Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM NUMBER 2 Environmental Quality Control Board Interim Director of Community Development MAY 3, 2017 SCHEDULED ITEM - PRESENTATION / PUBLIC MEETING INITIAL STUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS /MND) PREPARED FOR BAY THEATER RESTORATION PROJECT 340 Main Street RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Quality Control Board receive the presentation, review the Initial Study /Negative Declaration (IS /ND) for the Bay Theater Restoration Project, collect public comment and forward all comments to the Planning Commission. Environmental Quality Control Board May 3, 2017 DISCUSSION: an initial study /negative declaration (IS /ND) has been prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Paul Dunlap for the restoration of the Bay Theater located at 340 Main Street. The applicant proposes to restore the theater into a luxury entertainment venue that will feature art movies and live entertainment designed to be integrated with the surrounding environment of restaurants and boutiques in the Old Town area of the City. The subject site is located within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone and is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, south, and west with residential uses located across an alley to the east. The existing building consists of slightly more than 7,000 square feet in three stories with the first floor theater comprising about 5,000 square feet and 475 seats. The proposed renovation will also restore a combined 2,200 square feet of office and apartment space on the second and third floors of the building. The third floor apartment will be utilized by the on -site management firm that will run the facility. Bay Theater event parking will be provided primarily on an offsite basis at the parking lot of the nearby Chase Bank. An Initial Study was been prepared by a third party consultant, Hodge & Associates, to assess the short-term, long -term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Bay Theater Restoration project. The report was prepared to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The initial study identified that there were no environmental impacts that would result from the proposed Bay Theater Restoration project so no mitigation measures were required. The Negative Declaration provides an assessment of all environmental areas analyzed. A twenty day public review period is being held from April 25, 2017 through May 15, 2017. During this period the IS /ND is available for public review at City Hall, on the City webpage (http: / /www. seal beachca. gov /Dena rtments /Comm unity-Development/Planning- Development/Environmental- Documents - Under - Review), and all three public libraries within the City of Seal Beach. At the May 3, 2017 Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting, the City and a representative from Hodge & Associates will provide a presentation regarding the environmental review process to the EQCB at a public meeting. EQCB members were provided with a copy of the IS /ND on April 25, 2017 when the document was released for public review. At the time of this report, staff has not received any comments for the Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Environmental Quality Control Board receive the presentation, review the Initial Study /Negative Declaration(IS /ND) for the Bay Theater Restoration project and forward comments to the Planning Commission. Presented by: rystal ffndav Interim Dine d& of Community Development Attachment (1): 1. Draft Initial Study /Negative Declaration for the Bay Theater Restoration Project: Delivered 425/17 Electronic version available at. http. //www. seal beachca .gov /DepaRments/Community- Development/ Planning- Development/Environmental- Documents- Under - Review Lead Agency City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Prepared By Hodge & Associates 45 -300 Portola Avenue #2842 Palm Desert, California 92261 BAY THEME Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Contents Tablet A. Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................... ..............................1 B. Project Description ....................................................................................................... ..............................1 C. Proposed Actions .......................................................................................................... ..............................5 D. Statutory Authority ....................................................................................................... ..............................5 E. Incorporation by Reference .......................................................................................... ..............................5 F. Analysis ......................................................................................................................... ..............................5 1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... ..............................6 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................... ..............................7 3. Air Quality.. ....................................................................................................................................... 8 4. Biological Resources .......................................................................................... .............................13 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... ............................... 14 6. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. .............................15 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... .............................18 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... .............................20 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................ .............................22 10. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... .............................25 11. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................. .............................25 12. Noise .................................................................................................................. .............................26 13. Population and Housing .................................................................................... .............................35 14. Public Services ................................................................................................... .............................36 15. Recreation ......................................................................................................... .............................37 16. Transportation/ Traffic ....................................................................................... .............................37 17. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................... .............................41 18. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................. .............................41 19. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................. .............................43 Tables Table 1 —South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts ....................................................... ..............................8 Tablet — DailyEmissionsThresholds .............................................................................. .............................11 Table3 — Daily Operational Impacts ................................................................................ .............................12 Table 4 — Proposed Uses Operational Emissions ............................................................. .............................20 Table 5 — Short-Term Noise Measurements I dB[ A]) ....................................................... .............................30 Table 6 — Near -Term Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ......................................................... .............................33 Table7 — Project Impact .................................................................................................. .............................33 Exhibits Exhibit1 — Regional Location .............................................................................................. ..............................2 Exhibit2 — Project Vicinity .................................................................................................. ..............................3 Exhibit3 — Floor Plans - Existing ......................................................................................... ..............................4 Exhibit 1 — Noise Compatibility Guidelines, Seal Beach General Plan ............................... .............................28 Exhibit 2 — Noise Meter Location ....................................................................................... .............................31 Exhibit3 — Parking Plan ..................................................................................................... .............................39 page iii Initial Study and Negative Declaration Appendices Appendix A— Environmental Checklist Appendix B — Air Quality /GHG Analysis Appendix C — Noise Analysis Appendix D— Focused Traffic Analysis Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach page iv Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations Bay Theater Restoration A. Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses The Project site for the proposed development is located at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach (City) area. The site is within Planning Area 1, the Old Town area of the City. The proposed Project site is surrounded by boutique commercial shops, restaurants, and residential uses. It is in the downtown area of the City. The subject area is in the Main Street Specific Plan area and is designated as Commercial- Service per the City's General Plan and is zoned MSSP — (Main Street Specific Plan). Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of the Project. Exhibit 2 shows the Project site and the Project vicinity. B. Project Description The Bay Theater is located at 340 Main Street in the Old Town area of the City of Seal Beach near the intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. The Project involves restoration of the theater into a luxury entertainment venue that will feature art movies and live entertainment designed to be integrated with the surrounding environment of restaurants and boutiques in the Old Town area of the City. The existing building features slightly more than 7,000 square feet in three stories with the first -floor theater comprising about 5,000 square feet and 475 seats. The concession area in the theater's lobby will feature high - quality pre - packaged snacks, beer, wine, and non - alcoholic beverages. Patrons will also have the choice of bringing food into the theater to encourage patronage of surrounding restaurants to create a symbiotic environment in the Old Town area of the community. The proposed renovation will restore a combined 2,200 square feet of office and apartment space on the second and third floors of the building. The third -floor apartment will be utilized by the on -site management firm that will run the facility. The theater auditorium will be used for holiday - themed and community event movies as well as art house films and live entertainment. The Bay Theater would be available to host a variety of live entertainment acts predicated on compatibility with the Seal Beach community. Proposed hours of operation will range between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, dependent upon the event. Numbers of employees and security personnel would also be dependent on the event. Bay Theater event parking will be provided primarily off -site basis at the parking lot of the nearby Chase Bank. The parking will be managed by a professional valet firm. The bank parking lot can provide up to 80 vehicle spaces. Other spaces are available within the City's 10`h Street Parking Area and throughout Main Street. It is anticipated that many theater patrons will use on- demand shuttles and taxis to reach Bay Theater events. It is also expected that many patrons will walk to the theater from surrounding neighborhoods in the pedestrian- oriented community of Old Town. Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach N BLVD Santa Fe Springs �� B(y .................•.,_... R Downey r EWHITTIER BLVD lift t , W IMPERIAL HM Norwalk 0v r _ u m a ° I Artesia Fullerton 0 a o W - - o La Palma m st - Q ti9 Anaheim 'tF Hawaiian Gardens x p0 a o 2 "I ti Los Alamitos v W PA IFIC COAST HWY i . ,'+ Rossmoor Long Beach T C 22W �. / - \Beach Garden Grove 0 Project Sit 10 'o 00 , ,ys .s . y1 Huntington Beach �P Og G Costa Mesa ., �Y COgsTN� Exhibit 1 — Regional Location 2 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Jp 4 R'4 �o 4 J *0 JP F4 �o Long W Q W y ti Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach 4,0 OpelOR r iW¢ � z m SW A J At °? 9i0q 9 4 9< O 0 ! O 0 p p X00 CEP spa op x 0 Q ` C" P BRAT e9k aPO E c p 0P4EP i 9 WESTMINSTER AVE u O ¢ S o APOLLO CT m ¢ COASTLINE OR y >m HOLSA AVE a > 9 0 4 �`.Og o p S4a �T 100 Qj� 4,0 OpelOR r iW¢ � z m SW A J o" g w C, �_.� ' � -- - Main Street b O x jg. 4R� o ,�Sy Of�'Rq h0gy4 Seal Beach S E su N Weapons OC Sbtlan Seal Brach Exhibit 2 — Project Vicinity 3 At r< CR�SVlIr Al Y w Ptp .fFP� 54 E 'J04 CATPLINP AV OpEy y0 P BRAT e9k MP0.V19? Ive IT � m �rPpPE C00.SSA%R CLIPPER WAV of O0 FATHOM AVE = p O ¢ S o CLrryTRq( 'MARINA DR Jl�CrR'C COASTLINE OR y >m HOLSA AVE a P m 9 iPp 4 �`.Og o" g w C, �_.� ' � -- - Main Street b O x jg. 4R� o ,�Sy Of�'Rq h0gy4 Seal Beach S E su N Weapons OC Sbtlan Seal Brach Exhibit 2 — Project Vicinity 3 V L d � O N d tb c � ov N �o a v� v L F T A m C O U � C !9 t0 U T � J p, « °a c °1 — Z g ♦.n _ _ m 0) m � vLLNiN HOE I,dll m — d 8 U'Iml ry W OCU = " m N I Lu 1 a I g. R� E5 CG c E 13 m C .Y N X W C f6 a O O LL m a L x W Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach C. Proposed Actions The Project will require City approval of the Renovation Plans and Parking Proposal. The proposed Project requires compliance with environmental procedures (CEQA and CEQA Guidelines). D. Statutory Authority The preparation of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration is governed by two principal sets of documents: The California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA," California Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.). Additionally, City procedures and case law provide guidance to this Initial Study and Negative Declaration. The environmental analysis presented in this document primarily focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the Project. This environmental document also evaluates all phases of the Project, including construction and operation. In compliance with state law and procedures, the City has determined that the Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental compliance for the proposed Project. Therefore, the City will not cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In compliance with §15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study checklist form and explanation discussion format meets the requirements of the CEQA. Section 15063(d)(3) requires that the entries on the Initial Study checklist identifying environmental effects be briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. An Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings. An Initial Study is not intended or required to include a level of detail that would be provided in an EIR. Therefore, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the IS /ND is not intended to be a lengthy, detailed document. E. Incorporation by Reference Certain documents are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. These documents and the locations where they can be inspected are identified in the Environmental Checklist (Appendix A of this Initial Study and Negative Declaration). Where a document is referenced, its pertinent sections will be briefly summarized in the discussions in this environmental document. F. Analysis The initial step in the City's environmental evaluation is the completion of an Environmental Checklist (also known as an "Initial Study ") to identify known or potential impacts and eliminate environmentally irrelevant issues. After each issue listed on the checklist, the City has marked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact," or "No Impact" depending on the potential of the Project to have adverse impacts. The Environmental Checklist prepared for the proposed Project is presented in Appendix A of this environmental document. The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed Project's environmental impacts. Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach 1. Aesthetics The City of Seal Beach is a community located on the Pacific Ocean in northwest Orange County. The neighborhood where the Project is located contains boutiques, restaurants, and commercial establish- ments in the Old Town area of the City. Residences are located behind the commercial facilities that front Main Street. Pacific Coast Highway is the nearest state highway to the Project, and views from Pacific Coast Highway would not be impacted by the Project. The topography of the area is flat. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) The Project site is located in a commercial area that does not provide a scenic vista. Surrounding properties are developed with commercial and residential structures. The Project site is located in a developed area of the City known as Old Town. The Project is restoration of the Bay Theater, a movie house that operated in the City for many years. The Bay Theater structure is consistent with the surrounding development. Therefore, the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) See response to Item 1.a) above. The Bay Theater Restoration Project will not have a significant impact to any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. In fact, the Project will restore the theater building, which was originally constructed in 1947. Additionally, Main Street is not listed as a state scenic highway, and the proposed Project would not alter any views in the area. Therefore, the Project will not result in any significant impacts for this topical area. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (No Impact) It is not anticipated that the Project will substantially impact the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, because most restoration work will take place in the building's interior. Surrounding and nearby land uses to the Project site include restaurants, boutiques, commercial establishments, and residences. Restoration of the theater will add to the activities available to residents and City visitors in the downtown Seal Beach area. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in any significant impacts relative to 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? (No Impact) The surrounding properties are already developed with existing restaurants, boutiques, commercial buildings, and residential structures. Lighting associated with the Project will be identical to that featured during operation of the theater in the past. The lighting is not considered significant given the Project's urbanized location. Therefore, substantial light and /or glare impacts should not occur as a result of the Project and there is no impact. Initial Study and Negative Declaration 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach The Agriculture and Forestry Resources section of this environmental document evaluates the impact the proposed Project would have on farmland or forest resources. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? (No Impact) The proposed Bay Theater Restoration Project does not involve conversion of any farmland. The proposed Project does not call for rezoning of farmland, nor is it currently zoned for agriculture. The Project is located in downtown Seal Beach in the Main Street Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed Project will not have any impacts on agriculture and forestry resources. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) See response to Item 2.a) above. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The property is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area would occur as a result of the proposed Project. 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(8))? (No Impact) The Project does not involve land that is considered forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production. It is a restoration project in the downtown commercial district of Seal Beach. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area would occur as a result of the proposed Project. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? (No Impact) The Project is located in an existing urban area and does not involve conversion of forest land to non - forest use. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area would occur as a result of the proposed Project. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? (No Impact) The proposed Project will not have any impact on farmland or agricultural uses. The Project site is within a developed area surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Therefore, the Project will not have any impact that could result in the conversion of property to non - agricultural use. Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach 3. Air Quality The information and analysis presented in this Air Quality section are based on the Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis dated April 11, 2017 prepared by Giroux & Associates (Appendix B). The analysis considers the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the potential impacts of the Project on local and regional air quality. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) An Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Project was performed by Giroux & Associates (April 11, 2017) and is included in its entirety as Appendix B to this document. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PMio. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times, because earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with airsheds with "serious' or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised, and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for the ozone precursor i and particulate matter are shown in Table 1 below. Substantial reductions in emissions of NOx are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PMto and PMz.s are forecast to slightly increase. Table 1 — South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts °2010 base year bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted gromir forecasts Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of CEPAM The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint' in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PMto) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal 1 -hour ozone standard, which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8 -hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. Emissions (tons per day) Pollutant 2012° 2015b 20201, 2025b NOx 603 451 357 289 VOC 544 429 400 393 PMra 160 155 161 165 PM25 71 67 67 68 °2010 base year bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted gromir forecasts Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of CEPAM The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint' in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PMto) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal 1 -hour ozone standard, which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8 -hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach With re- designation of the air basin as non - attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the 1 -hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8 -hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to "slip" from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary "bump -up" from a "severe non - attainment' area to an "extreme non - attainment' designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on "black -box" measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region if the bump -up request had not been approved. In April 2010, EPA approved the change in the non - attainment designation from "severe -17" to "extreme." This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls. In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM2,5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that several rules that are pending approval will remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues are not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The recently adopted 2012 AQMP being readied for ARB submittal to EPA as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM2.5 planning deficiencies. The federal Clean Air Act requires that non - attainment air basins have EPA - approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal 1 -hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked approximately 7 years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the 1 -hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now forced to develop an AQMP for the long- since - revoked 1 -hour federal ozone standard. Because the 2012 AQMP contains several control measures for the 8 -hour ozone standard that are equally effective for 1 -hour levels, the 2012 AQMP is believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements. AQMPs are required to be updated every 3 years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013. An updated AQMP was required for completion in 2016. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board in March 2017, and has been submitted to the California Air Resources Board for forwarding to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (e.g., power plants, refineries, landfill flares). The current attainment deadlines for all federal non - attainment pollutants are now as follows: • 8 -hour ozone (70 ppb) • Annual PM2.5 (12 pg /m') • 8 -hour ozone (75 ppb) • 1 -hour ozone (120 ppb) • 24 -hour PMzs (35 µg /m) 2032 2025 2024 (old standard) 2023 (rescinded standard) 2019 The key challenge is that NOx emissions levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, attainment goals may not be met. Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach The proposed Project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing residential development projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts, and programs relative to population, housing, employment, and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less than significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed Project has therefore been analyzed on a Project- specific basis. The proposed Project involves the restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Basin's Air Quality Management Plan. Therefore, less than significant impacts will occur in this issue area. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Project involves the restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. Air quality impacts are considered "significant" if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they "substantially" contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a) Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d) Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Primary Pollutants Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or a parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non - attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM,O, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during Project construction. 10 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Secondary Pollutants Many pollutants require time to transform from a benign contaminant form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of the significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (e.g., pounds, tons) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds in the following table are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Table 2 —Daily Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction (pounds per day) Operations (pounds per day) ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM10 150 150 PMzs 55 55 Sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source. SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993 Rev. Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build -out year. Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. Construction Activity Impacts The proposed Project requires renovations to an existing building. Air quality modeling only calculates emissions for large equipment like cranes, and dozers. Smaller, mostly electrical powered hand tools will be used for this Project and therefore construction emissions are not analyzed. 11 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Operational Impacts Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1 for an assumed Project opening year of 2017. Trip rates were provided in the Project traffic report. The traffic report predicts that the 475 - seat venue would generate 855 daily trips. In addition to mobile sources from vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on -site energy consumption and from off -site electrical generation. These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total Project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of such emissions adds negligibly to the total significant Project - related emissions burden as shown in Table 3. Table 3 — Daily Operational Impacts Source Operational Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Area Energy Mobile 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 7.2 0.0 0.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 Total 1.8 7.3 17.3 0.1 3.9 1.1 SCAOMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod 2013 2.2 Output in Appendix As seen in Table 3, the Project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. No impact mitigation for operational activity emissions is considered necessary to support this finding. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item 3.b) above. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a designated non - attainment area. The Project does not represent significant growth beyond that previously evaluated and forecasted for air quality cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth and development. Therefore, the Project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item 3.b) above. Construction on the proposed Bay Theater Restoration Project will take place primarily in the interior of the existing building. There will be no construction impacts on sensitive receptors such as the adjacent neighborhood. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area would result from the Project. 12 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed restoration of the Bay Theater will not create any significant objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in any significant impacts of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 4. Biological Resources The Biological Resources section analyzes the potential impact of the Project on wildlife and plant resources within the Project area. The Project site is the Bay Theater in an existing commercial neighborhood in downtown Seal Beach. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) The City's General Plan Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Element describes "open space land" as "any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved or contains only minor improvements and is devoted to an open space use. "' The Project site is the existing Bay Theater building in a completely developed area included in the Old Town area of Seal Beach. The Project site has been previously graded in conjunction with the existing theater building on the property. The Project site does not contain any sensitive habitat or wildlife resources, nor is it in an open space area. The site is in the downtown commercial district of the City of Seal Beach. Therefore, the Project will not result in any significant impacts to biological resources. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) See response to Item 4.a) above. Sensitive natural communities called out by the City of Seal Beach General Plan are primarily located in open space and undeveloped areas of the community. There are no riparian habitats associated with the Bay Theater site. The Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impacts to riparian or other sensitive natural communities are anticipated. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) See response to Item 4.a) above. The site is located in an urbanized area of the downtown and does not contain wetlands. The Project does not propose any interruption of hydrological flow or increase in hard surface that would increase flows toward the ocean. The Project involves the restoration of an 1 City of Seal Beach Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Element Page OS -1 13 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach existing building, the Bay Theater. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitats or wetlands will result from the proposed Project. 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? (No Impact) See response to Item 4.a) above. The site is located in the commercial downtown area of the City of Seal Beach. The site does not contain any sensitive habitat or wildlife resources. There are no migratory wildlife corridors on the Project site and the Project itself will not interfere with any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Therefore, there will be no impacts on any wildlife species in the Project area. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) See response to Item 4.a) above. The Project site does not contain any biological resources. The Project is restoration of the existing Bay Theater in the City's Main Street Specific Plan area. It is surrounded by restaurants, boutiques, commercial establishments and residences. There are no biological resources on the site. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with any policies or ordinance pertaining to biological resources. 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? (No Impact) See responses to Items 4.a) and 4.e) above. The site is located in an urbanized area. The site does not include a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. The proposed restoration of the Bay Theater does not involve any activities that would impact biological resources that would be subject to a conservation plan. S. Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources section analyzes impacts on historical resources at the Project site. The Project site has been previously graded to support the Bay Theater building that currently occupies the site. The Bay Theater was designated as an historic resource in September 2016. Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (No Impact) The City's General Plan /Historical Resources Element includes a comprehensive evaluation of historical resources citywide.2 The Project proposes the restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the Old Town area of the City. The theater was built in 1947, and the proposed Project would restore the theater to full operations in the Main Street Specific Plan area of shops, boutiques, restaurants, and commercial buildings. 2 City of Seal Beach General Plan /Cultural Resources Element, as amended 12/03, page CR -2. 