑ 2 Courtland St &E Grand Ave Signal C 20.4 C ‐22.4 C ‑ 3 Elm St&E Grand Ave Signal C 18.0 B ‐26.0 C ‑ 4 Brisco Rd &E Grand Ave TWSC C 11.5 B ‐15.2 C ‑ 5 Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real Signal C 18.6 B ‐31.5 C ‑ 6 Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On RampNV Branch St Signal D 22.8 C ‐16.2 B ‑ 7 Courtland St&Ash St TWSC C 11.3 B ‐13.0 B ‑ Notes: 1.TWSC =Two Way Stop Control 2.LOS =Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections,average of all approaches for Signal As presented in table 2,all study intersections are currently operating acceptably. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 10 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 164 /‐\\1 A2 3 g Q)(5'3) 4*4‐4L2?: ‘7 if;E ‘L‘5a fiE .V ..if55dOLS E m Eooooin o o 0 01 Q o‐’J J e ‐’5 ‐’u 32 ‐>H H E ‐>§4,55‐»111?N or 11V 6fl 11?3 \EAST WEST GRAND AVE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUEj/EL CAMINO REAL / ©\C7)‘ ‘Q\\11L it«i fiito n: V 5‘acts 5;E1a a L01 k 2 §§STOP g m 9:iii»~t i»EgL) ATLANTIC CITY AVE \IYEST BRANCH STREET/ASH STREET / IW GRANDEAVA‘E‘‘ j‘V @0424i‘9 3 W0DNGHRANCHAVE1g44% i ‘0 PROJECT LOCATION 35 ,,IE 1A g inino:5 7‘: ‘3 t ASHST E 7 3 g FAIR OAKS AVE Courtland and Grand Mixed Use Project Transportation Improvement Study Figure 2 (Existing Lane Geometries andControl @ Job No:25‐1275‐30 192311/6/2014 2:18 PMK:\PRJ\1923\T1923\T1923TGDO1DWG Item 8.a. - Page 165 ,~NG‘8‘er\ 338 ass 3 ’9?gm5::;o:’\AmU 5/\J afifi;V3988Lumen)L18(51)835%L36(14)s.ea L55(45)a 28%L116(112)glL<‐268(490)<‐419(630)iL<‐362(437)g s‐3ze(584)3‘iLs ‐20(34)g.1 r7201»r2706).1 r88(175)E .J L n:.J ram)9 D:124(181 J 14(15 J '0 235230 J 8 234(500 J296(507§_,‘1 1 1'300(446 ‘1 1 1'E 38555303_,(3 52(71 _,'1 1FE 20(46 W 36(69 “fig g g 147(437 j “Am 55 #3:,SEN kcuminLnI\NNo:‘11NtoQ /\EAST WEST GRAND AVE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE/EL CAMINO REAL / ATLANTIC CITY AVE 3 W1GRAND AVE ONGBRANCH A VE PROJECT LOCATION 77 ASH ST @ FAIR OAKS AVE Courtland and Grand Mixed Use Project Transportation Improvement Study “GA538 a ’2‘as:ano03V:VAVDREL223(143):§§N L12(21):1lF21(58 S:i F118(134)5 JL r159(480)g A]L.r1091)2 26(37 J 2W11'E gzqmég,W 11'E N l\‘‐‘12824 re<1-Lo22a:_*WE g g 53:5 V m8 Lo <r'‐0 WEST BRANCH STREET/ASH STREET / LEGEND: XX ‐AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (XX)‐PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes @ 11/5/2014 4:45 PMK:\PRJ\1923\T1923\T1923TGOO1DWG Job No:25‐1275‐30 1923Item 8.a. - Page 166 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 13 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Project Description The proposed project is located south of E Grand Avenue and west of Courtland Street. The concept for the project is mixed-use small town style in a vertical and horizontal mixed-use arrangement. However, since the project proposes to construct some single family housing, it will require a General Plan amendment, as the current "Mixed Use" designation allows for commercial and multi-family housing only. The full size proposed project site plan is presented in the Appendix, and is shown in Inset 1 below. INSET 1 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN The proposed project is divided into two subareas. The northern subarea is primarily commercial development containing approximately 15,600 square feet of commercial, with four (4) multi-family residential units above commercial uses. A proposed outdoor plaza will have dining and public art with a pedestrian-only connection to the southern residential subarea. The southern residential subarea is residential and includes 38 single family residential units. The residential subarea will have a neighborhood green in the center of the property. A bike path system will be added to Courtland Street to connect the proposed project to Grand Avenue and to the Berry Gardens neighborhood. Project Description The proposed project is located south of E Grand Avenue and west ofCourtland Street.The concept for the project is mixed-use small town style in a vertical and horizontal mixed-use arrangement.However,since the project proposes to construct some single family housing,it will require a General Plan amendment,as the current "Mixed Use"designation allows for commercial and multi-family housing only.The full size proposed project site plan is presented in the Appendix,and is shown in Inset 1 below. INSET 1 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN iLn I mm m SlDEWALK I COMMON m I MNM‘E um Mixed Use Project The proposed project is divided into two subareas.The northern subarea is primarily commercial development containing approximately 15,600 square feet of commercial,with four (4)multi-family residential units above commercial uses.A proposed outdoor plaza will have dining and public art with a pedestrian-only connection to the southern residential subarea.The southern residential subarea is residential and includes 38 single family residential units.The residential subarea will have aneighborhood green in the center of the property.A bike path system will be added to Courtland Street to connect the proposed project to Grand Avenue and to the Berry Gardens neighborhood. Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 13 City of Arroyo Grande R 1923TIA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 167 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 14 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Project Site Access Two project site access alternatives have been proposed. Option "A" would include two driveways on E Grand Avenue. A right turn only one-way ingress off of E Grand Avenue and a separate right turn only one-way egress west of the ingress would be provided. Inset 2 presents the Option "A" layout. INSET 2 OPTION "A" SITE ACCESS PLAN Option "B" would propose only one driveway on E Grand Avenue, which would allow both ingress and egress, and would be restricted to right turns only. Inset 3 presents the Option "B" layout. INSET 3 OPTION "B" SITE ACCESS PLAN Project Site Access Two projsm sue eooess allemanves nave been proposed,Opmm "A-would include Ml: drivewayson E Grand Avenue A ngm (urn only one-way .ngress ell ol E (3deAvenue and a separate nghl Ium only one-way egress wesl of me rngress would he pmvlded.lnsel 2 presenls me Opnon 'A"layoul INSEI 2 Oman A slv:ACCESS pun /m.m.."Mm m...(/1 flm ____H %e l...a..w Oplion would proposeonly one dnveway on E Grand Avenue‘whlch would allow both rngress and egress,and would be reslncled In ngm (ums only.lnset 3 presenls the Oplion "B" layout INSEI : opnou slv:ACCESS pun (mm B' Cuumand and Grand Am Us:Pmyecl Page u Clty omnoyo Grands mam-mmdacx Item 8.a. - Page 168 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 15 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Under either Option "A" or "B", two full-access driveways would be provided off of Courtland Street. The northernmost driveway would serve the northern, mixed use, subarea. The southern driveway would serve the residential subarea. No vehicular cross-subarea access is proposed, however it is anticipated that pedestrian trips between the residential subarea and the mixed use subarea will occur, creating a project-wide "internal trip" capture. Site Access Evaluation From an intersection operations standpoint, either access alternative functions similarly. The restriction to right turns benefits operations on E Grand Avenue and the addition of new protected parallel parking stalls will benefit visitors. However, Option "A" has the potential to introduce confusion as visitors will not be able to leave the site from the same driveway they entered, and may attempt to exit via the entrance driveway. Option "B" also benefits transit access by relocating the bus stop adjacent to the new development. Trip Generation & Distribution Consistent with the City's Draft Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, project trip generation forecasts were derived using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Generation Manual 9th Edition. Table 3 presents the estimated trip generation for the proposed land use. TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TotalIn %Out %TotalIn %Out % Shopping Center (820)KSF3.2262%38%11.0648%52% Single Family Detached Housing (210)DU0.9725%75%1.1663%37% Apartment (220)DU0.5120%80%0.6265%35% TotalInOutTotalInOut Shopping Center 15.65032181738390 Internal Capture w/ Townhouses 000-18-6-12 Internal Capture w/ Apartments 000000 Townhouses 3837928442816 Internal Capture w/ Shopping Center 000-18-12-6 Apartements Above Shopping Center4202221 Internal Capture w/ Shopping Center 000000 8942481839489 Pass-By Trip Reduction (40%)-20-13-7-62-31-31 6929401216358 AM Peak Hour Trips Unit 1 Quantity (Units) PM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit Notes: Land Use Category (ITE Code) Project Name Trips at Project Driveway(s) PM Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit Net New Project Trips As presented in table 3, the proposed project will generate an estimated 69 new AM peak hour trips and 121 new PM peak hour trips. Project trip distribution estimates were developed using Traffix software using the trips generated by the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trips were distributed along paths to develop travel patterns that were superimposed on-top of existing conditions at the study intersections. Figures 4 illustrate the trip distribution of inbound and outbound trips. Under either Option "A"or two full-access driveways would be provided off of Courtland Street.The northernmost driveway would serve the northern,mixed use,subarea.The southern driveway would serve the residential subarea.No vehicular cross-subarea access is proposed, however itisanticipated that pedestrian trips between the residential subarea and the mixed use subarea will occur,creating a project-wide "internal trip"capture. Site Access Evaluation From anintersection operations standpoint,either access alternative functions similarly.The restriction to right turns benefits operations on E Grand Avenue and the addition of new protected parallel parking stalls will benefit visitors.However,Option "A"has the potential to introduce confusion as visitors will not be able to leave the site from the same driveway they entered,and may attempt to exit via the entrance driveway.Option "B"also benefits transit access by relocating the bus stop adjacent to the new development. Trip Generation &Distribution Consistent with the City's Draft Traffic Impact Study Guidelines,project trip generation forecasts were derived using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Generation Manual 9th Edition.Table 3 presents the estimated trip generation for the proposed land use. TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit PM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit Land Use Category (ITE Code)Unit1 Total In %Out %Total In %Out % Shopping Center (820)KSF 3.22 62%38%11.06 48%52% Single Family Detached Housing (210)DU 0.97 25%75%1.16 63%37% Apartment (220)DU 0.51 20%80%0.62 65%35% Quantity AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Project Name (Units)Total In Out Total In Out Shopping Center 15.6 503218 173 8390 Internal Capture w/Townhouses 000 -18 -6 -12 Internal Capture w/Apartments 000000 Townhouses 3837 9 28442816 Internal Capture w/Shopping Center 000 -18 -12 -6 Apartements Above Shopping Center 4202221 Internal Capture w/Shopping Center 000000 Trips at Project Driveway(s)894248 183 9489 Pass-By Trip Reduction (40%)I -20 -13 -7 -62 -31-31 Net New Project Trips 692940 121 6358 Notes: As presented in table 3,the proposed project will generate an estimated 69 new AM peak hour trips and 121 new PM peak hour trips. Project trip distribution estimates were developed using Traffix software using the trips generated by the ITE Trip Generation Manual.Trips were distributed along paths to develop travel patterns that were superimposed on-top of existing conditions at the study intersections. Figures 4 illustrate the trip distributionof inbound and outbound trips. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 15 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 169 (4’?5's '31 ATLANTIC CITY AVE A W GRAND AVE w LONGBRANCH AVE PROJECT LOCATION 4I ASH ST FAIR OAKS AVE FARROLL A VE \\ HIGHLAND WA Y THE PIKE Courtland and Grand Mlxed Use Project Transportation Impact Study Trip Distribution (Bi-Directional) '13‘55‘2‘3‘4 1-‘5 3V K,“‘FPJ‘C921%“923%,1'1'523TG‘JD1 D'u‘lL',‘ é Figure 4 @ Job No:25-IZ75‐30 ‘92} Item 8.a. - Page 170 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 17 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project conditions were developed by superimposing proposed AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips (Table 3) using the proposed project trip distribution (Figures 4A and 4B) onto existing traffic volumes (Figure 3). The resulting Existing Plus Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 6. Intersection analysis was performed assuming the existing intersection lane geometrics and control types (Figure 2). Table 4 presents the results of the Existing Plus Project conditions analysis. TABLE 4: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd & E Grand Ave SignalC 22.9C-30.4C- 2 Courtland St & E Grand Ave SignalC 20.6C-23.0C- 3 Elm St & E Grand Ave SignalC 18.1B-26.4C- 4 Brisco Rd & E Grand Ave TWSCC 11.5B-15.5C- 5 Oak Park Blvd & El Camino RealSignalC 18.7B-31.9C- 6 Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W SignalD 22.8C-16.2B- 7 Courtland St & Ash St TWSCC 11.4B-13.1B- 8 Project Driveway & E Grand AveTWSCC 10.0A-12.4B- 9 Project Driveway & Courtland StreetTWSCC 9.5A-10.8B- 10 Project Driveway & Courtland StreetTWSCC 9.4A-10.5B- Notes: 1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control 2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for Signal #Intersection Control Type1,2 Target LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour As presented in Table 4, all study intersections are projected to operate acceptably under Existing Plus Project conditions. ExistingPlus Project Existing Plus Project conditions were developed by superimposing proposed AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips (Table 3)using the proposed project trip distribution (Figures 4A and 48)onto existing traffic volumes (Figure 3).The resulting Existing Plus Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 6.Intersection analysis was performed assuming the existing intersection lane geometrics and control types (Figure 2).Table 4 presents the results of the Existing Plus Project conditions analysis. TABLE 4: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LOS AMPeak Hour PMPeak Hour c°ntr°l Target Warrant Warrant #Intersection Type1'2 LOS Delay LOS Met?3 Delay LOS Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd &E Grand Ave Signal C 22.9 C-30.4 C ‑ 2 Courtland St &E Grand Ave Signal C 20.6 C-23.0 C ‑ 3 Elm St &E Grand Ave Signal C 18.1 B-26.4 C ‑ 4 Brisco Rd &E Grand Ave TWSC C 11.5 B-15.5 C ‑ 5 Oak Park Blvd &El CaminoReal Signal C 18.7 B-31.9 C ‑ 6 Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On RampNV Signal D 22.8 C-16.2 B ‑ 7 Courtland St&Ash St TWSC C 11.4 B-13.1 B ‑ 8 Project Driveway &E Grand Ave TWSC C 10.0 A-12.4 B ‑ 9 Project Driveway &Courtland Street TWSC C 9.5 A-10.8 B ‑ 10 Project Driveway &Courtland Street TWSC C 9.4 A-10.5 B ‑ Notes: 1.TWSC =Two Way Stop Control 2.LOS =Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections,average of all approaches for Signal As presented in Table 4,all study intersections are projected to operate acceptably under Existing Plus Project conditions. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project City of Arroyo Grande Page 17 R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 171 A 3 4 A A QSQ am E8 E533 FVV x ‐NN v 1")VVF 39%?L1202173)L18(51)Rm?L36(14)s.g8 L55(45)a Egg L116(112) 4 ‐275 498)<‐419(83o)<‐369(453)In <‐331(598)§<‐20(34)JiL r73<120)r37(98).J i L.r88(175)5,2 AL in .J iL ram) 5. 124181 J 1617 J '0 238 233 J 8 234 500 J 3015517§_>‘1 T TV 312(4(59 _.‘1 T 1'g 394Ee4og_.2 5(2(71§_,'1 T TV 20(46 38(71 j g g 148(440 j 35%figs N l\ \EAST WEST GRAND AVE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL .0 AAA C7)C5)‘\Egg g (LIV:E \ NC,VAV E31848 E1838)8 Hm)E.J i L.r160(481)Jl L.r1091)‘0 E a n:2740 J 2 1:92(1E60§J‘1 T TV E 485(869gJ if g 2824 m 1843SW1:‐y :1In D.‘ ATLANTIC CITY AVE J ASH STREET /\3 EAST GRAND AVENUE / i‘1‘9 10 Bag E4 $§Bi 8 ES 3 :38 E33\E E .3:Ai 03 A)i 03j‘‘‘E \8(21)_5 v]Tg 23(9)_f 1WTg 1 W1GRAND‘AVE k Ac M ii 5”EC 77 2(5)_%§g E (Sm‐w Qg E: 31 %934 1%”4%E8 g is; ONGBRANCH AVE 1 10 5 ,a YEROJECT DRIVEWAY 2 //ROJECT DRIVEWAY 3 i ‘0 PROJECT LOCATION :5 7,,7 jS:1i R in iE;8 ,8Ag,ASH ST Ei7 LEGEND: 7 Q ,XX ‐AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES §(XX)‐PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES m FAIR OAKS AVE Courtland and Grand Mixed Use Project Transportation Improvement Study Figure 5 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes @ Job No:25‐1275‐30 192311/5/2014 4:44 PMK:\PRJ\1923\T1923\T1QZETGOO1DWG Item 8.a. - Page 172 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 19 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Cumulative Conditions Cumulative conditions refer to an analysis scenario approximately 20 years in the future. Cumulative conditions were analyzed by deriving traffic volume forecasts using the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, assuming full build-out of the City's General Plan land uses and circulation network. Cumulative No Project conditions will assume that the proposed project site is developed consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, "Mixed Use", which allows for commercial and multi-family residential development. Cumulative Plus Project conditions will be developed by replacing the existing General Plan land uses on the proposed project site with the proposed project land uses, which include a mix of commercial, multi-family housing, and single family housing. Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes The existing City Travel Demand Model was used to generate the Cumulative base condition volumes. Future lane geometrics are the same as the existing intersection lane geometries and control as shown in Figure 2. Figure 6 shows Cumulative No Project peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections. Table 5 shows the peak hour intersections level of service operations at study locations under Cumulative No Project conditions. TABLE 5: CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd & E Grand Ave SignalC 27.5C-33.6C- 2 Courtland St & E Grand Ave SignalC 23.2C-31.4C- 3 Elm St & E Grand Ave SignalC 21.1C-25.3C- 4 Brisco Rd & E Grand Ave TWSCC 18.7C-26.9DYes 5 Oak Park Blvd & El Camino RealSignalC 23.9C-42.4D- 6 Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W SignalD 27.1C-37.9D- 7 Courtland St & Ash St TWSCC 12.1B-15.1C- Notes: 1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control 2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for Signal #Intersection Control Type1,2 Target LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour As presented in Table 5, two intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS in Cumulative No Project conditions. The Brisco Road/E Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real intersections are both projected to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour. Recommended improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed in the concluding section of this report. Cumulative Conditions Cumulative conditions refer to an analysis scenario approximately20 years in the future. Cumulative conditions were analyzed by deriving traffic volume forecasts using the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model,assuming full build-outof the City's General Plan land uses and circulation network. CumulativeNo Project conditions will assume that the proposed project site is developed consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation,"Mixed Use",which allows for commercial and multi-family residential development. Cumulative Plus Project conditions will be developed by replacing the existing General Plan land uses on the proposed project site with the proposed project land uses,which include a mix of commercial,multi-family housing,and single family housing. CumulativeNo Project Traffic Volumes The existing City Travel Demand Model was used to generate the Cumulative base condition volumes.Future lane geometrics are the same as the existing intersection lane geometries and control as shown in Figure 2.Figure 6 shows CumulativeNo Project peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections.Table 5 shows the peak hour intersections level of service operations at study locations under Cumulative No Project conditions. TABLE 5: CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LOS AMPeak Hour PMPeak Hour c°ntr°l Target Warrant Warrant #Intersection Type1'2 LOS Delay LOS Met?3 Delay LOS Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd &E Grand Ave Signal C 27.5 C-33.6 C ‑ 2 Courtland St &E Grand Ave Signal C 23.2 C-31.4 C ‑ 3 Elm St &E Grand Ave Signal C 21.1 C-25.3 C ‑ 4 Brisco Rd &E Grand Ave TWSC C 18.7 C-26.9 D Yes 5 Oak Park Blvd &El CaminoReal Signal C 23.9 C-42.4 D ‑ 6 Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On RampNV Signal D 27.1 C-37.9 D ‑ 7 Courtland St&Ash St TWSC C 12.1 B-15.1 C ‑ Notes: 1.TWSC =Two Way Stop Control 2.LOS =Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections,average of all approaches for Signal As presented in Table 5,two intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS in Cumulative No Project conditions.The Brisco Road/E Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real intersections are both projected to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour.Recommended improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed in the concluding section of this report. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 19 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 173 / A33 2A8 38 <9 3 73 53>303L001")LOAo‘NM \‐‘_[\NLD Q mwm”"78**83 3*N54:9:Com CV8 KW to 75’‘Lr'u’mo V: 855%L2153265))3&9 L606?)288 L75(50))s.8E L14o((150))5n 393$L170(150): 4 ‐555 575 <‐640 850 4 ‐560 635 k]4 ‐505 760 Q 4 ‐30 45 -q.1 iL r165 210).1 1L r80(130).J iL r90(175)5,2 .1 L n:.1 1L rioézsg g s.a:Q125(185 J 80(115 J 125(125 J "I 255 250 J L)270(535 J575(590§_>‘1 1 1'550(995 _,'1 1 1'545(690 _.‘1 1 1':5 525 870 _.‘3 55(75 _,'1 1 1'5.: 30(55 Weto.n 45(70 Wem to 40(70 mmoo *4 °=160(450 Wmom ‘1 j LODON j C)er 0L0“)El E1:nmm ‘1. 594:cm was :55 k i8§N 90 0 \EAST WEST GRAND AVE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE/EL CAMINO REAL / N.@ $8 a C7)AA \W325 fi 28%E883L225(145):QEfl L60(70){glF125(160)S:i F120(135)s .1 L r200(505)aJL r1095)03 it:a30(40 J 2WTVE9596594,U1EE LoL0in ‘13025 InIn Lome“iW gm g m M «a ’o «0‐0 V:L)LoLD‐0 WEST BRANCH STREET/ASH STREET /ATLANTIC CITY AVE 3 W1GRAND AVE ONGDRANCH A VE PROJECT LOCATION 77 9 1o 54 E Eg, ‘9L) 7 ASH ST FAIR OAKS AVE Courtland and Grand Mixed Use Project Transportation Improvement Study LEGEND: XX ‐AM PEAK HOUR TRAFHC VOLUMES RX)‐PM PEAK HOUR TRAFHC VOLUMES Figure 6 CumulativeNo Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes @ 11/5/2014 4:44 PMK:\PRJ\1923\T1923\T1923TGOO1DWG Job NO:25‐1275‐30 1923Item 8.a. - Page 174 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 21 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Cumulative Plus Project In order to develop Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes, the trips generated on the proposed project site according to existing allowable General Plan land uses were estimated using ITE Trip Generation methodologies. The trip generation of the existing General Plan land uses was then compared to the trip generation of the proposed project in order to determine the net change in trip generation resulting from the proposed change in land use. Table 6 presents the trip generation comparison. TABLE 6: GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP COMPARISON TotalIn %Out %TotalIn %Out % Shopping Center (820)KSF2.7362%38%9.6448%52% Apartment (220)DU0.5620%80%0.8765%35% TotalInOutTotalInOut Commercial3 24654124228110119 Internal Capture w/ Multi-Family -1-10-21-7-14 Multi-Famil y Residential 3 5430624483117 Internal Capture w/ Commercial -10-1-21-14-7 944648234119114 6929401216358 -25-17-8-113-56-57 1. 1 ksf = 1,000 square feet DU = dwelling unit 2. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th edition fitted curve equations. Proposed Project Uses Net Trip Generation Difference 3. Assumes allowable General Plan "Mixed Use" development as follows: - Half of 4.35 acre site developes as commercial at 0.25 FAR - Half of 4.35 acre site developes as multi-family residential with a 25 unit/acre density Land Use Category (ITE Code)Unit1 AM Peak Hour Trip Rate/UnitPM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit General Plan Allowed Uses Notes: Project Name Quantity (Units) AM Peak Hour TripsPM Peak Hour Trips As presented in Table 6, the proposed project is estimated to generate 25 fewer AM peak hour trips and 113 fewer PM peak hour trips than the allowable uses under the existing General Plan. The Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes were developed by adjusting the Cumulative No Project traffic volumes downward according to the net difference in trip generation. The resulting volumes are shown in Figure 7. Table 7 presents the LOS at the study intersection in the Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Cumulative Plus Project In order to developCumulative Plus Project traffic volumes,the trips generated on the proposed project site according to existing allowable General Plan land uses were estimated using ITE Trip Generation methodologies.The trip generation of the existing General Plan land uses was then compared to the trip generationof the proposed project in order to determine the net change in trip generationresulting from the proposed change in land use.Table 6 presents the trip generation comparison. TABLE 6: GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP COMPARISON AM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit PM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit Land Use Category (ITE Code)Unit1 Total In %Out %Total In %Out % Shopping Center (820)KSF 2.73 62%38%9.64 48%52% Apartment (220)DU 0.56 20%80%0.87 65%35% Quantity AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Project Name (Units)Total In Out Total In Out Internal Capture w/Mu/ti-Fami/y -1-1 0 -21 -7 -14 Multi-Family Residential3 5430 6 24483117 Internal Capture w/Commercial -1 0 -1 -21 -14 -7 General Plan Allowed Uses 944648 234 119 114 Proposed Project Uses 692940 121 6358 Net Trip Generation Difference -25 -17 -8 -113 -56 -57 Notes: 1.1 ksf=1,000 square feet DU =dwelling unit 2.Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th edition fitted curve equations. 3.Assumes allowable General Plan "Mixed Use"developmentas follows: -Halfof 4.35 acre site developes as commercial at 0.25 FAR -Halfof 4.35 acre site developes as multi-family residential with a 25 unit/acre density As presented in Table 6,the proposed project is estimated to generate 25 fewer AM peak hour trips and 113 fewer PM peak hour trips than the allowable uses under the existing General Plan. The Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes were developed by adjusting the Cumulative No Project traffic volumes downward according to the net difference in trip generation.The resulting volumes are shown in Figure 7.Table 7 presents the LOS at the study intersectionin the Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 21 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 175 2A 3A 4AA 5AA §§§§§§$55 5%5::EEE;Com CV W Lo Ln 8%23152323255)22211250)588 22221220)8 22122135?)53102152JiLr165205;.J 1L r75(110).J i L.r90(175)J L..J iL r1055; 125185 J 80115 J 125125 J 255 245 J 270 535 J 375((5so§_>‘1 1 1'660((980§_,'1 1 1'545((675 _.‘1 1 1'6251860;_.55(75§_>'1 1 1' 30(55 0 LO0 45(70 o to 0 40(70 L00o 160(450 mo In W LODON j [\er 0L0“)j nmm ‘68:}W ‘65:Fill??? mm N 00 \EAST WEST GRAND AVE EAST GRAND AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL \ ./0 852 C7)@\a;§§§L225(145 E???Leo(7o)E;gF125(160 F120(135)s.F790(1055):5.J i L.r200(505)JlL r1o(25)‘0 E Q 5040 J 2 Q'1 1 {7 95(1E65EA ‘1 1VE 775(12315J $1.E W 3025 W 1845 m b ‘‐It Du ASTLA ASH STREET /EAST GRAND AVENUE /NTIC CITY AVE \9)do) ‘E s E A S @36 :EN :>K”:t:362 0: E s.E. k:Al v:Ai m‘3:Q Q ‘111 E 8(21)J V]TE 23(9)J v1TE IW GRAN‘‘k M M‘‘0‘AV;Sq EC 2(5)_~§§E 6(2)‐~g:E ONGBRANCH AVE 10 g j5 ,7a YEROJECT DRIVEWAY 2 ’/<ER0JECT DRIVEWAY 3 )/ jS1‘g5 1 ‘0 PROJECT LOCATION :5 *7,,7 IE11 g 1m 1 to :55 7‘:1g ,ASH ST E17 LEGEND: 7 b ,XX ‐AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES §(XX)‐PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES m FAIR OAKS AVE Courtland and Grand Mixed Use Project Transportation Improvement Study Figure 7 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes @ Job No:25‐1275‐30 192311/5/2014 4:44 PMK:\PRJ\1923\T1923\T1QZETGOO1DWG Item 8.a. - Page 176 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 23 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx TABLE 7: CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd & E Grand Ave SignalC 27.7C-34.1C- 2 Courtland St & E Grand Ave SignalC 23.1C-25.5C- 3 Elm St & E Grand Ave SignalC 21.0C-25.1C- 4 Brisco Rd & E Grand Ave TWSCC 18.5C-26.1DYes 5 Oak Park Blvd & El Camino RealSignalC 24.4C-42.4D- 6 Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W SignalD 27.1C-33.5C- 7 Courtland St & Ash St TWSCC 12.1B-15.1C- 8 Project Driveway & E Grand AveTWSCC 11.4B-12.5B- 9 Project Driveway & Courtland StreetTWSCC 10.5B-10.8B- 10 Project Driveway & Courtland StreetTWSCC 10.5B-10.5B- Notes: 1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control 2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for Signal 3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3 #Intersection Control Type 1,2 Target LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour As shown in Table 7, the two intersections projected to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour during Cumulative No Project conditions are still projected to operate at unacceptable LOS D in the Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Recommended improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed in the concluding section of this report. TABLE 7: CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS:INTERSECTION LOS AMPeak Hour PMPeak Hour c°mr°l Target Warrant Warrant #Intersection Type1'2 LOS Delay LOS Met?3 Delay LOS Met?3 1 Oak Park Blvd &E Grand Ave Signal C 27.7 C-34.1 C ‑ 2 Courtland St &E Grand Ave Signal C 23.1 C-25.5 C ‑ 3 ElmSt &E Grand Ave Signal C 21.0 C-25.1 C ‑ 4 Brisco Rd &E G'and Ave TWSC C 18.5 C-26.1 D Yes 5 Oak Park Blvd &El CaminoReal Signal C 24.4 C-42.4 D ‑ 6 Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Signal D 27.1 C-33.5 C ‑ 7 Courtland St &Ash St TWSC C 12.1 B-15.1 C ‑ 8 Project Driveway &E Grand Ave TWSC C 11.4 B-12.5 B ‑ 9 Project Driveway &Courtland Street TWSC C 10.5 B-10.8 B ‑ 10 Project Driveway &Courtland Street TWSC C 10.5 B-10.5 B ‑ Notes: 1.TWSC =Two Way Stop Control 2.LOS =Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections,average of all approaches for Signal 3.Warrant =Based onCalifornia MUTCD Warrant 3 As shown in Table 7,the two intersections projected to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour during CumulativeNo Project conditions are still projected to operate atunacceptable LOS D in the Cumulative Plus Project conditions.Recommended improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed in the concluding section of this report. Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project City of Arroyo Grande Page 23 R1923TIA 002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 177 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 24 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Project Impacts and Mitigations This sections presents intersection level of service deficiencies and recommended improvements to mitigate project impacts at the study intersections to LOS "C" or better. The City is currently considering revisions to the City's General Plan LOS policy, which may include allowing LOS "D" operations. Should the City adopt an LOS "D" acceptable operations threshold, these improvements would need to be revisited to determine their necessity. Existing Plus Project Conditions No intersection deficiencies or project impacts were identified in Existing Plus Project conditions. Cumulative Conditions Under buildout of the City's General Plan, Cumulative No Project conditions, slightly more traffic is generated than under the proposed project land uses (Cumulative Plus Project conditions). However, under either analysis scenario, the same intersection deficiencies are identified and the same improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed. Intersection 4 - Brisco Road at E Grand Avenue This intersection is projected to operated at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The following improvements are proposed to mitigate the deficiency expected to occur: Restripe westbound approach to include a dedicated westbound right turn lane (will require two 11' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane) Intersection 5 - Oak Park Boulevard at El Camino Real This intersection is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The following improvements are proposed to mitigate the deficiency expected to occur: Restripe westbound left turn lane as a shared left/through lane; Restripe westbound shared through/right lane to dedicated right turn lane; Provide overlap phasing for westbound right turn movement; and, Provide overlap phasing for eastbound right turn movement. TABLE 8: CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: MITIGATED INTERSECTION LOS DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 DelayLOS Warrant Met?3 4 Brisco Rd & E Grand Ave TWSCC 23.1C- 5 Oak Park Blvd & El Camino RealSignalC 32.1C- Notes: 1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control 2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for Signal 3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3 #Intersection Control Type 1,2 Target LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Impacts and Mitigations This sections presents intersection level of service deficiencies and recommended improvements to mitigate project impacts at the study intersections to LOS "C"or better.The City is currently considering revisions to the City's General Plan LOS policy,which may include allowing LOS "D"operations.Should the City adopt an LOS "D"acceptable operations threshold,these improvements would need to be revisited to determine their necessity. Existing Plus Project Conditions Nointersection deficiencies or project impacts were identified in Existing Plus Project conditions. Cumulative Conditions Under buildout of the City's General Plan,Cumulative NO Project conditions,slightly more traffic is generated than under the proposed project land uses (Cumulative Plus Project conditions). However,under either analysis scenario,the same intersection deficiencies are identified and the same improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed. Intersection 4-Brisco Road at E Grand Avenue This intersectionis projected to operated at LOS D during the PM peak hour.The following improvements are proposed to mitigate the deficiency expected to occur: -Restripe westbound approach to include a dedicated westbound right turn lane (will require two 11'travel lanes and a 10'turn lane) Intersection 5-Oak Park Boulevard at El Camino Real This intersectionis projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour.The following improvements are proposed to mitigate the deficiency expected to occur: -Restripe westbound left turn lane as a shared left/through lane; -Restripe westbound shared through/right lane to dedicated right turn lane; 0 Provide overlap phasing for westbound right turn movement;and, 0 Provide overlap phasing for eastbound right turn movement. TABLE 8: CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS:MITIGATED INTERSECTION Los AMPeak Hour PMPeak Hour c°ntr°l Target Warrant Warrant #Intersection Type"2 Los Delay Los Met?3 Delay Los Met?3 4 Brisco Rd &E Grand Ave TWSC C 23.1 C thegek Park Blvd &El Camino Real Signal C 32.1 c 1.TWSC =Two Way Stop Control 2.LOS =Delaybased on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections,average of all approaches for Signal 3.Warrant =Based onCalifornia MUTCD Warrant 3 Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 24 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 178 Appendix Project Site Plan Level of Service Worksheets Appendix Project Site Plan Level of Service Worksheets Item 8.a. - Page 179 Courtland and Grand Mix Use Project Page 2 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TIA002.docx Project Site Plan Project Site Plan Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 2 City of Arroyo Grande R1923 TIA 002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 180 A1Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: June 3, 2015 #1014030 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 30’ (24x36 sheet) SCALE: 1” = 60’ (12x18 sheet) 0153060120 1/A3 EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON PORCH Graphic Legend SIDEWALK COMMON YARD PRIVATE YARD EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN 2/A3 4/A3 3/A3 4 5 6 7 9 20 8 10 11 1213141516171819 2425 23 22 21 26 2829 31 30 35 32 33 34 36 38 4041 37 39 27 BUILDING 2 6,500 SF BUILDING 3 3,600 SF BUILDING 1 5,500 SF g EXISTING COMMERCIAL g ,'DEVELOPEMENT R‘v’gmtéiimfi‘k.‘ GrohiC Leend I PORCH "gamma-a 1 *R 3‘«‘‘\‘1 I SIDEWALK I COMMON YARD I PRIVATE YARD 015 30 60 120 SCALE:1":30(24x36 shee’r) SCALE:1"=60’(12x18shee’r) Mixed Use ProjeC’r Item 8.a. - Page 181 Level of Service Worksheets Court/and and Grand Mix Use Project Page 3 City of Arroyo Grande R1923TlA002.docx Item 8.a. - Page 182 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)12429620722681112732612310420038 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln182718271900182718271827182718271827182718271900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h13331822772881192935113211221541 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %444444444444 Cap, veh/h 16769648985952634414976611851343251 Arrive On Green 0.100.210.210.060.170.170.030.430.430.050.460.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740329222717403471153217403471153333752913545 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1331671737728811929351132112126130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln174017361783174017361532174017361533168817361722 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.95.45.52.84.94.51.14.23.52.12.82.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s4.95.45.52.84.94.51.14.23.52.12.82.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.131.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h16736737798595263441497661185800794 V/C Ratio(X)0.800.450.460.790.480.450.660.230.200.600.160.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h18882985116116047081071497661208800794 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh28.722.322.430.324.324.231.411.711.530.010.210.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh18.90.90.913.10.61.215.90.40.74.00.40.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.22.72.81.72.42.00.72.11.61.11.41.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh47.623.223.243.424.925.447.312.112.234.010.610.6 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDBBCBB Approach Vol, veh/h 473 484 512 368 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 28.0 14.1 17.7 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.632.07.617.75.633.910.215.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s4.028.06.031.04.028.07.030.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.16.24.87.53.14.86.96.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.04.30.04.30.04.30.04.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\tr\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i 11*“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘15 +19 Volume (veh/h)124 296 2072 268 111 27 326 123 104 200 38 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18271827 1900 18271827182718271827182718271827 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 133 318 2277 288 119 29 351 132 112 215 41 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.930.930.930.93 0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh,%444444444444 Cap,veh/h 167 696 4898 595 263 44 1497 661 185 1343 251 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.210.21 0.06 0.170.17 0.03 0.430.43 0.05 0.460.46 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3292 227 1740 3471 1532 1740 3471 1533 3375 2913 545 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 133 167 173 77 288 119 29 351 132 112 126 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 1736 1783 1740 1736 1532 1740 1736 1533 1688 1736 1722 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.9 5.4 5.5 2.8 4.9 4.5 1.1 4.2 3.5 2.1 2.82.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.9 5.4 5.5 2.8 4.9 4.5 1.1 4.2 3.5 2.1 2.82.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 167 367 377 98 595 263 44 1497 661 185 800 794 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.45 0.46 0.79 0.48 0.45 0.66 0.23 0.20 0.60 0.160.16 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 188 829 851 161 1604 708 107 1497 661 208 800 794 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 28.7 22.3 22.4 30.3 24.3 24.2 31.4 11.7 11.5 30.0 10.210.2 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 18.9 0.90.9 13.1 0.6 1.2 15.9 0.4 0.7 4.0 0.40.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.2 2.7 2.8 1.7 2.4 2.0 0.7 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.41.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 23.223.2 43.4 24.9 25.4 47.3 12.1 12.2 34.0 10.610.6 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDBBCBB Approach Vol,veh/h 473 484 512 368 Approach Delay,s/veh 30.1 28.0 14.1 17.7 Approach LOS C C B B‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.6 32.0 7.6 17.7 5.6 33.9 10.2 15.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 MaxGreenSetting(Gmax),s 4.0 28.0 6.0 31.0 4.0 28.0 7.0 30.0 MaxQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 4.1 6.2 4.8 7.5 3.1 4.8 6.96.9 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 183 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)57420142741918493415711544 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln181018101900181018101900181018101900181018101900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h64472163047120553817801749 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 55555555555 Cap, veh/h 80883304580634760615275773212610 Arrive On Green0.050.260.260.030.240.240.520.520.520.520.520.52 Sat Flow, veh/h17233390115172333571421292118653013054081176 Grp Volume(v), veh/h64239249302412505505580066 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln172317191786172317191780129201716130501585 Q Serve(g_s), s2.37.47.41.17.67.71.40.01.02.00.01.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s2.37.47.41.17.67.72.70.01.03.00.01.3 Prop In Lane1.000.061.000.081.000.311.000.74 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h804484654541242776008907730822 V/C Ratio(X)0.800.530.540.670.580.590.070.000.060.100.000.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h30780884019669772276008907730822 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.119.619.629.820.720.78.10.07.48.10.07.