14 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Identified archeological resources within the City of Seal Beach are primarily located on the Naval Weapons Station, the Hellman Ranch property, and potentially on the Boeing property. This Project is located in the Old Town planning area of the City of Seal Beach. The Project was an operating theater from 1947 to 2012, when it was shuttered. Additionally, the Bay Theater would be restored in place with no ground disturbance. Also, the City's Cultural Resources Element does not mention any recorded archeological sites in the Project area. Therefore, due to the nature of the Project, it is anticipated that the Project will not have any impacts on cultural (including historical) resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (No Impact) See response to Item 5.a) above. The Project is proposed to restore the Bay Theater, and there will be no ground disturbance associated with the Project. The proposed Project will require no grading due to the nature of the Project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project will result in any significant impact to archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact) See responses to Items 5.a) and 5.b) above. The General Plan Cultural Resources Element did not call out the Old Town area as a place with significant cultural resources. It is not anticipated that the Project will result in any direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources or geologic features due to the type of Project and existing developed condition of the property. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? (No Impact) See responses to Items 5.a) and 5.b) above. The site is located in an urbanized area with adjacent developed uses (restaurants, commercial establishments, and residences). Due to the developed condition of the site, it is not anticipated that the Project would result in any impacts relative to disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. 6. Geology and Soils The Geology section evaluates the potential impacts of Southern California's seismic events on the Project. The analysis is based largely on the City's General Plan/ Safety Element and regional mapping of fault lines and historical earthquake information. The analysis includes the range of geotechnical events that could impact the Project site. 15 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Would the Project: Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City's General Plan /Safety Element includes an evaluation of public safety that addresses geology and soils of the City and is herein incorporated by reference.3 The City, as well as most of Southern California, is located in a region of historic seismic activity. There have been many earthquakes throughout recorded history; some have been large. The 1933 Long Beach earthquake was the most powerful and closest shock to hit Seal Beach in living memory, and the 1994 Northridge quake was the most recent powerful shock. In October 1969, a quake occurred that was felt predominantly in Seal Beach and Northwest Orange County. By way of comparison, the three quakes listed above had the following magnitudes: 1933 Long Beach, 6.3; 1994 Northridge, 6.8; 1969 Seal Beach, 4.3. The active faults of Southern California will continue to be subjected to stresses that produce movement that in turn cause earthquakes of varying magnitude and intensity. A known active fault system is located within the limits of the City. The Seal Beach Fault, a segment of the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone, is located within the City and generally parallels the coastline, extending from Long Beach generally through the Hellman Ranch property and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. This fault has been delineated on the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the Project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of the major active faults in Southern California. The most significant known active faults include the Newport- Inglewood, Whittier, and Palos Verdes faults. The closest known active fault to the Project site includes the Newport Inglewood (LA Basin) fault, which is approximately 1.5 miles from the Main Street Bay Theater Project site. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface breaks during or as a consequence of seismic activity. As indicated previously, the site is located near an Alquist - Priolo zone, but there are no identified faults within the Project site property. Therefore, potential for surface rupture on site is considered low due to the lack of known active faults specifically on -site. The potential for damage resulting from seismic - related events exists within the City, as it does throughout Southern California. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground failure, ground displacement, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is not located in an area of the City that is designated as having liquefaction potential per the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Seal Beach Quadrangle (1998). The site is expected to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a regional seismic event within the projected life of the proposed theater restoration. However, the Bay Theater already exists on the site and the restoration will not increase the site's susceptibility to geological issues. With the implementation of modern building codes designed to secure structures during seismic events, impacts in this area will be less than significant. 3 City of Seal Beach General Plan /Safety Element, adopted 12/03, pages 5 -30 to 5 -56. 16 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site is not located in an area of generally unique geologic or physical features. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item 6.a)i) above. Due to the nature of the Project, all potential impacts relative to geology and soils are less than significant. iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item 6.a)i) above. The site is not located in an area of the City that is designated as liquefaction hazard zone per the state's Seismic Hazard Zones Map. Therefore, all potential impacts relative to geology and soils are at a less than significant level. iv. Landslides? (No Impact) The property is flat. The site is not subject to potential impacts associated with landslides. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Project activities will result in any impacts associated with landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Impact) The Project will not result in any impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The site has been previously graded in conjunction with the existing use. The site is relatively flat in topography and will not require grading. Therefore, there are no impacts from the Project in the area of potential 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? (No Impact) See response to Item 6.a)i) above. Due to the nature of the Project, all potential impacts relative to geology and soils are at a less than significant level. 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item 6.a)i), which addresses geology and soils. The site includes the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project, restoration of the existing Bay Theater in downtown Seal Beach will involve no grading and all potential impacts relative to geology and soils will be at a less than significant level. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) The Project site will be served by the local sewer and water system; as such, the Project does not involve issues pertaining to soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 17 Initial Study and Negative Declaration 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach The Greenhouse Gas Emissions section analyzes the impact the proposed Project would have on air emissions suspected in the issue of climate change around the world. The Project was analyzed within the Air Quality Study conducted by Giroux & Associates and included as Appendix B of this document. Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately one -half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SIB 1368, SB 375, EO 5- 03 -05, EO 5 -20 -06 and EO 5- 01 -07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." It will have wide- ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide- ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: • Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate "early action" control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. • Mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25 -40 %, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020. • Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is underway. Additionally, through the California Climate Registry (CCAR), general and industry- specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e., company owned) and indirect sources (i.e., not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on -and off -road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off -site electricity generation and non - company owned mobile sources. 18 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach In response to the requirements of S1397, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March 2010. The CEQA Appendix G Guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or, Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project - related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate." The most common practice for transportation /combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CaIEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero -net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans) of 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2 equivalent /year. In September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,000 MT COze for all land use types. This 3,000 MT /year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of significance, Project - related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the Project level. Project Operational GHG Emissions The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional COze emissions are summarized in the CalEEMod 2013.2.2 output files found in Appendix C of this report. The total operational emissions for the proposed Project are identified in Table 4, assuming that every day of the year was a maximum performance event at the renovated theater. 19 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Table 4 — Proposed Uses Operational Emissions Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Consumption Source MT CO2e Area sources 0.0 Energy utilization 41.5 Mobile sources 845.3 Solid waste generation 0.0 Water consumption 24.7 Total 911.5 Guideline Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Worst -case total Project GHG emissions are substantially below the proposed significance threshold of 3,000 MT suggested by the SCAQMD. Hence, the Project will not result in generation of a significant level of greenhouse gases. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Seal Beach has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The applicable GHG planning document is AB -32. As discussed above, the Project is not expected to result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. As a result, the Project results in GHG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 -ton threshold. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of this document evaluates any potential impacts from hazardous substances caused by the Project. The section analyzes any potential impacts from demolition of existing structures on the Project site and use of hazardous substances involved in construction activities such as storage of gasoline or oils related to construction equipment. Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact) The proposed Project is the restoration of the Bay Theater in the City of Seal Beach. The Project does not generate the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project involves restoration of the theater, which will primarily occur within the interior of the structure on the property. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue area. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (No Impact) See response to 8.a) above. The Project will not be a generator of hazardous materials. The Project does not include demolition of any structures on the site that could contain lead or other hazardous material associated with older development. No significant hazardous materials would be stored or handled on -site associated with the operational characteristics of the Project once it is developed. 20 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Therefore, there are no impacts associated with this topical area as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) There are no existing or proposed schools within one - quarter mile of the Project site. A pre - school is located in the area at 223 and 215 Seal Beach Boulevard about one - quarter mile from the Project site. However, there will be no ongoing hazardous materials handled at the site. Therefore, there are no impacts in this subject area. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to 8.a) above. The Project is not listed as a site remediated for contamination by an underground storage tank on the property .4 There are sites located near the Project site at 350 and 347 Main Street at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway that have open remediation of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) underway. One is a former Chevron gas station at 350 Main Street and the other is a former Shell Station at 347 Main Street. Groundwater wells are being monitored to track the remediation progress. Therefore, there are less than significant impacts from existing hazardous materials sites. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The Project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan height restriction area for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. However, the Project will be well under the aviation height restriction in the area. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to have any impacts associated with a public airport or the safety of people working within the airport environs. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) See response to Item 8.e) above. Additionally, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing in the Project area. Therefore, there are no impacts to this topical area from the Project. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The Project will not result in any impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 4 httos: / /geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov 21 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) The Project is located in a developed area and is not adjacent to wildland areas. Therefore, the Project itself (or location) will not be a significant risk involving wildland fires. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the document evaluates the impact of the proposed Project on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The section also considers any impacts to the drainage of the property and any potential impacts from storm water runoff to streams, rivers, or the Pacific Ocean. Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Impact) The City of Seal Beach (and the Project site) is located in the Santa Ana River Basin. The Project area is under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) Santa Ana Region for issues related to water quality. The Santa Ana Region of the RWQCB is nearly 3,000 square miles in size, with a population of almost five million people. The Santa Ana Region includes cities and municipalities in a portion of Orange County (includes Seal Beach), and Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Each of the nine Regional Boards within California is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan. Each Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan: 1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters; 2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti - degradation policy; 3) describes implementation programs to meet the objectives and protect the beneficial uses of all waters in the region; and 4) describes surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the Basin Plan. There is a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which is implemented by the cities (including Seal Beach), the County of Orange, and the Orange County Flood Control District. The DAMP was prepared in compliance with specific requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The DAMP includes a wide range of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and control techniques to further reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. There are two primary types of source pollution: single -point source and nonpoint Source pollution. Single -point sources are water pollutants that originate from a single -point source such as factories. Potential impacts to water quality associated with this type of Project (commercial facilities) are nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution includes materials and /or chemicals (e.g., motor oils /grease, paint, pet wastes, garden chemicals, litter) that may be washed into the storm drain system from various sources. Nonpoint source pollutants are typically washed into the storm drain system by rainwater and other means from streets, parking areas, residential neighborhoods, commercial /retail centers, construction sites. Since storm drains flow directly into the ocean without treatment, potential pollution can have an impact on water quality and wildlife. The Project site is currently developed with the Bay Theater building at 340 Main Street. The proposed Project involves restoration of the theater, refurbishing the interior of the building to allow art movies, live 22 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach entertainment, and community plays to be held there. The proposed construction activities will be focused on the interior of the structure and should not affect urban water runoff. The theater building uses the municipal storm drain system of the City of Seal Beach. 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (No Impact) See response to Item 9.a) above. The Project focuses on restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in Seal Beach. The theater will continue to be served by the existing local sewer and water system. The Project implementation at this site does not involve any construction activities (or long -term Project operations) that would impact groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. The proposed improvements at the site are also not anticipated to have any significant impacts relative to groundwater. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project will have any significant impact on groundwater. The Project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (No Impact) See response to Item 9.a) above. The Project will not result in a significant change to the drainage pattern of property. The development of the site will not alter the course of a stream or a river. The Project area will continue to drain as it does today. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project will result in any impacts to erosion or siltation on -site or off -site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (No Impact) See response to Item 9.c) above. The Project does not involve any alteration of the existing and /or planned drainage system (pattern) of the area, including a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff. The Project property has been the Bay Theater since 1947. The proposed Project will not increase building coverage on the site and is not anticipated to create runoff beyond that which is handled by the existing storm drain system. Therefore, the runoff is not anticipated to significantly increase and there would be no impacts from this Project. 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? (No Impact) See responses to Items 9.a) and 9.c) above. The City of Seal Beach is primarily built -out and contains an existing storm water drainage system. Local drainage facilities are maintained by the City of Seal Beach and provide for the collection of surface storm water. Surface water is then deposited into regional drainage channels that are owned and maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District 23 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach (OCFCD). The OCFCD plans its drainage facilities to accommodate a 100 -year flood. The closest major channel, less than 1 mile away from the site, is the Seal Beach Storm Drain Channel (OCFCD channel). The City's General Plan identified that the City's storm drain system is primarily built to 25 -year storm event standards. The Project is consistent with the capacity of the existing storm drain system in the City of Seal Beach and will not change the current run -off volume from the Project site. The Project is consistent with the land use designation on the property and will not lead to more runoff than anticipated in the Seal Beach General Plan. Therefore, there will be no impacts associated with runoff as a result of the proposed Project. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Impact) See responses to Items 9.a) and 9.c) above. The Project will comply with all existing requirements regarding water quality, and the Project does not propose any changes to the drainage of the facility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project will 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? (No Impact) The proposed Project does not include the construction of housing. The Project site is located within Zone X per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06059C -02261 (2009). The site is located outside the 100 -year flood plain. Therefore, no impacts relative to the 100 -year flood hazard will occur as a result of the proposed Project. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) See responses to Items 9.a), 9.c) and 9.g) above. The Project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plan and therefore will not result in any potential impacts associated with a 100 -year flood hazard area. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) See responses to Items 9.a), 9.c) and 9.g) above. The Project is not located within a 100 -year flood plan. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Less Than Significant Impact) See responses to Items 9.a) and 9.c) above. The Project site is located above the beach area that would be the most vulnerable to a potential tsunami from seismic activity. The Seal Beach General Plan Safety Element rates the chance of tsunamis occurring in the Project area to be low based upon existing data, but notes that an earthquake along the Newport - Inglewood fault would carry a higher tsunami potential in the area.5 Therefore, impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are less than significant with the proposed Project. 5 City of Seal Beach General Plan Safety Element Page 5 -54 VJ Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach 10. Land Use and Planning The Land Use and Planning section evaluates any potential conflicts between the Project and the City's General Plan and Zoning Code or any habitat conservation plan established by the City of Seal Beach. Would the Project a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The Project site is at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project does not divide an established community. The Project proposes restoration of the Bay Theater, an existing building on the Project site. The Project site is located in an existing commercial district of the City and does not divide the community in any way. The proposed restoration of the theater is consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). Therefore, no impacts relative to this topic will result due to the implementation of the Project. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The Project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation "Commercial- Service" and Zoning "Main Street Specific Plan" on the property. The Project is located in the downtown area of the City's Old Town, and the proposed Project is consistent with the surrounding commercial and residential uses. The Project is located within the Coastal Zone. The Project is consistent with the zoning, the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the Circulation Element of the City of Seal Beach. Therefore, the Project carries no impacts in this topical area. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) See responses to Items 10.a) and 10.b) above. The Project site is located in a developed area, and the Project does not involve grading or any disruption to the land. The site is not subject to any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Therefore, no impacts relative to this topic will occur as a result of implementation of the Project. 11. Mineral Resources The Mineral Resources section of the document analyzes any impacts the proposed Project might have on mineral resources in the City. Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact) The Project site is not located within a known and /or designated mineral resources area. The Project would not change the footprint of the existing theater building on the site. Therefore, no significant decrease of natural resources is anticipated as a result of the Project. 25 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach 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? (No Impact) See response to Item 11.a) above. The City's General Plan does not delineate any locally important mineral resources other than oil in the City. These oil resources are not located within the area of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in any significant impacts to a locally important mineral resource. 12. Noise The Noise section of the environmental document evaluates the impact the Project will have on the neighborhood and the impact of the noise environment on the Project itself. The analysis is based on the Noise Analysis Study completed by Giroux & Associates on April 12, 2017 and included as Appendix C of the document. Noise Setting Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. Loud or soft, noisy or quiet, high -pitch and low -pitch are all qualitative terms used to describe sound. These terms are relative descriptions. The science of acoustics attempts to quantify the human perception of sound into a quantitative and measurable basis. Amplitude is the measure of the pressure exerted by sound waves. Amplitude may be so small as to be inaudible by humans, or so great as to be painful. Frequency refers to pitch or tone. The unit of measure is in cycles per second called "hertz." Very low frequency bass tones and ultra -high frequency treble are difficult for humans to detect. Many noise generators in the ambient world are multi - spectral. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called "A- weighting," written as dB(A). Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "d B" should be understood to be A- weighted. Leq is a time - averaged sound level; a single- number value that expresses the time - varying sound level for the specified period as though it were a constant sound level with the same total sound energy as the time - varying level. Its unit is the decibel (dB). The most common averaging period for Leq is hourly. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during more sensitive evening and nighttime hours, state law requires that an artificial dBA increment be added to quiet time noise levels. The 24 -hour noise descriptor with a specified evening and nocturnal penalty is called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNELs are a weighted average of hourly Leq's. 26 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels that are based upon the CNEL rating scale to ensure that noise exposure is considered in any development. CNEL- based standards apply to noise sources whose noise generation is preempted from local control (such as from on -road vehicles, trains, and airplanes) and are used to make land use decisions as to the suitability of a given site for its intended use. These CNEL -based standards are articulated in the Noise Element of the city's General Plan. Exhibit 1 shows the noise compatibility guidelines for various uses. These guidelines would apply in usable outdoor space such as patios, yards, and spas. The guidelines indicate that an exterior noise level of 60 dB CNEL is considered to be a "normally acceptable" noise level for single - family, duplex, and mobile homes involving normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Exterior noise levels up to 65 dB CNEL are typically considered "conditionally acceptable," and residential construction should only occur after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise attenuation features are included in the Project design. Exterior noise attenuation features include, but are not limited to, setbacks to place structures outside the conditionally acceptable noise contour, orienting structures so no windows open to the noise source, and /or installing noise barriers such as berms or solid walls. 27 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Land Use Category wTuu urnry rvwac c Yuaurc Ldn or CNEL, dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential -Low Density Single Family, Duplex. Mobile Homes - - -- Residential - Multi. Family Transient Lodging - Motels. Hotels Schools,Libraries, Churches. Hospitals. Nursing Homes - Auditoriums. Concert Hails. Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings. Business Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities. Agriculture Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach INTERPRETATION r __ _il Normally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements Conditionally Acceptable New consVUC6on or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with dosed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable New construction or development shntld nennrally ml ho unAntl aken Exhibit 1 — Noise Compatibility Guidelines, Seal Beach General Plan 28 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25 -28) for multiple - family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, included single - family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is 20 to 30 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 to 75 dB CNEL allows the interior standard to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (e.g., dual paned windows), but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning to maintain a comfortable living environment. The City of Seal Beach limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or City- observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from compliance with numerical noise standards. Seal Beach Noise Ordinance Standards Planning standards generally apply to land use decisions made in response to noise sources pre- empted from local control, such as motor vehicles and aircraft. Noises from "stationary' sources are amenable to regulation through the Municipal Code. Chapter 7.15 of the City's code governs noise from one property crossing the property line of an adjacent property. The City's noise ordinance limits are stated in terms of a 30- minute limit with allowable deviations from this 50t' percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. For example, the L50 is the level exceeded 50% of the measurement period of 30 minutes in 1 hour. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never -to- exceed 20 dB increase above the 50`" percentile standard. The applicable Seal Beach requirement is a function of the time of day with a L50 daytime standard of 55 dB and L50 nighttime of 50 dB as follows: 55 dB (30 minutes) 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 dB (30 minutes) 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Noise shall not exceed the following deviations from the above standards: (a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; (b) Plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; (c) Plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; (d) Plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 dB for any period of time. In areas where residential uses abut commercial or recreational activities, noise impacts may be perceived as intrusive, especially during noise - sensitive quiet hours. Complaints about noise from performance venues may occur. There are no intervening sound barriers that would provide protection for residences west of loth Street that back up to the Project site. However, the existing theater building has no openings facing residential areas, and the steel door at the rear of the building would remain closed during performances. While venue noise and parking are potential sources of annoyance, there would be no mitigation required, because potential noise levels are within the Seal Beach code limits. Because of the small lot sizes in much of Seal Beach, mechanical equipment on one parcel may be located very close to the property line of an adjacent residential parcel. Motor hum and on /off cycling 29 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach noise can be judged as intrusive. In recognition of this occasional conflict, a separate section of the Municipal Code directly addresses "Heating, Venting and Air Conditioning Equipment' (7.15.035). Modern equipment is typically quieter and less prone to causing problems. Compliance with the standards in this section of the code will ensure that mechanical equipment operates within noise standards and no mitigation will be required. Would the Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact) A noise assessment of the Project site was conducted by Giroux and Associates on April 7, 2017 to determine the existing noise levels at the site and Project noise impacts from the proposed Project. The noise study is included as Appendix C to this environmental document. The Project itself will not generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan. Baseline Noise Levels A short -term noise reading was conducted by Giroux & Associates on Friday, April 7, 2017 with short - term noise readings at the Project site. The location of the noise meter is shown in Exhibit 2. The meter was in the rear alley and captures existing noise at the residences directly east of the site. The measurement results are shown below. Table 5 —Short-Term Noise Measurements (dB[A]) Time Leq Lmax Lmin Lto L33 L50 Lso 18:00 -18:15 55 73 47 56 53 52 48 The observed noise level was 55 Leq. Monitoring experience has shown that 24 -hour weighted CNELs are typically 2 to 3 dB higher than mid - afternoon Leq readings shown above, which would translate to 57 to 58 dB CNEL. This is well within the recommended Seal Beach residential compatibility threshold. Noise Significance Criteria Noise impacts are considered significant if they result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 30 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Exhibit 2 — Noise Meter Location 31 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Standards of Significance Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. The exterior noise standard for the City of Seal Beach residential uses is 60 dBA CNEL in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, and patios. If required, attenuation through setback and Project perimeter barriers is anticipated to be used to reduce traffic noise to the 60 dBA CNEL goal. An inability to achieve this goal through the application of reasonably available mitigation measures would be considered a significant impact. However, there are no significant impacts associated with the Bay Theater Restoration Project. Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. The term "substantial" is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial" is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a +3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts due to Project - related traffic would be considered significant: 1. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent residential areas during periods of heightened noise sensitivity. 2. If Project traffic noise were to cause an increase by a perceptible amount ( +3 dB CNEL) or expose receivers to levels exceeding city compatibility noise standards. If future build -out noise levels were to expose Seal Beach sensitive receivers to levels exceeding compatibility standards of 65 dB CNEL exterior at any outdoor uses or 45 dB CNEL interior noise levels in any habitable space. Construction Noise Impacts The Seal Beach Noise Ordinance regulates construction noise by a prohibition against making "unnecessary" noise from construction during noise - sensitive weekday hours and all day on Sundays. The Project involves interior renovations. There will be no heavy equipment on site (e.g. dozers, graders, cranes) that would create a noise nuisance. Interior noise will be muffled by the structure itself. Only hand tools are intended for use. Project - Related Vehicular Noise Impacts Long -term noise concerns from the development of residential uses at the Project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on Project area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA -RD -77 -108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, roadway speeds, or noise barriers. The typical day -night travel percentages and auto -truck vehicle mixes is then applied to convert one -hour Leq levels to a weighted 24 -hour CNEL. 32 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Table 6 summarizes the calculated 24 -hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along ten Project- adjacent roadway segments. Three time frames were evaluated: existing conditions "with and without Project," opening year (2017) "with and without Project," and future year "with and without Project." The noise analysis utilized data from the Project traffic analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates for this Project. Travel speeds were also obtained from data reported in the traffic study. Table 6 - Near -Term Traffic Noise Impact Analysis As shown in Table 7, the Project itself will not cause any roadway segment to have more than a O.S dB impact. This impact is anticipated to occur on Bolsa Avenue, between PCH and Silver Shoals Avenue. Because traffic volumes are already high, and because the Project does not result in many trips relative to existing traffic volumes, there is no discernible impact along any analyzed roadway segment. Table 7 - Project Impact Existing 2017 1 Future I Cumulative Existing+ Roadway Segment 2017+ S of PCH Future+ 0.1 Existing Project 2017 1 Project Future I Project Roadway Segment ----- - - - - -- -CNEL in dBA at 50 feet from Centerline------ - - - - -- Main Street/ S of PCH 60.2 60.3 60.3 60.4 61.2 61.3 0.0 N of Electric 60.2 60.3 60.3 60.4 61.2 61.3 1.0 S of Electric 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 58.7 58.7 PCHI Marina - Main / Bolsa 71.0 71.1 71.1 71.1 72.0 72.1 0.5 Main /Bolsa -10th Street 71.0 71.1 71.1 71.1 72.0 72.0 Electric Avenue/ W of Main 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 58.1 58.1 E of Main 57.1 57.2 57.1 57.2 58.1 58.2 Bolsal PCH - Silver Shoals 59.5 60.0 59.5 60.1 60.4 60.9 N of Silver Shoals 59.3 59.4 59.4 59.5 60.3 60.4 Silver Shoals/ N of Bolsa 51.8 51.8 51.8 51.8 52.7 52.7 As shown in Table 7, the Project itself will not cause any roadway segment to have more than a O.S dB impact. This impact is anticipated to occur on Bolsa Avenue, between PCH and Silver Shoals Avenue. Because traffic volumes are already high, and because the Project does not result in many trips relative to existing traffic volumes, there is no discernible impact along any analyzed roadway segment. Table 7 - Project Impact Cumulative impacts compare the "future with Project' noise levels with the "existing no Project' scenario. The largest cumulative impact is +1.4 dB CNEL, again on Bolsa Avenue north of PCH. There are no cumulative traffic noise increases that exceed the +3 dB CNEL threshold. Therefore, both Project only traffic noise impacts and cumulative traffic noise impacts are considered to be less -than- significant. 33 Existing 2017 1 Future I Cumulative ............ CNEL indBAat50 feet from Centerline ------------ Roadway Segment Main Streetl S of PCH 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 N of Electric 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 S of Electric 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 PCH/ Manna- Main /Balsa 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 MainlBolsa -10th Street 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Electric Avenue/ W of Main 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 E of Main 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 Bolsa/ PCH - Silver Shoals 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 N of Silver Shoals 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 Silver Shoals/ N of Bolsa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Cumulative impacts compare the "future with Project' noise levels with the "existing no Project' scenario. The largest cumulative impact is +1.4 dB CNEL, again on Bolsa Avenue north of PCH. There are no cumulative traffic noise increases that exceed the +3 dB CNEL threshold. Therefore, both Project only traffic noise impacts and cumulative traffic noise impacts are considered to be less -than- significant. 33 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No Impact) See response to Item 12.a) above. The restoration of the theater is primarily an indoor activity and hand tolls will be primarily used. There will be no groundborne vibration or noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) On -Site Noise Generation The entertainment at the Bay Theater will include in- house, themed movies, and live entertainment. The movie element will provide for holiday - themed movies and community event movies. Representative candidate movie subjects could include Christmas, Fourth of July, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, and Valentine's Day. Community events could include the Vintage Car Show, the Annual Christmas Parade, and the "Run Seal Beach" annual 5K /10K event. Live performance entertainment may serve local school groups, community theater, and selective professional entertainers. The Bay Theater would be available to host a variety of live entertainment acts on a selective basis, predicated on compatibility with the Seal Beach community. The hours of operation will range between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, dependent upon the event. Parking for theater events will be provided primarily on an off -site basis. As previously noted, the noise ordinance L50 standard for music or voice is 55 dB before 10:00 p.m. and 50 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The ability to achieve 55 dB Lso or less at the eastern property line was evaluated by using data obtained by Giroux & Associates for a Wahoo's Restaurant in Huntington Beach in February 2013. The restaurant was seeking approval to host a live entertainment venue. Giroux & Associates improvised a concert simulation at the eatery using a speaker array on the stage area pointed toward the audience. Noise levels were set at levels that could be reasonably expected from a loud band playing live music. The levels at 20 feet from the stage were 86 dB L50 on average. A level of 85 dB is the threshold where a hearing protection program (earmuffs and periodic testing) is required in occupational settings. The onset of hearing damage is 90 dB for sustained exposure. The test simulation was therefore representative of a live entertainment scenario. Measurements directly outside the closed rear steel door were 48 dB Lsowith the music level very faintly audible. Farther away in the parking lot the test music noise became completely inaudible. The music noise within a few feet of the building was less than 45 dB Lso. The Bay Theater has a rear door that faces the adjacent residences. Comparable noise measurements at a similar live -music venue of 48 dB close to the rear door suggests that interior performance activity noise will be substantially less than ambient levels in the rear alley behind the theater. Beneficial re -use of the Bay Theater property for performance events will have no significant noise impacts to the nearest adjacent residences. 34 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) The noise study demonstrated that all noise impacts from the Project will be less than significant. Additionally, the Seal Beach Municipal Code contains heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment noise restrictions that will eliminate noise impacts from any roof -top mounted equipment. With the rear door tightly closed and not opened during any live entertainment event except for emergency purposes, city noise standards will be readily met. It is highly improbable that the closest residents would be aware that any such entertainment was in progress. No additional mitigation except the presence of security to ensure that the subject door remains closed at all times is necessary. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The Project is located within an airport environs land use plan for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Center. However, the land use designation in this area relates to building height, and there will be no impact to people working at the Project site who will be exposed to excessive noise levels from aircraft. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, nor would the Project expose people to excessive noise levels. Therefore, there are no Project impacts associated with a private airstrip. 13. Population and Housing The Population and Housing section considers the impact of the proposed Project on population growth within the Project area and whether the Project would displace substantial numbers of people necessitating construction of new housing elsewhere. Would the Project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact) The Project consists of restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in the Project area. No new or unanticipated significant infrastructure will be required for the Project. Therefore, due to the limited nature of the Project it is not anticipated that the Project will induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. The Project is designed to serve the existing area population. There is no impact from this Project. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The Project proposes to renovate the Bay Theater. Therefore, the Project will not displace existing housing. f61 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See response to Item 13.b) above. The Project will not result in the displacement of any people and /or housing. The Project will not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. 14. Public Services The Public Services section of the document evaluates the impact of the proposed Project on public services provided by the City of Seal Beach or other agencies. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (No Impact) The Orange County Fire Authority provides fire protection and emergency response services for the City. Response times to the Project site are dependent on various factors. Response time is generally 5 minutes or less. The Fire Authority's response goal is to arrive within seven minutes and 20 seconds, 80% of the time. Emergency calls receive the quickest response times with alarm calls and non - emergency calls having longer response times respectively. The availability of personnel and extenuating circumstances may further affect response times. The closest fire station to the property is located at 718 Central Avenue in Seal Beach, about one -half mile from the Project site in the downtown. The proposed Project will not result in any potential significant increase in the number of calls for service to the area beyond that anticipated per the build out of the City's General Plan. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project will result in any significant impacts relative to fire protection services and /or facilities. ii. Police protection? (No Impact) The City of Seal Beach Police Department provides law enforcement services to the Project area. The Project involves restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The improvements are not anticipated to result in an increase in calls for service beyond that anticipated in the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Therefore, there are no impacts from the Project. iii. Schools? (No Impact) The Project involves restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project would not increase students in the area. The Project would not affect school population. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to have an impact on schools. iv. Parks? (No Impact) The Project involves restoration of the Bay Theater. The improvements will not necessitate new park requirements or impact park facilities in the City. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on park facilities. 36 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Other public facilities? (No Impact) Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach See above responses under Public Services. Due to the type of Project, it is not anticipated that the Project will have any significant impact on public services and /or facilities. 15. Recreation The Recreation section analyzes whether the proposed Project would trigger the need for additional recreational facilities within the community. The section also evaluates the impact on use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact) The proposed Project consists of restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the city of Seal Beach. It is not anticipated that the Project will have any impacts on recreation beyond that already projected for build out of the City per the General Plan. Additionally, the Project is restoration of an existing commercial building and would not be expected to increase usage of existing neighborhood and regional parks. Therefore, no impacts to park facilities will occur as a result of this Project. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) See response to Item 15.a) above. It is not anticipated that the Project will result in any significant impacts to recreational facilities. 16. Transportation /Traffic The Transportation/Traffic section of the environmental document evaluates whether the Project creates conflicts with the effectiveness of the existing transportation network, any congestion management plan, or creates any design flaws that would substantially increase transportation hazards. Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Less Than Significant Impact) A Focused Traffic Analysis of the Bay Theater Project was performed by Kunzman Associates (Appendix D). The Project involves the restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project site is in a commercial area, and the Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation and the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zoning on the property. The Project is consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the circulation system, including the MSSP, which establishes a level of service for Main Street that recognizes that traffic and parking in the downtown area will lead to less than established level of service standards for other roads in the City's Circulation Element. 37 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach The Bay Theater previously operated as a movie theater at its present location at 340 Main Street. The Focused Traffic Analysis noted that Level of Service D or better is the standard for roadway segments and intersections within the City. However, the Study also notes that the City of Seal Beach established the MSSP, which recognizes Main Street as a "traffic and parking" street that will never achieve the Level of Service D standard due to its nature as the commercial center of the City. The proposed restoration of theater operations is projected to generate approximately 855 daily vehicle trips, 2 of which will occur during morning peak hour, and 33 vehicle trips, which will occur during the evening peak hour. Peak operational periods for the proposed Project are expected to occur approximately from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. on weekends, outside of the peak hour for adjacent street traffic. All study area intersections operate within acceptable levels of service under all scenarios modeled in the traffic study. All study area roadway segments also operate with acceptable levels of service standards under all scenarios modeled in the traffic study. Main Street from Electric Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway operates under an acceptable level of service as articulated in the Main Street Specific Plan adopted by the City of Seal Beach. The Project will meet City of Seal Beach parking requirements through the use of a parking agreement secured with the bank property located at 801 Pacific Coast Highway near the Bay Theater. The City requires 80 parking spaces, and the bank lot will be able to provide 80 spaces through use of a valet service. See Exhibit 3 — Parking Plan. Additionally, the area is served by City-owned/operated metered parking lots, beach lots, and on- street parking. The Project is expected to have sufficient parking, according to the traffic study. The availability of pedestrian and transit options (see 16.f below) will further reduce parking demand. Drop off space for two vehicles will be provided to enable the valet service to operate at the Bay Theater location. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated from this Project affecting the circulation system or any modes of transportation. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item 16.a) above. The Orange County Transportation Authority is the designated Congestion Management Agency for Orange County. The Congestion Management Program network includes State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) in the City of Seal Beach. The proposed Project will not impact levels of services standards or significantly change levels of service established by the Congestion Management Agency for Pacific Coast Highway and no mitigation is required, according to the traffic study. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result due to the implementation of the Project. 38 T,L � U N O m d C � O � m a O _> y U C' L A v L F N m c 0 v c !� N V UI � y v z i /1 - + s CAW ink 1 C� �t 1 C CL m c Y a I m a r x W M Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) See response to Item 16.a) above for analysis. Additionally, the Project does not have any impact on existing and /or planned air traffic (or safety risks) because it is under the height limit restriction imposed by its proximity to Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Facility. Therefore, there are no impacts that would trigger a change in air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) See response to Item 16.a) above. The Project does not propose any design features relative to curves, intersections, or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) See response to Item 16.a) above. The Project does not propose to change any emergency access in the City of Seal Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts regarding emergency access are anticipated as a result of the Project. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (No Impact) See response to Item 16.a) above. The proposed Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCT'A) provides public transportation services in Orange County, including Seal Beach. Bus routes (OCTA Bus Route 1) operate along State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and (Route 42A) operate along Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway /Downtown. Long Beach Transit also provides bus service in Seal Beach. Long Beach Transit Routes 131 and 171 run along Main Street, Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The City of Seal Beach also operates the Shopping Shuttle that serves Leisure World residents on Thursdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. as well as a Dial -A -Ride program. The Project is not expected to negatively impact any current facility, service or service expansion plans for the Project area and /or site. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. He] Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach 17. Tribal Cultural Resources a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (No Impact) The City sent letters March 30, 2017 to Native American Tribes known to have a connection with the Seal Beach area. The Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation responded and requested consultation. During consultation, the Tribal representative agreed that the Project did not impact any listed or eligible- for - listing historical resources and primarily involved the restoration of the interior of the existing Bay Theater and did not involve any ground disturbance. Therefore, there is no impact on tribal cultural resources. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe (No Impact). There are no tribal cultural resources associated with this Project. 18. Utilities and Service Systems The Utilities and Service Systems section evaluates the proposed Project's impacts on utilities and provision of municipal waste management services. Specifically, the section analyzes whether the proposed Project would trigger the need for additional facilities or whether capacity exists to support the Project. Would the Project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Impact) The Project is not anticipated to produce any significant wastewater, because it is a restoration of the Bay Theater, which previously operated in the City for many years exactly as it is proposed to be in the future. Therefore, there will be no generation of wastewater beyond what the facility produced in past years. The Bay Theater is already included in the build -out capacity of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, which projected capacity to handle development within Zoning and General Plan designations. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposal will result in any impact relative to wastewater or treatment requirements. 41 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Impact) See response to Item 18.a) above. The Project will not result in the significant alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems since the site is proposed to be restored as it operated for many years in the past. The Project does not create any additional burden on these facilities that would require construction of new or expanded facilities. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on existing or new water or wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Impact) The Project proposes to use the storm water drainage facilities in existence now that have served storm water run -off from the Bay Theater in the past. The proposed Project is not expected to generate significant storm water due to the minimal change in the property/s impervious surfaces. The Project will include restoration of the interior of the building and some cosmetic aspects of the exterior but will not involve changes to storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, the Project will result in no impacts to the storm water drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Impact) See response to Item 18.a) above. The City of Seal Beach pumps its own water to serve the community, including the Project site. Any additional water needed is supplied to the City of Seal Beach through the Municipal Water District of Orange County by imported water sources purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. The Project proposes only restoration of an existing commercially - designated property. The Project does not represent any development that would significantly increase water use. The Project will comply with all applicable City, state, and municipal laws pertaining to water conservation as required through City standard conditions of approval. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area will occur. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (No Impact) See response to Item 18.a) above. The Project will not result in any impacts to wastewater treatment. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (No Impact) The Project site is located at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The Project is not anticipated to generate significant solid waste since it proposes restoration of the Bay Theater, which was previously served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. Minor solid waste generated on the site during construction will be handled through the traditional solid waste collection system in place in the City of Seal Beach and it is not expected to be significant. Republic Services provides solid waste collection and recycling services in the City of Seal Beach. Any solid waste generated during Project construction will be handled according to City solid waste disposal and recycling requirements. Therefore, the Project itself will not have any impact on solid waste disposal. 42 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) See response to Item 18.9 above. The Project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes on solid waste disposal. 19. Mandatory Findings of Significance This section includes questions designed to ferret out whether the proposed Project has effects significant enough to impact the environment negatively. It also addresses the issues of short -term versus long -term environmental goals and cumulative impacts of proposed projects. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No Impact) On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The Project site does not contain any habitat of fish or wildlife species that would be impacted by the Project. The site is located in an urbanized setting. The proposed Project consists of restoration of the Bay Theater in downtown Seal Beach. The property is currently occupied by the vacant Bay Theater building. The subject property is located in an area developed with existing uses including commercial establishments, restaurants, boutiques and residences. The Project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Project will not impact any sensitive nor special status habitat and /or wildlife species. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? (No Impact) The site is located in a developed area that already provides infrastructure to support the proposed Project. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the Project. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (No Impact) The Project is a restoration of the Bay Theater at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach. The vacant Bay Theater building currently occupies the Project site. The Project does not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The Project is consistent with the zoning on the property. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact) There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed Project. The Project is consistent with the land uses in the Project area and the environ- 43 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach mental evaluation has concluded that no adverse significant environmental impacts will result from the Project. 44 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Source List Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. 1. City of Seal Beach General Plan Policies, Adopted 12/03 2. California Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2016. § §21000 -21178 of the California Public Resources Code 3. Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2016 §15000 -15387 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, State of California 4. City of Seal Beach Land Use Element, Adopted 12/03 5. City of Seal Beach Open Space /Conservation Element Adopted 12/03 6. City of Seal Beach Noise Element, Adopted 12/03 7. City of Seal Beach Circulation Element, Adopted 12/03 8. Zoning Map, City of Seal Beach 9. Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, prepared by Giroux & Associates, dated April 11, 2017 10. Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates, dated April 12, 2017 11. Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel No. 06059C-0226J, 2009 12. https: /Igeotracker.swrcb.ca.gov 13. City of Seal Beach Safety Element, Adopted 12/03 14. Focused Traffic Analysis, Kunzman Associates, February 15, 2017 45 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Appendix A — Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Form Introduction Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines as amended to determine if the proposed Bay Theater Restoration Project at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach (City) will have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. The City of Seal Beach will use the Initial Study in deciding whether to approve the Project and whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approve a Negative Declaration (ND), or approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with mitigation measures. Project Background a) Project Title: Bay Theater Restoration Project b) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 C) Contact Person and Phone Number: Steven Fowler, Assistant Planner City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431 -2527, ext. 1316 d) Project Location: The Project is located at 340 Main Street in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California. e) Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Paul T. Dunlap Dunlap Property Group 810 E. Chapman Ave, Suite 233 Fullerton, CA 92831 General Plan Designation: Commercial- Service g) Zoning: MSSP - Main Street Specific Plan Appendix A -1 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach h) Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the Project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Bay Theater is located at 340 Main Street in the Old Town area of the City of Seal Beach near the intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. The Project involves restoration of the theater into a luxury entertainment venue that will feature art movies and live entertainment designed to be integrated with the surrounding environment of restaurants and boutiques in the Old Town area of the City. The existing building features slightly more than 7,000 square feet in three stories with the first -floor theater comprising about 5,000 square feet and 475 seats. The concession area in the theater's lobby will feature high - quality pre - packaged snacks, beer, wine and non - alcoholic beverages. Patrons will also have the choice of bringing food into the theater to encourage patronage of surrounding restaurants to create a symbiotic environment in the Old Town area of the community. The proposed renovation will also restore a combined 2,200 square feet of office and apartment space on the second and third floors of the building. The third -floor apartment will be utilized by the on -site management firm that will run the facility. The theater auditorium will be used for holiday - themed and community event movies as well as art house films and live entertainment. The Bay Theater would be available to host a variety of live entertainment acts predicated on compatibility with the Seal Beach community. Proposed hours of operation will range between 10 a.m. and 12 a.m. dependent upon the event. Numbers of employees and security personnel would also be dependent on the event. Bay Theater event parking will be provided primarily on an off -site basis at the parking lot of the nearby Chase Bank. The parking will be managed by a professional valet firm. The bank parking lot can provide up to 80 spaces. Other spaces are available within the City's 10th Street Parking Area and throughout Main Street. It is anticipated that many theater patrons will use on- demand shuttles and taxis to reach Bay Theater events. It is also expected that many will walk to the theater from surrounding neighborhoods in the pedestrian - oriented community of Old Town. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding and nearby land uses to the Project site include commercial establishments, restaurants, boutiques and residential areas and streets. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Orange County Fire Authority Appendix A -2 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach 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 ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Air Quality ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Transportation and Circulation ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Land Use and Planning Appendix A -3 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the B environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the ❑ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on ❑ the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the ❑ environment, because all potentially significant effects-a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. Submitted by: City of Seal Beach Prepared by: Hgdge & Associates William E. Hodge Hodge & Associates Date Appendix A-4 Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less then significant with mitigation, or less then significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence then an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Then Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less then significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). 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 or negative declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," describes the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or outside documents should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and the lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agency should normally address the questions from the checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Appendix A -5 Initial Study and Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Environmental Checklist Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix A -6 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ ❑ Rl and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? III. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ D ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ p ❑ air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ Z ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or stale ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ p e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Cl 1 ❑ ❑ 0 Appendix A -6 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix A -7 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Q modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑ Q sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as ❑ ❑ ❑ Q defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ Q resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ❑ ❑ Q resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ Q cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most ❑ ❑ Q ❑ recent Alquisl- 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? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Appendix A -7 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix A -8 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- of off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -8 of the Uniform ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the ❑ ❑ D ❑ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project'. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emil hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ Cl 0 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? - IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Appendix A -8 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix A -9 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Place housing within a 100 -year Flood hazard area as mapped on a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year Flood hazard area structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ D involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ D b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ D community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the lass of availability of a locally - important mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ D ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or groundborne noise levels? substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project El El 0 ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? [d)A A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Appendix A -9 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix A -10 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Q parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ Q of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Appendix A -10 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix A -11 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ Q traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ Q curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? XVIL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, c0ural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ill A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and ❑ ❑ ❑ Q supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ Cl Q Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ Q facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which ❑ ❑ ❑ Q serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q solid waste? Appendix A -11 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach XIX. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. Appendix A -12 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ p environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ p goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? c) Does the project have possible environmental effects which are ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ p adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XIX. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. Appendix A -12 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Source List Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. 1. City of Seal Beach General Plan Policies, Adopted 12/03 2. California Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2016. § §21000 -21178 of the California Public Resources Code 3. Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2016 §15000 -15387 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, State of California 4. City of Seal Beach Land Use Element, Adopted 12/03 5. City of Seal Beach Open Space /Conservation Element Adopted 12/03 6. City of Seal Beach Noise Element, Adopted 12/03 7. City of Seal Beach Circulation Element, Adopted 12/03 8. Zoning Map, City of Seal Beach 9. Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, prepared by Giroux & Associates, dated April 11, 2017 10. Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates, dated April 12, 2017 11. Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel No. 06059C-0226J, 2009 12. https: / /geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov 13. City of Seal Beach Safety Element, Adopted 12/03 14. Focus Traffic Analysis, Kunzman Associates, February 15, 2017 Appendix A -13 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix B — Air Quality /GHG Analysis AIR QUALITY and GHG IMPACT ANALYSES THE BAY THEATER REVITALIZATION SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No.: P17 -001 AQ Prepared for: I -lodge & Associates Attn: Bill Hodge P. O. Box 2842 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Date: April 11, 2017 ATMOSPHERIC SETTING The project site's climate, as with all Southern California, is dominated by the strength and position of the semi - permanent high pressure pattern over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It drives the cool daytime sea breeze, and it maintains comfortable humidities and ample sunshine after the frequent morning clouds dissipate. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create the desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the desirable climate. Portions of the Los Angeles Basin therefore experience some of the worst air quality in the nation for certain pollutants. Temperatures in the City of Seal Beach average 61 degrees annually. Daily and seasonal oscillations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic thermal reservoir. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable. Measurable precipitation occurs mainly from early November to mid - April, but total amounts are generally small. Seal Beach averages 12 inches of rain annually with January as the wettest month. Winds in the project vicinity display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially in summer, winds are from the south in the morning and from the west in the afternoon. Daytime wind speeds are 7 — 9 miles per hour on average. At night, especially in winter, the land becomes cooler than the ocean, and an off -shore wind of 3 -5 miles per hour develops. Early morning winds are briefly from the south -east parallel to the coastline before the daytime on- shore flow becomes well established again. One other important wind regime occurs when high pressure occurs over the western United States that creates hot, dry and gusty Santa Ana winds from the north and northeast across Seal Beach. The net effect of the wind pattern on air pollution is that any locally generated emissions will be carried offshore at night, and toward inland Orange County by day. Daytime ventilation is much more vigorous. Unless daytime winds rotate far into the north and bring air pollution from developed areas of the air basin into Seal Beach, warm season air quality is much better in the project vicinity than in inland valleys of the air basin. Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is generally good. In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine /subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. Because of Seal Beach's location relative to the ocean, the incoming marine air during warm season onshore flow contains little air pollution. Local air quality is not substantially affected by the regional subsidence inversions. xavTh er AG A second inversion type fortes on clear, winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the surface while the air aloft remains warm. This process forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. During the long nocturnal drainage Flow from land to sea, the exhaust pollutants continually accumulate within the shallow, cool layer of air near the ground. Some areas of Orange County thus may experience elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides because of this winter radiation inversion condition. However, the coastal areas of Orange County have not substantially been affected by limited nocturnal mixing effects (no elevated levels of CO) in approximately 10 years. Both types of inversions occur throughout the year to some extent, but the marine inversions are very dominant during the day in summer, and radiation inversions are much stronger on winter nights when nights are long and air is cool. The governing role of these inversions in atmospheric dispersion leads to a substantially different air quality environment in summer in the South Coast Air Basin than in winter. BxI Ih..e, Ao AIR QUALITY SETTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM- 2.5 "). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants. Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM -2.5 and for ozone (8 -hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health -based standards did not require preparation of a cost - benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment - planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8 -hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to "non- attainment" for the 8 -hour ozone standard. ovy nmer AQ 3 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging California Standards' National Standards 1 Pollutant Time Concentration 3 Method' Primary 35 Secondary 36 Method' 1 Hour 0.09 plan 1180 pym) Ozone (mss Ultraviolet Same as Ulbevidw Photonrtry Pni Stallard Photometry 9 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 yym') 0 070 plan 1137 pglm'1 Respirable 24-,cur so ygm3 150 Wlm Inemal Separation Parr)culate _ trio s Boa Attenuation Primary Standard Anw vs y Matter (PM10) =oa, Anmmetc ktaan 20 ug'm — Fli Same as Particulate 24 Hour — — �m1 primary Stwtdwd Irwnial Separation Matter. _ An nu __ r and Crain is PM2.S) /aW l 12 pym' Beta AOrrurau 12.0111 13 pgrm3 H°h'a° t Her 20 ppm (23 mglm') 36 pprn 140 mgi — Carbon Non- Dnpeni Non- Dlspsrslve Monoxide 8 Hour 9,0 ppm 110 mi Infrared Photometry 9 ppm (10 m9m) — Infrared Photometry; (CO) 8 Hour 8 PPn 17 mgim'1 — — lake Tahoe l Nitrogen 1 Hour 0 -18 ppm 1339 pgnn') 100 ppb (188 Owns Gm Rw• Gas chase Annual hahostc Msp 3 0.030 Dpp1 (57 yym 1 0.053 PPn (100 pghrr3) Same ss ply SmMN (lo " (Not) Gnsltiurr ro Charmlumnssowtn 1 Hour 015 ppm 1655 75 ppb (196 pym') — Unravidel 0.5ppm Sulfur Oloxlde 3ilwr — — (1300 pgkn3) Fovascence. tt (SUt) FlUUOr•scart� 0.14 ppm SplsmaptWargtry Z4 Hrr 0.04 105 ' PPmI V9nn) — (Pararcea nilirw (Impasses rr)r' Matti Annual M030 ppm Andeneac Mean ;icr certain ansasl. — 30 Day Average 1.5 pgri — — Haigh volume t.s yplm3 Leai Calendar Qurer — Atpmc Abswp6on (forciates r )n sM Swrpw arW At omic Abprpnon Rdling — 0.75 ygmRimry + ard Average Visibility Bwa Ad•nuaaon and Reducing 8 Hour See footnote 14 Transmittance No PanicieS14 thrwgh Finer Tape National SuNalas 24 Hour 2s Pori let Chromatography Hydrogen 1 Herr 0.03 ppm 142 Pg ;m') Uliraviolal Sulfide Fluore cance Standards "to Chic ridatt a 24 Her a 0 01 ppm 128 pgm'1 Chromatography See footnotes on next page ... Fm more W.,u miep yies.. ea 11 ARB -PIO m 19161311 2991, (a I if,, in, 3 kir Re.ourca. B.,an115 4 It, It,, RKamr 10 Table I (continued) I. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8 -horn Lake Tahoe). sulfi : dioxide (I and 24 how). nitrogen dioxide. and particulate matter (PM 10. PM2.5. mid visibility reducing particles). are values that are not to be exceeded_All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Remdancirs. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate natter. and those based on awutal arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year The ozone standard is mutinied when the fourth highest 8 -hour concentration nmasred at each site in a year. averaged over three years. is equal to or less than the standard. For PM 10. the 24 hour standard is attaured when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour avelnue concentration above I50 petm' is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5. the 24 hour standard is armoured when 98 percent of the drily concentrations. averaged over Three years. ate equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was pronmLaled. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based TWO a reference Temperature of 250C and a reference pressure of 760 off. Most measurements of air quality arc to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 °C mid a reference pressure of 760 tort: ppm it This table refers to Prot by volume. or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent nleasmcn ew method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the A" to give equivalent results at w nor the level of the air quahity standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of ai quality necessary. with an adequate trai gin of safety to protect the public heallh- 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a POlhuant. 7. Reference method is described by the U.S. EPA. A i "equivalent method" of measwemeni nay be used but must have a -consisten[ relationship to the reference method" and most be approved by the U.S. EPA. S. Oil October I. 201 i. the national S -hour ozone prin try mod secondary standards were lowered front 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 9. On December 14. 2012. the national amuml PM2.5 primary uwdsrd was lowered front 15 pghu' to 12.0 perm'. The existing national 24- hour Ph12.5 standards (primary mid sccomdary) were retailed at 35 pghn'. as was the annual secondary standard of 15 pofnar The existing 24-hour PM 10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 pg /m' also were retained. The font of the annual primary mod secondary standards is the mutual mean. averaged over 3 years. 10. To attain the 1 -hutr aatiolal standard The 3 -yem average of the amoral 98th percentile of the 1 -hom daily ulaxinlwu concenmationrs at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national I -hom standard is in Omits of parts per billion (ppb). California standards ate III whin of parts per mullion (ppm). To directly compare the national 1 -hom standard to the California standards the Trans can be convened front ppb to ppm, hr this case. the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 11. On June 2. 2010. a new I -hom SO, standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked To attain Ore 1 -hair tuitional Standard. the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site unit not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO_ national standards (24 -hour and mmlal) remain in effect until one yea after an area is designated for the 2010 standard. except that in areas designated uolairailnnerit for the 1971 standards. die 1971 standards retrain in effect wail implein nation plans to attain or maintain the 1010 standards me approved. Note that the I -hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in traits of pmts per million (ppm). To directly coripme the 1 -hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this ease. the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 12. The ARB has identiried lead and vurvi chloride as'toxic air couanlinants' wah no threshold level of exposure for adverse beaith effects derenNned. These actions allow for the mgrlemenation of control meaares at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Ii. The national standard for lead was revised on October I5. 2008 to a LUlhllg 3- Inoirth avenge. The 1978 lead standard (L 5 ltoina' as a quarterly average) remains in effect until wK vear after an area R d esiowred for the 1_008 standard. except that in areas deslma(ed nonatainnient for the 1978 crandaid. the 1973 standard retrains in effect rmiil implementation plans to amain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 14. hi 1989. the ARB convened both the general statewide 10 -mile visibility canard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instimrentil equivalents. which are "extraction of 0 23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basra standards. respectively. For more tofurmotion ptez�e tail ARB -P1O at (916) 322 -2990 California Air Resources Board (5/4/16) airy mean cep 5- Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide . Incomplete combustion of fuels and other Reduced tolerance for exercise. (CO) carbon - containing substances, such as motor . Impairment of mental function. exhaust. . Impairment of fetal development. • Natural events, such as decomposition of . Death at high levels of exposure. organic matter. ` • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide • Motor vehicle exhaust. • Aggravation of respiratory illness. (NO2) • High temperature stationary combustion. • Reduced visibility. • Atmospheric reactions. • Reduced plant growth. • Formation of acid rain. Ozone • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with Aggravation of respiratory and (03) nitrogen oxides in sunlight. cardiovascular diseases. • Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Respirable Particulate . Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Reduced lung function. Matter • Construction activities. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous (PM -10) . Industrial processes. pollutants. • Atmospheric chemical reactions. • Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter . Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, • Increases respiratory disease. (PM -2.5) equipment, and industrial sources. • Lung damage. • Residential and agricultural burning. • Cancer and premature death. • Industrial processes. • Reduces visibility and results in surface • Also, formed from photochemical reactions soiling. of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Sulfur Dioxide . Combustion of sulfur - containing fossil fuels. • Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SO,) ) • Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores. emphysema). • Industrial processes. • Reduced lung function. • I rritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Bzy Fh.e, AG 6- Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM -2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM -2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment. Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8 -hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8 -hour standard. The California 8 -hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8 -hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non - attainment. During the same re- evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one -hour NO2 standard. As part of EPA's 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM -2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM -10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal annual standard for PM -2.5 was reduced from 15 µg/m3 to 12 Itg /m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin's non - attainment status for PM -2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM -2.5 attainment. In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8 -hour standard. A new 8 -hour ozone standard was adopted in 2015 after extensive analysis and public input. The adopted national 8 -hour ozone standard is 0.07 ppm which matches the current California standard. It will require three years of ambient data collection, then 2 years of non - attainment findings and planning protocol adoption, then several years of plan development and approval. Final air quality plans for the new standard are likely to be adopted around 2022. Ultimate attainment of the new standard in ozone problem areas such as Southern California might be after 2025. In 2010 a new federal one -hour primary standard for nitrogen dioxide (NOZ) was adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin. the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SOZ) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SOz is typically not a problem pollutant. nay memo AQ BASELINE AIR QUALITY Existing and probable future levels of air quality around the project area can best be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at the Anaheim monitoring station. This station measures both regional pollution levels such as smog, as well as primary vehicular pollution levels near busy roadways such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Pollutants such as particulates (PM -10 and PM -2.5) are also monitored at Anaheim. Table 3 is a 6 -year summary of monitoring data for the major air pollutants compiled from this air monitoring station. From this data the following conclusions regarding air quality trends can be drawn: a. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed standards. All state and federal ozone standards have been exceeded 1 percent or less of all days in the past six years. Measurements from more recent years demonstrate progressively improved ozone levels in the area except perhaps for some temporary "backsliding' in 2014. While ozone levels are still occasionally elevated, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. b. Respirable dust (PM -10) levels occasionally exceed the state standard on approximately one percent of measured days. The less stringent federal PM -10 standard has not been exceeded in the last six years. c. The federal ultra -tine particulate (PM -2.5) standard of 35 µg/m3 has been exceeded on less than one percent of measurement days in the last six years. d. More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, etc. are very low near the project site. There is substantial excess dispersive capacity to accommodate localized vehicular air pollutants such as NOx or CO without any threat of violating applicable AAQS. Data from a recent "near roadway" monitoring study directly along the 1 -5 shoulder ( <50 feet) in Anaheim showed noticeably elevated levels of NOx and CO, but even at this close distance federal clean air standards were not exceeded. Although complete attainment of every clean air standard is not yet imminent, extrapolation of the steady improvement trend suggests that such attainment could occur within the reasonably near future. Bay ML vAQ R- Table 3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2010 -2015) (Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and Maximum Levels During Such Violations) (Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard /samples taken) Pollutant/Standard 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 1 0 0 0 2 1 8 -Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) I 1 0 0 6 1 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 1 0 0 0 4 1 Max. I -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.104 0.088 0.079 0.084 0.111 0.100 Max. 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.088 0.072 0.067 0.070 0.081 0.080 Carbon Monoxide 8- Hour> 9. ppm (SY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 8 -hour Conc. (ppm) 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide I -Hour> 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. I -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.073 0.074 0.067 0.082 0.076 0.059 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -hour > 50 µg/m' (S) 0/57 2/57 0/61 1/59 2/61 11/363 24 -hour > 150 pg/m'(F) 0/57 0/57 0/61 0/59 0/61 0/363 Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (pg/m') 43. 53. 48. 77. 85. 66. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 35 µg/m3 (F) 0/331 2/352 4/347 1/331 6/334 3/295 Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (jug/m') 31.7 39.2 50.1 37.8 56.2 45.8 Source: South Coast AQN1D Air Monitoring Station Data Summary, Anaheim Station (3176) B. "I� AQ 9_ AIR QUALITY PLANNING The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -10 and PM -2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM -10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one -hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8- hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. With re- designation of the air basin as non - attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shitted most of the one -hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8 -hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to "slip" from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM -2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 required control technologies that did not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary "bump -up" from a "severe non - attainment' area to an "extreme non - attainment' designation for ozone. The extreme designation was to allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on "black -box" measures. EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump -up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non - attainment designation from "severe -17" to "extreme." This reclassification set a later attainment deadline (2024), but also required the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls. liev Thezmr AQ 10- Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons /day) Pollutant 2010" 2015' 2020" 2025' NOx 603 451 357 289 VOC 544 429 400 393 PM -10 160 155 161 165 PM -2.5 71 67 67 68 '2010 Base Year. 'With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of Air Quality In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA had disapproved part of the SCAB PM -2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA stated that the current attainment plan relied on PM -2.5 control regulations that had not yet been approved or implemented. It was expected that a number of rules that were pending approval would remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues were not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the current California State Implementation Plan (SIP) was expected to remedy identified PM -2.5 planning deficiencies. The federal Clean Air Act requires that non - attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one -hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked around eight years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the one -hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now required to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one -hour federal ozone standard. Because the current SIP for the basin contains a number of control measures for the 8 -hour ozone standard that are equally effective for one -hour levels, the 2012 AQMP was believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements. AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013. An updated AQMP was required for completion in 2016. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board in March, 2017, and has been submitted the the California Air Resources Board for forwarding to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill Flares. etc.) . The current attainment deadlines for all federal non - attainment pollutants are now as follows: 8 -hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032 Annual PM -2.5 (12 µg/m) 2025 Bay'rhwcr AQ 8 -hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (old standard) I - hourozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard) 24 -hour PM -2.5 (35 µg/m) 2019 The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional stringent NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, ozone attainment goals may not be met. The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing recreational projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less- than - significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project - specific basis. AIR QUALITY IMPACT STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Air quality impacts are considered "significant" if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they "substantially' contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Primary Pollutants Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non - attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM -10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction. Secondary Pollutants Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based Bay Perm AQ 13 . upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Table 5 Dailv Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 PM -2.5 55 55 Sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build -out year. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. on re.v AQ -Il- CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS The proposed project requires renovations to an existing building. Air quality modeling only calculates emissions for large equipment like cranes, and dozers. Smaller, mostly electrical powered hand tools will be used for this project and therefore construction emissions are not analyzed. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod2016.3.1 for an assumed project opening year of 2017. Trip rates were provided in the project traffic report. The traffic report predicts that the 475 seat venue would generate 855 daily trips. In addition to mobile sources from vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on -site energy consumption and from off -site electrical generation. These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of such emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project - related emissions burden as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Dailv Operational Impacts Source: CaIEEMod2016.3.1 Output in Appendix As seen in "fable 6, the project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. No impact mitigation for operational activity emissions is considered necessary to support this finding. K,Th ,AQ 15 . Op erational Emissions Ibs /da Source ROG NOx CO SOZ PM -10 PM -2.5 Area 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 1.6 7.2 17.2 0.1 3.9 1.1 Total 1.8 7.3 17.3 0.1 3.9 1.1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod2016.3.1 Output in Appendix As seen in "fable 6, the project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. No impact mitigation for operational activity emissions is considered necessary to support this finding. K,Th ,AQ 15 . GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, pertluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off- highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GFIG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S- 03 -05, EO S -20 -06 and EO S- 01 -07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that Califomia has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." It will have wide - ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide - ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: • Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate "early action" control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. • Mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25 -40 %, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020. • Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry - specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been 3a mwe„AQ developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on -and off -road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off -site electricity generation and non - company owned mobile sources. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: • Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or, • Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project - related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate." The most common practice for transportation /combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of G1 -IG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. if the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the SCAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds GHG Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,000 MT COze for all land use projects. This 3,000 MT /year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level. PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS GENERATION The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2e emissions are summarized in the CaIEEMod2016.3.1 output files found in the appendix of this report. The total operational emissions for the proposed project are identified in Table 7 assuming that every day of the year was a maximum performance event at the renovated theater. Table 7 Proposed Uses ODerational Emissions Consumption Source MT COze Area Sources 0.0 Energy Utilization 41.5 Mobile Source 845.3 Solid Waste Generation 0.0 Water Consumption 24.7 Total 911.5 Guideline Threshold 3.000 Exceeds Threshold? No Worst -case total project GHG emissions are substantially below the proposed significance threshold of 3,000 MT suggested by the SCAQMD. Hence, the project will not result in generation of a significant level of greenhouse gases. CONSISTENCY WITH GHG PLANS, PROGRAMS AND POLICIES The City of Seal Beach has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The applicable GHG planning document is AB -32. As discussed above, the project is not expected to result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. As a result, the project results in GFIG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton threshold. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. TO -18 CALEEMOD2016.3.1 COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT DAILY EMISISONS o ANNUAL EMISSIONS Q ,g. ! ( 2 04 0 2 k ■ ( 2 k \ )( o 52 �2 m § § 2 2 j \ \ 2 / U) �k u ! § u= , c CO k j ® 7 2 � - - - \ / � - - - m ' § k 0 u § / o \ \ \ } \ 0 - )( - ° C-4 / \ \ | \ ! \ ) / - L) i EL 0 N M of N t0 D N E E U _N Q Q r C O � N Q O N O1 � l0 O L 0 Ul m (V L H f0 co O O N 0 O 2 W w U C O O O O 2 w w l0 U N O N O 'm 'm 'm O I0 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I O 10 1Oo 10 1 I 1 I� I I 1 I 1 I� 10 10 Ip I� 10 10 I I� 10 110 I(O p I(7 IO I� I 1 10 IN I 1� IN I� In N 10 10 10 10 10 1,0 10 I I IN I� I� m I� I I I 1 1 Ith I I I I I 4 `o :S c 75 : v .> ° .O m .a .a ° .w m .m •m �g O Z Z C v• N • Z r L N 6 U 01 rN •p O � �' d O .0 5 lg Iw IwI Iw .w .O ° U : V CI ; (T v o: 0 0 0: o E g 'U .o .o .L .v co m• m • m m m• m a N r N N W d N• —�' U ' L , L • L n 'n •a �a •n •a 'a 'a •a a m (9 E E N N C O .N Mn E W O N 2 a M O N M M N E J U) U O Q O < Q M U N O N CL U L J O N i6 d H T En 07 M N V O 2 w _w U C O O J v 0 2 w w m U C O .y H �E W T E E X f0 C C Q O U V N H C C O U U _ a m d d R E r C N 7 a O N c 0 U d .a d o n v � 6 < U � m ° ° o N O O Z O O 0 0 P � o 0 U 0 0 0 0 m a n --_ NO OU U m m R o F N m N 0 O b U p b m m m m m Z N O O m o O 9 � e u 0 0 � a m O NN d� A wa o 0 dyl OdN �t7 d�� LLa mO qO m m fF a o P L � � �jLL o 0 a a - d0 N o� °o �a LL v d N 0 0 N 0 N N U a Q m Z m m (9 � 0 0 E E v > X f a O N c 0 U d .a iv n v � 6 < N 0 0 0 Z O O N 0 P t O U o 0 0 0 a - N OU m m R f N N N IO b p b O1 m m m Z N p O m ° 9 � � u 0 0 � a m O NN wa o m m d LL� o °n L � � wLL o 0 m d0 N m� LL d N ON N N U a N Q m 2 N N 0 E E_ d f 2 a M O N M fh N ci 0 N E E D U) U D Q O d Q C � N T t0 m 0 CL U t 0 O En IU m W H l0 m ch m r m O N O � 0 CO L W N W IQ C U C C O � Y O � L � n N d CL > 0 0 O a W w O m d a E U N 0 N 7 A C •L d a d m 0 m r m m �m O � I I N O Iv I m Oo Z Iry0 I O I I I I �d m P I°pN In I U ° I In ry Iti I� OP tO r+ In oo° Im° 1 I� l0 0 0 1 N U Im In o m as In INN qn I In r e IN 10 O r O 1^ -- I I o O In In b p IN I^yN �n a] In IN Z In I I I ______________ it iNN O U � I I b O U m b I , - 1 m � -------------- r Od IOry Im N p°o 1 °o Im m° IymjO I° e a I 1 I I a ol,j °a I°pN IN m m0O Imo l0 0 w ° tc I o 16 I I I 1 I dN �N O 1 to 0 �ry I I I I IiLL 0 I I` 1 I 1 I I I O m ar m° Ivmi° IM m° Ic I I °O Pp j0o jm o �� m° ice° io ti xa ma I 10 O 0 W q a P f I I �p ma j0 w � i IN LL I IN 1 I I I 0 Iv la N m OO im loa IN 10p 10 LLLL N i IN I I I I 0 1m la m O 0 NO O 10 Iry N O IOp 10 O N Im I O o n I ri I O m N °p to Iry � O O oU e I I I, I tPl j0 �N N (J 10 IN N r Irva Iumi m o Io In o Im I I I` . 