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh16.11.01.015.81.31.30.20.00.10.30.00.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln1.43.63.70.73.83.90.50.00.50.80.00.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh45.220.620.645.522.022.08.30.07.58.40.07.6 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h552 521 110 146 Approach Delay, s/veh23.4 23.4 7.9 8.1 Approach LOS C C A A Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s36.05.620.136.06.918.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s32.07.029.032.011.025.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.73.19.45.04.39.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s1.20.05.71.20.15.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.4 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\l/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)57 420 1427 419 18493415711544 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 64 472 1630 471 20553817801749 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.890.890.89 Percent Heavy Veh,%555555555555 Cap,veh/h 80 883 3045 806 34 760 615 275 773 212 610 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.520.520.52 Sat Flow,veh/h 1723 3390 115 1723 3357 142 1292 1186 530 1305 408 1176 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 64 239249 30 241 250 55 0 5580 0 66 GrpSatFlow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1719 1786 1723 1719 1780 1292 0 1716 1305 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s).s 2.3 7.4 7.4 1.1 7.6 7.7 1.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 7.4 7.4 1.1 7.6 7.7 2.7 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.74 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 80 448 465 45 412 427 760 0 890 773 0 822 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.53 0.54 0.67 0.58 0.59 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 307 808 840 196 697 722 760 0 890 773 0 822 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(|)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 29.1 19.6 19.6 29.8 20.7 20.7 8.1 0.0 7.4 8.1 0.0 7.5 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 16.1 1.0 1.0 15.8 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),S/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),vbJ4/|n 3.6 3.7 0.7 3.8 3.9 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 20.6 20.6 45.5 22.0 22.0 8.3 0.0 7.5 8.4 0.0 7.6 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCAAAA Approach Vol,veh/h 552 521 110 146 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.4 23.4 7.9 8.1 Approach LOS C C A A Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 36.0 5.6 20.1 36.0 6.9 18.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 32.0 7.0 29.0 32.0 11.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 4.7 3.1 9.4 5.0 4.3 9.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 1.2 0.0 5.7 1.2 0.1 5.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 184 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)143603688362369431225352322 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.000.991.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln184518451900184518451900184518451845190018451900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h1538739953893910133242382524 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 33333333333 Cap, veh/h 267047017882382842986828378246206 Arrive On Green0.010.220.220.050.260.260.530.530.530.530.530.53 Sat Flow, veh/h1757321332234083212320133718451548549461385 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1521021695211217101332428700 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln175717521782170417521779133718451548139500 Q Serve(g_s), s0.56.66.61.76.36.40.30.55.30.00.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s0.56.66.61.76.36.41.80.55.31.50.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.181.000.181.001.000.440.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h2638439017844945684298682883000 V/C Ratio(X)0.580.550.550.540.470.480.120.030.290.100.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h11479580838688089484298682883000 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.221.421.428.519.419.47.16.87.97.00.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh19.01.21.22.50.80.80.30.10.90.10.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln0.43.33.40.93.13.20.90.32.50.70.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh49.222.622.731.020.220.27.46.98.87.10.00.0 LnGrp LOS D CCCCC AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h441 523 376 87 Approach Delay, s/veh23.5 22.2 8.3 7.1 Approach LOS C C A A Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s37.07.217.537.04.919.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s33.07.028.033.04.031.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.33.78.63.52.58.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s1.90.14.91.90.05.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 2010 LOS B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\l/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)14 360 3688 362 369431 225 352322 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18451845 1900 18451845 1900 184518451845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 15 387 3995 389 39 101 33 242 382524 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh,%333333333333 Cap,veh/h 26 704 70 178 823 82 842 986 828 378 246 206 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.530.530.53 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3213 322 3408 3212 320 1337 1845 1548 549 461 385 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 15 210 216 95 211 217 101 33 242 87 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1757 1752 1782 1704 1752 1779 1337 1845 1548 1395 00 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.5 6.6 6.6 1.7 6.3 6.4 0.3 0.5 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.5 6.6 6.6 1.7 6.3 6.4 1.8 0.5 5.3 1.5 0.00.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.18 1.001.00 0.44 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 26 384 390 178 449 456 842 986 828 830 00 WC Ratio(X)0.58 0.550.55 0.540.47 0.48 0.12 0.03 0.29 0.10 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 114 795 808 386 880 894 842 986 828 830 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 30.2 21.4 21.4 28.5 19.4 19.4 7.1 6.8 7.9 7.0 0.00.0 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 19.0 1.2 1.2 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),V@l¢l/In 3.3 3.4 0.9 3.1 3.2 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.2 22.6 22.7 31.0 20.2 20.2 7.4 6.9 8.8 7.1 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCCCCAAAA Approach Vol,veh/h 441 523 376 87 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.5 22.2 8.3 7.1 Approach LOS C C A A Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 37.0 7.2 17.5 37.0 4.9 19.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 33.0 7.0 28.0 33.0 4.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 7.3 3.7 8.6 3.5 2.5 8.4 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 1.9 0.1 4.9 1.9 0.0 5.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 185 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2353853265520160 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)2554183546022174 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)303 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume414 1104207 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 384 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 720 vCu, unblocked vol 414 1104207 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %78 9378 cM capacity (veh/h)1141 319799 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 25520920923617822174 Volume Left 2550000220 Volume Right 0000600174 cSH 11411700170017001700319799 Volume to Capacity0.220.120.120.140.100.070.22 Queue Length 95th (ft)210000521 Control Delay (s)9.10.00.00.00.017.110.8 Lane LOS A CB Approach Delay (s)3.4 0.0 11.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘‘H‘“i F Vohnne(vehflfi 235 385 326 5520 160 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)255 418 354 6022 174 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflweWm) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnd(fi)303 pX,Mabonunbbcked vC,conflmfingvothe 414 1104 207 vC1,§age 1confvol 384 v02,stage 2 conf vol 720 vCu,unNockedvol 414 1104 207 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFw)22 3533 p0queue free %78 9378 cMcapacity (veh/h)1141 319 799‑ Volume Total 255 209209 236 178 22 174 VohuneLefi 255 0000 22 0 Volume Right 0000 60 0 174 cSH 1141 1700170017001700 319 799 Volume to Capacity 0.220.120.12 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.22 QueueLengfli95m(fi)21 00005 21 CmflmlDdayfi)9100000000 171 108 LaneLOS A CB AppmachDeby($34 00 115 Approach LOS B‑ Average Delay 3.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 186 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)23452147820116506972292285152 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 0.991.00 0.981.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h29801629221275576624101313167 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5400241206271595321473463871538674 Arrive On Green 0.150.000.150.120.120.120.040.420.420.050.430.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774236136317743500110177435391550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h29801629014955387403101313167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401600177417701841177417701550 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.80.06.00.30.05.61.110.110.12.03.44.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s4.80.06.00.30.05.61.110.110.12.03.44.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.851.00 0.061.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h540024120601865327457743871538674 V/C Ratio(X)0.550.000.670.040.000.800.100.520.520.260.200.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1370061225702325767457744641538674 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh24.40.024.924.40.026.89.413.313.310.110.911.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh0.90.03.20.10.014.70.12.62.50.40.30.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.40.02.80.10.03.20.55.45.61.01.72.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh25.30.028.124.50.041.59.515.915.810.411.212.0 LnGrp LOS C CC D ABBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 460 158 845 581 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 40.5 15.5 11.3 Approach LOS C D B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.330.1 13.56.531.0 11.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.025.0 24.04.027.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.012.1 8.03.16.2 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.06.3 1.50.08.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 F “i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)234 52 147 8 20 11650 697 2292 285 152 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 298 0 162 9 22 127 55 766 24 101 313 167 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.910.910.910.91 0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 540 0 241 206 27 159 532 1473 46 387 1538 674 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.12 0.120.12 0.04 0.420.42 0.05 0.430.43 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 236 1363 1774 3500 110 1774 3539 1550 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 298 0 162 90 149 55 387 403 101 313 167 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1600 1774 1770 1841 1774 17701550 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.8 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.0 5.6 1.1 10.110.1 2.0 3.4 4.2 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 4.8 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.0 5.6 1.1 10.110.1 2.0 3.4 4.2 Prop ln Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.85 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 540 0 241 206 0 186 532 745 774 387 1538 674 V/C Ratio(X)0.55 0.00 0.67 0.04 0.00 0.80 0.10 0.520.52 0.26 0.20 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1370 0 612 257 0 232 576 745 774 464 1538 674 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 24.4 0.0 24.9 24.4 0.0 26.8 9.4 13.313.3 10.1 10.9 11.1 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.9 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 14.7 0.1 2.6 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 3.2 0.5 5.4 5.6 1.0 1.7 2.0 LnGrp De|ay(d),s/veh 25.3 0.0 28.1 24.5 0.0 41.5 9.5 15.9 15.8 10.4 11.2 12.0 LnGrp LOS C CC DABBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 460 158 845 581 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.3 40.5 15.5 11.3 Approach LOS C D B B‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.3 30.1 13.5 6.5 31.0 11.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 6.0 25.0 24.0 4.0 27.0 9.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 4.0 12.1 8.0 3.1 6.2 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 6.3 1.5 0.0 8.1 0.1‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.6 HCM 2010 LOS B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 187 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0001592122350843510461370136 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.001.000.971.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 196025157148911769416153 Adj No. of Lanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 65202918861296308681709258 Arrive On Green 0.180.000.180.380.460.460.200.280.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774282267117742528919 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 196025157130530169290279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177401583177417701723177417701677 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.70.012.111.68.89.01.611.011.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.70.012.111.68.89.01.611.011.3 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.391.000.55 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6520291886813791681497471 V/C Ratio(X)0.300.000.860.640.380.380.100.580.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 7240323886813791681497471 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.60.031.08.213.913.910.824.324.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.30.019.33.61.31.40.34.95.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.80.06.86.34.64.60.86.15.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.90.050.311.815.215.311.129.229.8 LnGrp LOS CD BBBBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 447 1177 638 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 13.6 27.5 Approach LOS D B C Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.040.0 34.026.018.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s16.036.0 30.022.016.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.611.0 13.613.314.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.17.6 1.74.40.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 159 21 223 508 435 104 61 370 136 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial 0 (Oh),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.001.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 0 251 571 489 117 69 416 153 Adj No.ofLanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 652 0 291 886 1296 308 681 709 258 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.20 0.280.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 2822 671 1774 2528 919 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 196 0 251 571 305 301 69 290 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1723 1774 1770 1677 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.7 0.0 12.1 11.6 8.8 9.0 1.6 11.0 11.3 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 3.7 0.0 12.1 11.6 8.8 9.0 1.6 11.0 11.3 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 652 0 291 886 813 791 681 497 471 V/C Ratio(X)0.30 0.00 0.86 0.64 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.58 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 724 0 323 886 813 791 681 497 471 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 27.6 0.0 31.0 8.2 13.9 13.9 10.8 24.324.3 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 19.3 3.6 1.3 1.4 0.3 4.9 5.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 6.8 6.3 4.6 4.6 0.8 6.1 5.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.9 0.0 50.3 11.8 15.2 15.3 11.1 29.2 29.8 LnGrp LOS CDBBBBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 447 1177 638 Approach Delay,s/veh 40.5 13.6 27.5 Approach LOS D B C‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),30.0 40.0 34.0 26.0 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmakfim 36.0 30.0 22.0 16.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l’6,&11.0 13.6 13.3 14.1 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 7.6 1.7 4.4 0.3‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.8 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 188 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 Int Delay,s/veh 3.5‑ Vol,veh/h 26922810 118 1231 5 1422 4 24 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free StopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100 --90 -------‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0--0--0--0 ‑ Grade.%-0--0--0--0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 878787878787878787878787 Heavy Vehicles,%222222222222 Mvmt Flow 30 106 32 11 136 1436 6 1625 5 28 Conflicting Flow All 149 0O 138 00 364 354 122 359 364 143 Stage1 ------182 182 -166 166 ‑ Stage 2 ------182 172 -193 198 ‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 --4.12 --7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 ‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 --2.218 --3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1432 --1446 --592 571 929 596 564 905 Stage 1 ------820 749 -836 761 ‑ Stage 2 ------820 756 -809 737 ‑ Platoon blocked,%---‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1432 --1446 --558 555 929 568 548 905 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------558 555 -568 548 ‑ Stage 1 ------803 733 -818 755 ‑ Stage 2 ------784 750 -772722 ‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.3 0.5 11.3 10.7 HCM LOS B B Capacity (veh/h)628 1432 --1446 --689 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.092 0.021 --0.008 --0.083 HCM Control Delay (5)11.3 7.6 --7.5 --10.7 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3 0.1 --0--0.3 Existing AM Peak Hour 7:00 am10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 189 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1815074611749016346255136214422185 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631900186318631863186318631863186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h1855174711950016647260139218431189 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 22291683151848374591259555262955414 Arrive On Green 0.130.280.280.080.240.240.030.360.360.080.400.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 17743278297177435391563177435391560344223941039 Grp Volume(v), veh/h18527828611950016647260139218317303 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177417701805177417701563177417701560172117701664 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.010.610.75.29.87.12.14.05.04.910.310.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s8.010.610.75.29.87.12.14.05.04.910.310.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.161.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.62 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h222495505151848374591259555262706664 V/C Ratio(X)0.830.560.570.790.590.440.800.210.250.830.450.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h22569771120313495961351259555262706664 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.624.224.335.326.525.537.817.617.935.817.317.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh22.51.01.013.80.70.820.90.41.119.62.12.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln5.35.35.53.14.93.11.32.02.33.05.45.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh56.125.225.349.127.226.358.718.019.055.519.419.6 LnGrp LOS E CCDCC EBBEBB Approach Vol, veh/h 749 785 446 838 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.9 30.3 22.6 28.9 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.032.010.726.06.635.413.822.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.028.09.031.06.028.010.030.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.97.07.212.74.112.510.011.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.06.20.07.00.05.50.07.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i 11*“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)181 507 46 117 490 163 46 255 136 214 422 185 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863 1900 18631863186318631863186318631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 185 517 47 119 500 166 47 260 139 218 431 189 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.980.980.980.98 0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 222 916 83 151 848 374 59 1259 555 262 955 414 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.280.28 0.08 0.240.24 0.03 0.360.36 0.08 0.400.40 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3278 297 1774 3539 1563 1774 3539 1560 3442 2394 1039 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 185 278 286 119 500 166 47 260 139 218 317 303 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1805 1774 1770 1563 1774 1770 1560 1721 1770 1664 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.0 10.6 10.7 5.2 9.8 7.1 2.1 4.0 5.0 4.9 10.3 10.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.0 10.6 10.7 5.2 9.8 7.1 2.1 4.0 5.0 4.9 10.3 10.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.62 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 222 495 505 151 848 374 59 1259 555 262 706 664 V/C Ratio(X)0.83 0.56 0.57 0.79 0.59 0.44 0.80 0.21 0.25 0.83 0.45 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 225 697 711 203 1349 596 135 1259 555 262 706 664 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 33.6 24.2 24.3 35.3 26.5 25.5 37.8 17.6 17.9 35.8 17.3 17.4 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 22.5 1.01.0 13.8 0.7 0.8 20.9 0.4 1.1 19.6 2.1 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.35.3 5.5 3.1 4.9 3.1 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 5.4 5.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.1 25.2 25.3 49.1 27.2 26.3 58.7 18.0 19.0 55.5 19.4 19.6 LnGrp LOS ECCDCCEBBEBB Approach Vol,veh/h 749 785 446 838 Approach Delay,s/veh 32.9 30.3 22.6 28.9 Approach LOS C C C C‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.0 32.0 10.7 26.0 6.6 35.4 13.8 22.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.04.0 40 4.0 404040 MaxGreenSetting(GmaX),s 6.0 28.0 9.0 31.0 6.0 28.0 10.0 30.0 MaxQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 6.9 7.0 7.2 12.7 4.1 12.5 10.0 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 6.2 0.0 7.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 7.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 190 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)9475537766305164352414567113 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.971.000.971.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631900186318631900186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h10080339816705468372615471120 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 129113855104105285537448315660271459 Arrive On Green0.070.330.330.060.320.320.440.440.440.440.440.44 Sat Flow, veh/h17743431167177433092661187102071713346181044 Grp Volume(v), veh/h10041442881358366680631540191 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177417701828177417701806118701736133401662 Q Serve(g_s), s3.914.414.43.212.212.22.70.01.55.40.05.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s3.914.414.43.212.212.27.90.01.56.90.05.1 Prop In Lane1.000.091.000.151.000.411.000.63 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h12958760710456357453707636600730 V/C Ratio(X)0.770.710.710.780.640.640.130.000.080.230.000.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h25170272522667769153707636600730 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh32.120.620.632.720.620.615.00.011.513.50.012.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh9.52.62.511.51.41.40.50.00.20.80.00.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.37.47.71.96.26.31.00.00.82.10.02.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh41.623.123.144.322.022.015.50.011.714.30.013.4 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h942 805 131 345 Approach Delay, s/veh25.1 24.3 13.7 13.8 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s35.08.227.435.09.126.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s31.09.028.031.010.027.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.95.216.48.95.914.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.30.07.02.40.17.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.4 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)94 755 3776 630 51643524 145 67 113 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 100 803 3981 670 54683726 154 71 120 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 129 1138 55 104 1052 85 537 448 315 660 271 459 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.440.440.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3431 167 1774 3309 266 1187 1020 717 1334 618 1044 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 100 414 428 81 358 366 68 0 63 154 0 191 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1774 1770 1828 1774 1770 1806 1187 0 1736 1334 0 1662 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.9 14.4 14.4 3.2 12.2 12.2 2.7 0.0 1.5 5.4 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.9 14.4 14.4 3.2 12.2 12.2 7.9 0.0 1.5 6.9 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.63 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 129 587 607 104 563 574 537 0 763660 0 730 V/C Ratio(X)0.77 0.710.71 0.78 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.00 0.08 0.23 0.00 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 702 725 226 677 691 537 0 763660 0 730 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 32.1 20.6 20.6 32.7 20.6 20.6 15.0 0.0 11.5 13.5 0.0 12.5 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 9.5 2.6 2.5 11.5 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\/b.6/ln 7.4 7.7 1.9 6.2 6.3 1.0 0.0 0.8 2.1 0.0 2.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.6 23.1 23.1 44.3 22.0 22.0 15.5 0.0 11.7 14.3 0.0 13.4 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 942 805 131 345 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.1 24.3 13.7 13.8 Approach LOS C C B B Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 35.0 8.2 27.4 35.0 9.1 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 31.0 9.0 28.0 31.0 10.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 9.9 5.2 16.4 8.9 5.9 14.2 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.3 0.0 7.0 2.4 0.1 7.5 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 191 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1568013024060014912115822229 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631900186318631900186318631863190018631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h16731140258645159823170242410 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 261021196347152535575604514323213 Arrive On Green0.010.350.350.100.430.430.320.320.320.040.040.04 Sat Flow, veh/h177429555663442353382177418631583730730304 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1643843325832333798231705800 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177417701751172117701846177418631583176500 Q Serve(g_s), s0.818.618.66.311.011.03.40.77.02.80.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s0.818.618.66.311.011.03.40.77.02.80.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.321.000.041.001.000.410.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h266126053477647975756045147700 V/C Ratio(X)0.610.720.720.740.420.420.170.040.330.750.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h103800791558984102657560451457200 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh42.324.624.637.717.117.120.919.922.140.80.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh20.82.12.13.20.40.40.60.11.713.40.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln0.59.49.33.15.45.61.80.43.31.70.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh63.126.726.740.917.417.421.520.123.854.20.00.0 LnGrp LOS ECCDBB CCCD Approach Vol, veh/h887 918 291 58 Approach Delay, s/veh27.3 24.0 22.7 54.2 Approach LOS CCCD Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s32.012.733.87.85.341.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s28.014.039.028.05.048.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.08.320.64.82.813.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.90.49.30.20.012.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\T/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)15 680 130 240 600 149121 158 2222 9 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 16 731 140 258 645 159823 170 242410 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 26 1021 196 347 1525 35 575 604 514 323213 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.040.040.04 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 2955 566 3442 3533 82 1774 1863 1583 730730 304 GrpVqume(v),veh/h 16 438 433 258 323 337 9823 170 58 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1774 1770 1751 1721 1770 1846 1774 1863 1583 1765 00 Q Serve(g_s).s 0.8 18.6 18.6 6.3 11.0 11.0 3.4 0.7 7.0 2.8 0.00.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.8 18.6 18.6 6.3 11.0 11.0 3.4 0.7 7.0 2.8 0.00.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.04 1.001.00 0.41 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 26 612 605 347 764 797 575 604 514 77 00 WC Ratio(X)0.61 0.720.72 0.74 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.04 0.33 0.75 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 103 800 791 558 984 1026 575 604 514 572 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 42.3 24.6 24.6 37.7 17.1 17.1 20.9 19.9 22.1 40.8 0.00.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 20.8 2.1 2.1 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 1.7 13.4 0.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),S/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\&.5/In 9.4 9.3 3.1 5.4 5.6 1.8 0.4 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.1 26.7 26.7 40.9 17.4 17.4 21.5 20.1 23.8 54.2 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS ECCDBBCCCD Approach Vol,veh/h 887 918 291 58 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.3 24.0 22.7 54.2 Approach LOS C C C D Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 32.0 12.7 33.8 7.8 5.3 41.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 28.0 14.0 39.0 28.0 5.0 48.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+|1),s 9.0 8.3 20.6 4.8 2.8 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.9 0.4 9.3 0.2 0.0 12.3 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 192 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2306305844530270 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)2506856354933293 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)298 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 vC, conflicting volume684 1502342 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 659 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 842 vCu, unblocked vol 684 1192342 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %72 9055 cM capacity (veh/h)905 312654 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 25034234242326133293 Volume Left 2500000330 Volume Right 0000490293 cSH 9051700170017001700312654 Volume to Capacity0.280.200.200.250.150.100.45 Queue Length 95th (ft)280000958 Control Delay (s)10.50.00.00.00.017.914.9 Lane LOS B CB Approach Delay (s)2.8 0.0 15.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘‘H‘“i F Vohnne(vehfln 230 630 584 4530 270 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Gmde 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)250 685 635 4933 293 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflwerfi Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnm(fi)298 pX,platoon unblocked 0.83 vC,conmcfingvothe 684 1502 342 vC1,§age 1confvol 659 v02,stage 2 conf vol 842 vCu,unNockedvol 684 1192 342 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFm)22 3533 p0queue free %72 9055 cMcapacity (veh/h)905 312 654‑ Volume Total 250 342342 423 261 33 293 VohuneLefi 250 0000 33 0 Volume Right 0000 49 0 293 cSH 905 1700170017001700 312 654 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.200.20 0.25 0.150.10 0.45 QueueLengfli95m(fl)28 00009 58 Control Delay (3)10.5 0.00.00.0 0.0 17.9 14.9 LaneLOS B CB AppmachDeby($28 00 152 Approach LOS C‑ Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 193 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)5007143723341126961832133656244 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.981.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h586046524361197365734141698260 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 10870485204441452661022533251174525 Arrive On Green 0.310.000.310.110.110.110.040.300.300.080.330.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774381125917743419177177435391583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h586046524015573340351141698260 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401640177417701826177417701583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.80.022.61.00.07.22.213.113.14.212.910.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s10.80.022.61.00.07.22.213.113.14.212.910.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.771.00 0.101.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1087048520401882665295463251174525 V/C Ratio(X)0.540.000.960.120.000.820.270.640.640.430.590.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1087048520401883035295463721174525 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh22.60.026.731.10.033.918.523.823.917.721.820.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh0.50.030.50.30.024.50.65.95.80.92.23.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln5.30.014.00.50.04.61.17.27.42.16.75.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh23.10.057.231.40.058.419.029.729.618.624.024.2 LnGrp LOS C EC EBCCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1051 179 764 1099 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.2 54.8 28.7 23.4 Approach LOS DDCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.927.4 28.07.430.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.023.0 24.05.026.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.215.1 24.64.214.9 9.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.15.4 0.00.07.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 F “i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)500 71 437 2334 11269 618 32 133 656 244 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 586 0 465 2436 119 73 657 34 141 698 260 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.94 0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 1087 0 485 204 44 145 266 1022 53 325 1174 525 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.11 0.110.11 0.04 0.300.30 0.08 0.330.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 381 1259 1774 3419 177 1774 3539 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 586 0 465 24 0 155 73 340 351 141 698 260 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1640 1774 1770 1826 1774 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.8 0.0 22.6 1.0 0.0 7.2 2.2 13.113.1 4.2 12.9 10.3 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 10.8 0.0 22.6 1.0 0.0 7.2 2.2 13.113.1 4.2 12.9 10.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.77 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1087 0 485 204 0 188 266 529 546 325 1174 525 V/C Ratio(X)0.54 0.00 0.96 0.12 0.00 0.82 0.27 0.640.64 0.43 0.59 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1087 0 485 204 0 188 303 529 546 372 1174 525 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 22.6 0.0 26.7 31.1 0.0 33.9 18.5 23.8 23.9 17.7 21.8 20.9 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.50.0 30.5 0.3 0.0 24.5 0.6 5.9 5.8 0.9 2.2 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 5.3 0.0 14.0 0.50.0 4.6 1.1 7.2 7.4 2.1 6.7 5.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.1 0.0 57.2 31.4 0.0 58.4 19.0 29.7 29.6 18.6 24.0 24.2 LnGrp LOS C EC EBCCBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1051 179 764 1099 Approach Delay,s/veh 38.2 54.8 28.7 23.4 Approach LOS D D C C‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.9 27.4 28.0 7.4 30.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 8.0 23.0 24.0 5.0 26.0 9.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+|1),s 6.2 15.1 24.6 4.2 14.9 9.2 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 5.4 0.00.0 7.0 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.5 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 194 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0004805814347247728116655394 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5550152502507299177588100 Adj No. of Lanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 704031066311736905211361231 Arrive On Green 0.200.000.200.180.550.550.080.450.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 35480156117742127125017743028514 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5550152502421385177343345 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177401561177417701608177417701772 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.50.06.19.59.910.03.79.49.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.50.06.19.59.910.03.79.49.4 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.781.000.29 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7040310663976887521795796 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.000.490.760.430.430.340.430.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 9530419992976887629795796 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.90.025.28.59.39.38.813.313.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.20.01.21.91.41.50.41.71.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.50.02.74.85.24.81.85.05.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.10.026.410.310.710.99.115.015.0 LnGrp LOS CC BBBABB Approach Vol, veh/h 707 1308 865 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 10.6 13.8 Approach LOS C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.743.0 16.935.818.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.039.0 26.023.019.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.712.0 11.511.412.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.210.6 1.46.71.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 480 58 143 472 477 281 166 553 94 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial 0 (Oh),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 555 0 152 502 507 299 177 588 100 Adj No.ofLanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 704 0 310 663 1173 690 521 1361 231 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.08 0.450.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1561 1774 2127 1250 1774 3028 514 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 555 0 152 502 421 385 177 343 345 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1561 1774 1770 1608 1774 1770 1772 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.5 0.0 6.1 9.5 9.9 10.0 3.7 9.4 9.4 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 10.5 0.0 6.1 9.5 9.9 10.0 3.7 9.49.4 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.29 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 704 0 310 663 976 887 521 795 796 V/C Ratio(X)0.79 0.00 0.49 0.76 0.43 0.43 0.34 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 953 0 419 992 976 887 629 795 796 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 26.9 0.0 25.2 8.5 9.3 9.3 8.8 13.3 13.3 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 3.2 0.0 1.2 1.9 1.4 1.5 0.4 1.7 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.5 0.0 2.7 4.8 5.2 4.8 1.8 5.05.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 0.0 26.4 10.3 10.7 10.9 9.1 15.015.0 LnGrp LOS CCBBBABB Approach Vol,veh/h 707 1308 865 Approach Delay,s/veh 29.3 10.6 13.8 Approach LOS C B B‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),39.7 43.0 16.9 35.8 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmak0,.0 39.0 26.0 23.0 19.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l‘6,7s 12.0 11.5 11.4 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.2 10.6 1.4 6.7 1.5‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 2010 LOS B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 195 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.2 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 37160242113421134550970 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 401742623146231445541076 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All1680020000513481187475483157 Stage 1 ------267267-203203- Stage 2 ------246214-272280- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1410--1372--472485855500483889 Stage 1 ------738688-799733- Stage 2 ------758725-734679- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1410--1372--410463855476461889 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------410463-476461- Stage 1 ------717668-776721- Stage 2 ------672713-704660- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.3 0.9 13 12.3 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)4761410--1372--635 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.050.029--0.017--0.221 HCM Control Delay (s)137.6--7.7--12.3 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.20.1--0.1--0.8 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 4.2 Vol,veh/h 37 160 2421 134 2113 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0000000 Sign Control Free Free FreeFree Free Free Stop RT Channelized --None -None ‑ Storage Length 100 --90 --‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0 0 ‑ Grade,%-0--0-‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292929292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222222 Mvmt Flow 40 174 2623 146 2314 4 0 Stop 5 0 Stop -None 50 0 Stop 92 54 Conflicting Flow All 168 0 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1410 ‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1410 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.3 HCM LOS 513 267 246 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 472 738 758 0 200 00 4.12 -2.218 -‑ 1372 -‑ 1372 410 410 717 672 0.9 13 481 267 214 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 485 688 725 463 463 668 713 187 6.22 3.318 855 855 475 203 272 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 500 799 734 476 476 776 704 12.3 483 203 280 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 483 733 679 461 461 721 660 Capacity (veh/h)476 1410 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 0.029 HCM Control Delay (5)13 7.6 HCM Lane LOS BA HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.2 0.1 1372 635 --0.017 --0.221 7.7 --12.3 --A--B 0.1 --0.8 Existing PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 196 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)12430120732751202732612411020038 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln182718271900182718271827182718271827182718271900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h13332422782961292935113311821541 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %444444444444 Cap, veh/h 16770548996062684414856561931339251 Arrive On Green 0.100.210.210.060.170.170.030.430.430.060.460.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740329722317403471153217403471153333752913545 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1331701767829612929351133118126130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln174017361784174017361532174017361533168817361722 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.95.65.62.95.05.01.14.23.62.22.82.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s4.95.65.62.95.05.01.14.23.62.22.82.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.121.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h16737138199606268441485656193798792 V/C Ratio(X)0.800.460.460.790.490.480.670.240.200.610.160.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h18682284515915917021061485656206798792 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.022.422.430.524.424.331.611.911.730.110.310.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh19.20.90.912.90.61.316.10.40.74.70.40.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.32.72.91.72.52.20.72.11.61.21.41.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh48.223.323.343.425.025.747.712.312.434.910.710.8 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDBBCBB Approach Vol, veh/h 479 503 513 374 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 28.0 14.3 18.4 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.732.07.718.05.634.110.315.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s4.028.06.031.04.028.07.030.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.26.24.97.63.14.96.97.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.04.30.04.40.04.30.04.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.9 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\ir\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i 11*“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)124 301 2073 275 120 27 326 124 110 200 38 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18271827 1900 18271827182718271827182718271827 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 133 324 2278 296 129 29 351 133 118 215 41 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.930.930.930.93 0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh,%444444444444 Cap,veh/h 167 705 4899 606 268 44 1485 656 193 1339 251 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.210.21 0.06 0.170.17 0.03 0.430.43 0.060.460.46 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3297 223 1740 3471 1532 1740 3471 1533 3375 2913 545 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 133 170 176 78 296 129 29 351 133 118 126 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 1736 1784 1740 1736 1532 1740 1736 1533 1688 1736 1722 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.9 5.65.6 2.9 5.05.0 1.1 4.2 3.6 2.2 2.8 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.9 5.65.6 2.9 5.05.0 1.1 4.2 3.6 2.2 2.8 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 167 371 381 99 606 268 44 1485 656 193 798 792 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.460.46 0.79 0.49 0.48 0.67 0.24 0.20 0.61 0.160.16 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 186 822 845 159 1591 702 106 1485 656 206 798 792 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 29.0 22.422.4 30.5 24.4 24.3 31.6 11.9 11.7 30.1 10.310.3 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 19.2 0.90.9 12.9 0.6 1.3 16.1 0.4 0.7 4.7 0.40.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.3 2.7 2.9 1.7 2.5 2.2 0.7 2.1 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.2 23.323.3 43.4 25.0 25.7 47.7 12.3 12.4 34.9 10.7 10.8 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDBBCBB Approach Vol,veh/h 479 503 513 374 Approach Delay,s/veh 30.2 28.0 14.3 18.4 Approach LOS C C B B‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.7 32.0 7.7 18.0 5.6 34.1 10.3 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 MaxGreenSetting(Gmax),s 4.0 28.0 6.0 31.0 4.0 28.0 7.0 30.0 MaxQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 4.2 6.2 4.9 7.6 3.1 4.9 6.9 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.4 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 197 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)58424183741918663627711644 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln181018101900181018101900181018101900181018101900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h65476204247120744030801849 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 55555555555 Cap, veh/h 82855365780734758498373756221601 Arrive On Green0.050.250.250.030.240.240.520.520.520.520.520.52 Sat Flow, veh/h1723335914117233357142129196172112874261161 Grp Volume(v), veh/h65243253422412507407080067 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln172317191781172317191780129101682128701587 Q Serve(g_s), s2.37.67.61.57.67.71.90.01.32.10.01.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s2.37.67.61.57.67.73.20.01.33.40.01.3 Prop In Lane1.000.081.000.081.000.431.000.73 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h824384535741342875808717560822 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.560.560.730.580.580.100.000.080.110.000.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h30780783619569672075808717560822 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.120.020.029.620.720.78.30.07.58.30.07.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh15.71.11.116.41.31.30.30.00.20.30.00.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln1.43.73.91.03.83.90.70.00.60.80.00.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh44.921.121.146.022.022.08.60.07.78.60.07.7 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCAAAA Approach Vol, veh/h561 533 144 147 Approach Delay, s/veh23.8 23.9 8.1 8.2 Approach LOS C C A A Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s36.06.119.736.06.918.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s32.07.029.032.011.025.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.23.59.65.44.39.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s1.40.05.71.40.15.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.6 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\l/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)58 424 1837 419 18663627711644 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 65 476 2042 471 20744030801849 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.890.890.89 Percent Heavy Veh,%555555555555 Cap,veh/h 82 855 3657 807 34 758 498 373 756 221 601 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.520.520.52 Sat Flow,veh/h 1723 3359 141 1723 3357 142 1291 961 721 1287 426 1161 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 65 243253 42 241 250 74 0 7080 0 67 GrpSatFlow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1719 1781 1723 1719 1780 1291 0 1682 1287 0 1587 Q Serve(g_s).s 2.3 7.6 7.6 1.5 7.6 7.7 1.9 0.0 1.3 2.1 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 7.6 7.6 1.5 7.6 7.7 3.2 0.0 1.3 3.4 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.73 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 82 438 453 57 413 428 758 0 871 756 0 822 V/C Ratio(X)0.79 0.560.56 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 307 807 836 195 696 720 758 0 871 756 0 822 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(|)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 29.1 20.0 20.0 29.6 20.7 20.7 8.3 0.0 7.5 8.3 0.0 7.5 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 15.7 1.1 1.1 16.4 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),va/|n 3.7 3.9 1.0 3.8 3.9 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.6 LnGrp De|ay(d),s/veh 44.9 21.1 21.1 46.0 22.0 22.0 8.6 0.0 7.7 8.6 0.0 7.7 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCAAAA Approach Vol,veh/h 561 533 144 147 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.8 23.9 8.1 8.2 Approach LOS C C A A Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 36.0 6.1 19.7 36.0 6.9 18.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 32.0 7.0 29.0 32.0 11.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 5.2 3.5 9.6 5.4 4.3 9.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 1.4 0.0 5.7 1.4 0.1 5.2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 198 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)163723888369369531225352323 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.000.991.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln184518451900184518451900184518451845190018451900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h1740041953973910233242382525 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 33333333333 Cap, veh/h 297187317783582836980822371243211 Arrive On Green0.020.220.220.050.260.260.530.530.530.530.530.53 Sat Flow, veh/h1757320732734083219314133618451548543458397 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1721822395215221102332428800 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln175717521782170417521781133618451548139800 Q Serve(g_s), s0.66.86.91.76.46.50.30.55.40.00.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s0.66.86.91.76.46.51.90.55.41.50.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.181.000.181.001.000.430.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h2939239917745546283698082282500 V/C Ratio(X)0.590.550.560.540.470.480.120.030.290.110.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h11379080338487488883698082282500 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.421.421.428.719.419.57.37.08.17.20.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh17.81.21.22.50.80.80.30.10.90.10.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln0.43.53.60.93.23.30.90.32.50.70.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh48.222.622.631.320.220.27.67.09.07.20.00.0 LnGrp LOS D CCCCC AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h458 531 377 88 Approach Delay, s/veh23.6 22.2 8.4 7.2 Approach LOS C C A A Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s37.07.217.937.05.020.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s33.07.028.033.04.031.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.43.78.93.52.68.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s1.90.15.01.90.05.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.1 HCM 2010 LOS B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐-wr"‐‘~*\ l/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)16 372 3888 369 369531 225 352323 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18451845 1900 18451845 1900 184518451845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 17 400 4195 397 39 102 33 242 382525 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh,%333333333333 Cap,veh/h 29 718 73 177 835 82 836 980 822 371 243 21 1 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.530.530.53 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3207 327 3408 3219 314 1336 1845 1548 543 458 397 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 17 218 223 95 215 221 102 33 242 88 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1757 1752 1782 1704 1752 1781 1336 1845 15481398 00 Q Serve(g_s).s 0.6 6.8 6.9 1.7 6.4 6.5 0.3 0.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.6 6.8 6.9 1.7 6.4 6.5 1.9 0.5 5.4 1.5 0.00.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.18 1.001.00 0.43 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 29 392 399 177 455 462 836 980 822 825 00 WC Ratio(X)0.59 0.55 0.56 0.540.47 0.48 0.12 0.03 0.29 0.11 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 113 790 803 384 874 888 836 980 822 825 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 30.4 21.4 21.4 28.7 19.4 19.5 7.3 7.0 8.1 7.2 0.00.0 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 17.8 1.2 1.2 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),V@l4/In 3.5 3.6 0.9 3.2 3.3 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.2 22.6 22.6 31.3 20.2 20.2 7.6 7.0 9.0 7.2 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCCCCAAAA Approach Vol,veh/h 458 531 377 88 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.6 22.2 8.4 7.2 Approach LOS C C A A Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 37.0 7.2 17.9 37.0 5.0 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 33.0 7.0 28.0 33.0 4.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 7.4 3.7 8.9 3.5 2.6 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 1.9 0.1 5.0 1.9 0.0 5.3 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.1 HCM 2010 LOS B Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 199 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2383943315520162 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)2594283606022176 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)303 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume420 1121210 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 390 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 732 vCu, unblocked vol 420 1121210 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %77 9378 cM capacity (veh/h)1136 313796 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 25921421424018022176 Volume Left 2590000220 Volume Right 0000600176 cSH 11361700170017001700313796 Volume to Capacity0.230.130.130.140.110.070.22 Queue Length 95th (ft)220000621 Control Delay (s)9.10.00.00.00.017.310.8 Lane LOS A CB Approach Delay (s)3.4 0.0 11.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘‘H‘“i F Vohnne(vehfln 238 394 331 5520 162 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)259 428 360 6022 176 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflweWm) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnd(fi)303 pX,Mabonunbbcked vC,conflmfingvothe 420 1121 210 vC1,§age 1confvol 390 v02,stage 2 conf vol 732 vCu,unNockedvol 420 1121 210 tC,dnme($41 6B69 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFw)22 3533 p0queue free %77 9378 cMcapacity (veh/h)1136 313 796‑ Volume Total 259 214214 240 180 22 176 VohuneLefi 259 0000 22 0 Volume Right 0000 60 0 176 cSH 1136 1700170017001700 313 796 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.130.13 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.22 QueueLengfli95m(fi)22 00006 21 CmflmlDdayfi)9100000000 173 108 LaneLOS A CB AppmachDeby($34 00 115 Approach LOS B‑ Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 200 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)23452148820116517032292288152 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 0.991.00 0.981.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h29801639221275677324101316167 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5420242206271595301473463841536673 Arrive On Green 0.150.000.150.120.120.120.040.420.420.050.430.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774236136317743502109177435391550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h29801639014956391406101316167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401600177417701841177417701550 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.80.06.00.30.05.61.110.210.22.03.54.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s4.80.06.00.30.05.61.110.210.22.03.54.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.851.00 0.061.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h542024220601865307447743841536673 V/C Ratio(X)0.550.000.670.040.000.800.110.520.530.260.210.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1368061125702315747447744611536673 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh24.40.024.924.40.026.89.413.413.410.110.911.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh0.90.03.20.10.014.80.12.62.50.40.30.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.40.02.80.10.03.20.55.55.71.01.72.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh25.20.028.124.50.041.69.516.015.910.511.312.1 LnGrp LOS C CC D ABBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 461 158 853 584 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 40.6 15.6 11.3 Approach LOS C D B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.330.2 13.56.531.0 11.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.025.0 24.04.027.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.012.2 8.03.16.3 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.06.3 1.50.08.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 F “i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)234 52 148 8 20 11651 703 2292 288 152 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial 0 (Oh),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 298 0 163 9 22 127 56 773 24 101 316 167 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.910.910.910.91 0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 542 0 242 206 27 159 530 1473 46 384 1536 673 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.12 0.120.12 0.04 0.420.42 0.05 0.430.43 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 236 1363 1774 3502 109 1774 3539 1550 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 298 0 163 90 149 56 391 406 101 316 167 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1600 1774 1770 1841 1774 17701550 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.8 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.0 5.6 1.1 10.210.2 2.0 3.5 4.3 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 4.8 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.0 5.6 1.1 10.210.2 2.0 3.5 4.3 Prop ln Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.85 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 542 0 242 206 0 186 530 744774 384 1536 673 V/C Ratio(X)0.55 0.00 0.67 0.04 0.00 0.80 0.11 0.52 0.53 0.26 0.21 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1368 0 611 257 0 231 574 744774 461 1536 673 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 24.4 0.0 24.9 24.4 0.0 26.8 9.4 13.413.4 10.1 10.9 11.2 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.9 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 14.8 0.1 2.6 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 3.2 0.5 5.5 5.7 1.0 1.7 2.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.2 0.0 28.1 24.5 0.0 41.6 9.5 16.0 15.9 10.5 11.3 12.1 LnGrp LOS C CC DABBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 461 158 853 584 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.3 40.6 15.6 11.3 Approach LOS C D B B‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.3 30.2 13.5 6.5 31.0 11.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 6.0 25.0 24.0 4.0 27.0 9.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 4.0 12.2 8.0 3.1 6.3 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 6.3 1.5 0.0 8.1 0.1‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.7 HCM 2010 LOS B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 201 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0001602122350943910561372136 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.001.000.971.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197025157249311869418153 Adj No. of Lanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 65202918851296308680710257 Arrive On Green 0.180.000.180.380.460.460.200.280.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774282267117742532916 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197025157230830369291280 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177401583177417701723177417701678 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.80.012.111.68.99.01.611.111.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.80.012.111.68.99.01.611.111.3 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.391.000.55 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6520291885813791680497471 V/C Ratio(X)0.300.000.860.650.380.380.100.590.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 7240323885813791680497471 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.70.031.08.213.913.910.824.324.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.30.019.33.61.31.40.35.05.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.90.06.86.34.74.60.86.15.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.90.050.311.815.215.311.129.329.8 LnGrp LOS CD BBBBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 448 1183 640 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 13.6 27.6 Approach LOS D B C Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.040.0 34.026.018.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s16.036.0 30.022.016.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.611.0 13.613.314.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.17.6 1.74.40.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 160 21 223 509 439 105 61 372 136 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial 0 (Oh),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.001.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 197 0 251 572 493 118 69 418 153 Adj No.ofLanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 652 0 291 885 1296 308 680 710 257 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.20 0.280.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 2822 671 1774 2532 916 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 197 0 251 572 308 303 69 291 280 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1723 1774 1770 1678 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.8 0.0 12.1 11.6 8.9 9.0 1.6 11.1 11.3 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 3.8 0.0 12.1 11.6 8.9 9.0 1.6 11.1 11.3 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 652 0 291 885 813 791 680 497 471 V/C Ratio(X)0.30 0.00 0.86 0.65 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.59 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 724 0 323 885 813 791 680 497 471 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 31.0 8.2 13.9 13.9 10.8 24.3 24.4 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 19.3 3.6 1.3 1.4 0.3 5.0 5.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 6.8 6.3 4.7 4.6 0.8 6.1 5.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.9 0.0 50.3 11.8 15.2 15.3 11.1 29.3 29.8 LnGrp LOS CDBBBBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 448 1183 640 Approach Delay,s/veh 40.5 13.6 27.6 Approach LOS D B C‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),30.0 40.0 34.0 26.0 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmakfim 36.0 30.0 22.0 16.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l’0,&11.0 13.6 13.3 14.1 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 7.6 1.7 4.4 0.3‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.8 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 202 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.7 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 27922810118133151424427 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 878787878787878787878787 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 311063211136153661628531 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All1510013800368358122361366143 Stage 1 ------184184-166166- Stage 2 ------184174-195200- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1430--1446--588568929595562905 Stage 1 ------818747-836761- Stage 2 ------818755-807736- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1430--1446--552551929567546905 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------552551-567546- Stage 1 ------800731-818755- Stage 2 ------779749-770720- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.4 0.5 11.4 10.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)6231430--1446--692 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0920.022--0.008--0.091 HCM Control Delay (s)11.47.6--7.5--10.7 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.30.1--0--0.3 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 3.7 Vol,veh/h 279228 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 000 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized --None Storage Length 100 -‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0 ‑ Grade,%-0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 878787 Heavy Vehicles,%222 Mvmt Flow 31 106 32 10 118 1331 0000 Free Free Free Stop -None ‑ 90 --‑_0___0__ 87878787 2222 11 1361536 5 0 Stop 14 0 Stop -None 24 Stop 87 28 Conflicting Flow All 151 00 Stage 1 --‑ Stage 2 --‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 --‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 --‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1430 ‑ Stage 1 --‑ Stage 2 --‑ Platoon blocked,%-‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1430 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver --‑ Stage 1 --‑ Stage 2 --‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.4 HCM LOS 138 00 368 --184 ---184 4.12 -7.12 6.12 --6.12 2.218 --3.518 1446 --588 ---818 ---818 1446 --552 ---552 ---800 ---779 0.5 11.4 358 184 174 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 568 747 755 551 551 731 749 122 6.22 3.318 929 929 361 166 195 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 595 836 807 567 567 81 8 770 10.7 366 166 200 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 562 761 736 546 546 755 720 Capacity (veh/h)623 1430 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.092 0.022 ‑ HCM Control Delay (5)11.4 7.6 HCM Lane LOS BA ‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.3 0.1 1446 692 -0.008 --0.091 7.5 --10.7 -A--B 0--0.3 Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 203 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.1 Movement EBTEBRWBLWBT NBLNBR Vol, veh/h 485180529 010 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0000 00 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFree StopStop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, #0--0 0 - Grade, %0--0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 527200575 011 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 005470 825273 Stage 1 ----537 - Stage 2 ----288 - Critical Hdwy --4.14-6.846.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ----5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ----5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy --2.22-3.523.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver --1018-311725 Stage 1 ----550 - Stage 2 ----735 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --1018-311725 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ----311 - Stage 1 ----550 - Stage 2 ----735 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)725--1018- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.015 ---- HCM Control Delay (s)10--0- HCM Lane LOS B--A- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0- HCM 2010 TWSC 8:E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.1 Vol,veh/h 485 18 0 529 0 10 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0000 00 Sign Control Free FreeFree Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage,#0--0 0 ‑ Grade,%0--0 0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222 22 Mvmt Flow 527 20 0 575 0 11‑ Conflicting Flow All 00 547 0 825 273 Stage 1 ----537 ‑ Stage 2 ----288 ‑ Critical Hdwy --4.14 -6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ----5.84 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ----5.84 ‑ Follow-up Hdwy --2.22 -3.523.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver --1018 -311 725 Stage 1 ----550 ‑ Stage 2 ----735 ‑ Platoon blocked,%--‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --1018 -311 725 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ----311 ‑ Stage 1 ----550 ‑ Stage 2 ----735 ‑ HCM Control Delay,3 0 0 10 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h)725 --1018 ‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 ---‑ HCM Control Delay (3)10 --0 ‑ HCM Lane LOS B--A ‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0--0 ‑ Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Item 8.a. - Page 204 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Courtland St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.5 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 822121 647 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 922132 708 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All20973770 -0 Stage 1 73 ----- Stage 2 136 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver7799891522--- Stage 1 950 ----- Stage 2 890 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver7789891522--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver778 ----- Stage 1 950 ----- Stage 2 889 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s9.5 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1522-813-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.001-0.013-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.409.5-- HCM Lane LOS AAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0-- HCM 2010 TWSC 9:Courtland St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.5 Vol,veh/h 822 121 64 7 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0000 00 Sign Control StopStop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0----‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0--0 0 ‑ Grade,%0 --0 0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222 22 Mvmt Flow 9 2 2 132 70 8‑ Conflicting Flow All 209 7377 0 -0 Stage 1 73 ----‑ Stage 2 136 ----‑ Critical Hdwy 6.426.22 4.12 --‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----‑ Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.318 2.218 --‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 779 989 1522 --‑ Stage 1 950 ----‑ Stage 2 890 ----‑ Platoon blocked,%--‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 778 989 1522 --‑ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 778 ----‑ Stage 1 950 ----‑ Stage 2 889 ----‑ HCM Control Delay,3 9.5 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Capacity (veh/h)1522 -813 -‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 -0.013 -‑ HCM Control Delay (3)7.4 0 9.5 -‑ HCM Lane LOS AAA-‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0-0-‑ Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Item 8.a. - Page 205 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Courtland St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.4 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 2362100 588 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 2572109 639 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All18067720 -0 Stage 1 67 ----- Stage 2 113 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver8109971528--- Stage 1 956 ----- Stage 2 912 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver8099971528--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver809 ----- Stage 1 956 ----- Stage 2 911 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s9.4 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1528-842-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.001-0.037-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.409.4-- HCM Lane LOS AAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 10:Courtland St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 1.4 Vol,veh/h 23 62 100 58 8 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0000 00 Sign Control StopStop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0----‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0--0 0 ‑ Grade,%0 --0 0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222 22 Mvmt Flow 25 7 2 109 63 9‑ Conflicting Flow All 180 6772 0 -0 Stage 1 67 ----‑ Stage 2 113 ----‑ Critical Hdwy 6.426.22 4.12 --‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----‑ Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.318 2.218 --‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 810 997 1528 --‑ Stage 1 956 ----‑ Stage 2 912 ----‑ Platoon blocked,%--‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 809 997 1528 --‑ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 809 ----‑ Stage 1 956 ----‑ Stage 2 911 ----‑ HCM Control Delay,3 9.4 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Capacity (veh/h)1528 -842 -‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 -0.037 -‑ HCM Control Delay (3)7.4 0 9.4 -‑ HCM Lane LOS AAA-‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0-0.1 -‑ Existing+ProjectAM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Item 8.a. - Page 206 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1815174612049817346255139227422185 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631900186318631863186318631863186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h1855284712250817747260142232431189 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 22292282154858379591254553261950412 Arrive On Green 0.120.280.280.090.240.240.030.350.350.080.400.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 17743285292177435391563177435391560344223941039 Grp Volume(v), veh/h18528429112250817747260142232317303 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177417701807177417701563177417701560172117701664 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.110.910.95.310.07.62.14.05.15.310.410.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s8.110.910.95.310.07.62.14.05.15.310.410.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.161.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.62 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h222497507154858379591254553261702660 V/C Ratio(X)0.830.570.570.790.590.470.800.210.260.890.450.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h22469470920213435931351254553261702660 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.824.424.435.426.525.637.917.818.136.217.517.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh22.71.01.014.60.70.920.90.41.128.72.12.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln5.45.45.63.24.93.41.42.12.43.65.45.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh56.525.425.450.027.126.558.818.219.364.919.619.9 LnGrp LOS E CCDCC EBBEBB Approach Vol, veh/h 760 807 449 852 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 30.4 22.8 32.0 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.032.010.926.26.635.413.923.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.028.09.031.06.028.010.030.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.37.17.312.94.112.610.112.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.06.20.07.20.05.50.07.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.4 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i 11*“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)181 517 46 120 498 173 46 255 139 227 422 185 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863 1900 18631863186318631863186318631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 185 528 47 122 508 177 47 260 142 232 431 189 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.980.980.980.98 0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 222 922 82 154 858 379 59 1254 553 261 950 412 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.280.28 0.09 0.240.24 0.03 0.350.35 0.08 0.400.40 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3285 292 1774 3539 1563 1774 3539 1560 3442 2394 1039 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 185 284 291 122 508 177 47 260 142 232 317 303 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1807 1774 1770 1563 1774 1770 1560 1721 1770 1664 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.1 10.910.9 5.3 10.0 7.6 2.1 4.0 5.1 5.3 10.4 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.1 10.910.9 5.3 10.0 7.6 2.1 4.0 5.1 5.3 10.4 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.62 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 222 497 507 154 858 379 59 1254 553 261 702 660 V/C Ratio(X)0.83 0.570.57 0.79 0.59 0.47 0.80 0.21 0.26 0.89 0.45 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 224 694 709 202 1343 593 135 1254 553 261 702 660 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 33.8 24.424.4 35.4 26.5 25.6 37.9 17.8 18.1 36.2 17.5 17.6 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 22.7 1.01.0 14.6 0.7 0.9 20.9 0.4 1.1 28.7 2.1 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.45.4 5.6 3.2 4.9 3.4 1.4 2.1 2.4 3.6 5.4 5.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 25.425.4 50.0 27.1 26.5 58.8 18.2 19.3 64.9 19.6 19.9 LnGrp LOS ECCDCCEBBEBB Approach Vol,veh/h 760 807 449 852 Approach Delay,s/veh 33.0 30.4 22.8 32.0 Approach LOS C C C C‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.0 32.0 10.9 26.2 6.6 35.4 13.9 23.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.04.0 40 4.0 404040 MaxGreenSetting(GmaX),s 6.0 28.0 9.0 31.0 6.0 28.0 10.0 30.0 MaXQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 7.3 7.1 7.3 12.9 4.1 12.6 10.1 12.0 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 6.2 0.0 7.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 7.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 207 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)9576543996305186363114570113 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.971.000.971.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631900186318631900186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h101814461056705491383315474120 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 130112464135110389516394342633272441 Arrive On Green0.070.330.330.080.330.330.430.430.430.430.430.43 Sat Flow, veh/h1774340019217743310266118492180013246351030 Grp Volume(v), veh/h101424436105358366910711540194 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177417701823177417701806118401722132401665 Q Serve(g_s), s4.115.315.34.212.312.33.90.01.85.70.05.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s4.115.315.34.212.312.39.40.01.87.50.05.5 Prop In Lane1.000.111.000.151.000.461.000.62 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h13058560313559060251607366330712 V/C Ratio(X)0.780.720.720.780.610.610.180.000.100.240.000.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h24568470422065967351607366330712 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.021.321.332.920.220.216.50.012.414.60.013.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh9.43.23.19.31.31.30.70.00.30.90.00.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.37.98.22.46.26.31.40.00.92.20.02.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh42.424.524.442.221.521.517.20.012.615.50.014.4 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h961 829 162 348 Approach Delay, s/veh26.4 24.1 15.2 14.9 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s35.09.528.035.09.328.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s31.09.028.031.010.027.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.46.217.39.56.114.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.50.16.72.50.17.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.0 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)95 765 4399 630 51863631 145 70 113 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 101 814 46 105 670 54913833 154 74 120 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 130 1124 64 135 1103 89 516 394 342 633 272 441 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.430.430.43 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3400 192 1774 3310 266 1184 921 800 1324 635 1030 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 101 424 436 105 358 366 91 0 71 154 0 194 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1774 1770 1823 1774 1770 1806 1184 0 1722 1324 0 1665 QServe(g_s),s 4.1 15.3 15.3 4.2 12.3 12.3 3.9 0.0 1.8 5.7 0.0 5.5 CycleQClear(g_c),s 4.1 15.3 15.3 4.2 12.3 12.3 9.4 0.0 1.8 7.5 0.0 5.5 ProplnLane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.62 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 130 585 603 135 590 602 516 0 736 633 0 712 V/CRatio(X)0.78 0.720.72 0.78 0.61 0.61 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 245 684 704 220 659 673 516 0 736 633 0 712 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 33.0 21.3 21.3 32.9 20.2 20.2 16.5 0.0 12.4 14.6 0.0 13.4 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 9.4 3.2 3.1 9.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),\%13/In 7.9 8.2 2.4 6.2 6.3 1.4 0.0 0.9 2.2 0.0 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.4 24.5 24.4 42.2 21.5 21.5 17.2 0.0 12.6 15.5 0.0 14.4 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 961 829 162 348 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.4 24.1 15.2 14.9 Approach LOS C C B B Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 35.0 9.5 28.0 35.0 9.3 28.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 31.0 9.0 28.0 31.0 10.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 11.4 6.2 17.3 9.5 6.1 14.3 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.5 0.1 6.7 2.5 0.1 7.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 208 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)17693132240616149421158222212 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631900186318631900186318631863190018631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h187451422586621510123170242413 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 22222222222 Cap, veh/h 291032197346153135569598508323217 Arrive On Green0.020.350.350.100.430.430.320.320.320.050.050.05 Sat Flow, veh/h177429575643442353680177418631583690690374 Grp Volume(v), veh/h18446441258331346101231706100 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177417701751172117701846177418631583175300 Q Serve(g_s), s0.919.119.16.411.411.43.60.77.13.00.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s0.919.119.16.411.411.43.60.77.13.00.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.321.000.041.001.000.390.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h296176113467668005695985088200 V/C Ratio(X)0.630.720.720.750.430.430.180.040.330.750.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h102791783552973101556959850856200 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh42.724.724.738.217.317.321.320.422.541.10.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh20.22.32.43.20.40.40.70.11.812.70.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln0.69.79.63.25.65.81.80.43.41.70.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh62.927.127.141.417.617.622.020.524.353.80.00.0 LnGrp LOS ECCDBB CCCD Approach Vol, veh/h905 935 294 61 Approach Delay, s/veh27.8 24.2 23.2 53.8 Approach LOS CCCD Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s32.012.834.48.15.441.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s28.014.039.028.05.048.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.18.421.15.02.913.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.90.49.30.30.012.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.4 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\T/*\>i«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)17 693 132 240 616 149421 158 222212 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 18 745 142 258 662 15 101 23 170 242413 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.930.930.93 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 29 1032 197 346 1531 35 569 598508 323217 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.050.050.05 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 2957 564 3442 3536 80 1774 1863 1583 690690 374 GrpVqume(v),veh/h 18 446 441 258 331 346 101 23 170 61 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1774 1770 1751 1721 1770 1846 1774 1863 1583 1753 00 QServe(g_s),s 0.9 19.1 19.1 6.4 11.4 11.4 3.6 0.7 7.1 3.0 0.00.0 CycleQCIear(g_c),s 0.9 19.1 19.1 6.4 11.4 11.4 3.6 0.7 7.1 3.0 0.00.0 PropInLane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.04 1.001.00 0.39 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h29 617 611 346 766 800 569 598508 82 00 WC Ratio(X)0.63 0.720.72 0.75 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.04 0.33 0.75 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 102 791 783 552 973 1015 569 598508 562 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 42.7 24.7 24.7 38.2 17.3 17.3 21.3 20.4 22.5 41.1 0.00.