1 ra I . ry la po I� Im m z Z ,0 �O i0 iN N U 6 l0 In 1 l 1 I P Iv IN n N U, � ry INN Iy I� I v a m A C •L d a d m 0 m r m m �m O � .N I 1 N O IaN 1 Oo Z Iry0 I O t� I t I � t I P Iti I� OP tO r+ In r ° r I� I O a I In r e U Iry 1 ^^ IN o U Im In 8 it iNN ^n - � I I O U b m -------------- m a L 1 G 1 mcq L m0O Imo l0 0 IN Ip lua 16 I I I dN I Im O I l0 m� t l0 0 1 I I I O OP IpN I 6o m° to I I ti ma I 10 O p c I I I ____ I I N �p ma w � i ON LL I IN 1 I I I 0 Iv la m OO loa IN 10p 10 N N O Im I O 0 ° Iri l0 I I O Im IN o Io In I I� v In la n U $ °p to Iry � O n e I I I, I tPl j0 �N N (J � r Irva Iumi m o Im I I I` . 1 ra I . ,0 0 U 2 a m c+� r` O N M M N 0 d E E U N_ a M O � a O N m O O a v 5 0 m m L T l9 m l+1 0 N 0 O 2 W W m U C 0 y O O i W w m U R d O C O Y U 3 V m C O U O ri m L a O C O U 0 d N c0 L CL C O Z `R CL CL CL d rn m C A O O m U 2 0 d N A L a m C a c� m C 9 O m u a, 0 m C a O m t� u v L U a_ O m N a` m C Y a 9 d S N 0 `o 0 9 5 O A .0 d N d C O Z O 0` O 9 c m .c v 9 .N d C O 2 O V O O 3 O A C d v N N ir O `O Fn m O c r O' m m i c m m oy 0 O XU 6 U N LL 9 O J m 10 r Ir I 1 o I a N I � 1 x ! O j0 y O 10 j 10 1 O O = I I 00 I N I � 1 F� 0 E N i N O I O H I H N � w F I n E I E I o U IU Q .'L Q C 0 U w m C O U N m R m O A O1 M C E z E z m W y C o U A r 9 Ita O ¢` C m H C 0 U w m C O U N m R m O A O1 M L EL m M O N M m m C) E E n U Q M � O � (O � N m N CL O U r 5 O d f0 N r (0 M M (D O A N a- 0 O O N W 0) W C _ U t0 O c U O N ` > M J O w w L W W � a U r o'i O :m N Ij O •O• T U ° � •N N •N I m N o o N 2 I I I I N � x to e 1 I o to to A a I x U m °o A° o Ie I ' ° r r -- ja O O b la 1 m Iry ry Z 1 N l) r 1 1 U N O b m m b O to Ivpi N m- p Io IN I N Z I I N Q U A N b 1 m O 10 O I n n wC4 wa m o �0 I I 0 mm �N o� 1 I o Io 1 °0 1 1�0 LLLL N � I I O 10 In LL I 1 I I NN �N O 1° 1 b b mM o �o x°00 c0 M w 1 I Im a a o 1 e w T I O as m a_ 1 I ^0 > IN 1 1 I I I I O2 LL I I, lu b ° d to l0 I I 0 Im °m ry I� Ie I N m O U ° ° O Im I I I l0 m 0 p Im I� Z IN N m� I f 0 LLLL � O �O �O iry O ____ 1 I O 10 Ib °o In n � Io O N I i -iii• o o l0 1 1 f U 'p O COI _ •r r U ;O U Q O ° •° •ry N U ° � •N N - I 1 o N � I 1 1 I 1 I o to to to loo x C3 j° jho °o A° U 0 a I I N O N U oo c o r 1 1 N O o n m b O to Ivpi N m- p Io IN I N Z I I N Q U b m y i °o io m My o Io 1 °0 1 1�0 °O QO N � O 10 In LL I 1 I I NN O 1° 1 b b mM o �o x°00 c0 M w Im a �m c 10 Iory °r 7N IO I O O as oo Io Imo IN �o I I I I 1 IM ° d to l0 I I 0 jo jovl °m io° KaW T ° ° O q 1 V° O 10 IN N m� 0 to l0 0 LLLL O �O �O ____ 1 I O 10 Ib u O N 1 Im oo o o l0 1 1 f O l0 10 U o to to e U 0 0� o jo z 10 I I 1 1 o t o I b < u �o U• O io i °o o0 00 r ° I I� i eve 1 b U (h t` 0 N M m N E E m U N ❑ Q o O Q � N N O a U L 0 U) Ul t0 IU L N m th Op •� O O n N � Q N N U O tL C C tlJ _ N U Ia O 0 c o z O q ` II) U o :: � ` C O U W L W_ Q t0 Q d m U N Z. Z 0 Op •� O O U o ci �N I N N U O o •o t z I I t I i Im I m P i I I Z > a_ I° I e N U � o IP I 3 F l0 I lu �ry im IQ m N O U d I iry m z °oo 1 r o ID In n IP f m I - m N N N F Q In N N U I! 10 IP °o � b 10 Io IN a m I I o m n o Pf I I wa O o �0 I 0 �N N �. m� LLLL I I I N N m p i 0 r a� I I o io I Im 0 mp cLL °o i °o iom w a a — Ip I__ _ I I om IOp _ °ia O 10 IN° j�o I � LL 10 I r____ I. Iv d I 1 N o i o i b Iq q o IN I� Im Im kll O Ic laa U Im I I 1 l0 0 p Im I� m Z IN I LLLL 1 Iq I° IN � 0 Ip I . I . 0 • °m 'n V U •LL O ° to l0 0 ____ ____i i___ I I I N c O u V N C O U a lu t0 2 0 O O 0 N U o •o I I O I I Z I I 1 1 I I I I l0 I lu m U o to lo°p °oo o ID In n IP f P O - to Im N N N F I 1� I I O 10 IM N O U 10 IP °o S b Io IN m o Io In I I O U b m I I A °o i °o iom � om N O 10 IN° j�o 00 � 10 ri a I 1 o i o i b m mcq o °e o° kll Ic laa 1 l0 0 1 I LLLL 1 Iq I° IN °q io im O 10 Ir q a� ° to l0 0 ____ ____i i___ I I I :a W v I° Iq q vp o 0 IN m� o to l0 0 LLLL o is io o to v 0 u 0° I I o to l0 0 O o to to e U ° �o io ____ --------- I °0 1 0° I v 0 o n O ON °p °p m ° °° z Ip IP° e P I I I 1 1 to Im P m 0 I° o u° U d m CO G I d t0 C 0 l6 d CL r� 2 EL m cn r 0 N C7 N M ❑ N E E U U N Q (`7 G❑ C `0 O a � N O 0 0 0 p- U t 0 O N M L F T M M di o aL N — 0 0 i 2 W W W N L U N o y N > r v 0 2 m W m U r R C 0 A E 0 C N E E 3 N CL N V C O a E 0 C d a T F- a F— P1 V m x o � o 0 O o � o m ° rn c O N } n U o g o 0 r m o � N m 0 O m 7 rn m ° O °o n O m x L%1 x O O N n O 2 ° � o O 0 n N N � o S o J 0 m P O n J ° 0 � N 0 N m F rn D � J O a J H Z x � g m m y J d d m LL 'o V m 0 m m U 0 i 2 U a N IN io NO U n n nm 3 'mm 0 h 'O N U n in d m O U b m 9 0 jH N y L� O 10 wd �° im m� w� LLa i 'o -r EF, a im wa 0 Ot� oa ,n NO N N rn O 10 Ip 0 r r U P P z i� i o K E C 0 A E 0 C N E E 3 N CL N V C O a E 0 C d a T F- a F— P1 V m x o � o 0 O o � o m ° rn c O N } n U o g o 0 r m o � N m 0 O m 7 rn m ° O °o n O m x L%1 x O O N n O 2 ° � o O 0 n N N � o S o J 0 m P O n J ° 0 � N 0 N m F rn D � J O a J H Z x � g m m y J d d m LL 'o V 2 IL ro m O N m M N f0 O E E z N U Q Q Cl �G L O Q m � N M (C Q CL U cnL_ O N M W L f- M m m m �m fh .m m .m CO b ;b O N � m �u d o �o 'moo 2 W W f W - N N M p U Z 7 N Q W N O M m y N T j m C N b T O O O`7 W R m W u C w 1,1 (� W Q c C U O a w = Ld m m �m NO .m m .m U b ;b O °°n loe m �u i �o 'moo N a f N OU - 1 n In -h 'm N Q m N IN I� Z L N Q U b m m N NO I,mO P 'P o c� 'o� m° 1OO W P° IP -h 2 Y' N rn� LL LL 1 u "m 09 �F 1 on 1°°m IN °o a ,mo 1 IP °0 1Oo m� do _ �s LL 1 -h b �V °O 1OO O -hn U o to N IN �u �m 1 ° a "m U 'mom 'mc z 'z� 2 CL ao r O N N_1 d Q N E E U m_ D Q r Q _ L Q 0 N m O m U CL L 'Q N (m Q L m N m O N D O 2 W W l0 U C O m O O LU W W m U N tC A w N Z d H L C A J T d T a O) d Q� C - LU E N C LD :) d a u N m n Q t0 b Q N n v A m O °n Z n ° n o d m a x on °o D ` - N D_ - - 'm O U n m N p N N F N r N U n N m r N Z Q U 0 m o m m r u m n n O O E a < a v m - wa e e V y� Ps jN P� LL LL �r N °00 n o eo v m — Lf °° NP o ° m xa e is m vmi o° moo° w m D_ - a m° P� P� LL LL v LLa m e O O im U ° U o 0 N 0 N 0 0 N � O Z O Z O O O a ti ti O [7 0 0 K m � m r `mm m tix m v 1p z v^ m C_ J d j m c D f V O r - o oZ 02 d a Y d Q O f0 R V Q IA 7 N l0 cd C C O R r t0 m o m m Q �O N U n n 2 n ° n ° v m a x on °o D ` - N O - N n m N N f r N V n m N N 2 Q U 0 m o m N q n' a o - wa e e V y� Ps LL LL 0 < on e 6 Lf °° NP o ° m xa e w m e 6 V° P� LL LL v e O im U o 0 N 0 N O � O Z O O a ti O o m � `mm m o z m m m C_ J d m r - o 02 Y d Q O f0 R V Q IA 7 N l0 cd C C O R r t0 a n 0 N M m N l0 O d E E m U _y Q `o UQ d lV OI O a � L 5 O N l0 N L F- T to m ro 0 N O W W m U 0 N d 0 W w l0 U O cm d A U T a m m m �E N C w =) O O U o •o I � O z 0 ' b 'b 'OP P oP U 1 a N N N U Z Po io m 0 0 to 1 I oo io N O d 1 I I 1 I� m o 1 I d m P N U ceo x a m I Io° a •a s F oP '°oP 0 N I IN m0 Im0 a Os xa 0 im° w °o IO IPO I� om v N d� o °o ci 1 LL d o o 0 0 ° oo ISP N to w n a_ �o LL LL I Io I 1 Z U b O U o 1 l0 o 'o � °o i °o ioP oy P IP P O• p N IN I I ° Z 10 .a v v v a I I _a E U � O cm d A U T a m m m �E N C w =) O ° U 0 •o c 0 I I O I I Z I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I d m P 1 IQP ceo x I Io° I IN N Os o to io 0 U °o IO IPO o m o °o ci a o o 0 0 f f N I 1° m I Io I 1 Z U b m � °o i °o ioP oy I I ° a I I - io is LLL p IO I I v m i N 52 I I LL LL I I I 1 ° ' °ig §0 S $ �° I 1 o t o l a 1° to a oP no o i° ice° wLL r v 1 I I - LL I I I 10 O N m y i i0° I I I I I I I IO O ° o OU 1 Io 0 Il0 I I I I d 0 m o I IOO °o Io° Z 1 1m b° 1 to e I I m is e O O IN IPO n � o Io Im o 1 Iv I I N Q •ULL � a (h n 0 N M M N R N E E U) u N_ 0 Q M � O Q N � N O O CL U t 0 O !n N R L T R m i7 °o •Oo ° O N D 0 0 w W 0 W I m O1 O N U « I I R o U � IA I I I I > N o a I I I 1 16 L R a W d R Q a U N I lad I l0° tG U u °o •Oo ° U o •o �0 0 I I O N I I � I I I I I I I 1 16 m d I lad I l0° od U 1 Im° 00 m r m IN I I ry f f I I I I< N U U d � I 1 N O U a 0 io m a 1 1 I I 'wm 10 Iv m m� a ja joo ° °o ca w ° ID 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I jn ry w LL 1 I 1 I I I 1 I o t o I v m iF °o to Ipmo mo a to I 1 I� I I I I O 1° Id m cf ° 10 1 °o me xa 1° Im w � a I I I I I I I I I 1 02 LL I 1 I 1 U I 1O I 10 e m I I I 1 I I o O I 10 U is I I 1 I v od o °d I Im b° Ie 1 I e � im iL d O o it i °d° r LL' I° Iln° I IP I I P V U -- • j 7 m 'N O m n Nq t O C O y f uU N Q •Uw �� Y d .O.1 R d N N R cd C C Q CO C n V Q N R O Co d N 3 N N R Cd C C Q A m V 1!� R O O R C O Ln d a 6 F v J LL O V a O J T a° `o v T m O A b J S C CD E CL O' W R C e. Y N O r 2 a r� N c7 N l0 N E E U _N r O Qcn a N /0 OI O m U a L 0 U U1 t0 m L H a t0 m M O O N 0 O W W t0 U c 0 N UJ 0 O LU W W m U T F J W v 0 m N c m T O a n c m N 2 d E E. 2 C v E E N E W CD W C m d O N C Q 10 d a% i O r r 0 � o 0 0 a CL CL 0 v n m w � N d N � M � � N O � LL cl m o' O m O O Q N O O O O J � T J m C � C Q O' C O m N ON ? m v a O z= GO O c0 L o Q L Q N m U M O a L m Q J N O U °f N � t N o O cc N O N y H T N CIO O y H N O N Lo r 6 Na 9 y 3 U D y C m 0 Z T N y N E N U r W c E O N � C O O N O W W y V m m .� 0 E N N U L V O N O O N C u"i O U a o No O E U N L d n H o U U d C C 3 w W O" �' > N O > 0) O U W j W O R N m 0) N d J O A �. .3 Ql U N O U m N U O r N a E = O a W n L U r U U=. d J U 0 > H Q 2 CL a s N (7 (+l N m m c c Q U N_ Q ro � d O Q N jp l0 m U CL L 5 0 cn `m m N L F m lU 0] O N 0 O W W V 0 a 0 2 W W m U I 1 1 1 1 I 1 m p 10 I I 1 i I Ir p 10 10 10 I I I > I-N � I� l0 l0 I� IQ l0 10 � Itn Ip Ip I I 10 I � � 10 10 10 IN IN IN 10 � 10 IN jt0 p IN Im Ir 4 o m m X ? O Z; Z Z .0 y N :Z . I Z .LL g :5 ;LLI :LL .w .w O � o U V .N M : -w o o o a o o m m m m m m m o o v m~ m V` 3. a d d. 2. d ~ U U V V' V O' O O : ' a :a` �a .a !6 C E 7 N C O .N N w O N 0 m •r � � y 'o 'm 'o 'o 'o > o 'o •o 'o 'o 'o 'o '� n ;p m m 3 O .O ,O .O O .O •m Z I 1 1 1 1 I 1 m p 10 I I 1 i I Ir p 10 10 10 I I I > I-N � I� l0 l0 I� IQ l0 10 � Itn Ip Ip I I 10 I � � 10 10 10 IN IN IN 10 � 10 IN jt0 p IN Im Ir 4 o m m X ? O Z; Z Z .0 y N :Z . I Z .LL g :5 ;LLI :LL .w .w O � o U V .N M : -w o o o a o o m m m m m m m o o v m~ m V` 3. a d d. 2. d ~ U U V V' V O' O O : ' a :a` �a .a !6 C E 7 N C O .N N w O N G CL 0 a O N fh M N m ❑ c c C Q u _N cQ � C O Q c� w U t0 ca U IL L 5 O N t H N !f1 cn O v m O N 0 O 2 W C W o m w U � C Y O N c O v H N w C C `y p O > U U O 0 W W m 0 U m 'E c N � c 0 H c 0 U d m 2 a v m O U c ° O N O O Z O O c L 0 P Oyu ON � � O O U m m 0 o O F H N Q N d d o 0 m c Z QO N d U ° 0 � 0 m m ° o v m T a _ O N o0 w a o° mN wa m mN LL d O�2 O O O LLa o 0 09 0 ob E° o N T P T m m O O° a 00 ca w \ o+ mO o` �N oN ob °mN 0 LL °o °o LL ° ° O O O O 0 u 0 m 6 UU m ao �e a+ d o o 00 U o E E E � � E m a _ f f c 0 H c 0 U d m 2 ° m N O U p O N Z O O P Oyu ON � O U m 0 o O F N Q d m o 0 Z QO d ° 0 � 0 m N N O N O N o0 w a o° mN LL d O O LLB- o N T w \ u° oN ob °0 0 LL ° N O 0 u 0 m UU ao �e p o 00 U o E o E y f 2 EL O V O N m a m t0 J C C Q U 0 Q O � � y l9 m U a L O a m a N m 0 N O Lu W W_ m U O N a a 0 2 LL) w m U A C O a a O R d A C O a 0 a a A B m O ;a BOO ° 1 O' p to Ipd to 1° In to Iv Ion u on ° I°° 1° Z ° IlO < I o 1 m 1° I lo° I Im n x U r o° n lao Id I� Id 1� I° I o I 1° 1 < 1 to c` I m im in I io Im o O I l0 1� m H ° Id 6 10 I° IN .o P Im In to Im O' o 11? 1° to Ir b p I� Id Im d 0 Z Id Im p I I� °m N 0 Fn 1° 10 Ip Ob d - F b °OO l0 I °O Im j0 Io In d I I I 1 1 1 1 I N. lod to Io to WLL N°p In° I° I Ip o c Im I 1 1° I 1 I I db N 1 I 1 I b D LL I I I la I I I I I I 1 1 1 0 i° t° N d Im I4t 10 ____r____r____ Ir 10 10 I 1° in O In to to e o wLL 5 m 0 im I 1 I° 1 I m i° I I id I I °a I v Ipp to Id Ip0 i i I I I m ci ti O °o to mp I mo b o° I� r v Ir I Iv lai I m I 1 I I I I OU in on In° Im I I ° 16 oh u I Ip I_ I Ir Im I I I I I I m m N I Iv I I I N O m o I�° IN° 1N to 1 I I I no I- i U Y m D C Q U N C O .0 d N L CL c 0 N c 0 J O d A L a c 0 m `m 0. IL m w cm C f7 W O N u a, p N •� •N •° •b O NO i< •M �� a CL O •P P ly O N o I °4 10 10 IOM 00 1� z p IOp Ir I° 10 10 Ip 1100 la m O 6 I 1 1 I I n r---- M L °Op IL IpMO 10 Im I to Ib 1° N O O � IM I� 10 Im I I I I m m I IP IM In I 1° I 1� T O L 1� I° to Ir m 1� 14 Io Im 4 N O O •O r c d �o •o : °o n c m o •o Q_ ------------------------ � o V L I 1 L I I 1p 1 l 0 1 1 0 P ` F' O°p IOP IP 10 10 10 O � Im 10 10 O 10 O d 1 1 I 1 »b Q L I IL I 1� I l0 I l0 °° °° w � 0 0 N Im to to Io I____ Ir____ Ir____ pb lO � 1 1 I Ib I 1 I I b Ol O 1 t I I U °d LL o ° d L L I I I 1 0 O 1 I 1 I p Ipa Ip' I� i °o o° in° Ib jo °o n t dF e a0 O d p o0'^ I L laa In to l0 to l0 to m L A� °O O 100 In 10 I 10 Io 10 I O J. Wa 2, ry I e r- r- r - p )p m� M I 14 Ilp I I I I 4 LLn I I° I I o I I t o I L I I I I L h ° r Ilo° r l0i I I m I � L 1. i b Q I 11 1 0 -� to 1 ai I I I M w w M c m I° I C O V L 0 O L 0 .N jp o IN° Io I 1 N a O y o R O LLI Q O A • p p A m > O A p a N U U N Y m D C Q U N C O .0 d N L CL c 0 N c 0 J O d A L a c 0 m `m 0. IL m w cm C f7 W O N u a, n CL o � v Q I� 2 c 0 N < lh � m Q 0 Q) N < ❑ C J Q Q L V @ C c C Q C _ Z U N C_ ❑ Q Q Q ❑ Z d � O Q t N L 2 m U CL L 5 c O Q (1) t c m L i T 04 co Q m � c L Z 0 U' a m O' J n Ir 3 0 a m N O 10 O 10 O 1 = I I OI I m I 7 I I I I 1 C I 1 o ! E E Z --1-_ o N n E U R a c m N C O w V V H C O V N d 3 N 10 Q1 O w m K O O O !h D O O N N — Q] p L C � Q d W LU c y U A 0 c O .. � O *11 E m i � 9y O > C r. — a 0 C7 a '_° j1 w w O O m e D" o m m U m ¢ Q (2 U O 0 U' a m O' J n Ir 3 0 a m N O 10 O 10 O 1 = I I OI I m I 7 I I I I 1 C I 1 o ! E E Z --1-_ o N n E U R a c m N C O w V V H C O V N d 3 N 10 Q1 O w m K 2 O O N l0 f0 C Q _N O cQ � L d O Q N m U a L 0 0 N t0 N s r T N co lh (D O n N � � O O N L W C W N U C l c U O N m i 7 � V O w L L W W � M Q U N M N ° U p op io° o O O 10 O I I IOO O vo 0 I O 10 l0 °o 0 0 I I 1� N Z � I I O 1 1- N O U O r I � N o 0 IN p I� . ` Z e 1 °p L � I I I t U O b o •o m OM m to Imo < 0 I - N N O °o 10 Iv N U O i�o ° ON 100 DO o° v° m Ip I a Z I Iv IoN d �N �'ry U o W LL b I m 1 Oi jN M3 o 0 m� 1 LLa I p 1 10 0 I° ON 2 EO ci to o° Q I - I� o I°p q Y ON mo xa W o o loo° Im I I I o° e _ 10° ° °o a LL I I to g O 1 I I I IO N i0 to I Iv O O d LN V O 1° Ip I 10 IOO °o m Iv ° a d OM O Z X00 00 p I� I 1. Iv w o AO In° I� c Ip Io 1 I� 0 rn v U •� O yp O 10 0 O O 100 i00 O JLL FE o 0 0 U ,p O 10 l0 O 0 0 I I N Z O 10 Io l0 10 O O I O _ I I o 0 e �o jo ` o l0 1° e L � I I I t O O �O �Q0 OM m to Imo < 0 F I Iv I° IN r N N O °o 10 Iv on U I° I°pM o to I Ic° o° v° m Ip I Z I I - U o 0 b o :o M3 o 0 '6 r p 1 10 0 EO 10 10 Q I I WN O 10° ° °o xa W o iQ 1 1 1 I I I vN Io l0 0 LN O 1° Ip I 10 °e --- p ar c Ip Io 1 I� 0 1 I I I yp O 10 0 O O 100 i00 O JLL r o 0 0 0 vp v °a p Ip0 ION p O O Io I I 1 10 10 O N O U O 10 to O N I I o t o I v m O I to O O 00 o I° 10° to Iri I i o to l0 Z 6 10 l0 to l0 0 o 0 I I I I C7 op 1 O I o o° l0 to � o Io l0 0 0 o w c a 0 v F U d O O N M M d l6 l0 C C Q U N_ CQ � C 0 O Q vo N d N O m U CL s 5 O d M d t H T fU m M ° •m ° . � A N � N d cO G lL W _ t0 } U a O C 0 c o c U '� O Yl d 3 i O o :: � A C O U L L O W V W L tU Q d R U N +' /7 r2 m ° •m ° . N O p ry I Ip O O Io O O I N Z O i0 i0 O o Ip Ip r I� I N m l0 10 IN _ p r 0 Ip � N O U a jN m Ip �r � I O U O U d o o p e o d F I IN I I N U o Io 1°pm r io,� oN H O 100 Ip DO i Z I ° 10 O 0 _ NN 0 M O O p o 0 WLL lay 1 v° �ry m� I 1 li a I 1 --- - %-- -- o iv u 20 ° Irn o Iv 10 q ovy �° 'n O 10 10 O W `o Iq I q a _ O1a LL 1 I I I I I l0 0 wu] O O 10 °p N I° 10 �O I O d O O o o O i�a no Im Iv I I 0 m � r•I O io °p pOo Ip Ip I� I Iv O d°! LLLL i0 i0° I° I ° p K Ino I� 1`° u m U •K 9 v O Ip IOp OOp o to I� d c O u r N C O U d O m ° ° bm . O O °O i0 •Np 0 10 Ip N Z O i0 i0 O o Ip Ip l0 10 _ 0 o l0 1° �r O U l 0 v d to I F I IN I I N U o Io 1°pm °pm I I� I IN i Z I I O o m ° I I r ° 10 'n O 10 10 O � ° a 1 I wu] O 0 I° 10 tM O o o O I La v Ip Ip O d°! LLLL i0 i0° I° I O 0 o v u �0 O Ip IOp OOp o to I� �o to to O m� 0 to l0 0 O �o io 0 Ij6 �o Ip Iv d a� Ip° 100 So oLL LL to I I I I I I N O O o O O � °0 1 °0 6 1O �O O 1. v O U 0 to to c0 p Ip lo° Im � I I ° O% I° I° I I � ip ip O I 1 °O � 10 io O Aiges O c •y m v - 'a o F Q 0 CO L G7 0 A c O M d Q M 2 CL clO a r 0 N m C Q U N_ Q c❑ � L o QU U N m U IL L 5 p U N l9 N m CD M (0 O G! N — 0 0 2 2 W W N N m � U U) c m O 0 N % C O O W ; m U � v c O E O C T {Q E E 3 Q F c O .m E O C d Q T N Q F Ci v CK_ C d v LL 7 v m rn = o 0 � N o m ° � o m m � O m O Q p n = o 0 n D = N O O 0 N W J O m a o = o J O > v ❑ N 0 _w H m J O M � O J O m Q � c z F o ;o U m �Qm °o z o I U o p i° < I< F U b < Io m Im Z � °o U , i m a N � a1° t; m� O 0 wa io LLa °� Im �o a� m im o o m� io wa o ci C5 i u �o N �N O O N y cm I -hP O < IQ U' n m o' K o ;a a m m m E � � c O E O C T {Q E E 3 Q F c O .m E O C d Q T N Q F Ci v CK_ C d v LL 7 v m rn = o 0 � N o m ° � o m m � O m O Q p n = o 0 n D = N O O 0 N W J O m a o = o J O > v ❑ N 0 _w H m J O M � O J O m Q � c z F L 0 a n O N M l") N 76 0 C Q U Q � O O � Q O N N � � U EL t O (n N (0 N L f- 00 m (h (D O N O w w W m U C O N N 0 0 2 w w l0 U d T d c w F5 N T N LL m U N n T d c w U) Iv to N 10 CN C C R ui m N U U N •N N N r----r-- _ -h .. 0 �__- og i m loo i m loo I m ;oo N Iry In, IN I I 2 ' °o U N Irv° Imo jm IN 1 I - -- N F N N I 1 I� � N Im U In In m im m N Imi IN I� pO O O O I I f 10 ioQ o 10� O 1 1 m m� O 10 lo° Imo W6 O �o I Vim° I I m I GN LLLL 1 1 � a t° IM I ° Im Im I I x M a io ioo 1�0 W m O 1 1 I am I 1 LL 1 I 1 1 I I I I Im ,m N ON I I I°om loo iQo I Io 1 I 1 1. � N° I I I m 1 IM I I to , ,o Ox o 0 z to I IO I I . -. � I 1 I Im Im I INO �,O 'gym _m __ c N m N C O M2 W z zD 2 O r O N fh M N [0 l6 J C C Q U cl Q cO L d O Q N N N rn ° � U d L J O t0 N L H C3 C3 (h (0 O N a O W W f0 U 0 O a O LU W W m U N C) l6 3 R Z d N a c A J T a wI T N d 2 m m d o O o 0 U N ti N u z N O ry O N N N d d P °P U m N N F H O U m m n N F F N O N O U N 0 N o m °1 m z _ N O N O O 0 c m O m 0 o m nP oa d ti � m m m a w u wa m m d m N T� LL n N 6 LL a O q a O P m v m m ?p v �p w oy `xa jO o > rti m W d O oa m LL N d N d °o^ O U ry o d O O U ryo HO 0 T v O (9 o rc 0 n � d r a _ �y N u z� d m v A N 0 2 uw v - -d d'z d 2 v o p o 0 U N d N Z N O H O N N N d P °P oa N H O n N F N O U N o °1 m z N a O m 0 o m nP oa m m a w u cum LL a O q O P O P v �p o,r oy `xa w > rti m jO o oa LL N d N d 00- U ryo HO O T O v 0 n � C u > F P A N 0 2 uw v - a � d - >o z 2 a 0 v 0 N C7 U1 (6 R 3 C C Q U N_ ❑ Q of ❑ O < Q N_ N N R O R U CL t 3 O ❑ N R U1 L F T t0 m T (7 M d (D U C N U d U W CO L w aw N m W Q N O d R n U O O c C O R J W T j a °o �� 0 T O y � w R W d O W C R W E U of ui m 9 d R P d m Q P d U N W N m Q O d O O N F W L S °o 00 U < r o N O d N 0 q N N F 2 m o 6 w zu m m c a � o c m? r -m az 9 d R Y CD 0 R Q O t0 R l a N d 7 N R cd C C 0 r R QI tC P d m Q < < U N N N m Q O d O O F � w a d S O O O O O O p N O N 0 q N N F 2 m mj w m m� m oz Y CD 0 R Q O t0 R l a N d 7 N R cd C C 0 r R QI tC L EL 0 n 0 N L+] C7 N t6 0 f0 3 C C Q U N_ Q O � Q r N 0l � m � � U EL r 5 N N W L m 07 L+i O N 0 O LU W W M U 0 0 c0 C W W U m �m N N p O •O o O •O ,o U N Z � 10 1L o �I I I U °Oo � 1 ,m p V N N Z O O O d 'O r -h N O ;m m° p n O to � l0 Im Z .L O V ° 0 0 O .o m p o I °o l0 to to 0 N 00 100 F 'N a N p •O ,p v ,om �o �a m W IN ' I I mm �N wE 1 LL d � 1 IOm °q °m IOm a N Ip 1 °O N IN cj O 10 IN o i ° ' 1 I 1 xa 1 W 10 loo O 0 mO I IN I 1 I I I 1 N mm @m �a LL 1 1 -h li a I I 1 1 I I I I to ,d O N 10 d o 0 IN 1 I l0 Im N m o L 1 IN NO Z IDo I I LL O I I io a io ;v O m I 10 N O rq O of m U a a m A d Q ' N C N ° p o O •O I I N Z O 10 10 l0 1 I I to Iv O O d a V c l0 10 m° IN n � l0 Im O 0 � � l0 Im 0 N O p o I °o l0 to to 0 m N p •O ,p ° �o m 1 1 N � IOm my, o to N Ip 1 °O 00 cj O 10 IN ° ' 1 I 1 10 loo O W I IN I 1 I I I 1 N mm @m 1 1 li a I I 1 1 I I I I to ,d d o 0 IN 1 I l0 Im N m o W 1 IN NO I I LL I I I I I 10 N O U I 10 O N I I° I I I I u ° om I I� I I I e 1 I N m ' Q a m o N 1� I I v Im Iv ° e p a io ion 0 I I U ao "o F N Q U 2 IL O V n O N fh IU R R J C Q U N_ ❑ Q N ❑ O Q V N U1 R Ot O R U CL L J O U IU R N L F T R m (h O °o •Oo 0 O o w w O m OI to to U d R o U N d � 3 > N 1° I° I I to to a o w w d L11 °o R Q R U N 0 fD Y d Y R P y� i d R 3 a 7 H R d C O R V O °o •Oo O o •o •d o to to 1° I° I I to to ' p to I °o °o 0 1 10 0 10 In � O to Im q o to l0 to l0 0 0 6 F I I to Im n-------------- O U o b o to l0 0 m m c Z I I m H �oQ o i$ oe n cm o o D o LL 1 I � to low °m m� O 10 Io° vo Io lo° ° 1 IN WLL I I I I I I N Nm � LL I I I I I i l0 1° m In I 1 I 1 0o Ioo Iom 1 I N � �o _ no °o w o 1 In � �• t I I 1 oa LL I 1 1 I I I 1 l0 0 n0 I l 0 1 to 0 a h I l0 I I I I 0 U 1 Imo I I ^lo I 1 I 6 I I Q m �� O% o o z Ie 1 I V � c •? u i u m q U➢ a N x o 'uU ;o 'a H Ul BULL Q Y d Y R P y� i d R 3 a 7 H R d C O R V 2 CL 0 0 N C7 C1 N (0 Q t0 J C C Q U N_ Q Q � Q d O Q N N � O � U d L 0 O m m m L T t9 m C7 co O N 0 0 2 W W_ f U 0 1 0 c G W W t0 U N �N N Q � N �p tO 0 m b lO U N iN U Z e QO IQO o P U d to 0 Q O Z Q O :a W N Oi � E U d N 0 C A J � W V � y N C P 7 N � N � U e e N N O Q O Z Q O a `O = P d U 0 N m 0 m 'o F N 5 m v °a � ca v` ^y J N. i 2 a 0 v n 0 N ch m N m cl W L N m m IL M O N 0 cO L w W_ L) U O 0 c0 L W W m U d N 7 C R J T a L R N Q N n � d Y N 10 O C6 V Vl N N R cd C C O R m a0 N A d r O d U N U N L N d O 2 �o � ° d d o° io o t 0 U 0 °o m o p O ci r U p�j m � � L iA =� N 0 N a ;E .j N2 N N N ry m m c v o ' - az d Y N 10 O C6 V Vl N N R cd C C O R m a0 N A d r O d U U o �o 2 �o � ° d O o° io 0 0 °o m p O ci r � L iA =� a ;E .j 2 EL 0 a r 0 N (h m N [0 l9 7 C C Q U N_ Q O � Q r N N � O m U CL t 0 0 cn m m r F- m m ri ° O m N N a � o cO a w o W y O N N U Z O C 0 J j T _ _ a a a o y v LU y A w to W . D m 3 E U N � C O m ° O m N � o U ° o O o Z 0 0 F _ _ P O O S p °o O 0 N O ° o U 0 ° `o m r a m0 m m n `o m n o �o �o � a o o r al m A 10 O l0 C O m d CL r� `o U W a m 0 J @ m 0 2 W T m E 2 @ F E a w O m N o U c O o Z 0 P O O S U ° O 0 N � ° O U o° `o H °v m m n o �o � A a o r 10 O l0 C O m d CL r� `o U W a m 0 J @ m 0 2 W T m E 2 @ F E a w 2 IL 0 O N M N l0 N J C C Q U N_ Q m O d O Q m N O1 O � U d L J O N m N H T t0 m M M O N 0 C O d w E w o m �7 U Q c W O >1 N L N f0 C o O 0 2 Y W (0 U C r T F N m d E E Z T F E E n w N n T F N LL N O `m cn N 0 n m d c �. E E H E L W a Q v w � d O d O N ml I T F c E E n w C O A d 0 r r Initial Study and Negative Declaration Bay Theater Restoration Project City of Seal Beach Appendix C — Noise Analysis NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS THE BAY THEATER REVITALIZATION SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No.: P17-001 N Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1800 E Garry St., #205 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared for: Hodge & Associates Attn: Bill Hodge P. O. Box 2842 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Date: April 18, 2017 NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. Loud or soft, noisy or quiet, high- and -low pitch are all qualitative terms used to describe sound. These terms are relative descriptions. The science of acoustics attempts to quantify the human perception of sound into a quantitative and measurable basis. Amplitude is the measure of the pressure exerted by sound waves. Amplitude may be so small as to be inaudible by humans, or so great as to be painful. Frequency refers to pitch or tone. The unit of measure is in cycles per second called "hertz ". Very low frequency bass tones and ultra -high frequency treble are difficult for humans to detect. Many noise generators in the ambient world are multi - spectral. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called "A- weighting," written as dB(A). Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A- weighted. Leq is a time - averaged sound level; a single- number value that expresses the time - varying sound level for the specified period as though it were a constant sound level with the same total sound energy as the time - varying level. Its unit is the decibel (dB). The most common averaging period for Leq is hourly. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during more sensitive evening and nighttime hours, state law requires that an artificial dBA increment be added to quiet time noise levels. The 24 -hour noise descriptor with a specified evening and nocturnal penalty is called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL's are a weighted average of hourly Leq's. B, 1 .e, Noy, 2 PLANNING STANDARDS The City of Seal Beach has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels that are based upon the CNEL rating scale to insure that noise exposure is considered in any development. CNEL -based standards apply to noise sources whose noise generation is preempted from local control (such as from on -road vehicles, trains, airplanes, etc.) and are used to make land use decisions as to the suitability of a given site for its intended use. These CNEL- based standards are articulated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Figure I shows the noise compatibility guidelines for various uses. These guidelines would apply in usable outdoor space such as patios, yards, spas, etc. The guidelines indicate that an exterior noise level of 60 dB CNEL is considered to be a "normally acceptable" noise level for single family, duplex and mobile homes involving normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Exterior noise levels up to 65 dB CNEL are typically considered "conditionally acceptable ", and residential construction should only occur after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise attenuation features are included in the project design. Exterior noise attenuation features include, but are not limited to, setbacks to place structures outside the conditionally acceptable noise contour, orienting structures so no windows open to the noise source, and /or installing noise barriers such as berms or solid walls. An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, included single - family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is 20 -30 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 -75 dB CNEL allows the interior standard to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (dual paned windows, etc.), but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning in order to maintain a comfortable living environment. The City of Seal Beach limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city- observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from compliance with numerical noise standards. her Noise 3 Figure 1 Noise Compatibility Guidelines (Seal Beach General Plan) Legend: ®NomWOy Acceptable: Specified land use as satisfactory based Won the assumpdon that any buildings involved are of normal environmental construction, wd vxd any special rouse ir5rdatico regudenenls- ConditioruDy Acceptable: New construction or deve4rnmo should be undertsken only aP,er a detailed analysis of the raise 0 reduction requirement is made and needed noise insutaian features included in the design. Conventional construction. but with arosed wandoms and fresh air supply systems or air ocndi oning vd nannalfy suffax;. Outdoor environment unit seem noisy. Normally Unacceptable: New oonstnodan or devebpm m should generally be discouraged. If new con strwtim or developmem ® does proceed, a detailed analysis of the raise reductsen requsremeris awst be made iadh needed noise insulation features included in the design. Orndoor area nest be shielded. ®Clearly Unacceptable: Newoonsvuction or development should generally nor be undenalom. Corsuuaion cow o make the indoor emuomnem aocepiabre world be prolrbidve and the outdoor environment would not be usable. BayThu,er bite CNEL or Ldn Value dBA Land Uses 55 60 65 10 80 ° Residential -Low Density, Single - Family, Duplex, Mobile _ Homes VIII' Ill II Residential - Multiple Family - -- 1 111199 II III Transient Lodging: Hotels, Motels - - - - 99991 School, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes III III Auditoriums, Concert Ha0s, Amphitheaters Spans Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports "ay•e ` ° ° -N playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks God Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteres -- - - Office Buildings, Business, Commercial, and professional -. Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, AgnaAtum _ Legend: ®NomWOy Acceptable: Specified land use as satisfactory based Won the assumpdon that any buildings involved are of normal environmental construction, wd vxd any special rouse ir5rdatico regudenenls- ConditioruDy Acceptable: New construction or deve4rnmo should be undertsken only aP,er a detailed analysis of the raise 0 reduction requirement is made and needed noise insutaian features included in the design. Conventional construction. but with arosed wandoms and fresh air supply systems or air ocndi oning vd nannalfy suffax;. Outdoor environment unit seem noisy. Normally Unacceptable: New oonstnodan or devebpm m should generally be discouraged. If new con strwtim or developmem ® does proceed, a detailed analysis of the raise reductsen requsremeris awst be made iadh needed noise insulation features included in the design. Orndoor area nest be shielded. ®Clearly Unacceptable: Newoonsvuction or development should generally nor be undenalom. Corsuuaion cow o make the indoor emuomnem aocepiabre world be prolrbidve and the outdoor environment would not be usable. BayThu,er bite NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS Planning standards generally apply to land use decisions made in response to noise sources pre- empted from local control such as motor vehicles, aircraft, etc. Noises from "stationary" sources are amenable to regulation through the Municipal Code. Chapter 7.15 of the City's code governs noise from one property crossing the property line of an adjacent property. The City's noise ordinance limits are stated in terms of a 30- minute limit with allowable deviations from this 50`h percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. For example, the L50 is the level exceeded 50% of the measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never -to- exceed 20 dB increase above the 50`h percentile standard. The applicable Seal Beach requirement is a function of the time of day with a L50 daytime standard of 55 dB and L50 nighttime of 50 dB as follows: 55 dB (30 minutes) 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 dB (30 minutes) 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Noise shall not exceed the following deviations from the above standards: (a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; (b) Plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (I5) minutes in any hour; (c) Plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; (d) Plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 dB for any period of time. In areas where residential uses abut commercial or recreational activities, noise impacts may be perceived as intrusive, especially during noise sensitive quiet hours. Complaints about noise from performance venues may occur. There are no intervening sound barriers that would provide protection for residences west of 10`h Street that back up to the project site. However, except for a set of steel doors which are to remain closed during performances, the Bay Theater would have no openings through which noise could be transmitted. With no opportunity for sound penetration, it is likely that the impacts would be minimal. Because of the small lot sizes in much of Seal Beach, mechanical equipment on one parcel may be located very close to the property line of an adjacent residential parcel. Motor hum and on /off cycling noise can be judged as intrusive. In recognition of this occasional conflict, a separate section of the Municipal Code directly address "Heating, Venting and Air Conditioning Equipment" (7.15.035). Modern equipment is typically quieter and less prone to causing problems. Compliance with the standards in this section of the code is nevertheless an important consideration in preventing possible noise nuisance and ensures that HVAC noise will not create any noise exposure issues. oa.�ea Nose 5 BASELINE NOISE LEVELS A short -term noise reading was conducted by Giroux & Associates on Friday, April 7, 2017 with short term noise readings at the project site. The location of the noise meter is shown in Figure I . The meter was in the rear alley and captures existing noise at the residences directly east of the site. The measurement results are shown below. Short -Term Noise Measurements dB A Time Leq Lmax Lmin Lio L. L,� L� 18:00 -18:15 55 73 47 56 53 52 48 The observed noise level was 55 Leq. Monitoring experience has shown that 24 -hour weighted CNELs are typically 2 -3 dB higher than mid - afternoon Leq readings shown above which would translate to 57 -58 dB CNEL. This is well within the recommended Seal Beach residential compatibility threshold. 8, Th. W'_ NOISE IMPACTS NOISE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Noise impacts are considered significant if they result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of noise standards established in the noise ordinances. The exterior noise standard for the City of Seal Beach residential uses is 55 dB L;o. If required, attenuation through perimeter barriers and building soundproofing is anticipated to be used to reduce nuisance noise to the goal. However, an inability to achieve this goal through the application of reasonably available mitigation measures would be considered a significant impact. For this project, as shown later in this report, mitigation is not required to reduce impacts to below significance. Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. The term "substantial" is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial" is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a +3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts due to project - related traffic would be considered significant: I. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent uses surrounding the site. 2. If project traffic noise were to cause an increase by a perceptible amount ( +3 dB CNEL) or expose receivers to levels exceeding city compatibility noise standards. If future build -out noise levels were to expose Seal Beach sensitive receivers to levels exceeding compatibility standards of 65 dB CNEL exterior at any outdoor uses or 45 dB CNEL interior noise levels in any habitable space. eat Th=er `iois CONSTRUCTION NOISE SIGNIFICANCE The Seal Beach Noise Ordinance regulates construction noise by a prohibition against making "unnecessary" noise from construction during noise - sensitive weekday hours and all day on Sundays. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS The project involves interior renovations. There will be no heavy equipment on site (e.g. dozers, graders, cranes) which would create a noise nuisance. Interior noise will be muffled by the structure itself. Only hand tools are intended for use. PROJECT - RELATED VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS Long -term noise concerns from the development of residential uses at the project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on project area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FFIWA -RD -77 -108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, roadway speeds, or noise barriers. The typical day -night travel percentages and auto -truck vehicle mixes is then applied to convert one -hour Leq levels to a weighted 24 -hour CNEL. Table I summarizes the calculated 24 -hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along ten project adjacent roadway segments. Three time frames were evaluated; existing conditions "with and without project ", opening year (2017) "with and without project', and future year "with and without project'. The noise analysis utilized data from the project traffic analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates for this project. Travel speeds were also obtained from data reported in the traffic study. As shown in "Fable 2, the project itself will not cause any roadway segment to have more than a 0.5 dB impact. This impact is anticipated to occur on Bolsa Avenue, between PCH and Silver Shoals Avenue. Because traffic volumes are already high and because the project does not result in many trips relative to existing traffic volumes, there is no discernible impact along any analyzed roadway segment. Cumulative impacts compare the "future with project' noise levels with the "existing no project' scenario. The largest cumulative impact is +1.4 dB CNEL, again on Bolsa Avenue north of PCH. There are no cumulative traffic noise increases that exceed the +3 dB CNEL threshold. Therefore, both project only traffic noise impacts and cumulative traffic noise impacts are considered to be less- than - significant. H. rh.n , 4,isc Table 1 Near -Term Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (CNEL in dBA at 50 feet from Centerline) Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project 2017 2017+ Project Future Future + Project Main St/ S of PCH 60.2 60.3 60.3 60.4 61.2 61.3 N of Electric 60.2 60.3 60.3 60.4 61.2 61.3 S of Electric 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 58.7 58.7 PCH/ Marina- Main/Bolsa 71.0 71.1 7 1. 