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 20.2 2.3 2.4 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.1 1.8 12.7 0.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),S/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\0fi/In 9.7 9.6 3.2 5.6 5.8 1.8 0.4 3.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.9 27.1 27.1 41.4 17.6 17.6 22.0 20.5 24.3 53.8 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS ECCDBBCCCD Approach Vol,veh/h 905 935 294 61 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.8 24.2 23.2 53.8 Approach LOS C C C D Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 32.0 12.8 34.4 8.1 5.4 41.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 28.0 14.0 39.0 28.0 5.0 48.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+|1),s 9.1 8.4 21.1 5.0 2.9 13.4 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.9 0.4 9.3 0.3 0.0 12.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 209 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2336405964530274 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)2536966484933298 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)298 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume697 1527348 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 672 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 854 vCu, unblocked vol 697 1210348 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %72 8954 cM capacity (veh/h)895 306648 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 25334834843226533298 Volume Left 2530000330 Volume Right 0000490298 cSH 8951700170017001700306648 Volume to Capacity0.280.200.200.250.160.110.46 Queue Length 95th (ft)290000960 Control Delay (s)10.60.00.00.00.018.115.2 Lane LOS B CC Approach Delay (s)2.8 0.0 15.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘‘H‘“i F Vohnne(vehfln 233 640 596 4530 274 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Gmde 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)253 696 648 4933 298 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflwerfi Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnm(fi)298 pX,platoon unblocked 0.82 vC,conmcfingvothe 697 1527 348 vC1,§age 1confvol 672 v02,stage 2 conf vol 854 vCu,unNockedvol 697 1210 348 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFw)22 3533 p0queue free %72 8954 cMcapacity (veh/h)895 306 648‑ Volume Total 253 348348 432 265 33 298 VohuneLefi 253 0000 33 0 Volume Right 0000 49 0 298 cSH 895 1700170017001700 306 648 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.200.20 0.25 0.16 0.11 0.46 QueueLengfli95m(fl)29 00009 60 Control Delay (3)10.6 0.00.00.0 0.0 18.1 15.2 LaneLOS B CC AppmachDeby($28 00 155 Approach LOS C‑ Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 210 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)5007144023341127062532133663244 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.981.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h586046824361197466534141705260 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 10860485204441452651023523231174525 Arrive On Green 0.310.000.310.110.110.110.040.300.300.080.330.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774381125917743421175177435391583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h586046824015574344355141705260 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401640177417701827177417701583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.80.022.81.00.07.22.213.213.34.213.010.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s10.80.022.81.00.07.22.213.213.34.213.010.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.771.00 0.101.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1086048520401882655295463231174525 V/C Ratio(X)0.540.000.970.120.000.820.280.650.650.440.600.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1086048520401883015295463691174525 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh22.60.026.831.10.033.918.523.923.917.821.921.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh0.50.032.10.30.024.60.66.15.90.92.33.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln5.40.014.30.50.04.61.17.47.62.16.75.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh23.10.058.931.40.058.519.130.029.818.724.124.3 LnGrp LOS C EC EBCCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1054 179 773 1106 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.0 54.9 28.8 23.5 Approach LOS DDCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.027.5 28.07.430.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.023.0 24.05.026.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.215.3 24.84.215.0 9.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.15.3 0.00.07.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 i"“i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)500 71 440 2334 11270 625 32 133 663 244 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 586 0 468 2436 119 74 665 34 141 705 260 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.94 0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 1086 0 485 204 44 145 265 1023 52 323 1174 525 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.11 0.110.11 0.04 0.300.30 0.08 0.330.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 381 1259 1774 3421 175 1774 3539 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 586 0 468 24 0 155 74 344 355 141 705 260 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1640 1774 1770 1827 1774 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.8 0.0 22.8 1.0 0.0 7.2 2.2 13.2 13.3 4.2 13.0 10.3 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 10.8 0.0 22.8 1.0 0.0 7.2 2.2 13.2 13.3 4.2 13.0 10.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.77 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1086 0 485 204 0 188 265 529 546 323 1174 525 V/C Ratio(X)0.54 0.00 0.97 0.12 0.00 0.82 0.28 0.650.65 0.44 0.60 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1086 0 485 204 0 188 301 529 546 369 1174 525 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 22.6 0.0 26.8 31.1 0.0 33.9 18.5 23.923.9 17.8 21.9 21.0 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.50.0 32.1 0.3 0.0 24.6 0.6 6.1 5.9 0.9 2.3 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 5.4 0.0 14.3 0.50.0 4.6 1.1 7.4 7.6 2.1 6.7 5.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.1 0.0 58.9 31.4 0.0 58.5 19.1 30.0 29.8 18.7 24.1 24.3 LnGrp LOS C EC EBCCBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1054 179 773 1106 Approach Delay,s/veh 39.0 54.9 28.8 23.5 Approach LOS D D C C‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.0 27.5 28.0 7.4 30.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 8.0 23.0 24.0 5.0 26.0 9.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 6.2 15.3 24.8 4.2 15.0 9.2 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 5.3 0.00.0 7.0 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.9 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 211 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0004815814347348128216655894 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5560152503512300177594100 Adj No. of Lanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 705031066111766875181361229 Arrive On Green 0.200.000.200.180.550.550.080.450.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 35480156117742133124617743033509 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5560152503425387177346348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177401561177417701609177417701773 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.50.06.19.510.010.13.79.59.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.50.06.19.510.010.13.79.59.5 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.771.000.29 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7050310661976887518794796 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.000.490.760.440.440.340.440.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 9530419989976887626794796 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.90.025.28.69.49.48.813.413.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.20.01.22.01.41.60.41.71.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.50.02.75.05.24.81.85.05.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.10.026.410.510.810.99.215.115.1 LnGrp LOS CC BBBABB Approach Vol, veh/h 708 1315 871 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 10.7 13.9 Approach LOS C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.743.0 16.935.818.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.039.0 26.023.019.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.712.1 11.511.512.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.210.7 1.46.71.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\T/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 481 58 143 473 481 282 166 558 94 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 556 0 152 503 512 300 177 594 100 Adj No.ofLanes 201120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 705 0 310 661 1176 687 518 1361 229 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.08 0.450.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1561 1774 2133 1246 1774 3033 509 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 556 0 152 503 425 387 177 346 348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1561 1774 1770 1609 1774 1770 1773 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.5 0.0 6.1 9.5 10.0 10.1 3.7 9.5 9.5 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 10.5 0.0 6.1 9.5 10.0 10.1 3.7 9.59.5 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.29 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 705 0 310 661 976 887 518 794 796 V/C Ratio(X)0.79 0.00 0.49 0.76 0.44 0.44 0.34 0.44 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 953 0 419 989 976 887 626 794 796 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 26.9 0.0 25.2 8.6 9.4 9.4 8.8 13.4 13.4 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 3.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.6 0.4 1.7 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.5 0.0 2.7 5.0 5.2 4.8 1.8 5.05.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 0.0 26.4 10.5 10.8 10.9 9.2 15.115.1 LnGrp LOS CCBBBABB Approach Vol,veh/h 708 1315 871 Approach Delay,s/veh 29.3 10.7 13.9 Approach LOS C B B‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),39.7 43.0 16.9 35.8 18.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmaklp,.@ 39.0 26.0 23.0 19.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l‘6,7s 12.1 11.5 11.5 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.2 10.7 1.4 6.7 1.5‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 2010 LOS B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 212 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 40160242113424134552972 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 431742623146261445571078 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All1720020000522491187483491159 Stage 1 ------274274-204204- Stage 2 ------248217-279287- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1405--1372--465478855494478886 Stage 1 ------732683-798733- Stage 2 ------756723-728674- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1405--1372--402456855470456886 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------402456-470456- Stage 1 ------710662-774721- Stage 2 ------668711-697653- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.4 0.9 13.1 12.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)4691405--1372--628 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0510.031--0.017--0.23 HCM Control Delay (s)13.17.6--7.7--12.4 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.20.1--0.1--0.9 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 4.3 Vol,veh/h 40 160 2421 134 2413 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0000000 Sign Control Free Free FreeFree Free Free Stop RT Channelized --None -None ‑ Storage Length 100 --90 --‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0 0 ‑ Grade,%-0--0-‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292929292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222222 Mvmt Flow 43 174 2623 146 2614 4 0 Stop 5 0 Stop -None 52 0 Stop 92 57 Conflicting Flow All 172 0 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1405 ‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1405 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.4 HCM LOS 522 274 248 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 465 732 756 0 200 00 4.12 -2.218 -‑ 1372 -‑ 1372 402 402 710 668 0.9 13.1 491 274 217 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 478 683 723 456 456 662 711 187 6.22 3.318 855 855 483 204 279 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 494 798 728 470 470 774 697 12.4 491 204 287 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 478 733 674 456 456 721 653 Capacity (veh/h)469 1405 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 0.031 HCM Control Delay (5)13.1 7.6 HCM Lane LOS BA HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.2 0.1 1372 628 --0.017 --0.23 7.7 --12.4 --A--B 0.1 --0.9 Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 213 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.2 Movement EBTEBRWBLWBT NBLNBR Vol, veh/h 863430829 033 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0000 00 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFree StopStop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, #0--0 0 - Grade, %0--0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 938470901 036 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 009850 1412492 Stage 1 ----961 - Stage 2 ----451 - Critical Hdwy --4.14-6.846.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ----5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ----5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy --2.22-3.523.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver --697-129522 Stage 1 ----332 - Stage 2 ----609 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --697-129522 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ----129 - Stage 1 ----332 - Stage 2 ----609 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)522--697- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.069 ---- HCM Control Delay (s)12.4--0- HCM Lane LOS B--A- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--0- HCM 2010 TWSC 8:E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.2 Vol,veh/h 863 43 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 00 Sign Control Free Free RT Channelized -None Storage Length -‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0 ‑ Grade,%0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%22 Mvmt Flow 938 47 Conflicting Flow All 00 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy -‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%-‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -‑ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,3 0 HCM LOS 0 829 0 00 0 Free Free Stop -None ‑ -0 0 -0 0 9292 92 22 2 0 901 0 0 1412 -961 -451 -6.84 -5.84 -5.84 -3.52 -129 -332 -609 -129 -129 -332 -609 12.4 Capacity (veh/h)522 -‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 -‑ HCM Control Delay (3)12.4 -‑ HCM Lane LOS B-‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.2 -‑ Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Item 8.a. - Page 214 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Courtland St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.9 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 2155132 19418 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 2355143 21120 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All3752212300 -0 Stage 1 221 ----- Stage 2 154 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6268191338--- Stage 1 816 ----- Stage 2 874 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6238191338--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver623 ----- Stage 1 816 ----- Stage 2 871 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s10.8 0.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1338-653-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.004-0.043-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.7010.8-- HCM Lane LOS AAB-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 9:Courtland St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.9 Vol,veh/h 21 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0 Sign Control Stop RT Channelized ‑ Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,#0 Grade,%0 Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles,%2 Mvmt Flow 23 Conflicting Flow All 375 Stage 1 221 Stage 2 154 Critical Hdwy 6.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 626 Stage 1 816 Stage 2 874 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 623 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 623 Stage 1 816 Stage 2 871 HCM Control Delay,3 10.8 HCM LOS B 5 132 194 18 00 00 Free Free Free Free -None -None _00__00_ 9292 9292 22 22 5 143 211 20 0.3 0 Capacity (veh/h)1338 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 HCM Control Delay (3)7.7 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0 -653 -0.043 0 10.8 AB -0.1 Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Item 8.a. - Page 215 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Courtland St 11/5/2014 Existing+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.4 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 923128 18514 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 1023139 20115 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All3552092160 -0 Stage 1 209 ----- Stage 2 146 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6438311354--- Stage 1 826 ----- Stage 2 881 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6428311354--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver642 ----- Stage 1 826 ----- Stage 2 879 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s10.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1354-670-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.002-0.018-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.7010.5-- HCM Lane LOS AAB-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 10:Courtland St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.4 Vol,veh/h 9 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0 Sign Control Stop RT Channelized ‑ Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,#0 Grade,%0 Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles,%2 Mvmt Flow 10 Conflicting Flow All 355 Stage 1 209 Stage 2 146 Critical Hdwy 6.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 643 Stage 1 826 Stage 2 881 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 642 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 642 Stage 1 826 Stage 2 879 HCM Control Delay,3 10.5 HCM LOS B 209 6.22 3.318 831 3 128 185 14 00 00 Free Free Free Free -None -None _00__00_ 9292 9292 22 22 3 139 201 15 0.2 0 Capacity (veh/h)1354 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 HCM Control Delay (3)7.7 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0 -670 -0.018 0 10.5 AB -0.1 Existing+ProjectPM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Item 8.a. - Page 216 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)125375301653552153035521522530040 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln182718271900182718271827182718271827182718271900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h136408331793862343338623424532643 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %444444444444 Cap, veh/h 171686552208293664512635583351347176 Arrive On Green 0.100.210.210.130.240.240.030.360.360.100.440.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740325026217403471153317403471153233753082403 Grp Volume(v), veh/h13621722417938623433386234245182187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln174017361777174017361533174017361532168817361750 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.19.09.18.07.611.01.56.49.25.65.35.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s6.19.09.18.07.611.01.56.49.25.65.35.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.151.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.23 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h171366375220829366451263558335758765 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.590.600.810.470.640.730.310.420.730.240.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h32665066539114306321301263558506758765 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh35.328.528.534.126.127.438.718.219.135.014.214.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh8.01.51.57.20.41.920.00.62.33.10.70.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.34.54.64.33.74.81.03.24.32.82.72.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh43.330.030.141.326.529.258.718.921.438.114.915.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCEBCDBB Approach Vol, veh/h 577 799 653 614 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 30.6 21.8 24.2 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.933.114.120.96.139.011.923.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s12.029.018.030.06.035.015.033.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.611.210.011.13.57.48.113.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.35.30.35.80.06.10.25.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.5 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\tr\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i H)“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)125 375 30 165 355 215 30 355 215225 300 40 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18271827 1900 18271827182718271827182718271827 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 136 408 33 179 386 234 33 386 234 245 326 43 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%444444444444 Cap,veh/h 171 686 55 220 829 366 45 1263 558 335 1347 176 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.210.21 0.13 0.240.24 0.03 0.360.36 0.10 0.440.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3250 262 1740 3471 1533 1740 3471 1532 3375 3082 403 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 136 217 224 179 386 234 33 386 234 245 182 187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 1736 1777 1740 1736 1533 1740 1736 1532 1688 1736 1750 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.1 9.0 9.1 8.0 7.6 11.0 1.5 6.4 9.2 5.6 5.3 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.1 9.0 9.1 8.0 7.6 11.0 1.5 6.4 9.2 5.6 5.3 5.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.23 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 171 366 375 220 829 366 45 1263 558 335 758 765 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.59 0.60 0.81 0.47 0.64 0.73 0.31 0.42 0.73 0.240.24 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 326 650 665 391 1430 632 130 1263 558 506 758 765 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 35.3 28.528.5 34.1 26.1 27.4 38.7 18.2 19.1 35.0 14.214.2 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 8.0 1.51.5 7.2 0.4 1.9 20.0 0.6 2.3 3.1 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.3 4.5 4.6 4.3 3.7 4.8 1.0 3.2 4.3 2.8 2.7 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.3 30.0 30.1 41.3 26.5 29.2 58.7 18.9 21.4 38.1 14.9 15.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCEBCDBB Approach Vol,veh/h 577 799 653 614 Approach Delay,s/veh 33.2 30.6 21.8 24.2 Approach LOS C C C C‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.9 33.1 14.1 20.9 6.1 39.0 11.9 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.04.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 MaxGreenSetting(Gmax),s 12.0 29.0 18.0 30.0 6.0 35.0 15.0 33.0 MaxQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 7.6 11.2 10.0 11.1 3.5 7.4 8.1 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.3 5.3 0.3 5.8 0.0 6.1 0.2 5.9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 217 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)806604580640608545751202565 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln181018101900181018101900181018101900181018101900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h877174987696659249821302771 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 55555555555 Cap, veh/h 111103170111100394621275460592197519 Arrive On Green0.060.320.320.060.320.320.450.450.450.450.450.45 Sat Flow, veh/h17233261223172331722961255610102012184381151 Grp Volume(v), veh/h8737838887377384920131130098 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln172317191764172317191749125501630121801589 Q Serve(g_s), s3.513.713.73.513.613.73.30.03.45.10.02.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s3.513.713.73.513.613.75.90.03.48.50.02.6 Prop In Lane1.000.131.000.171.000.631.000.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h11154355811154355362107345920716 V/C Ratio(X)0.780.700.700.780.690.690.150.000.180.220.000.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h21865367121865366562107345920716 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh32.721.321.332.721.321.313.10.011.714.20.011.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh11.32.52.511.32.52.50.50.00.50.90.00.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.06.97.12.06.86.91.20.01.61.80.01.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh44.123.823.844.123.823.713.60.012.215.00.011.8 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h853 848 223 228 Approach Delay, s/veh25.9 25.8 12.8 13.7 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s36.08.626.436.08.626.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s32.09.027.032.09.027.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.95.515.710.55.515.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.30.06.72.20.06.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.2 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐rwr*‐‘~\1/>\>l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)80 660 4580 640 60854575 120 2565 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 87 717 4987 696 65924982 130 2771 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%555555555555 Cap,veh/h 111 1031 70 111 1003 94 621 275 460 592 197 519 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.450.450.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1723 3261 223 1723 3172 296 1255 610 1020 1218 438 1151 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 87 378388 87 377 384 92 0 131 130 0 98 GrpSatFlow(s),veh/h/In1723 1719 1764 1723 1719 1749 1255 0 1630 1218 0 1589 Q Serve(g_s).s 3.5 13.7 13.7 3.5 13.6 13.7 3.3 0.0 3.4 5.1 0.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.5 13.7 13.7 3.5 13.6 13.7 5.9 0.0 3.4 8.5 0.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 111 543 558 111 543 553 621 0 734 592 0 716 V/C Ratio(X)0.78 0.700.70 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.150.00 0.18 0.22 0.00 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 218 653 671 218 653 665 621 0 734 592 0 716 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 32.7 21.3 21.3 32.7 21.3 21.3 13.1 0.0 11.7 14.2 0.0 11.4 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 11.3 2.5 2.5 11.3 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),\m.6/In 6.9 7.1 2.0 6.8 6.9 1.2 0.0 1.6 1.8 0.0 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.1 23.8 23.8 44.1 23.8 23.7 13.6 0.0 12.2 15.0 0.0 11.8 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 853 848 223 228 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.9 25.8 12.8 13.7 Approach LOS C C B B Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 36.0 8.6 26.4 36.0 8.6 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 32.0 9.0 27.0 32.0 9.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 7.9 5.5 15.7 10.5 5.5 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.3 0.0 6.7 2.2 0.0 6.8 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 218 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)12560540905607595702256060135 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.000.991.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln184518451900184518451900184518451845190018451900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h136658439860982103762456565147 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 33333333333 Cap, veh/h 173112974166893120592815684182192351 Arrive On Green0.100.340.340.050.290.290.440.440.440.440.440.44 Sat Flow, veh/h1757333721834083096416115318451548270433795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h136345356983443471037624527700 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln175717521803170417521760115318451548149800 Q Serve(g_s), s5.311.411.42.012.212.30.01.77.41.50.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s5.311.411.42.012.212.34.61.77.48.00.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.121.000.241.001.000.230.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h17359361016650650859281568472500 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.580.580.590.680.680.170.090.360.380.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h30179982224362562759281568472500 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.919.119.132.722.122.112.211.413.013.10.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh7.70.90.93.32.22.30.60.21.50.30.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.95.65.81.06.16.31.30.93.43.60.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh38.620.020.036.024.324.412.911.614.413.40.00.0 LnGrp LOS D CCDCC BBBB Approach Vol, veh/h837 789 424 277 Approach Delay, s/veh23.0 25.8 13.5 13.4 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s35.07.427.735.010.924.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s31.05.032.031.012.025.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.44.013.410.07.314.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s3.60.08.33.60.16.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.1 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)125 605 4090 560 759570 225 6060 135 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18451845 1900 18451845 1900 184518451845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 136 658 4398 609 82 103 76 245 6565 147 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%333333333333 Cap,veh/h 173 1129 74 166 893 120 592 815 684 182 192 351 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.440.440.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3337 218 3408 3096 416 1153 1845 1548 270 433 795 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 136 345 356 98 344 347 103 76 245 277 00 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1757 1752 1803 1704 1752 1760 1153 1845 15481498 00 QServe(g_s),s 5.3 11.4 11.4 2.0 12.2 12.3 0.0 1.7 7.4 1.5 0.00.0 CycleQClear(g_c),s 5.3 11.4 11.4 2.0 12.2 12.3 4.6 1.7 7.4 8.0 0.00.0 ProplnLane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.24 1.001.00 0.23 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 173 593 610 166 506 508 592 815 684 725 00 WC Ratio(X)0.79 0.580.58 0.59 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.38 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 301 799 822 243 625 627 592 815 684 725 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 30.9 19.1 19.1 32.7 22.1 22.1 12.2 11.4 13.0 13.1 0.00.0 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 7.7 0.9 0.9 3.3 2.2 2.3 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),\m.6/In 5.6 5.8 1.0 6.1 6.3 1.3 0.9 3.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 20.0 20.0 36.0 24.3 24.4 12.9 11.6 14.4 13.4 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 837 789 424 277 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.0 25.8 13.5 13.4 Approach LOS C C B B Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 35.0 7.4 27.7 35.0 10.9 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 31.0 5.0 32.0 31.0 12.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 9.4 4.0 13.4 10.0 7.3 14.3 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 3.6 0.0 8.3 3.6 0.1 6.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 219 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)255625505140105205 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)277679549152114223 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 vC, conflicting volume701 1519351 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 625 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 894 vCu, unblocked vol 701 1332351 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %69 5765 cM capacity (veh/h)892 263646 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 277340340366335114223 Volume Left 27700001140 Volume Right 00001520223 cSH 8921700170017001700263646 Volume to Capacity0.310.200.200.220.200.430.35 Queue Length 95th (ft)3300005238 Control Delay (s)10.80.00.00.00.028.713.5 Lane LOS B DB Approach Delay (s)3.1 0.0 18.7 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘+1.)“i F Vohnne(vehflfi 255 625 505 140 105 205 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)277 679 549 152 114 223 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflweWm) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnd(fi)321 pX,platoon unblocked 0.89 vC,conflmfingvothe 701 1519 351 vC1,§age 1confvol 625 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 894 vCu,unNockedvol 701 1332 351 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFw)22 3533 p0queue free %69 5765 cMcapacity (veh/h)892 263 646‑ Volume Total 277 340340 366 335 114 223 VohuneLefi 277 0000 114 0 Volume Right 0000 152 0 223 cSH 892 1700170017001700 263 646 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.200.20 0.22 0.20 0.43 0.35 QueueLengfli95m(fi)33 0000 5238 CmflmlDeby($108 00000000 287 135 LaneLOS B DB Approach Delay (3)3.1 0.0 18.7 Approach LOS C‑ Average Delay 4.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 220 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2705516010301705583525120395185 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 0.991.00 0.981.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h336017411331856090827130429201 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5660252273372094341305393241415620 Arrive On Green 0.160.000.160.150.150.150.040.370.370.070.400.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774242135917743507104177435391550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h336017411021860458477130429201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401601177417701842177417701550 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.70.06.70.30.08.71.314.314.32.95.45.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s5.70.06.70.30.08.71.314.314.32.95.45.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.851.00 0.061.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h566025227302464346586853241415620 V/C Ratio(X)0.590.000.690.040.000.890.140.700.700.400.300.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1310058527302464716586853931415620 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.40.025.823.40.026.911.717.317.313.013.313.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh1.00.03.30.10.029.40.16.05.80.80.61.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.90.03.20.20.05.80.78.08.31.42.72.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh26.40.029.123.50.056.411.923.323.113.813.914.8 LnGrp LOS C CC EBCCBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 510 229 995 760 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.3 54.8 22.5 14.1 Approach LOS C D C B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.528.2 14.46.630.0 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s7.023.0 24.04.026.0 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.916.3 8.73.37.8 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.14.7 1.60.09.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 F “i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)270 55 160 1030 170 55 835 25 120 395 185 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 336 0 174 11 33 185 60 908 27 130 429 201 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 566 0 252 273 37 209 434 1305 39 324 1415 620 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.150.15 0.04 0.370.37 0.07 0.400.40 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 242 1359 1774 3507 104 1774 3539 1550 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 336 0 174 11 0 218 60 458 477 130 429 201 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1601 1774 1770 1842 1774 17701550 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.7 0.0 6.7 0.3 0.0 8.7 1.3 14.314.3 2.9 5.4 5.8 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 5.7 0.0 6.7 0.3 0.0 8.7 1.3 14.314.3 2.9 5.4 5.8 Prop ln Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.85 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 566 0 252 273 0 246 434 658 685 324 1415 620 V/C Ratio(X)0.59 0.00 0.69 0.04 0.00 0.89 0.14 0.700.70 0.40 0.30 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1310 0 585 273 0 246 471 658 685 393 1415 620 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 25.4 0.0 25.8 23.4 0.0 26.9 11.7 17.317.3 13.0 13.3 13.4 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 1.0 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 29.4 0.1 6.0 5.8 0.8 0.6 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 2.9 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 5.8 0.7 8.0 8.3 1.4 2.72.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.4 0.0 29.1 23.5 0.0 56.4 11.9 23.3 23.1 13.8 13.9 14.8 LnGrp LOS C CC EBCCBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 510 229 995 760 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.3 54.8 22.5 14.1 Approach LOS C D C B‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 28.2 14.4 6.6 30.0 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 7.0 23.0 24.0 4.0 26.0 10.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+|1),s 4.9 16.3 8.7 3.3 7.8 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 4.7 1.6 0.0 9.5 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.9 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 221 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)00020012522556061010565500200 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.001.000.971.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17619324560966311471543217 Adj No. of Lanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 3253412908251382237648690275 Arrive On Green 0.180.180.180.380.460.460.200.280.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774186315831774300851717742457978 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17619324560939038771391369 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177418631583177417701755177417701665 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.07.411.715.512.012.01.716.016.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.07.411.715.512.012.01.716.016.1 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.291.000.59 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325341290825813807648497468 V/C Ratio(X)0.540.570.850.740.480.480.110.790.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 362380323825813807648497468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.029.230.911.814.714.710.826.026.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.41.616.95.92.02.00.311.812.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.54.06.512.06.36.30.99.49.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.430.747.817.716.716.711.237.838.8 LnGrp LOS CCD BBBBDD Approach Vol, veh/h 614 1386 831 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 17.1 36.0 Approach LOS D B D Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.040.0 34.026.018.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s16.036.0 30.022.016.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.714.0 17.518.113.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.110.0 1.72.80.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 200 125 225 560 610 105 65 500 200 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.001.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 176 193 245 609 663 114 71 543 217 Adj No.ofLanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 325 341 290 825 1382 237 648 690 275 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.20 0.280.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 3008 517 1774 2457 978 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 176 193 245 609 390 387 71 391 369 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1755 1774 1770 1665 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 7.4 11.7 15.5 12.0 12.0 1.7 16.0 16.1 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 7.0 7.4 11.7 15.5 12.0 12.0 1.7 16.0 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.59 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 325 341 290 825 813 807 648 497 468 V/C Ratio(X)0.54 0.57 0.85 0.74 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 362 380 323 825 813 807 648 497 468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 29.0 29.2 30.9 11.8 14.7 14.7 10.8 26.026.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 1.4 1.6 16.9 5.9 2.0 2.0 0.3 11.8 12.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 3.5 4.0 6.5 12.0 6.3 6.3 0.9 9.4 9.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 30.7 47.8 17.7 16.7 16.7 11.2 37.838.8 LnGrp LOS CCDBBBBDD Approach Vol,veh/h 614 1386 831 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.5 17.1 36.0 Approach LOS D B D‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),30.0 40.0 34.0 26.0 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmakfim 36.0 30.0 22.0 16.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l’6,7s 14.0 17.5 18.1 13.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 10.0 1.7 2.8 0.6‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 222 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.2 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 30953010120603551565525 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 331033311130653851671527 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All1960013600386402120381386163 Stage 1 ------185185-185185- Stage 2 ------201217-196201- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1377--1448--573537931577548882 Stage 1 ------817747-817747- Stage 2 ------801723-806735- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1377--1448--538520931549531882 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------538520-549531- Stage 1 ------797729-797741- Stage 2 ------765718-767717- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.5 0.4 11.6 12.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)6061377--1448--608 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0990.024--0.008--0.17 HCM Control Delay (s)11.67.7--7.5--12.1 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.30.1--0--0.6 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 4.2 Vol,veh/h 30953010 120 6035 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0000000 Sign Control Free Free FreeFree Free Free Stop RT Channelized --None -None ‑ Storage Length 100 --90 --‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0--0-‑ Grade,%-0--0-‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292929292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222222 Mvmt Flow 33 103 33 11 130 6538 5 15 00 StopStop -None 0 0_ 9292 22 5 16 65 0 Stop 5 0 Stop 25 0 Stop -None Conflicting Flow All 196 0 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 ‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.5 HCM LOS 0 136 00 386 ---185 ----201 -4.12 -7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 573 817 801 -2.218 -‑ 1448 -‑ 1448 538 538 797 765 0.4 11.6 402 185 217 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 537 747 723 520 520 729 718 3.318 931 931 381 185 196 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 577 817 806 549 549 797 767 12.1 386 185 201 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 548 747 735 531 531 741 717 Capacity (veh/h)606 1377 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.024 HCM Control Delay (5)11.6 7.7 HCM Lane LOS BA HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.3 0.1 1448 608 --0.008 --0.17 7.5 --12.1 --A--B 0--0.6 Cumulative AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 223 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1855905521057526550285225335525185 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln182718271900182718271827182718271827182718271900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h2016416022862528854310245364571201 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %444444444444 Cap, veh/h 2388407826596342569970428453940330 Arrive On Green 0.140.260.260.150.280.280.040.280.280.130.370.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740320530017403471153317403471153233752511882 Grp Volume(v), veh/h20134735422862528854310245364394378 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln174017361769174017361533174017361532168817361657 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.517.117.211.914.810.82.96.68.59.717.117.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s10.517.117.211.914.810.82.96.68.59.717.117.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.171.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h23845546326596342569970428453649620 V/C Ratio(X)0.840.760.760.860.650.680.790.320.570.800.610.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h3745045143741008445150970428581649620 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh39.231.731.738.429.614.544.326.512.939.123.623.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh9.86.16.113.31.43.917.60.95.56.34.24.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln5.79.09.26.77.25.01.73.34.24.99.08.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh49.037.837.851.831.018.361.927.418.345.427.728.0 LnGrp LOS DDDDCBECBDCC Approach Vol, veh/h 902 1141 609 1136 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.3 31.9 26.8 33.5 Approach LOS DCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s16.530.018.228.47.738.816.729.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s16.026.020.027.08.034.020.027.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.710.513.919.24.919.212.516.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.72.50.35.20.05.70.36.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.6 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\tr\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i H)“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)185 590 55 210 575 265 50 285 225 335 525 185 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18271827 1900 18271827182718271827182718271827 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 201 641 60 228 625 288 54 310 245 364 571 201 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%444444444444 Cap,veh/h 238 840 78 265 963 425 69 970 428 453 940 330 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.260.26 0.15 0.280.28 0.04 0.280.28 0.13 0.370.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3205 300 1740 3471 1533 1740 3471 1532 3375 251 1 882 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 201 347 354 228 625 288 54 310 245 364 394 378 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 1736 1769 1740 1736 1533 1740 1736 1532 1688 1736 1657 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.5 17.1 17.2 11.9 14.810.8 2.9 6.6 8.5 9.7 17.1 17.2 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 10.5 17.1 17.2 11.9 14.810.8 2.9 6.6 8.5 9.7 17.1 17.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 238 455 463 265 963 425 69 970 428 453 649 620 V/C Ratio(X)0.84 0.760.76 0.86 0.65 0.68 0.79 0.32 0.57 0.80 0.610.61 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 374 504 514 374 1008 445 150 970 428 581 649 620 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 39.2 31.731.7 38.4 29.6 14.5 44.3 26.5 12.9 39.1 23.623.6 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 9.8 6.16.1 13.3 1.4 3.9 17.6 0.9 5.5 6.3 4.2 4.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.7 9.0 9.2 6.7 7.2 5.0 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.9 9.0 8.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.0 37.837.8 51.8 31.0 18.3 61.9 27.4 18.3 45.4 27.7 28.0 LnGrp LOS DDDDCBECBDCC Approach Vol,veh/h 902 1141 609 1136 Approach Delay,s/veh 40.3 31.9 26.8 33.5 Approach LOS D C C C‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 16.5 30.0 18.2 28.4 7.7 38.8 16.7 29.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.04.0 40 4.0 404040 MaxGreenSetting(Gmax),s 16.0 26.0 20.0 27.0 8.0 34.0 20.027.0 MaxQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 11.7 10.5 13.9 19.2 4.9 19.2 12.5 16.8 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.7 2.5 0.3 5.2 0.0 5.7 0.3 6.4 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 224 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1159957013085095100458519080135 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln181018101900181018101900181018101900181018101900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h125108276141924103109499220787147 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 55555555555 Cap, veh/h 1561222861741200134384209392467222376 Arrive On Green0.090.380.380.100.390.390.370.370.370.370.370.37 Sat Flow, veh/h17233254228172331113471109564105912076011015 Grp Volume(v), veh/h12557158714151051710901412070234 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln172317191763172317191739110901623120701615 Q Serve(g_s), s5.624.424.46.320.320.36.30.04.711.20.08.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s5.624.424.46.320.320.314.60.04.715.90.08.4 Prop In Lane1.000.131.000.201.000.651.000.63 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h15664566217466367138406014670598 V/C Ratio(X)0.800.890.890.810.770.770.280.000.230.440.000.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h19865967519866367138406014670598 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh34.922.922.934.521.021.023.50.017.022.50.018.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh16.413.513.319.65.55.51.80.00.93.00.01.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.413.914.23.910.710.82.10.02.34.10.04.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh51.336.436.254.126.526.525.40.017.925.50.020.1 LnGrp LOS D DDDCCCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h1283 1168 250 441 Approach Delay, s/veh37.8 29.8 21.2 22.6 Approach LOS DCCC Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s33.011.933.433.011.134.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s29.09.030.029.09.030.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s16.68.326.417.97.622.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s3.10.03.02.90.06.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)115 995 70 130 850 95 100 4585 190 80 135 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 125 1082 76 141 924 103 109 4992 207 87 147 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%555555555555 Cap,veh/h 156 1222 86 174 1200 134 384 209 392 467 222 376 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.370.370.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 1723 3254 228 1723 3111 347 1109 564 1059 1207 601 1015 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 125 571 587 141 510 517 109 0 141 207 0 234 GrpSatFlow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1719 1763 1723 17191739 1109 0 1623 1207 0 1615 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.6 24.4 24.4 6.3 20.3 20.3 6.3 0.0 4.7 11.2 0.0 8.4 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 5.6 24.4 24.4 6.3 20.3 20.3 14.6 0.0 4.7 15.9 0.0 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.63 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 156 645 662 174 663 671 384 0 601 467 0 598 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.890.89 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.28 0.00 0.23 0.44 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 198 659 675 198 663 671 384 0 601 467 0 598 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 34.9 22.9 22.9 34.5 21.0 21.023.5 0.0 17.0 22.5 0.0 18.2 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 16.4 13.5 13.3 19.6 5.5 5.5 1.8 0.0 0.9 3.0 0.0 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),\6l4/In 13.9 14.2 3.9 10.7 10.8 2.1 0.0 2.3 4.1 0.0 4.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.3 36.4 36.2 54.1 26.5 26.5 25.4 0.0 17.9 25.5 0.0 20.1 LnGrp LOS DDDDCCCBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1283 1168 250 441 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.8 29.8 21.2 22.6 Approach LOS D C C C‑ Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 33.0 11.9 33.4 33.0 11.1 34.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 29.0 9.0 30.0 29.0 9.0 30.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 16.6 8.3 26.4 17.9 7.6 22.3 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 3.1 0.0 3.0 2.9 0.0 6.4‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.4 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 225 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1259251302408005095601604560120 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.000.991.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln184518451900184518451900184518451845190018451900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h136100514126187054103651744965130 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 33333333333 Cap, veh/h 1701289181348141788440620520126170279 Arrive On Green0.100.420.420.100.420.420.340.340.340.340.340.34 Sat Flow, veh/h1757308243234083347208117118451548221507830 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1365715752614554691036517424400 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln175717521762170417521803117118451548155700 Q Serve(g_s), s6.323.423.56.216.916.90.02.07.02.00.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s6.323.423.56.216.916.97.92.07.09.60.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.251.000.121.001.000.200.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h17073373734874276344062052057500 V/C Ratio(X)0.800.780.780.750.610.610.230.100.330.420.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h27479980349177880044062052057500 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.820.920.936.418.718.721.019.120.721.50.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh8.34.64.64.01.31.31.20.31.70.50.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.512.212.33.18.48.62.01.13.24.40.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh45.125.525.540.420.120.022.319.422.422.00.00.0 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h1282 1185 342 244 Approach Delay, s/veh27.6 24.5 21.8 22.0 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s32.012.538.932.012.139.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s28.012.038.028.013.037.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.98.225.511.68.318.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.80.39.42.70.112.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\l/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)125 925 130 240 800 509560 160 4560 120 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18451845 1900 18451845 1900 184518451845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 136 1005 141 261 870 54 103 65 174 4965 130 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%333333333333 Cap,veh/h 170 1289 181 348 1417 88 440 620 520 126 170 279 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.340.340.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3082 432 3408 3347 208 1171 1845 1548 221 507 830 GrpVqume(v),veh/h 136 571 575 261 455 469 103 65 174 244 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1757 1752 1762 1704 1752 1803 1171 1845 1548 1557 00 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 23.4 23.5 6.2 16.9 16.9 0.0 2.0 7.0 2.0 0.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 23.4 23.5 6.2 16.9 16.9 7.9 2.0 7.0 9.6 0.00.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.12 1.001.00 0.20 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 170 733 737 348 742 763 440 620 520 575 00 WC Ratio(X)0.80 0.780.78 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.23 0.10 0.33 0.42 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 274 799 803 491 778 800 440 620 520 575 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(|)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 36.8 20.9 20.9 36.4 18.7 18.7 21.0 19.1 20.7 21.5 0.00.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 8.3 4.6 4.6 4.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.50.00.0 Initial Q De|ay(d3),S/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\&.5/In 12.2 12.3 3.1 8.4 8.6 2.0 1.1 3.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp De|ay(d),s/veh 45.1 25.5 25.5 40.4 20.1 20.0 22.3 19.4 22.4 22.0 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCCBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1282 1185 342 244 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.6 24.5 21.8 22.0 Approach LOS C C C C Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 32.0 12.5 38.9 32.0 12.1 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 28.0 12.0 38.0 28.0 13.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 9.9 8.2 25.5 11.6 8.3 18.9 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.8 0.3 9.4 2.7 0.1 12.5 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 226 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)250870760130115315 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)272946826141125342 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 vC, conflicting volume967 1913484 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 897 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1016 vCu, unblocked vol 967 1536484 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %62 4735 cM capacity (veh/h)708 236529 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 272473473551417125342 Volume Left 27200001250 Volume Right 00001410342 cSH 7081700170017001700236529 Volume to Capacity0.380.280.280.320.250.530.65 Queue Length 95th (ft)45000070115 Control Delay (s)13.20.00.00.00.036.223.4 Lane LOS B EC Approach Delay (s)3.0 0.0 26.9 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘+1.)“i F Vohnne(vehfln 250 870 760 130 115 315 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Gmde 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)272 946 826 141 125 342 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflwerfi Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnm(fi)321 pX,platoon unblocked 0.74 vC,conmcfingvothe 967 1913 484 vC1,§age 1confvol 897 v02,stage 2 conf vol 1016 vCu,unNockedvol 967 1536 484 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFfi)22 3533 p0queue free %62 4735 cMcapacity (veh/h)708 236 529‑ Volume Total 272 473473 551 417 125 342 VohuneLefi 272 0000 125 0 Volume Right 0000 141 0 342 cSH 708 1700170017001700 236 529 Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.280.28 0.32 0.25 0.53 0.65 QueueLengfli95m(fl)45 0000 70 115 CmflmlDeby($132 00000000 362 234 LaneLOS B EC Approach Delay (3)3.0 0.0 26.9 Approach LOS D‑ Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4%ICU Level of Service B AndydsPenod(mm)15 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 227 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)5357545025451507575035160770275 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 0.991.00 0.981.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h641048927491638281538174837299 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 10670476200421412401023482981198524 Arrive On Green 0.300.000.300.110.110.110.050.300.300.090.340.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774375124717743439160177435391550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h641048927021282419434174837299 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401622177417701830177417701550 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.30.024.01.10.09.02.517.417.45.216.412.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s12.30.024.01.10.09.02.517.417.45.216.412.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.771.00 0.091.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1067047620001832405265442981198524 V/C Ratio(X)0.600.001.030.130.001.160.340.800.800.580.700.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1067047620001832455265443191198524 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh23.80.027.931.90.035.419.225.825.818.822.921.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh0.90.048.30.30.0115.80.811.911.52.43.44.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln6.10.016.80.50.09.81.310.210.52.78.56.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh24.80.076.232.20.0151.220.137.737.421.226.326.1 LnGrp LOS C FC F CDDCCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1130 239 935 1310 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.0 137.8 36.0 25.6 Approach LOS D F D C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.127.7 28.07.831.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.023.0 24.04.027.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.219.4 26.04.518.4 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.03.0 0.00.06.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 i"“i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)535 75 450 2545 150 75 750 35 160 770 275 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 641 0 489 2749 163 82 815 38 174 837 299 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 1067 0 476 200 42 141 240 1023 48 298 1198 524 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.11 0.110.11 0.05 0.300.30 0.09 0.340.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 375 1247 1774 3439 160 1774 3539 1550 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 641 0 489 27 0 212 82 419 434 174 837 299 Grp Sat F|ow(s),veh/h/|n 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1622 1774 1770 1830 1774 17701550 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.3 0.0 24.0 1.1 0.0 9.0 2.5 17.417.4 5.2 16.4 12.6 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 12.3 0.0 24.0 1.1 0.0 9.0 2.5 17.417.4 5.2 16.4 12.6 Prop ln Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.77 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1067 0 476 200 0 183 240 526 544 298 1198 524 V/C Ratio(X)0.60 0.00 1.03 0.13 0.00 1.16 0.34 0.800.80 0.58 0.70 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1067 0 476 200 0 183 245 526 544 319 1198 524 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Fi|ter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 23.8 0.0 27.9 31.9 0.0 35.4 19.2 25.825.8 18.8 22.9 21.6 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 0.9 0.0 48.3 0.3 0.0 115.8 0.8 11.9 11.5 2.4 3.4 4.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 6.1 0.0 16.8 0.50.0 9.8 1.3 10.2 10.5 2.7 8.5 6.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 0.0 76.2 32.2 0.0 151.2 20.1 37.7 37.4 21.2 26.3 26.1 LnGrp LOS C FC FCDDCCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1130 239 935 1310 Approach Delay,s/veh 47.0 137.8 36.0 25.6 Approach LOS D F D C‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.1 27.7 28.0 7.8 31.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 8.0 23.0 24.0 4.0 27.0 9.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 7.2 19.4 26.0 4.5 18.4 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 3.0 0.00.0 6.6 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.4 HCM 2010 LOS D User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 228 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)000505160145535625275170700160 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.001.000.971.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 362436158582679299185761174 Adj No. of Lanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 4344553876681054464522886203 Arrive On Green 0.240.240.240.310.440.440.180.310.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 17741863158317742371104417742849651 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 362436158582507471185473462 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177418631583177417701645177417701731 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.420.87.521.520.120.15.422.622.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.420.87.521.520.120.15.422.622.6 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.631.000.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 434455387668786731522551539 V/C Ratio(X)0.830.960.410.870.640.640.350.860.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434455387668786731522551539 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.333.528.520.119.519.513.729.129.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.231.40.714.64.04.31.915.916.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 10.114.63.416.110.69.92.813.513.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.565.029.234.723.523.815.545.045.3 LnGrp LOS DE CCCCBDD Approach Vol, veh/h 956 1560 1120 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.7 27.8 40.3 Approach LOS D C D Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.044.0 32.032.026.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s16.040.0 28.028.022.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.422.1 23.524.622.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.311.3 0.92.80.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\T/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 505 160 145 535 625 275 170 700 160 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.001.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 362 436 158 582 679 299 185 761 174 Adj No.ofLanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 434 455 387 668 1054 464 522 886 203 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.31 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.310.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 2371 1044 1774 2849 651 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 362 436 158 582 507 471 185 473 462 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1645 1774 1770 1731 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.4 20.8 7.5 21.5 20.1 20.1 5.4 22.6 22.6 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 17.4 20.8 7.5 21.5 20.1 20.1 5.4 22.622.6 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 434 455 387 668 786 731 522 551 539 V/C Ratio(X)0.83 0.96 0.41 0.870.64 0.64 0.35 0.86 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 434 455 387 668 786 731 522 551 539 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 32.3 33.5 28.5 20.1 19.5 19.5 13.7 29.129.1 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 13.2 31.4 0.7 14.6 4.0 4.3 1.9 15.9 16.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 10.1 14.6 3.4 16.1 10.6 9.9 2.8 13.5 13.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 65.0 29.2 34.7 23.5 23.8 15.5 45.0 45.3 LnGrp LOS DECCCCBDD Approach Vol,veh/h 956 1560 1120 Approach Delay,s/veh 51.7 27.8 40.3 Approach LOS D C D‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),30.0 44.0 32.0 32.0 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmakfim 40.0 28.0 28.0 22.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1'/j,ts 22.1 23.5 24.6 22.8 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.3 11.3 0.9 2.8 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.9 HCM 2010 LOS D User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 229 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 401652525135701555951070 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 4317927271477616551031176 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All2230020700563557193524532185 Stage 1 ------280280-239239- Stage 2 ------283277-285293- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1346--1364--437439849464453857 Stage 1 ------727679-764708- Stage 2 ------724681-722670- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1346--1364--375417849439430857 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------375417-439430- Stage 1 ------704657-740694- Stage 2 ------637668-689649- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.4 0.8 13.9 15.1 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)4321346--1364--545 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0630.032--0.02--0.349 HCM Control Delay (s)13.97.8--7.7--15.1 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.20.1--0.1--1.6 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 5.3 Vol,veh/h 40 165 2525 135 7015 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0000000 Sign Control Free Free FreeFree Free Free Stop RT Channelized --None -None ‑ Storage Length 100 --90 --‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0 0 ‑ Grade,%-0--0-‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292929292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222222 Mvmt Flow 43 179 2727 147 7616 5 0 Stop 5 0 Stop -None 95 0 Stop 92 103 Conflicting Flow All 223 0 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 ‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.4 HCM LOS 563 280 283 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 437 727 724 0 207 00 4.12 -2.218 -‑ 1364 -‑ 1364 375 375 704 637 0.8 13.9 557 280 277 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 439 679 681 417 417 657 668 3.318 849 849 524 239 285 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 464 764 722 439 439 740 689 15.1 532 239 293 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 453 708 670 430 430 694 649 Capacity (veh/h)432 1346 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 0.032 HCM Control Delay (5)13.9 7.8 HCM Lane LOS BA HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.2 0.1 1364 545 --0.02 --0.349 7.7 --15.1 --A--C 0.1 --1.6 Cumulative PM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 230 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)125375301653552153035521522530040 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln182718271900182718271827182718271827182718271900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h136408331793862343338623424532643 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %444444444444 Cap, veh/h 172688552188283664512645583301344176 Arrive On Green 0.100.210.210.130.240.240.030.360.360.100.440.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740325026217403471153317403471153233753082403 Grp Volume(v), veh/h13621722417938623433386234245182187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln174017361777174017361533174017361532168817361750 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.19.09.18.07.610.91.56.39.15.65.35.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s6.19.09.18.07.610.91.56.39.15.65.35.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.151.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.23 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h172367376218828366451264558330757763 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.590.600.820.470.640.730.310.420.740.240.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h32865466932813085781311264558424757763 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh35.128.328.333.926.027.238.518.119.034.914.214.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh8.01.51.59.70.41.919.90.62.35.10.80.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.34.44.64.43.74.81.03.14.22.92.72.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh43.129.829.843.626.429.158.318.721.340.014.914.9 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCEBCDBB Approach Vol, veh/h 577 799 653 614 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.9 31.0 21.7 24.9 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.833.014.020.96.138.711.823.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.029.015.030.06.033.015.030.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.611.110.011.13.57.48.112.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.25.30.25.80.06.00.25.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i H)“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)125 375 30 165 355 215 30 355 215225 300 40 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18271827 1900 18271827182718271827182718271827 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 136 408 33 179 386 234 33 386 234 245 326 43 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%444444444444 Cap,veh/h 172 688 55 218 828 366 45 1264 558 330 1344 176 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.210.21 0.13 0.240.24 0.03 0.360.36 0.10 0.440.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3250 262 1740 3471 1533 1740 3471 1532 3375 3082 403 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 136 217 224 179 386 234 33 386 234 245 182 187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 1736 1777 1740 1736 1533 1740 1736 1532 1688 1736 1750 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.1 9.0 9.1 8.0 7.6 10.9 1.5 6.3 9.1 5.6 5.3 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.1 9.0 9.1 8.0 7.6 10.9 1.5 6.3 9.1 5.6 5.3 5.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.23 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 172 367 376 218 828 366 45 1264 558 330 757 763 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.59 0.60 0.82 0.47 0.64 0.73 0.31 0.42 0.74 0.240.24 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 328 654 669 328 1308 578 131 1264 558 424 757 763 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 35.1 28.328.3 33.9 26.0 27.2 38.5 18.1 19.0 34.9 14.214.2 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 8.0 1.51.5 9.7 0.4 1.9 19.9 0.6 2.3 5.1 0.80.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.3 4.4 4.6 4.4 3.7 4.8 1.0 3.1 4.2 2.9 2.7 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.1 29.829.8 43.6 26.4 29.1 58.3 18.7 21.3 40.0 14.914.9 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCEBCDBB Approach Vol,veh/h 577 799 653 614 Approach Delay,s/veh 32.9 31.0 21.7 24.9 Approach LOS C C C C‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.8 33.0 14.0 20.9 6.1 38.7 11.8 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.04.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 MaxGreenSetting(GmaX),s 10.0 29.0 15.0 30.0 6.0 33.0 15.0 30.0 MaXQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 7.6 11.1 10.0 11.1 3.5 7.4 8.1 12.9 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.2 5.3 0.2 5.8 0.0 6.0 0.2 5.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 231 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)806604575640608545751202565 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln181018101900181018101900181018101900181018101900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h877174982696659249821302771 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 55555555555 Cap, veh/h 111104271105100294622275460592197519 Arrive On Green0.060.320.320.060.320.320.450.450.450.450.450.45 Sat Flow, veh/h17233261223172331722961255610102012184381151 Grp Volume(v), veh/h8737838882377384920131130098 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln172317191764172317191749125501630121801589 Q Serve(g_s), s3.513.613.63.313.613.73.30.03.45.10.02.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s3.513.613.63.313.613.75.90.03.48.50.02.6 Prop In Lane1.000.131.000.171.000.631.000.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h11154956410554355362207345920716 V/C Ratio(X)0.780.690.690.780.690.700.150.000.180.220.000.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h21865467121865466562207345920716 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh32.721.121.132.921.321.313.10.011.714.20.011.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh11.32.42.412.02.52.50.50.00.50.90.00.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.06.86.91.96.86.91.20.01.61.80.01.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh44.123.523.444.923.823.813.60.012.215.00.011.8 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h853 843 223 228 Approach Delay, s/veh25.5 25.8 12.8 13.7 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s36.08.326.736.08.626.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s32.09.027.032.09.027.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.95.315.610.55.515.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.30.06.82.20.06.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.1 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)80 660 4575 640 60854575 120 2565 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 87 717 4982 696 65924982 130 2771 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%555555555555 Cap,veh/h 111 1042 71 105 1002 94 622 275 460 592 197 519 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.450.450.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1723 3261 223 1723 3172 296 1255 610 1020 1218 438 1151 GrpVqume(v),veh/h 87 378388 82 377 384 92 0 131 130 0 98 GrpSatFlow(s),veh/h/In1723 1719 1764 1723 1719 1749 1255 0 1630 1218 0 1589 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.5 13.6 13.6 3.3 13.6 13.7 3.3 0.0 3.4 5.1 0.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.5 13.6 13.6 3.3 13.6 13.7 5.9 0.0 3.4 8.5 0.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 111 549 564 105 543 553 622 0 734 592 0 716 V/C Ratio(X)0.78 0.690.69 0.78 0.69 0.700.150.00 0.18 0.22 0.00 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 218 654 671 218 654 665 622 0 734 592 0 716 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 32.7 21.1 21.1 32.9 21.3 21.3 13.1 0.0 11.7 14.2 0.0 11.4 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 11.3 2.4 2.4 12.0 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\/efl/In 6.8 6.9 1.9 6.8 6.9 1.2 0.0 1.6 1.8 0.0 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.1 23.5 23.4 44.9 23.8 23.8 13.6 0.0 12.2 15.0 0.0 11.8 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 853 843 223 228 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.5 25.8 12.8 13.7 Approach LOS C C B B Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 36.0 8.3 26.7 36.0 8.6 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 32.0 9.0 27.0 32.0 9.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 7.9 5.3 15.6 10.5 5.5 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.3 0.0 6.8 2.2 0.0 6.8 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 232 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)12560540905557595702256060135 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.000.991.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln184518451900184518451900184518451845190018451900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h136658439860382103762456565147 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 33333333333 Cap, veh/h 173112674166889121593817685183192352 Arrive On Green0.100.340.340.050.290.290.440.440.440.440.440.44 Sat Flow, veh/h1757333721834083092420115318451548270433795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h136345356983413441037624527700 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln175717521803170417521759115318451548149800 Q Serve(g_s), s5.311.411.42.012.112.10.01.77.31.50.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s5.311.411.42.012.112.14.61.77.37.90.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.121.000.241.001.000.230.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h17359160816650450659381768572600 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.580.580.590.680.680.170.090.360.380.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h30180182424362662859381768572600 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.819.119.232.622.122.112.211.312.913.00.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh7.70.90.93.32.12.20.60.21.50.30.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln2.95.65.81.06.16.11.30.93.43.60.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh38.520.120.136.024.224.312.811.614.413.40.00.0 LnGrp LOS D CCDCC BBBB Approach Vol, veh/h837 783 424 277 Approach Delay, s/veh23.1 25.7 13.5 13.4 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s35.07.427.635.010.924.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s31.05.032.031.012.025.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.34.013.49.97.314.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s3.70.08.33.60.16.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.0 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>i«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)125 605 4090 555 759570 225 6060 135 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18451845 1900 18451845 1900 184518451845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 136 658 4398 603 82 103 76 245 6565 147 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%333333333333 Cap,veh/h 173 1126 74 166 889 121 593 817 685 183 192 352 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.440.440.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3337 218 3408 3092 420 1153 1845 1548 270 433 795 GrpVqume(v),veh/h 136 345 356 98 341 344 103 76 245 277 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1757 1752 1803 1704 1752 1759 1153 1845 15481498 00 Q Serve(g_s),S 5.3 11.4 11.4 2.0 12.1 12.1 0.0 1.7 7.3 1.5 0.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),S 5.3 11.4 11.4 2.0 12.1 12.1 4.6 1.7 7.3 7.9 0.00.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.24 1.001.00 0.23 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 173 591 608 166 504 506 593 817 685 726 00 WC Ratio(X)0.79 0.580.58 0.59 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.38 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 301 801 824 243 626 628 593 817 685 726 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 30.8 19.1 19.2 32.6 22.1 22.1 12.2 11.3 12.9 13.0 0.00.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 7.7 0.9 0.9 3.3 2.1 2.2 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\/e.9/In 5.6 5.8 1.0 6.1 6.1 1.3 0.9 3.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 20.1 20.1 36.0 24.2 24.3 12.8 11.6 14.4 13.4 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 837 783 424 277 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.1 25.7 13.5 13.4 Approach LOS C C B B Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 35.0 7.4 27.6 35.0 10.9 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 31.0 5.0 32.0 31.0 12.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+|1),s 9.3 4.0 13.4 9.9 7.3 14.1 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 3.7 0.0 8.3 3.6 0.1 6.0 HCM 2010 CtrI Delay 21.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 233 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)255625505140105205 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)277679549152114223 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)295 pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 vC, conflicting volume701 1519351 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 625 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 894 vCu, unblocked vol 701 1323351 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %69 5765 cM capacity (veh/h)892 265646 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 277340340366335114223 Volume Left 27700001140 Volume Right 00001520223 cSH 8921700170017001700265646 Volume to Capacity0.310.200.200.220.200.430.35 Queue Length 95th (ft)3300005138 Control Delay (s)10.80.00.00.00.028.413.5 Lane LOS B DB Approach Delay (s)3.1 0.0 18.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘+1.)“i F Vohnne(vehfln 255 625 505 140 105 205 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Gmde 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)277 679 549 152 114 223 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflwerfi Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnd(fi)295 pX,platoon unblocked 0.88 vC,conmcfingvothe 701 1519 351 vC1,§age 1confvol 625 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 894 vCu,unNockedvol 701 1323 351 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFfi)22 3533 p0queue free %69 5765 cMcapacity (veh/h)892 265 646‑ Volume Total 277 340340 366 335 114 223 VohuneLefi 277 0000 114 0 Volume Right 0000 152 0 223 cSH 892 1700170017001700 265 646 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.200.20 0.22 0.20 0.43 0.35 QueueLengfli95m(fl)33 0000 5138 CmflmlDeby($108 00000000 284 135 LaneLOS B DB Approach Delay (3)3.1 0.0 18.5 Approach LOS C‑ Average Delay 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 234 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2705516010301705583525120395185 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 0.991.00 0.981.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h336017411331856090827130429201 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5380240278382134531468443361574689 Arrive On Green 0.150.000.150.160.160.160.040.420.420.060.440.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774242135917743507104177435391550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h336017411021860458477130429201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401601177417701842177417701550 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.80.08.00.40.010.21.515.515.53.15.96.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s6.80.08.00.40.010.21.515.515.53.15.96.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.851.00 0.061.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h538024027802514537417713361574689 V/C Ratio(X)0.630.000.730.040.000.870.130.620.620.390.270.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1114049727802514797417714081574689 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.40.030.927.30.031.511.817.417.413.113.413.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh1.20.04.10.10.025.90.13.93.70.70.41.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.40.03.80.20.06.30.78.38.61.53.02.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh31.60.035.127.40.057.411.921.321.113.813.814.6 LnGrp LOS C DC EBCCBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 510 229 995 760 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.8 55.9 20.7 14.0 Approach LOS C E C B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.936.0 15.66.938.0 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.030.0 24.04.034.0 12.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.117.5 10.03.58.3 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.17.5 1.60.011.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 F “i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)270 55 160 1030 170 55 835 25 120 395 185 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial 0 (Oh),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 336 0 174 11 33 185 60 908 27 130 429 201 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 538 0 240 278 38 213 453 1468 44 336 1574 689 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.160.16 0.04 0.420.42 0.06 0.440.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 242 1359 1774 3507 104 1774 3539 1550 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 336 0 174 11 0 218 60 458 477 130 429 201 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1601 1774 1770 1842 1774 17701550 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.8 0.0 8.0 0.4 0.0 10.2 1.5 15.515.5 3.1 5.9 6.3 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 6.8 0.0 8.0 0.4 0.0 10.2 1.5 15.515.5 3.1 5.9 6.3 Prop ln Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.85 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 538 0 240 278 0 251 453 741 771 336 1574 689 V/C Ratio(X)0.63 0.00 0.73 0.04 0.00 0.87 0.13 0.620.62 0.39 0.27 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1114 0 497 278 0 251 479 741 771 408 1574 689 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 30.4 0.0 30.9 27.3 0.0 31.5 11.8 17.417.4 13.1 13.4 13.5 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 1.2 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.0 25.9 0.1 3.9 3.7 0.7 0.4 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 3.4 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 6.3 0.7 8.3 8.6 1.5 3.0 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.6 0.0 35.1 27.4 0.0 57.4 11.9 21.3 21.1 13.813.8 14.6 LnGrp LOS C DC EBCCBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 510 229 995 760 Approach Delay,s/veh 32.8 55.9 20.7 14.0 Approach LOS C E C B‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.9 36.0 15.6 6.9 38.0 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 8.0 30.0 24.0 4.0 34.0 12.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+|1),s 5.1 17.5 10.0 3.5 8.3 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 7.5 1.6 0.0 11.4 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.4 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 235 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)00020012522556061010565500200 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.001.000.971.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17619324560966311471543217 Adj No. of Lanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 3253412908251382237648690275 Arrive On Green 0.180.180.180.380.460.460.200.280.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774186315831774300851717742457978 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17619324560939038771391369 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177418631583177417701755177417701665 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.07.411.715.512.012.01.716.016.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.07.411.715.512.012.01.716.016.1 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.291.000.59 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325341290825813807648497468 V/C Ratio(X)0.540.570.850.740.480.480.110.790.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 362380323825813807648497468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.029.230.911.814.714.710.826.026.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.41.616.95.92.02.00.311.812.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.54.06.512.06.36.30.99.49.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.430.747.817.716.716.711.237.838.8 LnGrp LOS CCD BBBBDD Approach Vol, veh/h 614 1386 831 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 17.1 36.0 Approach LOS D B D Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.040.0 34.026.018.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s16.036.0 30.022.016.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.714.0 17.518.113.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.110.0 1.72.80.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 200 125 225 560 610 105 65 500 200 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.001.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 176 193 245 609 663 114 71 543 217 Adj No.ofLanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 325 341 290 825 1382 237 648 690 275 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.20 0.280.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 3008 517 1774 2457 978 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 176 193 245 609 390 387 71 391 369 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1755 1774 1770 1665 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 7.4 11.7 15.5 12.0 12.0 1.7 16.0 16.1 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 7.0 7.4 11.7 15.5 12.0 12.0 1.7 16.0 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.59 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 325 341 290 825 813 807 648 497 468 V/C Ratio(X)0.54 0.57 0.85 0.74 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 362 380 323 825 813 807 648 497 468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 29.0 29.2 30.9 11.8 14.7 14.7 10.8 26.026.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 1.4 1.6 16.9 5.9 2.0 2.0 0.3 11.8 12.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 3.5 4.0 6.5 12.0 6.3 6.3 0.9 9.4 9.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 30.7 47.8 17.7 16.7 16.7 11.2 37.838.8 LnGrp LOS CCDBBBBDD Approach Vol,veh/h 614 1386 831 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.5 17.1 36.0 Approach LOS D B D‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),30.0 40.0 34.0 26.0 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmakfim 36.0 30.0 22.0 16.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l’6,7s 14.0 17.5 18.1 13.7 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.1 10.0 1.7 2.8 0.6‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 236 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.2 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 30953010120603551565525 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 331033311130653851671527 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All1960013600386402120381386163 Stage 1 ------185185-185185- Stage 2 ------201217-196201- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1377--1448--573537931577548882 Stage 1 ------817747-817747- Stage 2 ------801723-806735- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1377--1448--538520931549531882 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------538520-549531- Stage 1 ------797729-797741- Stage 2 ------765718-767717- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.5 0.4 11.6 12.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)6061377--1448--608 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0990.024--0.008--0.17 HCM Control Delay (s)11.67.7--7.5--12.1 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.30.1--0--0.6 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 4.2 Vol,veh/h 30953010 120 6035 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0000000 Sign Control Free Free FreeFree Free Free Stop RT Channelized --None -None ‑ Storage Length 100 --90 --‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0--0-‑ Grade,%-0--0-‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292929292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222222 Mvmt Flow 33 103 33 11 130 6538 5 15 00 StopStop -None 0 0_ 9292 22 5 16 65 0 Stop 5 0 Stop 25 0 Stop -None Conflicting Flow All 196 0 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 ‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.5 HCM LOS 0 136 00 386 ---185 ----201 -4.12 -7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 573 817 801 -2.218 -‑ 1448 -‑ 1448 538 538 797 765 0.4 11.6 402 185 217 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 537 747 723 520 520 729 718 3.318 931 931 381 185 196 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 577 817 806 549 549 797 767 12.1 386 185 201 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 548 747 735 531 531 741 717 Capacity (veh/h)606 1377 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.024 HCM Control Delay (5)11.6 7.7 HCM Lane LOS BA HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.3 0.1 1448 608 --0.008 --0.17 7.5 --12.1 --A--B 0--0.6 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 237 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Project Dr & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.1 Movement EBTEBRWBLWBT NBLNBR Vol, veh/h 775180790 010 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0000 00 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFree StopStop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, #0--0 0 - Grade, %0--0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 842200859 011 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 008620 1281431 Stage 1 ----852 - Stage 2 ----429 - Critical Hdwy --4.14-6.846.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ----5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ----5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy --2.22-3.523.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver --776-157573 Stage 1 ----378 - Stage 2 ----624 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --776-157573 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ----157 - Stage 1 ----378 - Stage 2 ----624 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)573--776- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.019 ---- HCM Control Delay (s)11.4--0- HCM Lane LOS B--A- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1--0- HCM 2010 TWSC 8:ProjectDr&E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.1 Vol,veh/h 775 18 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 00 Sign Control Free Free RT Channelized -None Storage Length -‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0 ‑ Grade,%0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%22 Mvmt Flow 842 20 Conflicting Flow All 00 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy -‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%-‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -‑ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,3 0 HCM LOS 0 790 0 00 0 Free Free Stop -None ‑ -0 0 -0 0 9292 92 22 2 0 859 0 0 1281 -852 -429 -6.84 -5.84 -5.84 -3.52 -157 -378 -624 -157 -157 -378 -624 11.4 Capacity (veh/h)573 -‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 -‑ HCM Control Delay (3)11.4 -‑ HCM Lane LOS B-‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.1 -‑ Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Item 8.a. - Page 238 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Courtland St & Project Dr 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.4 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 822197 1387 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 922214 1508 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All3721541580 -0 Stage 1 154 ----- Stage 2 218 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6298921422--- Stage 1 874 ----- Stage 2 818 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6288921422--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver628 ----- Stage 1 874 ----- Stage 2 816 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s10.5 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1422-668-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.002-0.016-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.5010.5-- HCM Lane LOS AAB-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 9:Courtland St &Project Dr 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.4 Vol,veh/h 82 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 00 Sign Control StopStop RT Channelized -None Storage Length 0 ‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0 ‑ Grade,%0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%22 Mvmt Flow 9 2 Conflicting Flow All 372 154 Stage 1 154 ‑ Stage 2 218 ‑ Critical Hdwy 6.426.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ‑ Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 629 892 Stage 1 874 ‑ Stage 2 818 ‑ Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 628 892 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 628 ‑ Stage 1 874 ‑ Stage 2 816 ‑ HCM Control Delay,3 10.5 HCM LOS B 2 197 138 7 00 00 Free Free Free Free -None -None _00__00_ 9292 9292 22 22 2 214 150 8 0.1 0 Capacity (veh/h)1422 -668 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 -0.016 HCM Control Delay (3)7.5 0 10.5 HCM Lane LOS AAB HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0-0.1 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Item 8.a. - Page 239 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Courtland St & Project Dr 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.9 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 2362176 1328 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 2572191 1439 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All3441481520 -0 Stage 1 148 ----- Stage 2 196 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6528991429--- Stage 1 880 ----- Stage 2 837 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6518991429--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver651 ----- Stage 1 880 ----- Stage 2 835 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s10.5 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1429-690-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.002-0.046-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.5010.5-- HCM Lane LOS AAB-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 10:Courtland St &Project Dr 11/5/2014 Int Delay,s/veh 0.9 Vol,veh/h 23 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0 Sign Control Stop RT Channelized ‑ Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,#0 Grade,%0 Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles,%2 Mvmt Flow 25 Conflicting Flow All 344 Stage 1 148 Stage 2 196 Critical Hdwy 6.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 652 Stage 1 880 Stage 2 837 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 651 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 651 Stage 1 880 Stage 2 835 HCM Control Delay,3 10.5 HCM LOS B 2 176 132 8 00 00 Free Free Free Free -None -None _00__00_ 9292 9292 22 22 2 191 143 9 0.1 0 Capacity (veh/h)1429 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 HCM Control Delay (3)7.5 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0 -690 -0.046 0 10.5 AB -0.1 Cumulative+Project AM Peak Hour 7:00 am 10/22/2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Item 8.a. - Page 240 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Oak Park Blvd & W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1855805520556525550285220325525185 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.991.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln182718271900182718271827182718271827182718271900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h2016306022361427754310239353571201 Adj No. of Lanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %444444444444 Cap, veh/h 28979776262810358691040459438979344 Arrive On Green 0.170.250.250.150.230.230.040.300.300.130.390.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740320030417403471153317403471153233752511882 Grp Volume(v), veh/h20134134922361427754310239353394378 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln174017361769174017361533174017361532168817361658 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.217.217.211.715.411.42.96.412.19.516.716.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s10.217.217.211.715.411.42.96.412.19.516.716.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.171.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h289432440262810358691040459438677646 V/C Ratio(X)0.700.790.790.850.760.770.780.300.520.810.580.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h41057658742811895251681040459614677646 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.832.832.838.733.417.344.525.227.139.522.522.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh3.05.35.48.71.74.317.50.74.25.43.63.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln5.28.99.16.27.55.81.73.25.64.78.78.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh39.838.138.247.435.021.662.025.931.344.926.126.4 LnGrp LOS DDDDDCECCDCC Approach Vol, veh/h 891 1114 603 1125 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.5 34.2 31.3 32.1 Approach LOS DCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s16.132.018.027.37.740.419.525.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s17.028.023.031.09.036.022.032.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.514.113.719.24.918.812.217.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.66.70.43.80.07.53.44.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.1 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1:Oak Park Blvd &W Grand Ave/E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\tr\l¥’‑ Lane Configurations "i H)“i H i“r ‘i H t“‘1‘+19 Volume (veh/h)185 580 55 205 565 255 50 285 220 325 525 185 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18271827 1900 18271827182718271827182718271827 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 201 630 60 223 614 277 54 310 239 353 571 201 Adj No.ofLanes 120121121220 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%444444444444 Cap,veh/h 289 797 76 262 810 358 69 1040 459 438 979 344 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.250.25 0.15 0.230.23 0.04 0.300.30 0.13 0.390.39 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3200 304 1740 3471 1533 1740 3471 1532 3375 251 1 882 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 201 341 349 223 614 277 54 310 239 353 394 378 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 1736 1769 1740 1736 1533 1740 1736 1532 1688 1736 1658 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.2 17.217.2 11.7 15.4 11.4 2.9 6.4 12.1 9.5 16.7 16.8 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 10.2 17.217.2 11.7 15.4 11.4 2.9 6.4 12.1 9.5 16.7 16.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 289 432 440 262 810 358 69 1040 459 438 677 646 V/C Ratio(X)0.70 0.790.79 0.85 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.30 0.52 0.81 0.580.58 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 410 576 587 428 1189 525 168 1040 459 614677 646 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 36.8 32.832.8 38.7 33.4 17.3 44.5 25.2 27.1 39.5 22.522.5 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 3.0 5.3 5.4 8.7 1.7 4.3 17.5 0.7 4.2 5.4 3.6 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.2 8.9 9.1 6.2 7.5 5.8 1.7 3.2 5.6 4.7 8.78.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 38.1 38.2 47.4 35.0 21.6 62.0 25.9 31.3 44.9 26.1 26.4 LnGrp LOS DDDDDCECCDCC Approach Vol,veh/h 891 1114 603 1125 Approach Delay,s/veh 38.5 34.2 31.3 32.1 Approach LOS D C C C‑ Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 16.1 32.0 18.0 27.3 7.7 40.4 19.5 25.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.04.0 40 4.0 404040 MaxGreenSetting(Gmax),s 17.0 28.0 23.0 31.0 9.0 36.0 22.0 32.0 MaXQClearTime(g_c+l1),s 11.5 14.1 13.7 19.2 4.9 18.8 12.2 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.6 6.7 0.4 3.8 0.0 7.5 3.4 4.4 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 241 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Courtland St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)115980701108509570458019080135 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.981.000.981.001.001.000.99 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln181018101900181018101900181018101900181018101900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h12510657612092410376498720787147 Adj No. of Lanes1 20120110110 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 55555555555 Cap, veh/h 1571384991511314146341199354427204346 Arrive On Green0.090.430.430.090.420.420.340.340.340.340.340.34 Sat Flow, veh/h17233250232172331113471109586104012136011015 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1255635781205105177601362070234 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln172317191763172317191739110901626121301615 Q Serve(g_s), s5.823.023.05.620.120.14.70.04.912.20.09.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s5.823.023.05.620.120.113.90.04.917.10.09.2 Prop In Lane1.000.131.000.201.000.641.000.63 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h15773275015172673434105544270550 V/C Ratio(X)0.790.770.770.790.700.700.220.000.250.480.000.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h27279481525277478334105544270550 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.001.001.000.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.620.220.236.819.519.526.30.019.525.70.020.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh8.74.34.29.02.72.71.50.01.13.90.02.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.211.712.03.010.010.21.60.02.44.50.04.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh45.324.424.445.822.222.227.80.020.629.60.023.3 LnGrp LOS D CCDCCCCCC Approach Vol, veh/h1266 1147 212 441 Approach Delay, s/veh26.5 24.7 23.1 26.2 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s32.011.239.032.011.538.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s28.012.038.028.013.037.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s15.97.625.019.17.822.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.90.110.02.40.111.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2:Courtland St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)‘i Hi)"i 1;'1 T.) Volume (veh/h)115 980 70 110 850 95704580 190 80 135 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.001.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 18101810 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 125 1065 76 120 924 103 764987 207 87 147 Adj No.ofLanes 120120110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%555555555555 Cap,veh/h 157 1384 99 151 1314 146 341 199 354 427 204 346 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.340.340.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1723 3250 232 1723 3111 347 1109 586 1040 1213 601 1015 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 125 563 578 120 510 517 76 0 136 207 0 234 GrpSatFlow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1719 1763 1723 17191739 1109 0 1626 1213 0 1615 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.8 23.0 23.0 5.6 20.1 20.1 4.7 0.0 4.9 12.2 0.0 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.8 23.0 23.0 5.6 20.1 20.1 13.9 0.0 4.9 17.1 0.0 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.63 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 157 732 750 151 726 734 341 0 554 427 0 550 V/C Ratio(X)0.79 0.770.77 0.79 0.70 0.70 0.22 0.00 0.25 0.48 0.00 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 272 794 815 252 774 783 341 0 554 427 0 550 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 36.6 20.2 20.2 36.8 19.5 19.5 26.3 0.0 19.5 25.7 0.0 20.9 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 8.7 4.3 4.2 9.0 2.7 2.7 1.5 0.0 1.1 3.9 0.0 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),S/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\&12/In 11.7 12.0 3.0 10.0 10.2 1.6 0.0 2.4 4.5 0.0 4.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.3 24.4 24.4 45.8 22.2 22.2 27.8 0.0 20.6 29.6 0.0 23.3 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCCCCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1266 1147 212 441 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.5 24.7 23.1 26.2 Approach LOS C C C C Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 32.0 11.2 39.0 32.0 11.5 38.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 28.0 12.0 38.0 28.0 13.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 15.9 7.6 25.0 19.1 7.8 22.1 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.9 0.1 10.0 2.4 0.1 11.2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Item 8.a. - Page 242 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Elm St & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1259101302407855095601604560120 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh0 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.000.991.000.981.000.991.001.00 Parking Bus, Adj1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln184518451900184518451900184518451845190018451900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h13698914126185354103651744965130 Adj No. of Lanes1 20220111010 Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 33333333333 Cap, veh/h 1701280182348140889442622522126171280 Arrive On Green0.100.420.420.100.420.420.340.340.340.340.340.34 Sat Flow, veh/h1757307543834083343212117118451548221507830 Grp Volume(v), veh/h1365635672614474601036517424400 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln175717521761170417521802117118451548155700 Q Serve(g_s), s6.323.023.06.216.516.50.02.07.01.90.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s6.323.023.06.216.516.57.82.07.09.50.00.0 Prop In Lane1.000.251.000.121.001.000.200.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h17072973334873875944262252257700 V/C Ratio(X)0.800.770.770.750.610.610.230.100.330.420.000.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h27580280649378180344262252257700 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.000.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.720.920.936.218.718.720.818.920.521.30.00.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh8.34.34.33.91.21.21.20.31.70.50.00.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln3.512.012.13.18.28.41.91.13.24.40.00.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh45.025.125.240.219.919.922.119.222.321.80.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDBBCBCC Approach Vol, veh/h1266 1168 342 244 Approach Delay, s/veh27.3 24.4 21.6 21.8 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s32.012.538.632.012.139.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s28.012.038.028.013.037.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.88.225.011.58.318.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s2.80.39.52.70.112.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.1 HCM 2010 LOS C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3:Elm St &E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\l/*\>l«/‑ Lane Configurations "i +1.)H‘i Hi)"i f i"4.) Volume (veh/h)125 910 130 240 785 509560 160 4560 120 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18451845 1900 18451845 1900 184518451845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 136 989 141 261 853 54 103 65 174 4965 130 Adj No.ofLanes 120220111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%333333333333 Cap,veh/h 170 1280 182 348 1408 89 442 622 522 126 171 280 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.340.340.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3075 438 3408 3343 212 1171 1845 1548 221 507 830 GrpVolume(v),veh/h 136 563 567 261 447 460 103 65 174 244 00 Grp Sat FIow(s),veh/h/|n1757 1752 1761 1704 1752 1802 1171 1845 1548 1557 00 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 23.0 23.0 6.2 16.5 16.5 0.0 2.0 7.0 1.9 0.00.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 23.0 23.0 6.2 16.5 16.5 7.8 2.0 7.0 9.5 0.00.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.12 1.001.00 0.20 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 170 729 733 348 738 759 442 622 522 577 00 WC Ratio(X)0.80 0.770.77 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.23 0.10 0.33 0.42 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 275 802 806 493 781 803 442 622 522 577 00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(|)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 36.7 20.9 20.9 36.2 18.7 18.7 20.8 18.9 20.5 21.3 0.00.0 Incr Delay (d2),s/veh 8.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.50.00.0 Initial Q De|ay(d3),S/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),\&.5/In 12.0 12.1 3.1 8.2 8.4 1.9 1.1 3.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp De|ay(d),s/veh 45.0 25.1 25.2 40.2 19.9 19.9 22.1 19.2 22.3 21.8 0.00.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDBBCBCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1266 1168 342 244 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.3 24.4 21.6 21.8 Approach LOS C C C C Assigned Phs 234678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 32.0 12.5 38.6 32.0 12.1 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 28.0 12.0 38.0 28.0 13.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 9.8 8.2 25.0 11.5 8.3 18.5 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 2.8 0.3 9.5 2.7 0.1 12.5 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Item 8.a. - Page 243 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd 11/6/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)245860750130115315 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)266935815141125342 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneTWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upstream signal (ft)295 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 vC, conflicting volume957 1886478 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 886 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1000 vCu, unblocked vol 957 1504478 tC, single (s)4.1 6.86.9 tC, 2 stage (s)5.8 tF (s)2.2 3.53.3 p0 queue free %63 4936 cM capacity (veh/h)715 243533 Direction, Lane #EB 1EB 2EB 3WB 1WB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 266467467543413125342 Volume Left 26600001250 Volume Right 00001410342 cSH 7151700170017001700243533 Volume to Capacity0.370.270.270.320.240.510.64 Queue Length 95th (ft)43000067113 Control Delay (s)13.00.00.00.00.034.523.1 Lane LOS B DC Approach Delay (s)2.9 0.0 26.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:E Grand Ave &Brisco Rd 11/6/2014‑ Lane Configurations "i ‘H‘+1.)“i F Vohnne(vehfln 245 860 750 130 115 315 Sign Control FreeFree Stop Gmde 0%0%0% Pwkerfldm 092 0%092 0%092 0% Hourly flow rate (vph)266 935 815 141 125 342 Pedesumns Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage RMNMmflwerfi Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh)2 Upsheantdgnm(fi)295 pX,platoon unblocked 0.74 vC,conmcfingvothe 957 1886 478 vC1,§age 1confvol 886 v02,stage 2 conf vol 1000 vCu,unNockedvol 957 1504 478 tC,dnme($41 6869 tC,2 stage (5)5.8 tFw)22 3533 p0queue free %63 4936 cMcapacity (veh/h)715 243 533‑ Volume Total 266 467467 543 413 125 342 VohuneLefi 266 0000 125 0 Volume Right 0000 141 0 342 cSH 715 1700170017001700 243 533 Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.270.27 0.32 0.24 0.51 0.64 QueueLengfli95m(fl)43 0000 67 113 CmflmlDdaym)130 00000000 345 231 LaneLOS B DC Approach Delay (3)2.9 0.0 26.1 Approach LOS D‑ Average Delay 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8%ICU Level of Service A AndydsPenod(mm)15 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Item 8.a. - Page 244 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)5357545025451507575035160765275 Number 7414381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.001.00 0.991.00 0.981.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln186318631863186318631900186318631900186318631863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h641048927491638281538174832299 Adj No. of Lanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 10640475200421402421032482981203527 Arrive On Green 0.300.000.300.110.110.110.050.300.300.090.340.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3548015831774375124717743439160177435391550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h641048927021282419434174832299 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln177401583177401622177417701830177417701550 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.30.024.01.10.09.02.517.417.45.216.212.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s12.30.024.01.10.09.02.517.417.45.216.212.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.771.00 0.091.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1064047520001822425315492981203527 V/C Ratio(X)0.600.001.030.140.001.160.340.790.790.580.690.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h1064047520001822475315492981203527 HCM Platoon Ratio1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.000.001.001.000.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh23.90.028.032.00.035.519.125.725.718.822.821.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh1.00.049.10.30.0117.00.811.411.02.93.34.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln6.20.016.90.60.09.91.310.210.52.88.46.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh24.90.077.132.30.0152.519.937.136.721.726.026.0 LnGrp LOS C FC FB DDCCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1130 239 935 1305 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.5 138.9 35.4 25.4 Approach LOS D F D C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.028.0 28.07.831.2 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s7.024.0 24.04.027.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.219.4 26.04.518.2 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.03.8 0.00.06.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5:Oak Park Blvd &El Camino Real 11/5/2014 J‘‐~wr"‐‘\*\1r\l¥’ Lane Configurations "i (.1 F “i 1.)‘i +1.)H *H‘3' Volume (veh/h)535 75 450 2545 150 75 750 35 160 765 275 Number 74 14 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Qb),veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.00 1.001.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 186318631863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 641 0 489 2749 163 82 815 38 174 832 299 Adj No.ofLanes 201110120121 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.92 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222222 Cap,veh/h 1064 0 475 200 42 140 242 1032 48 298 1203 527 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.11 0.110.11 0.05 0.300.30 0.09 0.340.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 375 1247 1774 3439 160 1774 3539 1550 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 641 0 489 27 0 212 82 419 434 174 832 299 Grp Sat F|ow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1622 1774 1770 1830 1774 17701550 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.3 0.0 24.0 1.1 0.0 9.0 2.5 17.417.4 5.2 16.2 12.6 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 12.3 0.0 24.0 1.1 0.0 9.0 2.5 17.417.4 5.2 16.2 12.6 Prop ln Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.77 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1064 0 475 200 0 182 242 531 549 298 1203 527 V/C Ratio(X)0.60 0.00 1.03 0.14 0.00 1.16 0.34 0.790.79 0.58 0.69 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1064 0 475 200 0 182 247 531 549 298 1203 527 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Fi|ter(l)1.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 23.9 0.0 28.0 32.0 0.0 35.5 19.1 25.725.7 18.8 22.8 21.6 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 1.0 0.0 49.1 0.3 0.0 117.0 0.8 11.4 11.0 2.9 3.3 4.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %i|e BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 6.2 0.0 16.9 0.6 0.0 9.9 1.3 10.2 10.5 2.8 8.4 6.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.9 0.0 77.1 32.3 0.0 152.5 19.9 37.1 36.7 21.7 26.026.0 LnGrp LOS C FC FBDDCCC Approach Vol,veh/h 1130 239 935 1305 Approach Delay,s/veh 47.5 138.9 35.4 25.4 Approach LOS D F D C‑ Assigned Phs 12 456 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.0 28.0 28.0 7.8 31.2 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.04.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 7.0 24.0 24.0 4.0 27.0 9.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 7.2 19.4 26.0 4.5 18.2 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 3.8 0.00.0 6.7 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.4 HCM 2010 LOS D User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Item 8.a. - Page 245 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Oak Park Blvd & CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)000505160145535625275170695160 Number 381852121616 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.001.000.971.000.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186318631863186318631900186318631900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 362436158582679299185755174 Adj No. of Lanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 Cap, veh/h 4314523856381186522426853197 Arrive On Green 0.240.240.240.290.500.500.090.300.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 17741863158317742371104417742844655 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 362436158582507471185470459 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 177418631583177417701646177417701730 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.616.25.916.714.014.05.017.717.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.616.25.916.714.014.05.017.717.7 Prop In Lane 1.001.001.000.631.000.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431452385638885823426531519 V/C Ratio(X)0.840.960.410.910.570.570.430.880.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 431452385638885823426531519 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.226.222.315.812.312.314.723.323.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.833.00.719.62.72.93.219.019.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 8.312.42.614.17.46.92.711.411.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.059.223.035.414.915.117.942.442.7 LnGrp LOS DECDBBBDD Approach Vol, veh/h 956 1560 1114 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.6 22.6 38.5 Approach LOS D C D Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.039.0 24.025.021.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.04.0 4.04.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.035.0 20.021.017.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.016.0 18.719.718.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s0.011.7 0.31.10.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6:Oak Park Blvd &CA 101 On Ramp/W Branch St 11/5/2014 J ‐r‘»(‘_‘~‘\1/*\>l«/ Lane Configurations ‘i 4F "i +1;'1 +1.) Volume (veh/h)000 505 160 145 535 625 275 170 695 160 Number 38 18 52 12 16 16 Initial Q (Ob),veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pr)1.001.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 18631863186318631863 1900 18631863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 362 436 158 582 679 299 185 755 174 Adj No.ofLanes 111120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,%222222222 Cap,veh/h 431 452 385 638 1186 522 426 853 197 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.300.30 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 2371 1044 1774 2844 655 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 362 436 158 582 507 471 185 470 459 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1646 1774 1770 1730 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.6 16.2 5.9 16.7 14.0 14.0 5.0 17.7 17.7 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 13.6 16.2 5.9 16.7 14.0 14.0 5.0 17.717.7 Prop In Lane 1.001.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 431 452 385 638 885 823 426 531 519 V/C Ratio(X)0.84 0.96 0.41 0.91 0.57 0.57 0.43 0.88 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 431 452 385 638 885 823 426 531 519 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d),s/veh 25.2 26.2 22.3 15.8 12.3 12.3 14.7 23.323.3 lncr Delay (d2),s/veh 13.8 33.0 0.7 19.6 2.7 2.9 3.2 19.0 19.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 8.3 12.4 2.6 14.1 7.4 6.9 2.7 11.4 11.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.0 59.2 23.0 35.4 14.9 15.1 17.9 42.4 42.7 LnGrp LOS DECDBBBDD Approach Vol,veh/h 956 1560 1114 Approach Delay,s/veh 45.6 22.6 38.5 Approach LOS D C D‑ Assigned Phs 12 568 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),1;0.0 39.0 24.0 25.021.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 Max Green Setting (Gmaxfim 35.0 20.0 21.0 17.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l17),(s 16.0 18.7 19.7 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c),s 0.0 11.7 0.3 1.1 0.0‑ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.5 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Item 8.a. - Page 246 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Courtland St & Ash St 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.3 Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Vol, veh/h 401652525135701555951070 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length 100--90-------- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor 929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 4317927271477616551031176 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All2230020700563557193524532185 Stage 1 ------280280-239239- Stage 2 ------283277-285293- Critical Hdwy 4.12--4.12--7.126.526.227.126.526.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.125.52- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218--2.218--3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1346--1364--437439849464453857 Stage 1 ------727679-764708- Stage 2 ------724681-722670- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1346--1364--375417849439430857 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------375417-439430- Stage 1 ------704657-740694- Stage 2 ------637668-689649- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s1.4 0.8 13.9 15.1 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)4321346--1364--545 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0630.032--0.02--0.349 HCM Control Delay (s)13.97.8--7.7--15.1 HCM Lane LOS BA--A--C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.20.1--0.1--1.6 HCM 2010 TWSC 7:Courtland St &Ash St 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 5.3 Vol,veh/h 40 165 2525 135 7015 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0000000 Sign Control Free Free FreeFree Free Free Stop RT Channelized --None -None ‑ Storage Length 100 --90 --‑ Veh in Median Storage,#-0 0 ‑ Grade,%-0--0-‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292929292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222222 Mvmt Flow 43 179 2727 147 7616 5 0 Stop 5 0 Stop -None 95 0 Stop 92 103 Conflicting Flow All 223 0 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy 4.12 ‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 ‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 ‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,5 1.4 HCM LOS 563 280 283 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 437 727 724 0 207 00 4.12 -2.218 -‑ 1364 -‑ 1364 375 375 704 637 0.8 13.9 557 280 277 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 439 679 681 417 417 657 668 3.318 849 849 524 239 285 7.12 6.12 6.12 3.518 464 764 722 439 439 740 689 15.1 532 239 293 6.52 5.52 5.52 4.018 453 708 670 430 430 694 649 Capacity (veh/h)432 1346 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 0.032 HCM Control Delay (5)13.9 7.8 HCM Lane LOS BA HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.2 0.1 1364 545 --0.02 --0.349 7.7 --15.1 --A--C 0.1 --1.6 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Item 8.a. - Page 247 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Project Dr & E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.2 Movement EBTEBRWBLWBT NBLNBR Vol, veh/h 869430828 033 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0000 00 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFree StopStop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, #0--0 0 - Grade, %0--0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 945470900 036 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 009910 1418496 Stage 1 ----968 - Stage 2 ----450 - Critical Hdwy --4.14-6.846.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ----5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ----5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy --2.22-3.523.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver --693-128519 Stage 1 ----329 - Stage 2 ----609 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --693-128519 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ----128 - Stage 1 ----329 - Stage 2 ----609 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)519--693- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.069 ---- HCM Control Delay (s)12.5--0- HCM Lane LOS B--A- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--0- HCM 2010 TWSC 8:ProjectDr&E Grand Ave 11/5/2014 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.2 Vol,veh/h 869 43 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 00 Sign Control Free Free RT Channelized -None Storage Length -‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0 ‑ Grade,%0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%22 Mvmt Flow 945 47 Conflicting Flow All 00 Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Critical Hdwy -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -‑ Follow-up Hdwy -‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ Platoon blocked,%-‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -‑ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -‑ Stage 1 -‑ Stage 2 -‑ HCM Control Delay,3 0 HCM LOS 0 828 0 00 0 Free Free Stop -None ‑ -0 0 -0 0 9292 92 22 2 0 900 0 0 1418 -968 -450 -6.84 -5.84 -5.84 -3.52 -128 -329 -609 -128 -128 -329 -609 12.5 Capacity (veh/h)519 -‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 -‑ HCM Control Delay (3)12.5 -‑ HCM Lane LOS B-‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0.2 -‑ Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Item 8.a. - Page 248 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Courtland St & Project Dr 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.9 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 2155132 19418 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 2355143 21120 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All3752212300 -0 Stage 1 221 ----- Stage 2 154 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6268191338--- Stage 1 816 ----- Stage 2 874 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6238191338--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver623 ----- Stage 1 816 ----- Stage 2 871 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s10.8 0.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1338-653-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.004-0.043-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.7010.8-- HCM Lane LOS AAB-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 9:Courtland St &Project Dr 11/5/2014 Int Delay,s/veh 0.9 Vol,veh/h 21 55 132 194 18 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0000 00 Sign Control StopStop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0----‑ Veh in Median Storage,#0--0 0 ‑ Grade,%0 --0 0 ‑ Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles,%2222 22 Mvmt Flow 23 5 5 143 211 20‑ Conflicting Flow All 375 221 230 0 -0 Stage 1 221 ----‑ Stage 2 154 ----‑ Critical Hdwy 6.426.22 4.12 --‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----‑ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----‑ Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.318 2.218 --‑ Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 626 819 1338 --‑ Stage 1 816 ----‑ Stage 2 874 ----‑ Platoon blocked,%--‑ Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 623 819 1338 --‑ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 623 ----‑ Stage 1 816 ----‑ Stage 2 871 ----‑ HCM Control Delay,3 10.8 0.3 0 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h)1338 -653 -‑ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 -0.043 -‑ HCM Control Delay (3)7.7 0 10.8 -‑ HCM Lane LOS AAB-‑ HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0-0.1 -‑ Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Item 8.a. - Page 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Courtland St & Project Dr 11/5/2014 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.4 Movement EBLEBRNBLNBT SBTSBR Vol, veh/h 923128 18514 Conflicting Peds, #/hr0000 00 Sign Control StopStopFreeFree FreeFree RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length 0 ----- Veh in Median Storage, #0 --0 0- Grade, %0 --0 0- Peak Hour Factor 92929292 9292 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 22 Mvmt Flow 1023139 20115 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All3552092160 -0 Stage 1 209 ----- Stage 2 146 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6438311354--- Stage 1 826 ----- Stage 2 881 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6428311354--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver642 ----- Stage 1 826 ----- Stage 2 879 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s10.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1354-670-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.002-0.018-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.7010.5-- HCM Lane LOS AAB-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- HCM 2010 TWSC 10:Courtland St &Project Dr 11/5/2014 Int Delay,s/veh 0.4 Vol,veh/h 9 Conflicting Peds,#lhr 0 Sign Control Stop RT Channelized ‑ Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,#0 Grade,%0 Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles,%2 Mvmt Flow 10 Conflicting Flow All 355 Stage 1 209 Stage 2 146 Critical Hdwy 6.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 643 Stage 1 826 Stage 2 881 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 642 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 642 Stage 1 826 Stage 2 879 HCM Control Delay,3 10.5 HCM LOS B 209 6.22 3.318 831 3 128 185 14 00 00 Free Free Free Free -None -None _00__00_ 9292 9292 22 22 3 139 201 15 0.2 0 Capacity (veh/h)1354 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 HCM Control Delay (3)7.7 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %ti|e Q(veh)0 -670 -0.018 0 10.5 AB -0.1 Cumulative+Project PM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 10/22/2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Item 8.a. - Page 250 COURTLAND AND GRAND MIXED-USE PROJECT The Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Project addresses outdoor and indoor water usage through a variety of water saving landscaping techniques and through the integration of current water conserving technologies. These include: Outdoor •Drought tolerant plantings •No turf in yards •Minimized neighborhood common area turf •Utilize high efficiency irrigation techniques •Amend soils to better retain moisture A comparison of outdoor Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) between a typical existing Arroyo Grande residential lot and a Courtland and Grand lot reveals: Comparison •Typical existing Arroyo Grande residential lot = 49.98 ETWU •Typical Courtland and Grand lot = 8.27 ETWU With one (1) typical existing Arroyo Grande residential lot being the same size as three (3) typical Courtland and Grand lots, it is expected that three (3) Courtland and Grand lots will still only use half as much water as one (1) typical Arroyo Grande residential lot. WATER CONSERVATION WATER CONSERVATION COMPARISON Neighborhood Common Turf Area Indoor •Dual flush toilets •Water saving dishwasher and faucet devices •Pre-plumbed for gray water systems ATTACHMENT 18 Item 8.a. - Page 251 Average Water Use Comparison Table Typical AG LotTypical AG LotTypical Project LotCommon AreaCommon Area 7000 SF Lot (1)7000 SF Lot (2)2350 SF Lot (3)Small Turf (4)Artificial Turf (5) Prior to OrdinanceMeeting OrdinanceMeeting OrdinanceMeeting OrdinanceMeeting Ordinance MAWA (gallons)37,481.3326,772.386,296.86175,577.92133,617.10 MAWA (units)50.1135.798.42234.73178.63 ETWU (gallons)36,639.9126,504.656,184.42173,133.12131,945.74 ETWU (units)48.9835.438.27231.46176.40 Landsape Areas17501750588113908734 Turf700350026560 Low Water Plants890119044165503057 Moderate Water 16021014721845677 (1) Typical water usage for a (SF) Single‐Family lot prior to the Governor’s requirements These calculation are based on a lot at 4.5 DU/AC per the municipal code = 7,000 SF lot Per the municipal code the minimum landscape/lawn/outdoor use is 40%. We assumed 25% of the lot is landscape, and the remaining 15% is outdoor use/driveway/flatwork * Assumed 15% shrubs (85% low water and 15% moderate water) * Assumed 10% turf (2) Typical water usage for a (SF) based on the current Governor requirements These calculation are based on a lot at 4.5 DU/AC per the municipal code = 7,000 SF lot We assumed 25% of the lot is landscape, and the remaining 15% is outdoor use/driveway/flatwork * Assumed 20% shrubs (85% low water and 15% moderate water) * Assumed 5% turf (3) Typical water usage for Grand & Courtland lots based on the current Governor requirements These calculation are based on the average Grand & Courtland lot size of 2,350 sf Per the SPA, the minimum landscape/open space is 35%. We assumed 25% of the lot is landscape, and the remaining 10% outdoor/driveway/flatwork * Assumed 25% shrubs (75% low water and 25% moderate water) (4)   Estimated water usage for Grand & Courtland Common Areas based on the current Governor requirements Neighborhood open space landscape areas with smaller areas of turf for outdoor recreation and passive uses. Based on actual square footage from the Conceptual Landscape Plan * Assumed the following for shrub areas (75% low water and 25% moderate water) * Assumes smaller area for turf than shown on Conceptual Landscape Plan (2,655 sf) * Uses the "Special Landscape Area" factor for recreational turf areas (5)   Estimated water usage for Grand & Courtland Common Areas based on the current Governor requirements Neighborhood open space landscape areas with artificial turf for outdoor recreation and passive uses. Based on actual square footage from the Conceptual Landscape Plan * Assumed the following for shrub areas (35% low water and 65% moderate water) * Assumes artificial turf for a portion of turf area shown on Conceptual Landscape Plan (2,655 sf) Item 8.a. - Page 252 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 7000 SF Lot (1) 7000 SF Lot (2) 2350 SF Lot (3) Small Turf  (4) Artificial Turf  (5) MAWA (gallons)ETWU (gallons) Item 8.a. - Page 253 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Development Agreement 15-002, General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 & Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street November 2014 (Revised July 2015) ATTACHMENT 19 Item 8.a. - Page 254 Item 8.a. - Page 255 Project: Development Agreement 15-002, General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Conditional Use Permit 14-009 & Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14- 001 Lead Agency: City of Arroyo Grande Document Availability: • City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 • http://www.arroyogrande.org/ Project Description: The proposed project involves entering into a Development Agreement, amending Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Element and the Berry Gardens Specific Plan relating to development of Subarea 3 (4.47 acres). The amendments allow for creation of Subarea 3a for commercial development with approximately 15,600 square-feet of building space and four (4) mixed-use residential condominiums of approximately 1,000 square-feet, as well as the creation of Subarea 3b for residential development with up to a maximum of thirty-eight (38) single-family residential units. There is also a pending Conditional Use Permit (CUP 14-009) application for Subarea 3a and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 14-001) application for Subarea 3b. Summary Document Preparation: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. _________________________________ 12 Nov 2014 20 July 2015 Teresa McClish, AICP Date Revised Community Development Director _________________________________ 12 Nov 2014 20 July 2015 Matthew Downing, AICP Date Revised Associate Planner Item 8.a. - Page 256 Table of Contents: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance..................................................................................................... 6 Lead Agency .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Document Organization ....................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Findings................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Background and Need for Project ............................................................................................................. 9 Project Description.................................................................................................................................... 9 Other Required Public Agency Approvals ............................................................................................... 10 Related Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 11 Project Information ................................................................................................................................. 11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................... 12 Determination ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Issues .................................................................................................................................. 14 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 14 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................... 14 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 15 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 19 V. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 20 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 22 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................... 23 VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 26 IX Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 27 X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 30 XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 31 XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 31 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................... 32 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 33 XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Item 8.a. - Page 257 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 34 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 37 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................................ 39 Summary of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 41 References .................................................................................................................................................. 49 Documents & Maps ................................................................................................................................ 49 Consultations .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Item 8.a. - Page 258 Introduction Introduction and Regulatory Guidance The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq. An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR [CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared. This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071. Lead Agency The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande. The contact person for the lead agency is: Matthew Downing, Associate Planner City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-5420 Purpose and Document Organization The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate any potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. This document is organized as follows: • Introduction This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document. • Project Description This chapter describes the reasons for the project, scope of the project, and project objectives. Item 8.a. - Page 259 • Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures This chapter identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts, explains the environmental setting for each environmental issue, and evaluates the potential impacts identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation measures are incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than- significant level. • Mandatory Findings of Significance This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall significance of any potential impacts to natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and impact to humans, as identified in the Initial Study. • Summary of Mitigation Measures This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study. • References This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this IS/MND. It also provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document. Summary of Findings Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the environmental analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence that, after the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment. It is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Revisions This Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised in July 2015 due to a revised project description. Previous circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is acceptable due to the revised project description not creating additional significant impacts nor requiring additional mitigation. Item 8.a. - Page 260 Project Description Introduction This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The project site is located along East Grand Avenue, between South Courtland Street and the western boundary of the City. The project site consists of two (2) parcels, totaling 4.47 acres. The site is surrounded on all sides by existing development: commercial to the east, north and west (City of Grover Beach) and single- family residential to the south. Location Item 8.a. - Page 261 Background and Need for Project The project site is part of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP), which identifies the site as Subarea 3. Adopted in 1998, the BGSP contains four (4) subareas, totaling approximately forty-seven (47) acres. When the BGSP was adopted, it only addressed development of Subarea 1 (developed with both neo- traditional single-family homes and ‘patio’ homes) – the BGSP was to be amended to address the remaining three (3) subareas. In 2003, the BGSP was amended to allow the residential development of Subarea 2. In 2005, the BGSP was amended to allow the development of Subareas 3 and 4. This amendment set forth standards for the subareas to be developed with a commercial component on approximately the northernmost 2/3 of the project site, and affordable multi-family apartments on the remainder of the project site. In 2011, the BGSP was amended to allow Subarea 4 to be developed with a maximum of 45 affordable multi-family apartments, while Subarea 3 was designated as an unplanned subarea requiring a future specific plan amendment for development. The development of Subarea 4 has been completed and now the applicant is seeking to develop Subarea 3 by amending the BGSP and securing entitlements to develop the site. Development of Subarea 3 will complete development of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, refine the western gateway into the City, provide entry-level and workforce housing and increase sales tax revenue. Project Description DA 15-002 Following the City Council’s consideration of the project in December 2014, the Property Owner and City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on February 10, 2015. The purpose of the MOU was to facilitate a Development Agreement between the Property Owner and the City for the construction of a mixed use (commercial and office/residential) project on the property, with an increase in commercial square-footage of 5,000 square-feet and reduction of three (3) residential lots. GPA 14-002 The proposed General Plan Amendment will amend Implementation Policy LU5-10.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as it relates specifically to the subject property. The Amendment will encourage the construction of high-quality commercial development with pedestrian oriented horizontal mixed-use residential development and include high-density detached single-family housing as part of a mixed-use development. SPA 14-001 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will amend the Berry Gardens Specific Plan – specifically, Subarea 3. The Berry Gardens Specific Plan covers approximately forty-seven (47) acres along the western edge of Arroyo Grande. The Plan includes four (4) Subareas; Subarea 1 is developed with a mix of neo-traditional single-family and ‘patio’ homes, Subarea 2 is developed with single-family townhouses, and Subarea 4 is developed with affordable multi-family apartments. The proposed amendment will establish allowed uses and development standards for Subarea 3, consisting of the following: • Commercial/office with vertical mixed-use on the northernmost 1.24 acres (Subarea 3a) – approximately 15,600 square-feet commercial area and four (4) 1,000 square-foot condominiums; and • Residential use on the southernmost 3.13 acres (Subarea 3b) – maximum of thirty-eight (38) single-family residential townhomes. Item 8.a. - Page 262 CUP 14-009 The proposed Conditional Use Permit will develop Subarea 3a with three (3) commercial buildings totaling approximately 15,600 square-feet of commercial area and four (4) second-story condominiums of approximately 1,000 square-feet each, resulting in a vertical mixed-use development. VTTM 14-001 The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map will subdivide Subarea 3b into thirty-nine (39) lots, including thirty-eight (38) single-family residential lots and one (1) common area lot, which would include a centrally located “neighborhood green”. Other Required Public Agency Approvals No other public agency approvals are required for the proposed project. Related Projects The proposed project is related to the larger Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP), which has been developed over the last twelve (12) years with a mix of neo-traditional single-family homes, ‘patio’ homes and townhomes on approximately forty-one (41) acres, generally bounded by Boysenberry Avenue, Strawberry Avenue, Oak Park Boulevard and Ash Street. Item 8.a. - Page 263 Environmental Checklist Project Information Project Title: DA 15-002, GPA 14-002, SPA 14-001, CUP 14-009 & VTTM 14-001 Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Brach Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Contact Person & Telephone Number: Matthew Downing, Associate Planner (805) 473-5420 Project Location: Southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street, Arroyo Grande, California Project Sponsor Names & Addresses: MFI Limited 735 Tank Farm Road, Suite 240 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 NKT Commercial 684 Higuera Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use Specific Plan (MU-SP) Zoning: Gateway Mixed-Use Specific Plan (GMU-SP) Description of Project: Refer to page 9 Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: The project site is surrounded by commercial development to the east, north and west and residential development to the south. The site itself is undeveloped. Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: None Item 8.a. - Page 264 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have had a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect because revisions/mitigations to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or its functional equivalent will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described in the report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the impacts not sufficiently addressed in previous documents. I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than- significant level and no further action is required. _________________________________ ________________________________ Matthew Downing, AICP Date Associate Planner Item 8.a. - Page 265 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact", that are adequately supported by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the project being evaluated (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on general or project-specific factors (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must consider the whole of the project-related effects, both direct and indirect, including off-site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, prior to declaration of project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) or Negative Declaration [CCR, Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, § 15063(c)(3)(D)]. References to an earlier analysis should: a) Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review. b) Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects were adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis. c) Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site-specific conditions for this project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion. 8. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify: a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the impact addressed by each question and b) the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of significance. Item 8.a. - Page 266 Environmental Issues I. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project site is located along the City’s main commercial corridor (East Grand Avenue). Although the site is undeveloped, it is surrounded by commercial development to the east, north and west and residential development to the south, including a recently completed affordable multi-family apartment project. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a-b: No impacts. c: Development standards contained within the Specific Plan Amendment regulate building form through minimum required setbacks, maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio, and maximum allowed building size, ensuring that new development is compatible with the existing visual character of the area. Less than significant impact d: The project would create a new source of nighttime lighting in the form of parking lot and building lights for Subareas 3a and 3b and illuminated signage on Subarea 3a. However, compliance with applicable Municipal Code standards in Section 16.48.090 will ensure that this new source of lighting will not adversely affect views in the area. Less than significant impact References: 2, 3, 15 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The project site was previously used for agricultural production (strawberries), but does not contain prime soils according to the California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Map of San Luis Obispo County, nor is it currently designated or zoned for agricultural use. Item 8.a. - Page 267 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220)g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? * In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model for use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Discussion a-e: No impacts. References: 1, 3, 9 III. Air Quality Environmental Setting San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment status for ozone (O3), respireable particulate matter (PM10) and vinyl chloride under the California Air Resource Board (CARB) standards. The County is in attainment status for all other applicable CARB standards. The proposed project will construct thirty- eight (38) single-family detached homes, 15,600 square-feet of commercial area for currently unidentified commercial uses, and four (4) condominium units. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Item 8.a. - Page 268 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? * Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make these determinations. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Specific Comments APCD reviewed the proposed project and submitted a letter dated October 21, 2014 outlining recommended mitigation measures. These measures have been incorporated into this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. APCD encourages a balance of residential and commercial infill within the existing County URL/VRLs, as this is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the APCD’s Clean Air Plan. Increasing density can reduce trips and travel distances and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. APCD specifically commended the applicant on the following elements of the project design: 1. The project provides a mixed use development within the city limits with, where people can walk to nearby stores, parks and work; 2. The project provides development within the URL where such development is planned for and expected; 3. The mixed use development provides opportunity for reduced traffic, making transit services more viable and effective. Discussion a: No impacts. b-d: Construction impacts of the proposed project were estimated using the most recent CalEEMod computer model by Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff. Based on the estimations, construction phase impacts will likely be less than significant when typical mitigation measures are included in the project. The proposed project will also generate short-term emissions during construction. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM III-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: Item 8.a. - Page 269 • Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location. • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM III-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM III-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5 minute idling limit. MM III-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development): • Staging a queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; • Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and • Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. MM III-5: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402): • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; • Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible; • All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities; • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be shown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; Item 8.a. - Page 270 • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23'114; • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; • A listing of all required mitigation measures should be included on grading and building plans; and, • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. MM III-6: Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for equipment to be used during construction by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. MM III-7: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. MM III-8: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. MM III-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate. • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. • During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. • Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. Item 8.a. - Page 271 e: Operation of the commercial portion of the proposed project may create objectionable odors affecting adjacent residents. The Specific Plan Amendment prohibits commercial uses that may create objectionable odors, including nail salons, dry-cleaners, coffee roasters, gasoline stations, furniture refurbishing/refinishing, and any spray paint operation. Therefore, operation of the commercial portion of the proposed project will not constitute a significant impact. Less than significant with mitigation MM III-10: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include the establishment of a ‘no idle’ zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques: • Each delivery vehicle’s engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. • The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible. • Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the ‘no idle’ zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. • Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines. • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. • Use of alternative-fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible. • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. References: 10, 11, 15, 24, B IV. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The site is devoid of flora and fauna with the exception of invasive grasses/weeds that are mowed twice a year in accordance with the City’s Weed Abatement Program. Existing development on all four (4) sides of the project site precludes its use as a wildlife corridor. Item 8.a. - Page 272 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a sensitive, candidate, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a-f: No impacts. References: 15, 16, 19 V. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting No archeological sites have been recorded within one-half mile of the project site; however, two (2) archeological sites have been recorded within two-thirds of a mile of the project site. A phase one archeological surface survey was conducted in 1997 for the BGSP properties. No intact historic or prehistoric cultural sites were noted during the survey; however, isolated pieces of prehistoric shell and modern or historic shell and burnt bone and glass were noted in a total of five (5) separate locations within the entire forty-seven (47) acre Berry Gardens project area, including the project site. Two (2) of these locations contained Pismo clam shell fragments with either glass or domestic animal bone and are Item 8.a. - Page 273 probably historic in origin. The remaining three (3) locations contained isolated shell fragments that are probably prehistoric in origin. A substantial amount of fill material has been stored on the project site for the past several years. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion a-d: The presence of isolated prehistoric cultural materials indicates the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources should more intact or substantial deposits be present within the project site. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM V-1: Any areas where native (non-stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc.) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. Prior to construction activities and if cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. MM V-2: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts; fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the appropriate Information Center and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. Item 8.a. - Page 274 MM V-3: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s office shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered remains. References: 15, 16, 19 VI. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting In general, the project site slopes to the south with an average elevation of approximately ninety (90) feet above mean sea level. The south side of the site is generally ten (10) feet below the north side in elevation. Near surface soils generally consist of silty sands to a depth of 4-5 feet in a slightly moist to moist state and in a loose to medium-dense condition. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable, as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Item 8.a. - Page 275 Discussion a: A geotechnical investigation of the project site was performed by GSI Soils Inc. (2006). This investigation concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed project if the recommendations contained in the investigation are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM VI-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. MM VI-2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of an updated geotechnical study based on the study prepared for the project by GSI Soils Inc. dated April 2006. b-e: No impacts. References: 20 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting The project site is located adjacent to existing commercial and residential development, along the City’s main commercial corridor (East Grand Avenue). Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion a-b: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions are said to result in an increase in the earth’s average surface temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming. The rise in global temperature is associated with long-term changes in precipitation, temperature, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth’s climate system. This is also known as climate change. These changes are now thought to be broadly attributed to GHG emissions, particularly those emissions that result from the human production and use of fossil fuels. The passage of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006), recognized the need to reduce GHG emissions and set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. The law required that by 2020, State emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels. This is to be Item 8.a. - Page 276 accomplished by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions. Subsequent legislation (e.g., SB97-Greenhouse Gas Emissions bill) directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop statewide thresholds. In March 2012, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) approved thresholds for GHG emission impacts, and these thresholds have been incorporated in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. APCD determined that a tiered process for residential/commercial land use projects was the most appropriate and effective approach for assessing the GHG emission impacts. The tiered approach includes three methods, any of which can be used for any given project: • Qualitative GHG Reduction Strategies (e.g. Climate Action Plans): A qualitative threshold that is consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures and goals; or, • Bright-Line Threshold: Numerical value to determine the significance of a project’s annual GHG emissions; or, • Efficiency-Based Threshold: Assesses the GHG impacts of a project on an emissions per capita basis. For most projects the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons CO2/year (MT CO2e/yr) will be the most applicable threshold. In addition to the residential/commercial threshold options proposed above, a bright-line numerical value threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr was adopted for stationary source (industrial) projects. It should be noted that projects that generate less than the above mentioned thresholds will also participate in emission reductions because air emissions, including GHGs, are under the purview of the California Air Resources Board (or other regulatory agencies) and will be “regulated” either by CARB, the Federal Government, or other entities. For example, new vehicles will be subject to increased fuel economy standards and emission reductions, large and small appliances will be subject to more strict emissions standards, and energy delivered to consumers will increasingly come from renewable sources. Other programs that are intended to reduce the overall GHG emissions include Low Carbon Fuel Standards, Renewable Portfolio standards and the Clean Car standards. As a result, even the emissions that result from projects that produce fewer emissions than the threshold will be subject to emission reductions. Under CEQA, an individual project’s GHG emissions will generally not result in direct significant impacts. This is because the climate change issue is global in nature. However, an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. Projects that have GHG emissions above the noted thresholds may be considered cumulatively considerable and require mitigation. The Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) has established mitigation measures to reduce project-level GHG emissions. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM VII-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures: Item 8.a. - Page 277 • Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. • Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees. • No residential wood burning appliances. • Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended. • Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. • Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted. • Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. • Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. • Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. • Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). • Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters. • Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®). • Utilize double-paned windows. • Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium). • Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. • Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats. • Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs. • Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting. • Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended. • Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TRUs at the loading docks. • Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. References: 10, 11, B Item 8.a. - Page 278 VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The project site is not known to contain hazards or hazardous materials, nor are these located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials, substances, or waste into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5, and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires, including areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a, c- h: No impacts. b: The potential for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is addressed in Section III Air Quality. References: 16, 22 Item 8.a. - Page 279 IX Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The project site is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. The City provides water service, which consists of water from groundwater and Lopez Lake. The site itself is undeveloped, which results in a minimal amount of stormwater runoff; however, the adjacent Poplar Ponding Basin was designed and constructed to accommodate the increased stormwater runoff the proposed project would generate. The project site is not located within a flood zone. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in on- or off-site flooding? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam? j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Item 8.a. - Page 280 Discussion a, c-e: The project is required to comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, which require the site to retain the 95th percentile of a 24 hour storm event for projects adding more than 15,000 square-feet of impervious surfaces. As part of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP) area, the project site will direct the remaining 5th percentile of a 24 hour storm event to the Poplar Ponding Basin, which is an infiltration basin located directly across South Courtland Street from the project site. The basin was designed and built to accommodate all additional runoff generated by development of the project site and will have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional runoff. Less than significant impact b: The proposed project is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge since the project will comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. Discussion of water supply is covered in Section XVII Utilities and Service Systems. Less than significant impact f: The State Water Quality Control Board requires municipalities, via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to minimize negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems and degradation of water quality to the maximum extent practicable. Permittees must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the technology-based standard of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) to protect water quality. The goals of post-construction BMPs are to prevent and control erosion and sedimentation, provide source control of potential pollutants, control and treat runoff, and protect wetlands and water quality resources. Post- construction BMPs are required to achieve stormwater quality standards through site-planning measures. Vegetative swales or other biofilters are recommended as the preferred choice for post- construction BMPs for all projects with suitable landscape areas, because these measures are relatively economical and require limited maintenance. For projects where landscape based treatment is impracticable, or insufficient to meet required design criteria, other post-construction BMPs should be incorporated. All post-construction BMPs must be maintained to operate effectively. Implementation of the BMPs listed below will reduce the potential impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM IX-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: • Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system. • Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels. • Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. • Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning. Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved Item 8.a. - Page 281 designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. • Car Washing. Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary sewer or wastewater reclamation system. • Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. • Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. • Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. • Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors shall also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors shall be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. • Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing shall have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. • Loading Dock Controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the area. Position roof downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building shall be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain. • Street/Parking Lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into Item 8.a. - Page 282 the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. g-j: No impacts. References: 6, 7, 15 X. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is designated as Mixed-Use Specific Plan (MU-SP) in the City’s Land Use Element and zoned Gateway Mixed-Use Specific Plan (GMU-SP). The proposed type and scale of development will be consistent with both the MU-SP land use category and GMU-SP zoning district with the adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with the applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion a, c: No impacts. b: The proposed project includes amendments to both the General Plan and Berry Gardens Specific Plan to ensure the development of the subject property is consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. Less than significant impact References: 1, 2, 4, 15, 17, 18 Item 8.a. - Page 283 XI. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is or would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion a-b: No impacts. References: 5 XII. Noise Environmental Setting The project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, north and west, and residential uses to the south. The proposed project includes new residential uses on the southern portion of the project site, with mixed-use commercial space and residential condominiums on the northern portion of the project site. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? b) Generate or expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels without the project)? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of noise levels existing without the project? Item 8.a. - Page 284 e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a: Residential uses are considered to be noise sensitive, and any store loading dock will expose both existing and proposed residential uses to elevated noise levels. An acoustic report was prepared by David Dubbink Associates (2010) to analyze acoustical issues related to a previous project on the site. The report concludes that without mitigation, the previously proposed project will exceed City standards for noise exposure to residential uses. The current project proposal includes significantly reduced commercial intensity and it is reasonable to conclude that implementation of recommended mitigation measures from the previous study will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM XII-1: All store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of South Courtland Street shall be maintained. MM XII-2: Any residential structures that would have a direct line of sight to store delivery areas shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty (30) decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developers. MM XII-3: Delivery truck drivers shall be instructed to turn off diesel engines when trucks are parked or being unloaded. b & d: Construction of the proposed project will generate temporary groundborne vibrations and increase ambient noise levels; however, the days and times of construction activities shall be limited per City standards. Therefore, this temporary increase is not anticipated to exceed the City’s thresholds for noise. Less than significant impact c: Operation of the proposed project will create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels; however, this permanent increase is not anticipated to exceed the City’s thresholds for noise in Municipal Code Chapter 9.16. Less than significant impact e-f: No impacts. References: 1, 2, 3, 15, 21 XIII. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project site is vacant. The parcel to the south of the project site had been identified in the City’s Housing Element as an ‘opportunity site’ to provide additional housing to the City’s housing stock and has been constructed with a 36-unit affordable multi-family apartment complex. Item 8.a. - Page 285 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a: The proposed project is anticipated to house approximately 100 persons. The proposed density and anticipated population growth are consistent with the City’s General Plan (Land Use and Housing Elements) and the residential type will be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the BGSP due to amendments to these documents being proposed in the project description. Less than significant impact b-c: No impacts. References: 1, 4, 15 XIV. Public Services Environmental Setting Public services to the project site are readily provided by the City of Arroyo Grande and the Lucia Mar School District (LMSD). Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in significant environmental impacts from construction associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection: Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Item 8.a. - Page 286 Discussion a: The construction of thirty-eight (38) single-family residences is expected to add approximately twenty-seven (27) school-aged children to the Lucia Mar Unified School District based on a student yield factor of 0.7. As allowed by State Law, the Lucia Mar Unified School District has a development impact fee established by the school district for new residential and commercial construction to finance any new classrooms. Less than significant with mitigation MM XIV-1: The applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District impact fee. References: 5, 15, A XV. Recreation Environmental Setting The project site is located less than one half mile (considered to be a comfortable walking distance) to both a small neighborhood park and the Soto Sports Complex. The residential component of the project will also include a centrally located neighborhood open space. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a: The proposed project would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks; however, the increase in use would not cause substantial deterioration of the facilities based on the anticipated increase of approximately 100 persons. Less than significant impact b: The proposed project would create a central neighborhood open space area similar to a pocket park. Due to the limited size, it is not anticipated that the neighborhood open space would have a significant impact on the environment, and could even be viewed as having a beneficial result when compared to the existing vacant property. Less than significant impact References: 5, 15 XVI. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The project site is located at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street, which is a signalized intersection and approximately 250 feet from East Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard, which is also a signalized intersection. Item 8.a. - Page 287 Based upon the updated project description of 5,000 square-feet of additional commercial space in Subarea 3a and change in number of residential dwellings to thirty-eight (38) Subarea 3b, the traffic study prepared by Omni-Means in 2014 was updated and finalized. While changes were made to trip distribution and peak hour trips as a result of the modified project description, overall impacts were the same as those identified in the previously circulated Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed mitigation measures did not change. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial increase in traffic, in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the street system (i.e., a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, individually or cumulatively, the level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks? d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) that would substantially increase hazards? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion a-b: The traffic study prepared by Omni-Means (2015), evaluated the operation of seven (7) intersections in the vicinity of the project. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were collected by Omni-Means specifically for this study. The existing AM and PM peak-hour intersection levels of service and delays currently operate within acceptable limits (LOS C or better). The analysis includes signalized intersections in the City of Grover Beach. The study utilized the trip generation rate data derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Generation Manual 9th Edition, consistent with the City’s Draft Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Applying the ITE trip generation rates to the project land uses, the project is anticipated to generate 69 new AM peak hour trips and 121 new PM peak hour trips. To evaluate the potential project impacts, the project traffic volumes were distributed to the study area intersections and the intersection levels of service were recalculated. Based on this analysis, the traffic study showed that the addition of project traffic did not significantly change the existing intersection Item 8.a. - Page 288 levels of service and does not result in a significant increase in peak-hour delays. No project specific significant impacts were identified for the existing plus project analysis conditions. A cumulative analysis was conducted for this project to determine the potential future impacts that the project may have when other approved and pending projects are assumed to be constructed. The traffic study utilized a list of approved and pending projects and formed the baseline for the cumulative traffic analysis. The cumulative AM and PM peak-hour intersection levels of service were calculated and all of the study area and two intersections were projected to operate at unacceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour, including the Two Way Stop Control intersection of Brisco Road and East Grand Avenue and the signalized intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. The traffic study showed that the project traffic, when added to the cumulative traffic volumes, continues to operate the two deficient intersections at unacceptable levels. The traffic study identified mitigation measures, including striping and signal phasing, which would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Less than significant with mitigation MM XVI-1: For the intersection of Brisco Road and East Grand Avenue, the applicant shall restripe the westbound approach to include a dedicated westbound right turn lane, which will require two 11’ travel lanes and a 10’ turn lane. MM XVI-2: For the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real, the applicant shall: • Restripe the westbound left turn lane as a shared left/through lane; • Restripe the westbound shared through-right lane to a dedicated right turn lane; • Provide overlap phasing for the westbound right turn movement; and • Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn movement. c: No impacts. d: The traffic study evaluated the proposed site plan for site access alternatives from East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. Option “A” includes two driveways on East Grand Avenue: a right turn only one-way ingress and a separate right turn only one-way egress west of the ingress. Option “B” would allow both ingress and egress and would be restricted to right turns only. Under either Option, two full-access driveways would be provided off South Courtland Street; one serving Subarea 3a and one serving Subarea 3b. There would be no vehicular access between Subarea 3a and Subarea 3b. The traffic study indicated that either site access option would be acceptable from an intersection operations standpoint, but that drivers may be confused under Option “A” once onsite, as they would not be able to leave the site via the entrance they entered. However, this potential confusion is not a significant impact that would substantially increase hazards and onsite pavement treatments and signage is anticipated to address this impact. Less than significant impact e: Complete emergency access for Subarea 3a and Subarea 3b is provided. The proposed project includes emergency access between Subarea 3b and adjacent Subarea 4 (Peoples’ Self Help Housing project). Changing the existing emergency access for Subarea 4 from a prepared hammerhead turnaround on an undeveloped site to a through access through Subarea 3b will impact the existing operation but the complete access to South Courtland Street will not be a significant change. Less than significant impact Item 8.a. - Page 289 f: Parking requirements by land use are identified in Municipal Code Section 16.56.060. The proposed development requires fifty-two (52) spaces in Subarea 3a and 103 spaces on Subarea 3b, including twenty-one (21) guest parking spaces. Subarea 3a is proposed to include sixty-one (61) spaces to meet the requirement. Subarea 3b contains 102 parking spaces, with eighty-two (82) of those spaces in enclosed, two-car garages and twenty (20) open guest parking spaces. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes the request for a guest parking reduction on Subarea 3b of one (1) space, which translates into a 1% parking reduction. Municipal Code Section 16.56.050.1 allows for a discretionary parking reduction up to 20%. Due to the request being well below the amount allowed, the requested parking reduction is not anticipated to be a significant impact. Less than significant impact g: No impacts. References: 1, 13, 15, 25, A, C XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. Utilities will be served by both the City and other regional entities. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment restrictions or standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? Would the construction of these facilities cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination, by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to service the project’s anticipated demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations as they relate to solid waste? Item 8.a. - Page 290 Discussion a & e: Wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated by the South County Sanitation District, which has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. Less than significant impact b: The BGSP area is served by Sewer Lift Station No. 7, which was sized and constructed in anticipation of full commercial construction on the project site. Due to the proposed inclusion of single-family residential housing in place of full commercial development, the project will be required to evaluate station’s capacity compared to the proposed project and increase capacity of the lift station if necessary. Inclusion of these requirements in the project description will not result in a significant impact to wastewater facilities or equipment. Less than significant impact c: The Poplar Ponding Basin, which is adjacent to the project site, was designed and constructed to accommodate the additional stormwater discharge from development of the project site as part of the original approval of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP). The development of affordable multi-family apartments on Subarea 4 of the BGSP area resulted in some modifications to the sources of stormwater entering the Basin, but these modifications were implemented on a one-to-one ratio. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Basin will continue to have adequate capacity for the proposed project. Less than significant impact d: The 2012 Water System Master Plan provides water demand factors based on land use. The project site is located in the Mixed-Use Land Use category, which has a demand factor of 1,788 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). The project site is 4.47 acres, which results in water demand of 7,992.36 gpd. This amount of demand is covered by existing resources in the projected build-out population of 20,000 residents. Subarea 3b contains small-lot, single-family residences at a higher density than the Single- Family Medium Density (MD). Therefore, using the corresponding water demand factor would provide a conservative water demand. The water demand factor for Single-Family Medium Density Land Use Category is 1,672 gpd/acre, which totals 5,551.04 gpd of water demand for the 3.32 acres of residential development on Subarea 3b. The remaining 1.15 acres of mixed-use development on Subarea 3a would result in a water demand of 2,056.2 gpd. The two Subareas combined would have a water demand of 7,607.24 gpd, less than that anticipated under the General Plan build out scenario. Additionally, all new development in the City is required to either implement a water neutralization program or pay a water neutralization fee to offset increased water demand generated by the development. Therefore, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project, even in light of current drought conditions. Less than significant impact The revised project description, including expansion of land area proposed for mixed-use development to 1.34 acres and reduction of land area proposed for residential use changes the water demand for the 4.47 acre site. Utilizing the same water demand factors outlined above, the project is anticipated to have the following water demand: Use Area Water Demand Factor Total Mixed-Use 1.34 acres 1,788 gpd/acre 2,395.92 gpd SFMD Residential 3.13 acres 1,672 gpd/acre 5,233.36 gpd Total 4.47 acres 7,629.28 gpd Based upon the water demand factors for the revised project description, the anticipated water demand is increased from 7,607.24 gpd to 7,629.28 gpd. However, this increase remains below the 7,992.36 gpd Item 8.a. - Page 291 water demand anticipated under the General Plan build out scenario. Therefore, the project will continue to have a less than significant impact on water supplies. f-g: The proposed project will be served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has adequate permitted capacity to serve the project. Less than significant impact References: 1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 19 Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Have possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of possible future projects. d) Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a: Although undeveloped, the project site does not contain any significant flora or fauna, and because it is surrounded by urban development, the site does not have any potential to serve as a wildlife corridor. Isolated prehistoric materials may be present on the project site; however, the site does not serve as an example of a major period of California history or prehistory. b: There are no short-term environmental goals, either in the project description or the identified mitigation measures, that will be achieved to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c: The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan as it relates to future growth, both in general terms and specifically as it relates to the project site. While the proposed project will cumulatively increase traffic and demand for public services and utilities, with implementation of the Item 8.a. - Page 292 proposed mitigation measures, it will not result in any cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. d: With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Item 8.a. - Page 293 Summary of Mitigation Measures MM III-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: • Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location. • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM III-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM III-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5 minute idling limit. MM III-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development): • Staging a queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; • Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and • Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. MM III-5: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402): • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; • Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible; • All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities; • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be shown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; Item 8.a. - Page 294 • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23'114; • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; • A listing of all required mitigation measures should be included on grading and building plans; and, • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. MM III-6: Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for equipment to be used during construction by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. MM III-7: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. MM III-8: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. MM III-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. Item 8.a. - Page 295 • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate. • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. • During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. • Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. MM III-10: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include the establishment of a ‘no idle’ zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques: • Each delivery vehicle’s engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. • The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible. • Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the ‘no idle’ zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. • Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines. • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. • Use of alternative-fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible. • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Public Works Dept., Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM V-1: Any areas where native (non-stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. Prior to construction activities and if cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit MM V-2: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Item 8.a. - Page 296 Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts; fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the appropriate Information Center and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. MM V-3: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s office shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered remains. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during grading activities MM VI-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. MM VI-2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and updated geotechnical study based on the study prepared for the project by GSI Soils Inc. dated April 2006. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit MM VII-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures: • Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. • Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees. • No residential wood burning appliances. Item 8.a. - Page 297 • Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended. • Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. • Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted. • Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. • Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. • Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. • Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). • Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters. • Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®). • Utilize double-paned windows. • Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium). • Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. • Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats. • Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs. • Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting. • Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended. • Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TRUs at the loading docks. • Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Building Division; APCD Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit MM IX-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: • Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system. Item 8.a. - Page 298 • Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels. • Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. • Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning. Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. • Car Washing. Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary sewer or wastewater reclamation system. • Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. • Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. • Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas should be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. • Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. • Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. Item 8.a. - Page 299 • Loading Dock Controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the area. Position roof downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain. • Street/parking lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XII-1: All store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of South Courtland Street shall be maintained. MM XII-2: Any residential structures that would have a direct line of sight to store delivery areas shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty (30) decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developers. MM XII-3: Delivery truck drivers shall be instructed to turn off diesel engines when trucks are parked or being unloaded. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XIV-1: The applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District impact fee. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XVI-1: For the intersection of Brisco Road and East Grand Avenue, the applicant shall restripe the westbound approach to include a dedicated westbound right turn lane, which will require two 11’ travel lanes and a 10’ turn lane. MM XVI-2: For the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real, the applicant shall: • Restripe the westbound left turn lane as a shared left/through lane; • Restripe the westbound shared through-right lane to a dedicated right turn lane; • Provide overlap phasing for the westbound right turn movement; and Item 8.a. - Page 300 • Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn movement. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Item 8.a. - Page 301 References Documents & Maps 1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan 2. City of Arroyo Grande Land Use Map 3. City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code 4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 5. Arroyo Grande Existing Settings Report & Draft Arroyo Grande Existing Settings Report (2010) 6. Arroyo Grande Urban Water Management Plan 7. Arroyo Grande Water System Master Plan (2012) 8. Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (2012) 9. San Luis Obispo Important Farmland Map (California Department of Conservation, 2006) 10. CEQA & Climate Change White Paper (CAPCOA, 2008) 11. Air Quality Handbook (SLO APCD, 2012) 12. Arroyo Grande Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012) 13. Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trails Master Plan (2012) 14. Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan (2013) 15. Project Plans 16. Site Inspection 17. Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Districts 18. East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan 19. Final Berry Gardens Specific Plan – Tract 2260 Environmental Impact Report (FIRMA, 1998) 20. Geotechnical Investigation (GSI Soils, 2006) 21. Acoustic Report (David Dubbink Associates, 2010) 22. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Buena Resources, Inc., 2007) 23. Drainage and Water Quality Report (RRM Design Group, 2015) 24. Diesel PM Screening Health Risk Assessment (Marine Research Specialists, 2010) 25. Transportation Impact Analysis Report (Omni-Means, 2015) Consultations A. Geoff Straw, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) B. Gary Arcemont, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control Board (SLO APCD) C. Marty Inouye, Omni-Means, LTD. Item 8.a. - Page 302 From: John D Lovern Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:26 PM To: Teresa McClish Subject: Concerns about planned development at Grand & Courtland Hello Ms. McClish I’m a home owner in the Berry Gardens complex, and I’d like to share some concerns with you that I  have about the planned development on the corner of Grand and Courtland. I would be attending  the meeting tonight to voice my concerns, but I’m a professor at Hancock College, and I have a class  to teach tonight. I hope that you may be able to carry my concerns to that meeting. My wife and I both feel that the planned development is too ambitious. I am not opposed to either  commercial buildings on Grand Avenue or residential units behind them. What I’m concerned about  is the plan to cram so many homes into such a small area, with insufficient room on the street for  parking, and commercial buildings being erected without knowing in advance what specific  businesses or types of businesses would use the commercial buildings. It is unclear whether the  commercial buildings facing Grand Avenue would enhance the appearance and ambiance of our  area as a tourist destination or as a nice place to live. The whole plan has a strong appearance of being designed to maximize the profit of a single  individual (the developer) at the expense and inconvenience of many Arroyo Grande home owners. Sincerely, John Lovern, Ph.D. 1553 Blackberry Avenue Arroyo Grande 93420 ATTACHMENT 20 Item 8.a. - Page 303 ATTACHMENT 21 Item 8.a. - Page 304 Item 8.a. - Page 305 Item 8.a. - Page 306 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 0 7 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 0 8 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 0 9 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 0 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 1 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 2 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 3 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 4 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 5 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 6 It e m 8 . a . - P a g e 3 1 7 the Arroyo Grande City We urge the City Council to approve the currently proposed project at lb& SW corner of Courtland & Grand Avenue .. compromise incmases commercial lmoona.nt new housing choice in Arroyo mmme£::tive """""'"',...."""""" too. Name traffic through the Berry c -1::1rt-iAni:1 tall,1oomtmeir,ciat de'.ll'elrn:>ment making this mixed use development a to Item 8.a. - Page 322 ATTACHMENT 30 Dear City Council I am a Home Owner in Berry Gardens and a long time resident of Arroyo Grande. I raised my three children in this area where the project is proposed. I have also worked several years as an administration assistant to a local residential builder preparing bank packages to acquirer lender financing. As a long term owner and not a renter within the Berry Gardens development I would like to see more of what all the governing documents call for to be built in this area which is requires neighborhood serving commercial businesses to be provided. It is very nice to have my children be able to walk to the dollar store, panda express or local sandwich shop in stead of getting into a car to drive across town for our basic needs. The development proposed does not provide enough commercial opportunities and is obviously designed in such a manner to maximize profit for the developer at the expense of the City and its residence. The developer I worked for would typically sell sub-division tract homes at an average sales price of 400k with a minimum profit of 28 percent per unit and an average profit of 35% after all costs including land and fees. The sub division component alone at this margin of profit of would be l 12k to 140k/unit with a minimum return of four to five million over the 38 units proposed. Providing the individual custom homes as suggested by the developer does not meet a need of the community but rather a need of the developer. Please have the developer provide a sensible project to which the neighborhood can be proud of. If residential is truly a vital part of this development it needs to serve the needs of the community and provide opportunities for our young adults in which I now have 3 looking for affordable housing opportunities which this project does not. At best they need a place of there own at a rate of$600to$800!M:onth. I would also like to say I am disappointed at the developer again by not including us in a workshop as he has promised to do so in the past. I have gone two the workshops when he proposed the food 4 less project and he did not take into account any of our suggestions or include us in the current proposal. I also want to share that Mike O'Morrow keeps informing the City Item 8.a. - Page 330 Council saying he represents the Berry Gardens. He does not and is only one opm10n. Lastly, The General Plan, Gateway Plan, Enhancement Plan and Specific Plan which I bought into was approved by prior City officials, Council Members and the community and paid for by our tax dollars. It does not stand to reason that a single developer can be allowed to change our Policies on a project by project basis to fit his needs. Please do not change our General Plan on a whim and disrespect all the hard work that has gone on over the years by the prior Councils, Commissioners and citizens of Arroyo Grande. Thank you Paula Renner 1501 Loganberry Item 8.a. - Page 331 ATTACHMENT 31 Teresa McCli sh From : Sent: To: Subj ect : Teresa, Patrick Cusack ~ Tuesday, Septe~PM Teresa McClish Court land and Grand I wanted to express to the city council my support for the Courtland and Grand project. We are in need of affordable housing and t hi s pro j ect helps address t his need . I also have looked at the quality of the commercial e l ements of the project and believe it will be a great addition to put City. Please -pass these sent imen t s on t o t he council at tonight's meeting. Thank you Pat Cusack 1080 Newso m Springs Road . Arroyo Grande CA Pat Cusack's I Phone 1 Item 8.a. - Page 332 ATTACHMENT 32 Item 8.a. - Page 333 Item 8.a. - Page 334 Item 8.a. - Page 335 Item 8.a. - Page 336 ATTACHMENT 33 Item 8.a. - Page 337 VI S T A S A T P I S M O VI L L A G E PI S M O B E A C H Vi s t a s a t P i s m o V i l l a g e i s a c o m m u n i t y c o m p r i s e d o f 1 6 si n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s a n d 1 6 a t t a c h e d t o w n h o m e s sk i l l f u l l y d e t a i l e d i n t h r e e c h o i c e a r c h i t e c t u r e s t y l e s o f Ca l i f o r n i a C r a f t s m a n , M o d e r n a n d S e a s i d e . T h e co m m u n i t y a l s o i n c l u d e s 2 c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e s d e s i g n e d fo r p a t i o r e s t a u r a n t s a n d r e t a i l s t o r e s t o m a k e y o u r s t r o l l to n e i g h b o r h o o d a m e n i t i e s e v e n s h o r t e r . Ea c h o f t h e t h r e e d i ff e r e n t f l o o r p l a n s r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m ap p r o x i m a t e l y 1 3 2 4 - 1 7 5 1 s q u a r e feet. The three story ho m e s o f f e r 2 c a r g a r a g e s a nd spectacular roof top de c k s t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f f a b u l o u s o u t d o o r l i v i n g sp a c e t o e n j o y t h e m a g n i f i c e n t v i e w s . DE N S I T Y : 3 2 U N I T S / A C R E Co a s t a l C o m m u n i t y B u i l d e r s Item 8.a. - Page 338 Item 8.a. - Page 339 RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2015 CfTY OF ARROYO GRANDE Re: Affordable housing Mayor Jim Hill & Council City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch St. Am:Jyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Mayor & Coundl members, September 29, 2015 225 Whiteley St, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 I understand that due to a "glitch" in coundl proceedings the project to provide affordable housing in the City of Arroyo Grande, commonly known as the Nick Tompkins' Development, has been delayed. This is an example of how we can react to the need to provide badly needed housing in South San Luis Obispo County and should be put on a fast track to correct any procedural matters. As a resident of Arroyo Grande for more than 30 years who understands housing issues as they affect myself, my daughter and grandsons, I fully support whatever we can do to provide housing for our workforce element. Please do whatever possible to get this project going as quickly as possible. Sincerely yours, Bill Cockshott [Type text] ATTACHMENT 34 Item 8.a. - Page 340 / Mayor Jim Hill & Council City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear -Mayor-& Council members, RECENED OCT 0 1 2015 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE September 29, 2015 My two sons and I live in The Village and support the project at Courtland and Grand to provide about 40 affordable homes and a commercial element. I understand it is the one known as the Nick Tompkins Development. Due to a slight error in council proceedings that approved it, I understand it has been delayed. Please do whatever we can to get it going again so that we can have affordable housing in Arroyo Grande. Since it is a matter of correcting procedural matters, we do not have to have the developer start all over again. ' Sincerely yours, ~~ [Type text] ATTACHMENT 35 Item 8.a. - Page 341 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON 4 28 5 29 30 31 6 7 8 910111213141516 3517 34 33 32 36 3719 20 38 39 21 22 23 24 25 2627 40 41 18 BUILDING 2 6,500 SF BUILDING 3 3,600 SF BUILDING 1 5,500 SF EX1Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 30’ (24x36 sheet) SCALE: 1” = 60’ (12x18 sheet) 01530 60 120 UP MARSH S T R E E T BROADSTREET - --- - --- 4' - 0 " 10' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 26' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 12' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 12' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 20 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 6' - 2 1 / 2 " 16 ' - 9 " 15 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 53' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 25' - 6 " 50 ' - 0 " 99' - 0 " 49 ' - 9 " 84' - 0 " 6' - 2 5 / 8 " P: (8 0 5 ) 5 4 3 - 1 7 9 4 | F : ( 8 0 5 ) 5 4 3 - 4 6 0 9 | w w w . r r m d e s i g n . c o m 3765 S o u t h H i g u e r a S t . , S t e . 1 0 2 , S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 A Ca l i f o r n i a C o r p o r a t i o n | V i c t o r M o n t g o m e r y , A r c h i t e c t # C 1 1 0 9 0 | J e r r y M i c h a e l , P E # 3 6 8 9 5 , L S # 6 2 7 6 | J e f f F e r b e r , L A # 2 8 4 4 N:\2 0 1 4 \ 2 0 1 4 0 0 2 - 6 6 7 - M a r s h - S t r e e t - R e t a i l - O f f i c e - D e v e l o p m e n t \ A rch i t e c t u r e \ C u r r e n t T a s k \ M o d e l \ 2 0 1 4 0 0 2 - 6 6 7 - M a r s h - S t r e e t . r v t 9/9/ 2 0 1 4 1 2 : 0 1 : 4 8 P M A1 20140 0 2 - 6 6 7 M A R S H SCHE M A T I C G R O U N D F L O O R /SIT E P L A N 09/08 / 2 0 1 4 1/8" = 1 ' - 0 " A-5. 1 A 1 GRO U N D F L O O R P L A N 1 1/A3 EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT PORCH Graphic Legend SIDEWALK COMMON YARD PRIVATE YARD EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPEMENT EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN 2/A3 4/A3 5/A3 3/A3 ATTACHMENT 36 Item 8.a. - Page 342 EX2Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL SITE SECTIONS Section 1-Commercial West Section 5-Commercial West/South Section 2-Residential West Section 3-Commercial/Residential Section 4-Residential South 6” 5’0”3’0”5’0” 10’0” MIN. SETBACK 6” EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WALL (2’ HIGH) EXISTING GRADE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING GRADE AND PAD TO MATCH PROPOSED PAD PROPOSED PARKING 5’ TO 6’ FENCEPROPOSED PARKING EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOT PROPOSED WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 2’-8’)PROPOSED WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 3’-5’)PROPOSED WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 5’-6’)2’ TO 3’ PLANTER COMMERCIAL LOT RESIDENTIAL LOT EXISTING PEOPLE’S SELF HELP HOUSING SITE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOT 10’ RESIDENTIAL SIDEYARD 5’ COMMERCIAL SIDEYARD EXISTING GRADE PROPERTY LINE 5’ TO 6’ FENCE Item 8.a. - Page 343 EX3Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN Item 8.a. - Page 344 EX4Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Item 8.a. - Page 345 EX5Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL UTILITY PLAN Item 8.a. - Page 346 EX6Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Item 8.a. - Page 347 EX7Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COMMERCIAL PERSEPECTIVE Grand Avenue Elevation Perspective View of Building 2 Item 8.a. - Page 348 EX8Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COMMERCIAL PERSEPECTIVE Perspective View of Building 1 Item 8.a. - Page 349 EX9Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COURTLAND PERSEPECTIVE SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0” (24x36 sheet) SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0” (12x18 sheet) 048 16 32 Perspective View of South Courtland Street Item 8.a. - Page 350 EX10Courtland & Grand Mixed Use Project DATE: July 14, 2015 #1014030 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITEE SUBMITTAL COMMERCIAL PERSEPECTIVE Perspective View of Building 3 Item 8.a. - Page 351 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Item 8.a. - Page 352