1 71.1 72.0 72.1 Main /Bolsa -10th St 71.0 71.1 71.1 71.1 72.0 72.0 Electric Ave/ W of Main 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 58.1 58.1 E of Main 57.1 57.2 57.1 57.2 58.1 58.2 Bolsa/ PCH - Silver Shoals 59.5 60.0 59.5 60.1 60.4 60.9 N of Silver Shoals 59.3 59.4 59.4 59.5 60.3 60.4 Silver Shoals/ N of Bolsa 51.8 51.8 51.8 5L8 52.7 52.7 Table 2 Project Impact (CNEL in dBA at 50 feet from Centerline) Roadway Segment Existing 1017 Future Cumulative Main St/ S of PCH 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 N of Electric 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 S of Electric 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 PCH/ Marina- Main/Bolsa 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Main/Bolsa -10th St 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Electric Ave/ W of Main 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 E of Main 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 Bolsa/ PCH - Silver Shoals 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 N of Silver Shoals 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 Silver Shoals/ N of Bolsa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 ON -SITE NOISE GENERATION The entertainment at the Bay Theater will include in- house, themed movies, and live entertainment. The movie element will provide for holiday themed movies and community event movies. Representative candidate movies subjects could include Christmas, Fourth of July, Veterans and Memorial Day, Thanksgiving and Valentine's Day. Community events could include the Vintage Car Show, the Annual Christmas Parade and the "Run Seal Beach" annual events. Live performance entertainment may serve local school groups, community theater, and selective professional entertainers. The Bay Theater would be available to host a variety of live entertainment acts on a selective basis, predicated on compatibility with the Seal Beach community. The hours of operation will range between the hours of 10:00am until 12:OOam dependent upon the event. Parking for Theater events will be provided primarily on an off -site basis. W, Th. , Noy :e 9 As previously noted, the noise ordinance L50 standard for music or voice is 55 dB before 10 p.m. and 50 dB from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The ability to achieve 55 dB L50 or less at the eastern property line was evaluated by using data obtained by Giroux & Associates for a Wahoos Restaurant in Huntington Beach in February of 2013. The restaurant was seeking approval to host a live entertainment venue. Giroux & Associates improvised a concert simulation at the eatery using a speaker array on the stage area pointed toward the audience. Noise levels were set at levels that could be reasonably expected from a loud band playing live music. The levels at 20 feet from the stage were 86 dB L50 on average. A level of 85 dB is the threshold where a hearing protection program (earmuffs and periodic testing) is required in occupational settings. The on -set of hearing damage is 90 dB for sustained exposure. The test simulation was therefore representative of a live entertainment scenario. One of the employees setting out tables and chairs grimaced at the test noise level. Measurements directly outside the closed rear steel door were 48 dB L50 with the music level very faintly audible, farther away in the parking lot the test music noise became completely inaudible. The music noise within a few feet of the building was less than 45 dB L5o. The Bay Theater has a rear door that faces the adjacent residences. Comparable noise measurements at a similar live -music venue of 48 dB close to the rear door suggests that interior performance activity noise will be substantially less than ambient levels in the rear alley behind the theater. Beneficial re -use of the Bay Theater property for performance events will have no significant noise impacts to the nearest adjacent residences. HVAC EQUIPMENT Section 7.15.035 of the Municipal Code contains the following HVAC noise restrictions: A. No building permit shall be issued for the installation of heating, venting and air conditioning (`'HVAC ") equipment in or adjacent to residential areas if the noise produced by the HVAC equipment exceeds an A- weighted exterior sound pressure level of 50 db(A). The method of computation used shall be that specified in the "Application of Sound Rating Levels of Outdoor Unitary Equipment," Standard 275, Air - Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 1997 ed. or the latest revision thereof. B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a building permit may be issued for the installation if: 1. HVAC equipment containing a timing device deactivating the HVAC equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. provided the noise produced by the HVAC equipment does not exceed an A- weighted exterior sound pressure level of 55 db(A). 2. HVAC equipment generating noise that does not exceed an A- weighted exterior sound pressure level of 65 db(A), provided that the applicant obtains the prior written consent of the owner of each property where the exterior sound pressure level would exceed 55 db(A). (Ord. 1551; Ord. 1515). nxv rncarer so. :e 10 Any upgrades to the HVAC equipment for the Bay Theater must meet these noise thresholds at the nearest property line. CONCLUSION With the rear door tightly closed and not opened during any live entertainment event except for emergency purposes, city noise standards will be readily met. It is highly improbable that the closest residents would be aware that any such entertainment was in progress. No additional mitigation except the presence of security to ensure that the subject door remains closed at all times is necessary. 6av Thea¢r Snisc Initial Study and Bay Theater Restoration Project Negative Declaration City of Seal Beach Appendix D — Focused Traffic Analysis Traffic Engineering I Transportation Planning I Parking I Noise /Vibration I Expert Witness Air Quality I Global Climate Change I Health Risk Assessment IK THE BAY THEATER FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (REVISED) February 15, 2017 Prepared by: Chris Pylant ■ Carl Ballard, LEED GA ■ William Kunzman, P.E. ,SoF ESS/op <R A. Kw. I * NFdC ** \\kCF CAL�"j/ KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 • Orange, California 92868 5005 La Mart Drive, Suite 201 ■ Riverside, California 92507 (714) 973 -8383 a www.traffic - engineer.com JN 6557a TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FINDINGS ............................................................................................. ..............................2 A. Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact ................................. ..............................2 B. Existing Traffic Conditions .................................................................. ..............................2 C. Traffic Impacts ................................................................................... ..............................2 D. Recommendations ............................................................................. ..............................4 II. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................... ..............................5 A. County Congestion Management Program ....................................... ..............................5 B. Prescribed Methodology for a Traffic Impact Analysis ...................... ..............................5 C. Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... ..............................6 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... ..............................7 A. Location .............................................................................................. ..............................7 B. Proposed Project ................................................................................ ..............................7 IV. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... ..............................9 A. Surrounding Street System ................................................................ ..............................9 B. Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls ................................ ..............................9 C. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................. ..............................9 D. Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. .............................10 E. Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service .................. .............................10 F. Existing General Plan Circulation Element ........................................ .............................11 G. Designated Truck Routes .................................................................. .............................11 H. Transit Service ................................................................................... .............................11 I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................... .............................11 V. PROJECT TRAFFIC ................................................................................ .............................23 A. Trip Generation ................................................................................. .............................23 B. Trip Distribution ................................................................................ .............................23 C. Trip Assignment ................................................................................ .............................23 D. Modal Split ........................................................................................ .............................23 VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................ .............................31 A. Method of Projection ........................................................................ .............................31 1. Ambient Growth ...................................................................... .............................31 2. Other Development ................................................................ .............................31 B. Average Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................... .............................31 1. Existing Plus Project ................................................................ .............................31 2. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative ...................................... .............................31 3. Opening Year (2017) Without Project ..................................... .............................32 4. Opening Year (2017) With Project .......................................... .............................32 5. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative ............... .............................32 6. Buildout Without Project ........................................................ .............................32 7. Buildout With Project .............................................................. .............................32 8. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative ................................... .............................32 C. Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... .............................32 APPENDICES Appendix A — Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B — Traffic Count Worksheets Appendix C — Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization /Delay Appendix D — Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Plots Appendix E — City of Seal Beach Main Street Specific Plan 1. Existing Plus Project ................................................................ .............................33 2. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative ...................................... .............................33 3. Opening Year (2017) Without Project ..................................... .............................33 4. Opening Year (2017) With Project .......................................... .............................33 5. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative ............... .............................34 6. Buildout Without Project ........................................................ .............................34 7. Buildout With Project .............................................................. .............................34 8. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative ................................... .............................34 E. Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................... .............................34 1. Existing Plus Project ................................................................ .............................35 2. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative ...................................... .............................35 3. Opening Year (2017) Without Project ..................................... .............................35 4. Opening Year (2017) With Project .......................................... .............................35 5. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative ............... .............................35 6. Buildout Without Project ........................................................ .............................36 7. Buildout With Project .............................................................. .............................36 8. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative ................................... .............................36 VII. OTHER TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... .............................73 A. Parking .............................................................................................. .............................73 B. Drop- off ............................................................................................. .............................74 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... .............................76 A. Site Access and Parking ..................................................................... .............................76 B. Roadway Improvements ................................................................... .............................76 APPENDICES Appendix A — Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B — Traffic Count Worksheets Appendix C — Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization /Delay Appendix D — Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Plots Appendix E — City of Seal Beach Main Street Specific Plan LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service ............................................ .............................12 Table 2. Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service ............... .............................13 Table3. Project Trip Generation .................................................................. .............................24 Table 4. Other Development Trip Generation ............................................. .............................37 Table 5. Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................ .............................38 Table 6. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ..........................39 Table 7. Opening Year (2017) Without Project Intersection Levels of Service .........................40 Table 8. Opening Year (2017) With Project Intersection Levels of Service .. .............................41 Table 9. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service............................................................................................ .............................42 Table 10. Buildout Without Project Intersection Levels of Service ................ .............................43 Table 11. Buildout With Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................... .............................44 Table 12. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service .......................45 Table 13. Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service ......................... 46 Table 14. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service............................................................................................ .............................47 Table 15. Opening Year (2017) Without Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service............................................................................................ .............................48 Table 16. Opening Year (2017) With Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service............................................................................................ .............................49 Table 17. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Peak HourLevels of Service .................................................................... .............................50 Table 18. Buildout Without Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service ................51 Table 19. Buildout With Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service ......................52 Table 20. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service............................................................................................ .............................53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Map ...................................................................... ..............................8 Figure 2. Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls .............. .............................14 Figure 3. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................... .............................15 Figure 4. Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................16 Figure 5. City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element ..................... .............................17 Figure 6. City of Seal Beach General Plan Truck Routes ................................ .............................18 Figure 7. Existing Transit Routes - OCTA ....................................................... .............................19 Figure 8. Existing Transit Routes — Long Beach Transit ................................. .............................20 Figure 9. City of Seal Beach General Plan Bicycle Routes ............................. .............................21 Figure 10. Existing Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................... .............................22 Figure 11. Project Outbound Trip Distribution — Drop- off .............................. .............................25 Figure 12. Project Inbound Trip Distribution— Drop- off ................................. .............................26 Figure 13. Project Outbound Trip Distribution —Valet ................................... .............................27 Figure 14. Project Inbound Trip Distribution — Valet ...................................... .............................28 Figure 15. Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes ........................................... .............................29 Figure 16. Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ....................... 30 Figure 17. Other Development Location Map ................................................. .............................54 Figure 18. Other Development Trip Distribution ............................................ .............................55 Figure 19. Other Development Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........................................................................................ ............................... 56 Figure 20. Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................... .............................57 Figure 21. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Average Daily Traffic Volumes .........................58 Figure 22. Opening Year (2017) Without Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes ........................ 59 Figure 23. Opening Year (2017) With Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes .............................60 Figure 24. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative Average Daily Traffic Volumes........................................................................................ ............................... 61 Figure 25. Buildout Without Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes .............. .............................62 Figure 26. Buildout With Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes .................... .............................63 Figure 27. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Average Daily Traffic Volumes ......................64 Figure 28. Existing Plus Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........................................................................................ ............................... 65 Figure 29. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ....................................................................... .............................66 Figure 30. Opening Year (2017) Without Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ....................................................................... .............................67 Figure 31. Opening Year (2017) With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ....................................................................... .............................68 Figure 32. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................................... .............................69 Figure 33. Buildout Without Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........................................................................................ ............................... 70 Figure 34. Buildout With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........................................................................................ ............................... 71 Figure 35. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ....................................................................... .............................72 Figure36. Public Parking ................................................................................. .............................75 THE BAY THEATER FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This report contains the focused traffic analysis for The Bay Theater project. The project site is located on the east side of Main Street (340 Main Street), approximately 160 feet south of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Seal Beach. The project site is constructed with a 425 seat theater that is currently vacant. The project proposes to reconfigure the theater, resulting in a maximum of 475 seats. The traffic impact analysis contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, trips generated by the project, distribution of the project trips to roads outside the project as well as calculation of existing plus project' traffic conditions, Opening Year traffic conditions without and with the project, and Buildout traffic conditions without and with the project. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings', and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided within Appendix A. ' The existing plus project conditions has been analyzed to comply with the Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale CECLA court case. This scenario assumes the full development of the proposed project and full absorption of the proposed project trips on the circulation system at the present time. I. FINDINGS This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures. A. Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact City of Seal Beach The following definitions of deficiencies and significant impacts have been developed in accordance with the Orange County Congestion Management Program requirements and the City of Seal Beach General Plan, adopted December 2003. The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from Cityof Seal Beach General Plan. The City of Seal Beach requires the maintenance of Level of Service D or better for roadway segments and intersections. Additionally a project impact is considered significant if the project related increase in the volume to capacity ratio equals or exceeds: 0.06 for Level of Service A & B, 0.04 for Level of Service C, 0.02 for Level of Service D, or 0.01 for Level of Service E or F. B. Existing Traffic Conditions 1. The project site is not currently in operation and is not generating significant trips. 2. Based on discussions with the City of Seal Beach staff, the study area includes the following intersections: Bolsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Drive (NS) at: Chase Driveway / Bolsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Main Street / Bolsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Main Street (NS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 3. The study area intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Existing traffic conditions (see Table 1). C. Traffic Impacts 1. The project site is constructed with a 425 seat theaterthat is not currently in operation. The project proposes to reconfigure the theater, resulting in a maximum of 475 seats. An existing parking lot at the northeast corner of the Main Street /Balsa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is proposed to be used as off -site parking. Drop -off access will be provided along Main Street. 2. The peak operational periods for the proposed project are expected to be approximately 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM on weekends. The peak periods are expected to occur outside of the peak hours for adjacent street traffic. 3. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 855 daily vehicle trips, 2 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 33 vehicle trips of which will occur during the evening peak hour. 4. The City of Seal Beach staff provided information about other developments in the study area. 5. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. 6. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 7. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions. 8. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions. 9. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 10. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Buildout Without Project traffic conditions. 11. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. 12. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 13. The study area roadway segments currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing traffic conditions. 14. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. The addition of project related trips does not result in a significant impact on any study area roadway segments. 1S. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 3 16. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions. 17. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions. The addition of project related trips does not result in a significant impact on any study area roadway segments. 18. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 19. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout Without Project traffic conditions. 20. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. Thesegment of Main Street between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is projected to operate at Level of Service E. However, the City of Seal Beach has adopted the Main Street Specific Plan which recognizes Main Street as a "combination parking and traffic street' which would never achieve the Level of Service D standard due to its nature as the commercial center of the city. 21. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. D. Recommendations 1. As a parking agreement has been secured with the bank property at 801 Pacific Coast Highway, the project will meet the City's parking requirements. 2. The project is expected to have sufficient parking. The availability of pedestrian and transit options will further reduce parking demand. I To accommodate two drop -off vehicles arriving simultaneously, it is recommended that space for two vehicles be provided. This can be accomplished by providing two angled parking spaces or 50 linear feet of painted curb space for loading. 4. As is the case for any roadway design, the City of Seal Beach should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. II. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This section discusses the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of Seal Beach Significant Impact Criteria. The purpose, prescribed methodology, and definition of a significant traffic impact are discussed. A. County Congestion Management Program The Congestion Management Program is a result of Proposition 111 which was a statewide initiative approved by the voters in June, 1990. The proposition allowed for a nine cent per gallon State gasoline tax increase over a five year period. Proposition 111 explicitly stated that the new gas tax revenues were to be used to fix existing traffic problems and was not to be used to promote future development. Fora City to get its share of the Proposition 111 gas tax, it has to follow certain procedures specified by the State Legislature. The legislation requires that a traffic impact analysis be prepared for new development. The traffic impact analysis is prepared to monitor and fix traffic problems caused by new development. The Legislature requires that adjacent jurisdictions use a standard methodology for conducting a traffic impact analysis. To assure that adjacent jurisdictions use a standard methodology in preparing traffic impact analyses, one common procedure is that all Cities within a County, and the County agency itself, adopt and use one standard methodology for conducting traffic impact analyses. Although each County has developed standards for preparing traffic impact analyses, traffic impact analysis requirements do vary in detail from one County to another, but not in overall intent or concept. The general approach selected by each County for conducting traffic impact analyses has common elements. The general approach for conducting a traffic impact analysis is that existing weekday peak hour traffic is counted and the percent of roadway capacity currently used is determined. Then the project traffic is added and the percent of roadway capacity used is again determined. If the new project adds traffic to an overcrowded facility, then the new project has to mitigate the traffic impact so that the facility operates at a level which is no worse than before the project traffic was added. If the project size is below a certain minimum threshold level, then a project does not have to have a traffic impact analysis prepared, once it is shown or agreed that the project is below the minimum threshold. In Orange County a project needs a traffic impact analysis if it generates more than 200 daily trips. If a project is bigger than the minimum threshold size, then a traffic impact analysis is required. B. Prescribed Methodology for a Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic impact analysis must include all monitored intersections to which the project adds traffic above a certain minimum amount. In the City of Seal Beach, the Level of Service standard for intersection and roadway segment operation is Level of Service D. In the City of Seal Beach, a project impact is considered significant if the project related increase in the volume to capacity ratio equals or exceeds: 0.06 for Level of Service A & B, 0.04 for Level of Service C, 0.02 for Level of Service D, or 0.01 for Level of Service E or F. An intersection mitigation measure shall either fix the deficiency, or reduce the Intersection Capacity Utilization so that it is below the level which occurs without the project. In the City of Seal Beach, the technique used to calculate Intersection Capacity Utilization for a signalized intersection is as follows. Lane capacity is 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour of green time for through lanes and 1,600 vehicles per hour for turn lanes and shared lanes. A total yellow clearance time of 10 percent is added. This traffic analysis has been prepared in accordance with the traffic impact analysis requirements except as noted. The traffic impact analysis not only examined the Congestion Management Program system of roads and intersections, but also other roads and intersections. The project generated traffic was added to intersections, and a full intersection analysis was conducted, even when the project added traffic failed to meet the minimum thresholds that require an intersection analysis. C. Mitigation Measures If a project is large enough to require that a traffic impact analysis be prepared, and if the project adds traffic to an intersection above a minimum threshold, and if the intersection is operating at above an acceptable level of operation, then the project must mitigate its traffic impact. Traffic mitigation can be in many forms including adding lanes. Lanes can sometimes be obtained through restriping or elimination of parking, and sometimes require spot roadway widening. Ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section discusses the project's location and proposed development. Figure 1 shows the project location map. A. Location The project site is located on the east side of Main Street (340 Main Street), approximately 160 feet south of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Seal Beach. B. Proposed Proiect The project site is constructed with a 425 seat theater that is not currently in operation. The project proposes to reconfigure the theater, resulting in a maximum of 475 seats. An existing parking lot at the northeast corner of the Main Street /Bolsa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is proposed to be used as off -site parking. Drop -off access will be provided along Main Street. The peak operational period for the proposed project is expected to be approximately 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM on weekends. The peak periods are expected to occur outside of the peak hours for adjacent street traffic. 7 t �y a P161,= r a r ' i rt r r c �o bou \ U v z v w v 0 � v b c J Q ' sy\ i or N `r • 6' x IV. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated on Figures 2 to 10. A. Surrounding Street System Roadways that will be utilized by the development include Main Street, Bolsa Avenue, Silver Shoals Drive, Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1), and Electric Avenue. Main Street: This roadway is currently two lanes undivided in the study area. This roadway is classified as a Secondary (typically 80 foot right -of -way) on the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It currently carries approximately 3,500 to 6,200 vehicles per day in the study area. Bolsa Avenue: This roadway is currently two lanes undivided in the study area. This roadway is classified as a Secondary (typically 80 foot right -of -way) on the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It currently carries approximately 5,000 to 5,200 vehicles per day in the study area. Silver Shoals Drive: This roadway is currently two lanes undivided in the study area. This roadway is not classified on the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It currently carries approximately 900 vehicles per day in the study area. Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1): This roadway is currently four lanes divided in the study area. This roadway is classified as a Primary (typically 100 foot right -of -way) on the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It currently carries approximately 45,000 vehicles per day in the study area. Electric Avenue: This roadway is currently two lanes undivided in the study area. This roadway is classified as a Principal on the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. It currently carries approximately 3,000 vehicles per day in the study area. B. Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls Figure 2 identifies the Existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. C. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 3 depicts the Existing average daily traffic volumes. The Existing average daily traffic volumes were obtained from the 2016 Traffic Flow Map by the Orange County Transportation Authority, from daily counts collected in December 2016, and factored from peak hourcounts (see Appendix B) obtained by Kunzman Associates, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg: PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 11.9 = Leg Volume. This ratio was developed by comparing PM peak hour volume counts to daily traffic counts obtained by Kunzman Associates, Inc. in December 2016. D. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization, as described in Appendix C. To calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization value, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An Intersection Capacity Utilization value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The technique used to assess the capacity needs of an unsignalized intersection is known as the Intersection Delay Method (see Appendix C). To calculate delay, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The Existing Levels of Service for intersections in the vicinity of the project are shown in Table 1. Existing delay is based upon manual peak hour intersection turning movement counts obtained by Kunzman Associates, Inc. in December 2016 (see Figure 4). Traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix B. There are two peak hours in a weekday. The morning peak hour is between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and the evening peak hour is between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The actual peak hour within the two hour interval is the four consecutive 15 minute periods with the highest total volume when all movements are added together. Thus, the evening peak hour at one intersection may be 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM if those four consecutive 15 minute periods have the highest combined volume. The study area intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Existing traffic conditions. Existing Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix C. E. Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service In accordance with the City of Seal Beach Traffic Impact5tudy Guidelines, a peak hour analysis of the study roadway segments was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual Urban Streets methodology. A roadway segment impact is considered significant when the addition of project related trips causes the following decreases in roadway link speed: Existing Level of Service Decrease in Link Speed A 3.5% B 3.0% C 2.5% D 2.0% E 1.5% F 1.0% 10 As shown in Table 2, the study area roadway segments currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hour for Existing traffic conditions. F. Existing General Plan Circulation Element Figure 5 shows the current City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Both existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 5. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the land use element of the General Plan. G. Designated Truck Routes The City of Seal Beach designated truck route map is illustrated on Figure 6. H. Transit Service Figures 7 and 8 depict the lines of the two transit agencies which serve the project study area: Orange County Transportation Authority and Long Beach Transit, respectively. Transit service is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority Transit Route 1 along Pacific Coast Highway and Route 42 along Main Street, Electric Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. Transit service is provided by Long Beach Transit Routes 131 and 171 along Main Street, Electric Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The City of Seal Beach also operates the Shopping Shuttle that serves Leisure World residents on Thursdays from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM as well as a Dial - A -Ride program. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The City of Seal Beach designated bike paths are illustrated on Figure 9 and the existing pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project are shown in Figure 10. 11 Table 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service' ' Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized Intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non signalized intersections. ' when a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L =Left; T =Through; R -Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio I V /Q, delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00 - 00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS =Traffic SlgnaL C55 =Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 12 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or L I T I R L I T R L T R L T R Intersection Jurisdiction Contro 14 Delay -LOS' Bolsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue INS) at: Chase Driveway /Bolsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11.4 -8 Main Street /Bolsa Avenue (NS) at Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.666 -B Main Street INS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach I AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 9.3 -A ' Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized Intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non signalized intersections. ' when a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L =Left; T =Through; R -Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio I V /Q, delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00 - 00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS =Traffic SlgnaL C55 =Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 12 Table 2 Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic volume Peak Hour Average Speed (MPH) Level of Service From To Pacific Coast Highway Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 45,000 33.8 B Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 45,000 33.2 B Bolsa Avenue ISilver Shoals Drive Pacific Coast Hi hway Seal Beach 2 5,200 22.1 C Main Street I Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue I Seal Beach 2 6,200 15.1 C ' Level of Service (L05) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 13 f V m � v - 3 =W a o� < J� i m 'Won w c 0 9 9 C O m � •� 4J �3 °m mm °CF alt r 11 It 11 0 �.f°r .� J 1tiP i 51' o v = Y � N t r�OB r4 (z t' bn ra 0 N Q � l tw N Y .l � 0 x �LLJ ! \ � m sec p, I. O N o i' r a 7 t w U1 > f 3 .r d a' N � VOi C � 1 tR, •-� , s C � O o 'Dti f0 Ps/ q L Oa ru OD C: o ^! m n b • N LU ' o m m C r y e`�c I' Z Y a F d E z z d v v w c 0 C m QJ t (u � C n o d O C O [. C L (U > ; ° 7 p, i y C vOR v o �t v I cm D i 6 = t, � A L �I w •Y � W x ? r• W O q V, �J Z w r L �J 0 m m Z Q N Z J E' FF . 8 rv°nry �-901 a < sir 9ZT -^ r 69 6TH \ 1 r k Zb— `g BST l ."im.. OTC • I V, �J Z w r L �J 0 m m Z Q N Z J E' Figure 5 City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element 1 -405 Freeway 1 -605 Freeway �1 /yt jJ y 11 I Harvard Lane College Park Drive SR -22 Freeway Coastline Marina \ a U.S. Naval Weapons Stotion o: it R �I I G� Monterey Road - Thunderbird Drive Church Place I' Westminster Avenue 416111111111111 unnnnnunuuunnnnnnnrnnnnnrrt 0 Avalon Drive I Avenue 5th Street Main Street / 4E'r?pe 12th Street 11 Central Avenue Pacific Ocean O�iye I l� v ore [ore s /oi U.S. Naval Weapons Station i III NI Balboa Drive UI pion /i H I I �s I .f Edinger Avenue_ _ 9 Legend — •• —•• —= Seal Beach City Limit •' ® = Major (120' Right of Way) nnnnn= Primary (100' Right of Way) = Secondary (80' Right of Way) = Principal KLl \ZMA\ AssoclATES, INC. Source: City of Seal Beach OVER 40 YEARS Or Esce SERVICE 1N 6557a 17 Brodbur Road in v RasSmoor ... CentBr Way Candleberry Avenue St. Cloud Drive Basswood Street 1, I SR -22 •: Freeway 1 Freeway ! a -405 1 -405 Freeway \ a U.S. Naval Weapons Stotion o: it R �I I G� Monterey Road - Thunderbird Drive Church Place I' Westminster Avenue 416111111111111 unnnnnunuuunnnnnnnrnnnnnrrt 0 Avalon Drive I Avenue 5th Street Main Street / 4E'r?pe 12th Street 11 Central Avenue Pacific Ocean O�iye I l� v ore [ore s /oi U.S. Naval Weapons Station i III NI Balboa Drive UI pion /i H I I �s I .f Edinger Avenue_ _ 9 Legend — •• —•• —= Seal Beach City Limit •' ® = Major (120' Right of Way) nnnnn= Primary (100' Right of Way) = Secondary (80' Right of Way) = Principal KLl \ZMA\ AssoclATES, INC. Source: City of Seal Beach OVER 40 YEARS Or Esce SERVICE 1N 6557a 17 Figure 6 City of Seal Beach General Plan Truck Routes 1— 05i Freeeay h605 Fromy Harvard lane fdege Pak / SR -22 Freeray Onve Monterey 7O1ne rivave Marino �v�� Avalon Dri �alalha Avenue Balm m° i venue 5th Street 4 fit Main Street bye 12th Street fenUal Avenue Padfic Ocean KLINZMrAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Balboa Drive E ro u Rood z E E MaYnDOW a � H ila f Canal Avwe z a: L.._.._. _.._.1 ll. Drive Baes.00a Street 1 -105 Freeray reeir Free.air U.S. Naval Weapons Station JIB o Thunderbird Drive 3 UAr� P arse Westminster Avenue 1 S High.ay U.S. Naval Weapons Station Source: City of Seal Beach _ _ Ed'n er Avenue Legend r_= Truck Route a m EU 40 YEARS OF EXCE.I EN r SERVICE 1N 6557a 18 19 Figure 7 Existing Transit Routes - OCTA 1 � � Cerritl>s AYB } IBS Wandlo9 a 1 Ka @18Ae BaaTtao� stanto \0y � R, `0 sed Pawn v ° Los Alamitos Charm "Ae VA �� • 7try sit -3 Larrrpsm Ave WSUM 11111111 r WlumirBtF� wie � I a UniNdStates an mv0a ss C se al mail m mod° Br Beach � ` T.C. Ednger Ave Galticn 'mot P P Co Cell e 8dk krra mall Legend WTransit Canters P Park-and-Rides ' Train Stations i Schools 8 Unlvownes 91 Express lanes 0 -99 Local Routes 15- rNnutr, er evil., arvlce . 100 -199 Community Routes 200- 2991ntracounty Express 400 -499 Statloniihv O Brava 543 with slops 700.799 Intercounty Express Q State Highways IV Interstate Freeways KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Source: Orange County Transportation Authority OVER 40 WARS OF Excn I FRT SFRVI F IN GCcA 19 Figure 8 Existing Transit Routes - Long Beach Transit 05, 46 END - - -- on H.S. F •.... Kll\ZMA\ As oc IATES, INC. Source: Long Beach Transit 131, "OCR 171(M -F) Legend 0v R 40 \ ?yes or ESLEI JN 6557a 20 Bus Routes - - - - - -- AquaBus ......•• Aqual-ink End of Routels) Direction of bus travel ■ Point of interest mWho Light Rail Station 0v R 40 \ ?yes or ESLEI JN 6557a 20 Figure 9 City of Seal Beach General Plan Bicycle Routes r 11 (S"9 0 Coastline Drive Marina Drive, /'�s� ti otolina Avenue aD m /i venue a el 5th Street OcPC'^�c Balboa Drive A �n Main Street 12th Street ae i Central Avenue i' Pacific Ocean Legend omm= Class I, Off —Road, Paved �= Class II, On —Road, Striped Lane KUNZMAN ASSoclATES, INC. Source: City of Seal Beach OVER 40 YEARS OF E%CELLEhT SERVICE IN 6SG7a 21 Figure 10 Existing Pedestrian Facilities J _fF AdC/ fC \yam � cods �O ot �Y NIL 4 �Yq �Y '7/ Legend - � — = Sidewalk --- Cross Walk • =Bus Stop ' KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. IN 5557a DOER 40 YEARS CF EXCELI E]! SERVICE 22 V. PROJECT TRAFFIC The project site is constructed with a 425 seat theater that is not currently in operation. The project proposes to reconfigure the theater, resulting in a maximum of 475 seats. An existing parking lot at the northeast corner of the Main Street /Bolsa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is proposed to be used as off -site parking. Drop -off access will be provided along Main Street. A. Trip Generation The trips generated by the project are determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of roadway capacity, the availability of vehicles to drive, and life styles remain similar to what are known today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound trafficfor the proposed land use. By multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantity, the project traffic volumes are determined. Table 3 exhibits the trip generation rates, project peak hour volumes, and project daily traffic volumes. Project traffic volumes for future projections were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 and the San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Generators April 2002. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 855 daily vehicle trips, 2 of which will occur during the morning peak hour, and 33 vehicle trips of which will occur during the evening peak hour (see Table 3). B. Trip Distribution To determine the trip distributions for the proposed project, peak hour traffic counts of the existing directional distribution of traffic for existing areas in the vicinity of the site, and other additional information on future development and traffic impacts in the area were reviewed. Figures 11 and 12 contain the directional distributions of the project drop -off trips for the proposed land use. Figures 13 and 14 contain the directional distributions of the project valet trips. C. Trip Assignment Based on the identified trip generation and distributions, project average daily traffic volumes have been calculated and shown on Figure 15. Evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes expected from the project are shown on Figure 16. D. Modal Split The traffic reducing potential of public transit has not been considered in this report. Essentially the traffic projections are conservative in that public transit and the private bus fleet would reduce the traffic volumes. 23 Table 3 Project Trip Generation' Land Use Quantity Units' Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Trip Generation Rates Seats 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.027 0.043 0.070 1.500 Movie Theater Trios Generated Movie Theater 475 1 Seats 1 1 2 13 20 33 855 I Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trio Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012, Land Use Code 444. Because ITE land use code 444 does not include AM peak hour or daily generation rates, the rates for Multiplex Theater with Matinee were obtained from the San Diego Association of Govern ments (SANDAG), Traffic Generators Apri12002. 24 � 4 O 1 Y� Q Q � L I r_ N L S � N i L p LL � iIL- C v O , a c` l V' f6.• �o 0 v a n F �I v C � a (u J ° l _ E � J z w C 'J J n �n Q Z Q L Y n N z N w a ' E ,7 6 ' I r 4' a 3 � . i C N 0 L. a m Y rn R ^�V CL L l Y u L v ` a` 4 T ` i.i All i4 • � �I111` ~ �( Z T� 15w* Jam' P N 0 c I; O a n � o y a a 0 C V � a t4 J 4' 0 I v e v a N t _N v J� Q 'L n _ � � 1 � � Q � tlp -Q n C 7 L Y U v d J. 0 c I; O a n � o y a a 0 C V � a t4 J 4' 0 I z a •/ SAI z a ! f� `� y 1 a - C � 9 ai o 0 p p h J z ION T i �- a n w 7aa U ao c v of '- ✓ - �� e L fO tz ro Ql � i o • L CL j o z z w Z o cJe W �P z n T h l e `w �0 a .R a a, 01 0� `a O v y Z� eto 7 J © 8ti cu o c. .� ; 0-' 1 I' vii _ 0y on� a > LU � O do � f � d h OJ Y q 1 )1 J¢ W c PJeC r � N L J N N b rc n VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS To assess future traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth, other development, and project traffic. The opening year for analysis purposes in this report is 2017. The buildout year is 2036. A. Method of Projection 1. Ambient Growth To account for ambient growth on roadways, Opening Year (2017) and Buildout traffic volumes have been calculated based on an annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes over a one and twenty year period, respectively. The 1.14 percent annual areawide growth rate has been developed from the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (see Appendix D). 2. Other Development The City of Seal Beach staff provided information about other developments in the study area. Other developments within the study area were included in the analysis if they are not currently built, are approved, their approval has not expired, and they would contribute trips to the study area intersections. Table 4 lists the proposed land use for the other development (see Figure 17), and shows the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the other development in the study area. The trip distribution for the other development is shown on Figure 18. Figure 19 shows the other development evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. B. Average Daily Traffic Volumes 1. Existing Plus Project For Existing Plus Project traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with project traffic. Figure 20 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. 2. Existing Plus Proiect Plus Cumulative For Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with project traffic and other development traffic. Figure 21 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 31 3. Opening Year (2017) Without Project For Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth traffic. Figure 22 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions. 4. Opening Year (2017) With Project For Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth traffic and project traffic. Figure 23 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions. S. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative For Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth traffic, project traffic, and other development traffic. Figure 24 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions. 6. Buildout Without Project For Buildout Without Project traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth traffic. Figure 25 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Buildout Without Project traffic conditions. 7. Buildout With Proiect For Buildout With Project traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth traffic and project traffic. Figure 26 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. 8. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative For Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions, existingtraffic is combined with ambient growth traffic, project traffic, and other development traffic. Figure 27 shows the average daily traffic volumes that can be expected for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. C. Intersection Levels of Service The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization, as described in Appendix C. To calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization value, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An Intersection Capacity Utilization value is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. 32 The technique used to assess the capacity needs of an unsignalized intersection is known as the Intersection Delay Method (see Appendix C). To calculate delay, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The project access intersections analyzed in this report are unsignalized intersections. The Intersection Delay Methodology for unsignalized intersections was calculated using the delay methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual throughout this traffic impact analysis. 1. Existing Plus Project The Levels of Service forthe Existing Plus Project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 5. Existing Plus Project traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 28. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative The Levels of Service for the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 6. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 29. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 3. Opening Year (2017) Without Project The Levels of Service for the Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 30. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions. 4. Opening Year (2017) With Project The Levels of Service for the Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 8. Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 31. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions. 33 5. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative The Levels of Service for the Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 9. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 32. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 6. Buildout Without Proiect The Levels of Service for the Buildout Without Project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 10. Buildout Without Project traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 33. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Buildout Without Project traffic conditions. 7. Buildout With Project The Levels of Service for the Buildout With Project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 11. Buildout With Project traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 34. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. 8. Buildout With Protect Plus Cumulative The Levels of Service for the Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 12. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 35. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the evening peak hour for Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. E. Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service In accordance with the City of Seal Beach Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, a peak hour analysis of the study roadway segments was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual Urban Streets methodology. 34 A roadway segment impact is considered significant when the addition of project related trips causes the following decreases in roadway link speed: Existing Level of Service Decrease in Link Speed A 3.5% B 3.0% C 2.5% D 2.0% E 1.5% F 1 1.0% 1. Existing Plus Project As shown in Table 13, the study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. The addition of project related traffic does not result in a significant impact on any study area roadway segments. 2. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Asshown in Table 14, the study area roadwaysegments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 3. Opening Year (2017) Without Project As shown in Table 15, the study area roadwaysegments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Opening Year (2017) Without Project traffic conditions. 4. Opening Year (2017) With Project As shown in Table 16, the study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Opening Year (2017) With Project traffic conditions. The addition of project related traffic does not result in a significant impact on any study area roadway segments. 5. Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative As shown in Table 17, the study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 35 6. Buildout Without Proiect As shown in Table 18, the study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout Without Project traffic conditions. Buildout With Proiect As shown in Table 19, the study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. The study area roadway segments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout With Project traffic conditions. The segment of Main Street between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is projected to operate at Level of Service E. However, the City of Seal Beach has adopted the Main Street Specific Plan which recognizes Main Street as a "combination parking and traffic street' which would never achieve the Level of Service D standard due to its nature as the commercial center of the city. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative As shown in Table 20, the study area roadwaysegments are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative traffic conditions. 36 Table 4 Other Development Trip Generation'' Land Use Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound I Total Existing Trips Generated 21 20 41 32 32 64 782 Service Station Proposed Trips Generated 5 4 8 3 20 5 2 1 2 10 10 6 9 5 30 3 8 1 15 27 3 8 7 15 33 6 16 8 30 60 114 262 62 146 584 Dessert Shop Retail General Office Martial Arts Studio Subtotal Net Trips Generated -1 -10 -11 -5 1 -4 -198 r Source: Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Main & PCH Mixed -Use Center Pro ad Lin Scott, Law, & Greenspan, September 2016. ' Though the other development shown results in a net loss of trips, some individual turning movement volumes increased. These increased volumes were included in the analysis. 37 Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service' r Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized Intersections. When a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes Joe facto right turn lane). L =Lefty T= Through; R = Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio (V/Cl, delay (shown In seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 400 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average Intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For Intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst Individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. I TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 38 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or L I T I R L I T R L I T I R L T I R Intersection Jurisdiction Contra 14 Delay -LOS' Balsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue INS) at Chase Driveway / Balsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11.7 -B Main Street / Balsa Avenue INS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.673 -B Main Street INS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach I AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 d 9.3 -A r Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized Intersections. When a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes Joe facto right turn lane). L =Lefty T= Through; R = Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio (V/Cl, delay (shown In seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 400 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average Intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For Intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst Individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. I TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 38 Table 6 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized Intersections. ' When a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstrlped, To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes de facto right turn lane). L= Left; T =Through, R =Right; d = De Facto Night Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average - Intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Ts =Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All Way Stop 39 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L I T I R I L T R L I T R L T R Delay -LOS' Balsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue INS) at: Chase Driveway / Balsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11.7 -B Main Street / Balsa Avenue INS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.5 0.677 -B Main Street INS) at: ±0.50.5 Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 d 9.4 -A Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized Intersections. ' When a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstrlped, To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes de facto right turn lane). L= Left; T =Through, R =Right; d = De Facto Night Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average - Intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Ts =Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All Way Stop 39 Table 7 Opening Year (2017) Without Project Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection Opacity utilization calculations are conducted for signaladd intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non- signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unlimber. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes oe facto right turn lane). L= Left; T =Through; R - Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane s volume mcapadtyratio harm, delay(shown in seconds), and Level of Service I LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: yetro, Version 6.00 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For Intersections with crass street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way stop 40 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or Intersection Jurisdiction Control° L FTT RT L T R L I T R L T I R Delay -LOS' Bolsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue INS) at: Chase Driveway / Bolsa Avenue (El - 91 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11.5 -B Main Street / Bolsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 Main Street INS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach I AWS 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 9.3 -A Intersection Opacity utilization calculations are conducted for signaladd intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non- signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unlimber. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes oe facto right turn lane). L= Left; T =Through; R - Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane s volume mcapadtyratio harm, delay(shown in seconds), and Level of Service I LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: yetro, Version 6.00 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For Intersections with crass street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way stop 40 Table 8 Opening Year (2017) With Project Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection Capacity 1-till2ation calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L =Left T= Through; R = Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane ' Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software. Vistro, Version 4.00 -00 (2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal', as = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 41 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or L I T I R L T R L I T R L T R Intersection Jurisdiction Control' Delay -LOS' Balsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue (NS) at: Chase Driveway /Balsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11.7 -B Main Street / Bolsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.679 -B Main Street (NS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach I AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 9.3 -A Intersection Capacity 1-till2ation calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L =Left T= Through; R = Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane ' Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software. Vistro, Version 4.00 -00 (2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal', as = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 41 Table 9 Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for ncr- signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or up striped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L= Left; T= Through; R -Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio IV /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the fallowing analysis software. vision, Version 4.00 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average Intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control_ For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lapel are shown. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; A W5 = All Way 51, 42 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V /Cor Intersection Jurisdiction Control 14 Delay -LOS' L I T I R L T R L T R L T I R Bolsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue INS) at: Chase Driveway / Bolsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11.7 -B Main Street / Bolsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.683 -B Main Street (NS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach I AWS 0 1 0 0.51 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 9.4 -A Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for ncr- signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or up striped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L= Left; T= Through; R -Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio IV /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the fallowing analysis software. vision, Version 4.00 -00(2015). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average Intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control_ For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lapel are shown. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; A W5 = All Way 51, 42 Table 10 Buildout Without Project Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection Capacity utilization calculations are conducted for signalized Intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non- signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unsuited. To function as a right turn lane, there most be s,hlc i width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (do facto right turn lane). L =Left; T -Through; R =Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane 3 Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: vision, version 4.00 -00 (2015). Per the Highway Capacity Ma rod 1, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or a l l way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS= Traffic Sigiri C55= Cross Street Stop; AWS =All Way Stop 43 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or L I T R L T R L I T R L T I R Intersection Jurisdiction Control° Delay -LOS' Bolsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue (NS) at: Chase Driveway / Bolsa Avenue (EW) - #1 Seal Beach CSS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12.2 -13 Main Street /Balsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) -N2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.797 -C Main Street (NS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) -43 Seal Beach AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 10.0 -B Intersection Capacity utilization calculations are conducted for signalized Intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non- signalized intersections. When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unsuited. To function as a right turn lane, there most be s,hlc i width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (do facto right turn lane). L =Left; T -Through; R =Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane 3 Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: vision, version 4.00 -00 (2015). Per the Highway Capacity Ma rod 1, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or a l l way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS= Traffic Sigiri C55= Cross Street Stop; AWS =All Way Stop 43 Table 11 Buildout With Project Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized Intersections. when a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L= Left; T= Through; R = Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio IV /CJ, delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service ( LOS) have been calculated using the fallowing analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00 -00 (2015). Per the Highway Capacity M a nua 1, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or a l l way stop control. For'mtersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 4 TS -Traffic Signal; CSS -Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 44 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound I Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or L I T I R I L I T R L T R L I T I R Intersection Jurisdiction Control° Delay -LOS' Balsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue (NS) at: Chase Driveway /Balsa Avenue (EW) - Fit Seal Beach C5S 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12.5 -B Main Street / Balsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway (EW) - #2 Seal Beach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.804 -1) Main Street (NS) at: Electric Avenue (EW) - #3 Seal Beach I AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 10.1 -e Intersection Capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Delay calculations are conducted for non - signalized Intersections. when a right turn lane Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (de facto right turn lane). L= Left; T= Through; R = Right; d = De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio IV /CJ, delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service ( LOS) have been calculated using the fallowing analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00 -00 (2015). Per the Highway Capacity M a nua 1, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or a l l way stop control. For'mtersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 4 TS -Traffic Signal; CSS -Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop 44 Table 12 Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service' Intersection capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for u'roiued intersectieos. Highway Capacity Delay Calmlations are conducted far non - signalized "intersections. ' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes do facto right turn lane). L- Left, T= Through, R- Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: vistro, Version 400 - 00120151. Per the Highway Capacity Maoual,werah average nterseadon delay and level of service are shown for)ntensections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS - All Way Stop 45 Intersection Approach Lanes' Evening Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic Hour V/C or L I T I R L I T R L I T R L T I R I Intersection Jurisdiction Contra 14 Delay -LOS' Bolsa Avenue /Silver Shoals Avenue INS) at: Chase Driveway / Bolsa Avenue HEW) - #1 Seal Beach C55 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12.5 -13 Main Street / BOlsa Avenue (NS) at: Pacific Coast Highway HEW) - #2 Sealeeach TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.808 -D Main Street (NS) at: Electric Avenue HEW) - #3 Seal Beach AWS 0 1 0 0.5 1 d 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 10.1 -B Intersection capacity Utilization calculations are conducted for u'roiued intersectieos. Highway Capacity Delay Calmlations are conducted far non - signalized "intersections. ' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes do facto right turn lane). L- Left, T= Through, R- Right; d= De Facto Right Turn Lane Volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay (shown in seconds), and Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the following analysis software: vistro, Version 400 - 00120151. Per the Highway Capacity Maoual,werah average nterseadon delay and level of service are shown for)ntensections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS - All Way Stop 45 Table 13 Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic Volume Peak our Significant Impact? Average Speed (MPH) Level of Service From To Highway Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 45,380 33.8 B No Pacific Coast Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 45,306 33.2 B No Bolsa Avenue Silver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Hi hwa Seal Beach 2 5,900 22.0 C No Main Street Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue Seal Beach 2 6,321 15.1 C No Leyel.f Service (Los) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented In the ACS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 46 Table 14 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic Volume Peak Hour Average Speed (MPH) Level of Service From To Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 45,380 33.8 B Pacific Coast Highway Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 45,306 33.1 B Bolsa Avenue Silver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Highway7 Seal Beach 2 5,900 21.3 C Main Street Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue Seal Beach 2 6,321 14.5 C Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 47 Table 15 Opening Year (2017) Without Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic Volume Peak Hour Average Speed (MPH) Level of Service From To Pacific Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 45,513 33.8 B Coast Highway Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 45,513 33.2 B Bolsa Avenue ISilver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Highway I Seal Beach 2 5,259 22.1 C Main Street IPacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue I Seal Beach 2 6,271 15.1 C r Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. M Table 16 Opening Year (2017) With Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic Volume Peak our Significant Impact? Average Speed (MPH) Level of Service From To Pacific Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 45,893 33.8 B No Coast Highway Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 45,819 33.2 8 No Balsa Avenue Silver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Hi hwa Seal Beach 2 5,959 22.0 C No Main Street Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue Seal Beach 2 6,392 15.0 C No Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 49 Table 17 Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service 1 Level Of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 50 Number Average Peak Hour Average Level of Daily Segment Through Traffic Speed of From To Roadway Jurisdiction Lanes Volume (MPH) Service Pacific Coast Highway Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 45,893 33.8 B Pacific Coast Highway Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 45,819 33.1 B Bolsa Avenue Silver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Highway Seal Beach 2 5,959 213 C Main Street I Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue I Seal Beach 2 6,392 1 14.4 C 1 Level Of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 50 Table 18 Buildout Without Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HC5 Urban Streets, version 5.5. 51 Number Average Peak Hour Average Level of Daily Segment Through Traffic Speed of From To Roadway Jurisdiction Lanes Volume (MPH) Service Pacific Coast Highway Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 56,451 34.3 B Pacific Coast Highway Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 56,451 33.3 B Bolsa Avenue Silver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Highway Seal Beath 2 6,523 19.9 C Main Street I Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue I Seal Beach 2 7,775 1 7.4 E Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HC5 Urban Streets, version 5.5. 51 Table 19 Buildout With Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic Volume Peak our Significant Impact? Average Speed (MPH) Level of Service From To Pacific Coast Highway Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 56,831 34.3 1 B No Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 56,757 33.3 B No Bolsa Avenue Silver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Hi hwa Seal Beach 2 7,223 19.9 C No Main Street Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue Seal Beach 2 7,899 7.1 E Yes Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Version 5.5. 52 Table 20 Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Peak Hour Level of Service Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Number of Through Lanes Average Daily Traffic Volume Peak Hour Average Speed (MPH) FService From To Marina Drive Main Street Seal Beach 4 56,831 34.0 B Pacific Coast Highway Main Street 12th Street Seal Beach 4 56,757 33.3 B Bolsa Avenue ISilver Shoals Avenue Pacific Coast Highway I Seal Beach 2 7,223 19.9 C Main Street Pacific Coast Highway Electric Avenue Seal Beach 2 7,899 7.1 E r Level of Service (LOS) have been calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology as implemented in the HCS Urban Streets, Versian 5.5. 53 1 I� c N L l N � � 2 m CL i7; L ,..- E r ra 0 O C LU`J 4 Y � W FPO Tom. r Z s z r "r!o r v , * R. 0 F n p �• t. .Jb -Q H c C > M o O 5a to 00 0 i ... o Z5 W E....3w LL Q CM L w� Y {� a Z p V1 m W A Q U P °ecJe O c� `a E E z' v d v 0 N v n GAL ? a 0 ( y ,ir .: V �-0 MOO 1 L 't 'ro sJ is sir W t— o00 3 o} s �<JjL rZT 0" a S1r ore 0� e 0} E a M C C w � c _7 O >q 0 � N QC: j yyII 9 ,. cO C N C on �1 E O QJ Q) CU C ,o �\ W ` QI Ln ` O� 7 O Y � QJ 1 F to C 'E Q) L W `a E E z' v d v 0 N v n GAL ? a 0 ( y ,ir .: V i i� q � Z AAN rJ _ Q„ N> z J �-0 MOO 1 L 't 'ro sJ is sir W t— o00 3 o} i i� q � Z AAN rJ _ Q„ N> z J �T RAJ j L �T 8} 3 tp �<JjL rZT 0" a S1r ore 0� e 0} i i� q � Z AAN rJ _ Q„ N> z J 0 � � a a O � � n r (O oa d7 Vi v en ' � Jdd�i T � Oar Qa uj � •r y1 b v Or 8 _ O m N 41 � ro e it Q \: �` •, . L L v CL t CL O Gp C VI i_ _ '��� �•i m X � W J a r a J �@ is ,¢c P _ Q Q .. •. z a s�. C r�1 I 7 v O ' > c U G � o LL N r W T jn N N 0 O b bD cu > a�bP s /o8 Q 1 N a l 61 ._ 7 m 00 5> i� E 7 U a ti u .ai a 3 a t i�. N L m �F I F Y'� i i • T N 0 a v V II a 30t I z to 7�/ :,,, - ua Vt Q v" N z J Y 0 0 a v> u v� 7 u r `r Ul �o z r r z. m 2`� 7 n v N J o C� N U :v L N 7 J ��pY dd L � i g �..� Y •i JJS `DPW � u • O° 4 L C � v � tw JL j . J Q v Z c Jy� r nPie n t `yam_ z r I l e - V 7 'i�. 3• �i C U m � d'` � 2 W ,, � ''J ✓ dAis 41 m > N Q v (3) o � add Q N to cu At o _ m M O a w v r. 8 N > x+ to u y � � � J a v a' Ts 7r `m C U V) °° v N -d, '� yZ• 1 7 o TT cli :3 m 00 _ v LL m O to Baas �i N f0 PEN L L N m > o � Q m i -IOU z ec !r P° n N L n ^ Z o 0 v a V_ t 41 N 4., �t N � f C ' `t a > N L � N ti Jdd wJg N siog N to (U 43J Q N Y N LL (U dd d 1'� zJ O °° � � M Y V o t., Q m Z Ir AL e L 0 o - w F. a • J n r�l,•• r � r ro C rt N U H o ro T . \\ ova' ^ Qmc � �- . 7Sy/ •C1.�,,�i� N pip O1� to v t L L _ O a - 7 � m I •d A ? i>¢ ¢ p � v Q r 9 •� m 0 f' O m i v � a oq (Ij � � a 0 o ; OM U G � j�• g � i'n e • �, 3a • __ t w PS /p N Q 8 r4 N > � ro to Il U 7/ 4.P� Cl- rpa • — m ° c Pie r s c Q n � n Q d 1 ��'��,��•TTT _ a, N o w L p t Mv°iry SLOT jPWJ jt rs f ZT- tiir `w Tbti o ' L r04 CLO v 0 ! 991 H �•�° N —4Z O a I y <J j� r9b > ; ! - <2 OTC 3a o` b 11 ti 5O o-C" L bD Jd N C any 2 t vo o 'E i � a o - u LL C N N ` ad X .N JJS ate 1 LU C W LU O O) y; v z ri a cJe . y c �e — p, < e0 A b Z a < N n 2 g" • '�'�- a mu"iry —60T Zy :� �aJjt r8 v s TZJ i LZT- �� Tbti rOL N E � 82� 1 1 r tV- N 99T7 ` - m 'vlf rLZ OT- o� m r'IN > (YO > 75 0 E Jaa 7 00 U C a��aay.e a' �LSyor 01 SLOB '` NaF- s cu u C�� OJ O ' OLO d di j`.. 5 X = .... W f0 s O1 L1 tw C �.., .0 0) 7 lJJ � • Z 2.. vl 4>e Z N t N J E N n te ` Y L d i NY�1N psJ jL �-90i r8 � v a � .•,.+n �Zb r69 C cu bA c £ Zb--� N 41 3 ••ri�o N J q J j t rb£ N � r O ; E mv�iry �-80T � �. iz1 tit 1, d ON TOti c H �yL -IL SZ-0 t C� J C "Ti O a .�.,.°, —LZ 0-911 O vi ��' OT— o.nm 2 / m U N j F°° p O r /o8 fn O) C O O t4 N At OO v � CL _° O cu to vJa r.. C r LU 0 �e � �P z 5 fF� u mvNin --OTT i TZ� 11 i 8ZT� ava0i°1i ac m tbG cu txo N v O 4 8911 Q) .'. s J L r9V OT— o r m ns JJ 5 r N x,31 m h, FS u v r�ro tn p o�fi v CL - u C \ anb,P c 9tOt N -C r /og r-4 OC rn tip °\ ' v 4 O1 0 i = �Y M C w O/ d CL h0 0 c% 0) LU W � y Z J W J q �oP Q n tf f^ LIlt ►. FJ¢cJ¢ i - -c - n y t ` l .` Q f �S u f V < 6F•' r ' NviN —90T G 0', 1 I T 9ZT— ev^ip' -I s c N ZL r69 ai C v C ...F Zb_ 41 0 ,. f 8ST, ..�.. 41 J 'k. 4 _ bTT M a < .�. °.. �LZ c OTC v m � Z w O U p 4% A /adJ I to 0 C v deb ¢ 4 /fit M r rn O H LZ C r i r N e CO — m L I a cu - . tw C 'E v w T u v z W c Je H ter* . cP 6 0Nr O ul z J f / s n c CN C � 3 c _7 u O a c N v d E v 0 U OD U C O V d M C N C j 3 O +' u LL Q m � O Y co O1 / d 00 C C O) W i 0 A E 5 Z C W d 0 C v C) c T1 -i Zi � °1m a s� v\ � y1 ?I G U) Q Z i N Z J 'SOT �T£T � �1 jL r0i � 9Z-' 1�P 95I� NON 057 ' 06 —bS JjL r98 1 r 119— ZOZ� l s New 4£T J j Ll�tS 3 I� Zi � °1m a s� v\ � y1 ?I G U) Q Z i N Z J t M1 E °v�M oi �££i c i 9ZJ 1tr 95i� v°1i o^ry OSy J t06 —bS m ggJ ! L r98 C a S N '• ZED S t T c Ou n 65 �n.n N ) ZOZ� .°.om ,o � J � 'Obi zz Zip om� is O Gl > 2 m C > C cO Q Ja N .0 Ln d 3 <4 rn CU 0) C O 000 •O U .1+ L.L a y i a aj 0 L A R, O -0 O 0 � a R > w d o ¢ c ..� ,eCJ � ilk. fl' A z VII. OTHER TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS A. Parking The City of Seal Beach's Main Street Specific Plan (see Appendix E) outlines parking regulations for the project area. The Specific Plan requires movie theaters to provide one parking space for every six seats. The reconfigured theater is proposed to have up to 475 seats. This results in a requirement of 80 parking spaces (475 / 6 = 79.2). Because of the level of development in the project area and a lack of space to provide on -site parking, off -site parking must be provided. Currently, Main Street provides parallel and diagonal on- street parking adjacent to the project site. The project applicant is currently negotiating with the property owner at 801 Pacific Coast Highway, which is currently occupied by a bank. This site is proposed to be used to store vehicles from valet parking to be provided at the existing lot. The bank currently has 55 parking spaces, which would be available after bank hours (after 6:00 PM Monday thru Friday, after 4:00 PM Saturday, and all day Sunday). It is estimated that valet parking would allow approximately 20 percent more cars to be parked at this location. This would result in a capacity of approximately 66 parked vehicles. In addition, there are several city owned metered lots in the project vicinity, as shown on Figure 36. Seal Beach Municipal Code 8.15.105 Section B states that parking meters in the parking meter zones shall be operated between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on every day unless otherwise indicated by signs at a particular zone. The two lots closest to the project site are at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection of Main Street and Electric Avenue. These two lots are free after 6:00 PM. There are also 425 parking spaces available at the City owned beach lots, approximately 1/3 mile south of the project site. These lots are often underutilized during evening hours, when the theater would be busiest. The beach lots are available for pay parking from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM every day. It is estimated that 10% to 20% of persons attending the theater will walk to the site. Pedestrian facilities in the project area are shown on Figure 10. If a parking agreement is secured with the bank property at 801 Pacific Coast Highway, the project will only need 14 additional spaces to meet the City's parking requirements. During the peak period of project operation, the City's metered parking lots, beach lots, and on- street parking have sufficient spaces available to accommodate the additional 14 vehicles. The project is expected to have sufficient parking. The availability of pedestrian and transit options will further reduce parking demand. 73 B. Drop -off This sections evaluates the required space needed to accommodate passenger loading curbside at the theater. The project is projected to generate 219 trips during the busiest hour on a Saturday. Assuming that 10% of these trips will be drop -off trips, the passenger loading area will need to accommodate approximately 11 vehicles during the peak hour. Because movie- theater drop -offs will likely be condensed into a smaller period, this analysis assumed 11 vehicles would need to be accommodated in a 20 minute timeframe. This results in a projected vehicle arrival approximately every 1.8 minutes. Most drop -offs will take under one minute. To accommodate two vehicles arriving simultaneously, it sis recommended that space for two vehicles be provided. This can be accomplished by providing two angled parking spaces or 50 linear feet of painted curb space for loading. 74 a r Figure 36 Public Parking �. V fi i A 9' � WIMIMMMIMI • Ii • 75 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Site Access and Parking If a parking agreement is secured with the bank property at 801 Pacific Coast Highway, the project will only need 14 additional spaces to meet the City's parking requirements. During the peak period of project operation, the City's metered parking lots, beach lots, and on- street parking have sufficient spaces available to accommodate the additional 14 vehicles. The project is expected to have sufficient parking. The availability of pedestrian and transit options will further reduce parking demand. To accommodate two drop -off vehicles arriving simultaneously, it is recommended that space for two vehicles be provided. This can be accomplished by providing two angled parking spaces or 50 linear feet of painted curb space for loading. B. Roadway Improvements As is the case for any roadway design, the City of Seal Beach should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. W. APPENDICES Appendix A — Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B — Traffic Count Worksheets Appendix C — Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization /Delay Appendix D— Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Plots Appendix E — City of Seal Beach Main Street Specific Plan APPENDIX A Glossary of Transportation Terms GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS COMMON ABBREVIATIONS AC: Acres ADT: Average Daily Traffic Caltrans: California Department of Transportation DU: Dwelling Unit ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS: Level of Service TSF: Thousand Square Feet V /C: Volume /Capacity VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval. CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other items are counted (in and out). CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete signal cycle. CUL -DE -SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions forturning around. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic - actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impulse to the signal controller. DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design. Features of a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent) are correlated to design speed. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that are connected to achieve signal progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge. MULTI - MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind. ORIGIN - DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE): One car is one Passenger Car Equivalent. A truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower. Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty trucks. PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. Also, fixed time signal. PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through several signalized intersections. SCREEN -LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. TRAFFIC - ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another (destination). For example, from home to store to home is two trips, not one. TRIP -END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination (i.e., each trip has two trip- ends). A trip -end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quantity of trips produced and /or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles. APPENDIX B Traffic Count Worksheets Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268 -6268 City of Seal Beach N /S: Silver Shoals Avenue / Bolsa Avenue EM: Bolsa Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : SBHSIBOPM Site Code : 07516662 Start Date : 12/6/2016 Page No : 1 Silver Shoals Avenue Bolsa Avenue Bolsa Avenue Chase Bank Driveway Southbound Westbound Northbound I Eastbound _ Start Time Left_I Th RurTh Ig Apht npht a. Total _Left I Thru I Right �I Apo Total I Left' Thru I Right i App_Tow i Left Thru I Right App. royal me Tmal 04:00 PM i 5 1 1 7 39 6 5 50 I 13 6 18 37 I 0 6 4 10 104 04:15 PM 7 3 0 10 40 1 4 45 I 6 6 39 51 0 3 0 3 109 04:30 PM 3 3 2 8 24 1 1 26 9 10 32 51 0 1 3 4, 89 04:45 PM . 3 3 1 7 43 _ 2 _ 7_ 521 6 5 25 36 0 3 5 8 103 Total: 18 10 4 32 146 10 17 173; 34 27 114 1751 0 13 12 25 405 05:00 PM 1 2 1 4 38 3 3 44 6 1 19 26 0 3 1 4 78 05:15 PM 0 3 0 3 35 2 6 43 8 6 27 41 3 3 5 11 98 05:30 PM 2 1 2 5 22 0 4 26 11 5 5 22 321 1 1 4 6 69 05:45 PM : 1 2 0 3 21 2 2 25 1 4 2 30 36, 0 0 2 2 66 Total 4 8 3 15 116 7 15 1381 23 14 98 1351 4 7 12 23 311 Grand Total 1 22 18 7 47 262 17 32 311 I 57 41 212 3101 4 20 24 481 716 Apprch % 46.8 38.3 14.9 84.2 5.5 10.3 i 18.4 13.2 68.4 8.3 41.7 50 Total % 3.1 2.5 1 6.6 36.6 2.4 4.5 43.4 , 8 5.7 29.6 43.3 1 0.6 2.8 3.4 6.7 Silver Shoals Avenue Southbound Bolsa Avenue Westbound Bolsa Avenue Northbound Chase Bank Driveway Eastbound Start Time I Left I Thru Right 1 App. Total Left I, Thou 1 Rightht AApp. rmai I Left Thru Right App. roia1 Left 1 Thno Right I App7oui ! mt. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 5 1 1 7 39 6 5 50. 13 6 18 37 0 6 4 10 104 04:15 PM 7 3 0 10 40 1 4 45 6 6 39 51 0 3 0 3 109 04:30 PM 3 3 2 8 24 1 1 26 9 10 32 51 0 1 3 4 89 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268 -6268 City of Seal Beach N /S: Silver Shoals Avenue / Bolsa Avenue ENV: Bolsa Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : SBHSIBOPM Site Code : 07516662 Start Date : 12/612016 Page No :2 Peak Hour Analysis From 04.00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour -for Each Approach Begins_at;__ 0490 PM Silver Shoals Avenue j 04.00 PM Out In 1 0490 PM _Total 44, =32! 76_ _ I 04:45 PM _4. 10_18, +0 mins.. 5 Right Thru Left i 7 39 6 I 50 13 6 i Peak Hour Data 37 0 3 5 8 +15 mins. 7 3 0 10 40 1 4 AI S 6 6 NNorth �N o c 3 1 _ ti I m —' — Peak Hour Begins at 04.00 PM - -- -- m 1 I 2 9 J� q Total Volume _ m L« U� Q Jp � 5 Iii A, - u, _ +45 mins. _ 3 1 4., k _ 1 _ 7_ 43 2 Thru Right_ 52 6 5 —Left_ 341_27 114, 36 1 _ 1 168, �_ 175 _343: 6 Total Volume 18 Out In Total 4 Peak Hour Analysis From 04.00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour -for Each Approach Begins_at;__ 0490 PM j 04.00 PM 1 0490 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins.. 5 1 i 7 39 6 5 50 13 6 18 37 0 3 5 8 +15 mins. 7 3 0 10 40 1 4 45 6 6 39 51 0 3 1 4 +30 mins. 3 3 2 8 24 1 1 26 9 10 32 51 3 3 5 11 _ +45 mins. _ 3 _ _3 _ 1 _ 7_ 43 2 7 52 6 5 _25 36 1 _ 1 4 _ 6 Total Volume 18 10 4 32 146 10 17 173 34 27 114 175 4 10 15 29 %App, Total 562_ 31.2 12,5 5.8 9_8 19.4 154 65.1 13.8 34.5 51.7 PHF .643 .833 .500 .800'. .849 .417 _ .607 .632 .6 54 .675 .7 31 .858 .333 .833 .750 .659 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268 -6268 City of Seal Beach File Name : SBHMAPCHPM N /S: Bolsa Avenue /Main Street Site Code : 07516662 ENV: Pacific Coast Highway Start Date : 12/6/2016 Weather: Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Total Volume Bolsa Avenue Pacific Coast Highway + Main Street Pacific Coast Highway _Start Time i Left 1 Thru Right 1 A, m1al Left _ Thru , Right. App. Total 1 Left _ Thru I Right App. Total I_Left! Thm _ Right ; -Apa. rmat mt. Total 04:00 PM 5 i t 43 59 18 296 10 324 19 12 19 50 30 315 21 366 799 04:15 PM 2 12 38 52 19 296 5 320 15 18 13 46 36 316 21 373 791 04:30 PM 1 5 8 29 42 16 329 4 349 16 17 15 48 34 335 26 395 834 04:45 PM _! 8 16 50 74 22 305 2 329 17 23 50 ! 32 338 30 400. 853_ Total) 20 47 160 _ 227 75 1226 21 1322 67 57 70 _ 1941 132 1304 98 1534 3277 05:00 PM 2 10 36 48 13 350 1 364 16 13 17 46 30 330 20 380 838 05:15 PM ( 4 13 44 61 17 329 3 349 22 12 14 48 1 29 360 22 411 869 05:30 PM 5 3 28 36 20 331 5 356 14 7 18 39 23 364 34 421 852 0_5:45 PM 7 7 22 36 _ _18 324 4 346 12 11 21 44 29 292 24 345 771 Total 18 33 130 181' 68 1334 _ 13 1415 64 43 70 177 111 1346 100 1557 3330 Grand Total, 38 80 290 408. 143 2560 34 2737! 131 100 140 371 1 243 2650 198 3091 6607 Apprch % 9.3 19.6 71.1 51 93.5 1.2 : 353 27 37.7 1 7.9 85.7 6.4 Total % ! 0.6 1.2 4.4 6.2 2.2 381 0.5 41.4 2 1.5 21 5.6 1 3.7 40.1 3 46.8 Main Street Pacific Coast 1 Slart Time Left Thru _Right App. rota) Left Thru_ RightApp_rmal ! Left Thru RIghI APP. real I_ Left _I1 Thru Right i App. Tonal Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 8 16 50 74 22 305 2 329 17 10 23 50 j 32 338 30 400 853 05:00 PM 2 10 36 48 13 350 1 364 16 13 17 46 30 330 20 380 838 05:15 PM 4 13 44 61 17 329 3 349 22 12 14 48 29 360 22 411 869 05:30 PM 5 3 _ 28 36_ 20 331 5356 14 7 18 39 23 364 34 421 852 Total Volume 19 42 158 219 72 1315 11 1398. 69 42 72 183 114 1392 106 1612 3412 -0/6 App Total 8.7 19.2 72.1 5.2 94.1 0.8 37.7 23_39.3 7.1_ 86.4 6.6 __ _____- PHF .594 ,656 .740_ 818 .939 .550 _ _ .960. .784 _8.0_8_.783__ .915 __891 .956 .779_ .957 .982 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona. CA 92878 (951) 268 -6268 City of Seal Beach N /S: Bolsa Avenue /Main Street ENV. Pacific Coast Highway Weather: Clear File Name : SBHMAPCHPM Site Code : 07516662 Start Date : 12/6/2016 Page No :2 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak,Hour for Each Approach Begins_at 0490 PM Bolsa Avenue 05.00 PM Out In 1 0400 PM _Total_ _167' '_219! _386_ 1 04145 PM 1581 42192 1 5 11 43 59, Right Thru Left 350 1 364 19 � I 19 50 32 338 30 400 +15 mins. 2 12 Peak Hour Data 52 17 329 3 349 15 — ��2_ 46 30 330 20 380 +30 mins. 5 8 29 s 20 North�I —. — 3 r o c L7 m ` —k �F Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM �— -� 2.n1 n 0 22 411' 6; m. i 16 50 Total _Volume _ 18 324 aO�. Of 17 10 v.o£ 50 23 364 34 421' Total Volume 20 I I � I 160 227 68 1334 Thm__Right 1415 67 57 70 _Left_ _ 69L 42` 72j 114 1392 106 _ 1612, 220! 183; _4031 8.8 20_7 70.5 _ Out In Total 1 94.3 0.9 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak,Hour for Each Approach Begins_at 0490 PM 05.00 PM 1 0400 PM 04145 PM +0 mins. 5 11 43 59, 13 350 1 364 19 12 19 50 32 338 30 400 +15 mins. 2 12 38 52 17 329 3 349 15 18 13 46 30 330 20 380 +30 mins. 5 8 29 42 20 331 5 356 16 17 15 48 29 360 22 411' +45 mins. 8 16 50 74 18 324 4 346 17 10 23 50 23 364 34 421' Total Volume 20 47 160 227 68 1334 13 1415 67 57 70 194 114 1392 106 _ 1612, App, Total 8.8 20_7 70.5 _ 4.8 94.3 0.9 34.5 29.4 _36.1 7.1 86.4 6.6 ,_ ___PHF .625 734 .800_ __.767 ,..850_ _ 953 ___650 _ .972_ 882 _ .792_ _.761. _, _ .970 _891 _ :956 _779_ _ _957_ Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268 -6268 City of Seal Beach N /S. Main Street ENV: Electric Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : SBHMAELPM Site Code : 07516662 Start Date : 1216/2016 Page No : 1 Main Street Electric Avenue Main Street Electric Avenue _ Southbountl Westbound Northbound _ _Eastbound fStart Time Left I Thru_= Right '. App. Total _Left Thru Right_App_Toa' Left Thru_FRight I App. Total _Left Thm i Rightl App . roiai Tor. Torsi_ 04:00 PM 4 30 8 42 7 10 6 23 1 34 3 38 9 14 4 27 130 04.15 PM 10 32 9 51 11 10 10 31 2 25 2 29 j 11 18 4 33 : 144 04:30 PM 1 32 11 44 6 21 7 341 2 24 1 27 14 12 8 34 139 04:45 PM 5 32 13 50 - 4 9 6 19 3 23 2 28 ! 13 13 3 29 126 Tota1- 20 126 41 187 28 50 29 107. 8 106 8 122, 47 57 19 123 539 05:00 PM 5 32 10 47 5 12 4 21 : 2 27 4 33 8 11 3 22 123 05:15 PM 3 34 6 43 9 8 10 27 . 2 22 1 25 9 12 2 23 118 05:30 PM 2 35 3 40 5 10 4 19 , 1 30 0 31 1 4 13 6 23 113 05:45 PM 6 34 5 45 _ 8 8 1 _ 17 0 20 2 22_i 8 15 6 29 : 113 Total; 16 135 24 175 27 38 19 84 5 99 7 111 1 29 51 17 97 467 Grand Total 36 261 65 362 55 88 48 191 13 205 15 233 76 108 36 220 1006 Apprch %' 9.9 72.1 18 28.8 46.1 25.1 5.6 88 6.4 I 34.5 49.1 164 Total % 3.6 25.9 6.5 36 5.5 8.7 4.8 19 193 20.4 1.5 212 1 7.6 10.7 16 21.9 Main Street T Electric Avenue Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM ' 4 30 8 42 7 10 6 23 1 34 3 38 9 14 4 27 130 04:15 PM 1 10 32 9 51 11 10 10 31 . 2 25 2 29 11 18 4 33 144 04:30 PM 1 32 11 44 6 21 7 34 2 24 1 27 14 12 8 34 139 04:45 PM 5 32 13 50 4 9 6 19 3 23 2 28 13 13 3 29 126 Total Volume 20 126 41 187 28 50 29 107 6 106 8 122 47 57 19 123 539 _ App 10.7 67.4 21.9 26.2 46.7 27.1 6.6 86.9 _ 6.6 38.2 46.3 15.4 PHFI .500 .984 .788 .917 .636 .595 .725 .787 .667 .779 .667 .8031 .839 .792 .594 404 .936 City of Seal Beach N /S: Main Street ENV: Electric Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268 -6268 File Name : SBHMAELPM Site Code : 07516662 Start Date : 12/6/2016 Page No : 2 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach _Begins _at; _ Main Street 04:00 PM Out _Total 04'.00 PM __In_ I _182! 'L_16T _ 3691 04.00 PM 141,_726 201 mins. 10 32 9 Right Thm Left 7 10 6 23 4- —1 i 34 3 38 9 Peak Hour Data 4 27 +15 mins. 1 32 11 44 11 10 10 2 25 North 29 11 18 4 33 +30 mins. —i — F— 4 Peak Hour Begins at 04'.00 PM 4— 2 u, —o.' n —mil 7 34 o j w I— m — _Total Volume 12 8 w Jm p m— l 5 10 47 �_ i 9 6 19 3 Thru_Right, 2 28 13 13_ _Lett 8106_8- 29 Total Volume 21 128 _1731 -122'. 295 192 28 50 29 Out In Total Main Strppt 8 106 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach _Begins _at; _ 15 PM 04:00 PM 04'.00 PM 04.00 PM +0 mins. 10 32 9 51 7 10 6 23 1 34 3 38 9 14 4 27 +15 mins. 1 32 11 44 11 10 10 31 2 25 2 29 11 18 4 33 +30 mins. 5 32 13 50 6 21 7 34 2 24 1 27 14 12 8 34 _ +45 mins. 5 32 10 47 �_ 4_ 9 6 19 3 23 2 28 13 13_ 3 29 Total Volume 21 128 43 192 28 50 29 107 8 106 8 122 _ 47 57 19 123 _ % App. Total 10.9 66.722.4 -_- _26.2_ 46.7 27.1 —_ 6.6 86.9 6.6 _38.2 _ 46.3 15.4 PHF __ .525_ 1.000 __ 827_ _941__,636 - ,595. _,725_ 787_, .667. .779 _ .667__803 .839_ .792 _594 -_ -904. Counts Unlimited, Inc. Page 1 City of Seal Beach PO Box 1178 Bolsa Avenue Corona, CA 92878 B/ Pacific Coast Highway - Silver Shoals Avenue Phone: (951) 268 -6268 SBH004 24 Hour Directional Volume Count email: counts @countsunlimited.com Site Code: 075 -16662 Start 12/15/2016 Northbountl Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thn AAnrninn Aft--n AAnmmn Aft—nnnn Mnrninn ANurnnnn AMrninn Afi-- AAnrninn ANurnnnn 12:00 1 71 778 1351 778 1351 1853 3365 1 41 - —_- 12:15 0 58 2129 5218 Total 0 36 AM Peak - 10:15 12:30 3 57 Vol. - 271 2 35 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.816 1245 0 67 4 253 2 42 5 154 9 407 01.00 2 71 0.845 0 37 01:15 0 82 36.5% 63.5 1 52 ADT /AADT 01:30 0 88 0 35 01:45 4 103 6 344 2 30 3 154 9 498 0200 0 75 0 42 02:15 0 43 1 47 02:30 0 54 1 40 02:45 0 79 0 251 0 55 2 184 2 435 03:00 0 85 0 40 03:15 0 62 1 54 0330 0 55 1 40 0345 3 63 3 265 1 45 3 179 6 444 04.00 0 63 0 49 04:15 0 80 3 46 04.30 2 54 1 60 04:45 5 67 7 264 6 40 10 195 17 459 05:00 4 44 8 62 05:15 3 50 6 50 05:30 2 54 5 35 0545 4 40 13 188 7 46 26 193 39 381 0600 7 57 13 34 06.15 22 43 8 31 0630 18 25 12 27 0645 29 42 76 167 23 25 56 117 132 284 0700 43 25 26 23 07:15 59 31 31 14 07.30 60 23 45 16 0745 27 25 189 104 31 15 133 68 322 172 0800 31 26 19 15 08:15 28 15 36 15 08:30 30 25 32 17 08:45 55 16 144 82 39 15 126 62 270 144 09:00 40 23 24 6 09:15 33 10 31 2 0930 41 21 31 9 0945 40 11 154 65 27 3 113 20 267 85 1000 41 12 29 4 1015 70 4 23 5 1030 83 6 25 3 10:45 56 0 250 22 42 4 119 16 369 38 11:00 62 2 39 3 11:15 59 2 64 3 11:30 47 5 53 0 11:45 61 0 229__ 9 36 3 — 182 9 _ 411 _ 181 Total 1075 2014 1075 2014 778 1351 778 1351 1853 3365 Combined 3089 3089 2129 2129 5218 Total AM Peak - 10:15 - - - 1045 - - - - - Vol. - 271 - - - 188 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.816 0.870 PM Peak - - 01:15 - - - 0430 - - - - Vol. - - 348 - - - 212 - - - - P.H.F. 0.845 0.855 Percentag 34.8% 65,2% 36.5% 63.5 ADT /AADT ADT 5,218 AADT 5,218 City of Seal Beach Main Street B/ Electric Avenue - Pacific Coast Highway 24 Hour Directional Volume Count Start 12/1512016 Northbound _ Time Thu Morning Afternoon 1200 3 661 12:15 3 701 1230 1 62 1245 3 65 01:00 0 81 01:15 2 73 01:30 0 69 01:45 3 62 02:00 0 50 02:15 0 59 0230 0 61 02:45 4 60 03:00 1 59 03:15 2 68 03:30 2 47 0345 6 46 0400 1 51 0415 7 47 04 30 4 56 04:45 6 54 05:00 18 51 05:15 6 39 0530 10 39 0545 16 43 06:00 22 34 06:15 19 37 06:30 29 35 06:45 33 29 07:00 36 23 07:15 35 36 0730 45 40 0745 43 50 0800 43 41 08:15 24 35 08:30 43 33 08:45 28 35 0900 44 19 09:15 47 13 0930 57 24 0945 49 16 10:00 56 17 10.15 51 14 1030 51 13 10:45 69 6 11:00 62 6 11:15 59 4 11:30 64 6 11.45 64 4 -- Total 1171 -- 1948 Combined 3119 Total AM Peak - 1045 - Vol. - 254 - P.H.F. 0.920 PM Peak - - 0045 Vol. - - 288 P.H.F. 0.889 Pementag 375% 62.5% ADT /AADT ADT 6,223 A Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: (951) 268 -6268 email: counts @countsunlimited.com Totals 10 5 4 11 18 50 103 159 138 197 227 249 -_ 20 1171 1948 3119 263 285 230 220 208 172 135 149 144 72 50 ADT 6,223 Page 1 SBH003 Site Code: 075 -16662 Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals caning- Afternoon Morning Morning_ Afternoon- 3 76 2 60 4 54 1 59 10 249 20 512 2 69 1 50 2 71 0 52 5 242 10 527 2 66 0 47 5 58 0 58 7 229 11 459 2 61 3 52 2 57 1 49 8 219 19 439 4 65 7 58 5 45 14 57 30 225 48 433 12 50 13 61 9 46 3 59 37 216 87 388 13 53 25 45 16 47 25 51 79 196 182 331 28 38 34 26 25 23 28 22 115 109 274 258 34 28 42 17 43 15 36 20 155 80 293 224 45 23 59 12 46 22 49 16 199 73 396 145 48 11 65 10 83 4 80 4 276 29 503 79 72 5 78 5 65 7 __ 78_ 6 293_ 23 542 _ 43 1214 1890 1214 1890 2385 3838 3104 3104 6223 1030 - - - - - 313 - 0.943 - 12:00 - - - - 249 0.819 39.1% 60.9% Counts Unlimited, Inc. Page 1 City of Seal Beach PO Box 1178 Pacific Coast Highway Corona, CA 92878 B/ Marina Drive - Main Street Phone: (951) 268 -6268 SBH001A 24 Hour Directional Volume Count email: counts @countsunlimited.com Site Code: 075 -16662 Start _ Time 1200 12/20/2016 Eastbound TueMorning Afternoon 15 249 Hour Totals Morning_ Afternoon Westbound _ Moming Afternoon Hour Totals Moming._ ARemoon Combined Totals Morning Afternoon 29 269 12:15 24 274 22 199 12:30 21 285 22 279 1245 7 296 67 1104 15 264 88 1011 155 2115 01:00 7 237 15 235 01:15 10 259 11 258 01:30 9 291 11 253 01:45 10 322 36 1109 13 261 50 1007 86 2116 02:00 6 271 10 237 02:15 7 279 13 248 02:30 9 277 8 265 02:45 16 310 38 1137 8 324 39 1074 77 2211 03:00 13 310 12 284 03:15 11 307 6 286 0330 6 317 9 281 0345 10 317 40 1251 10 328 37 1179 77 2430 04:00 18 342 16 355 04:15 20 317 16 293 0430 26 360 21 344 04:45 45 346 109 1365 35 390 88 1382 197 2747 05:00 39 369 56 380 05:15 63 393 71 396 0530 91 334 92 425 05:45 129 310 322 1406 - 99 383 318 1584 640 2990 0600 215 301 125 416 06:15 266 264 181 416 06:30 317 241 199 424 0645 369 206 1167 1012 241 364 746 1622 1913 2634 07:00 352 185 261 241 07:15 360 170 314 239 0730 320 183 310 282 0745 316 168 1348 706 366 171 1251 933 2599 1639 08:00 301 146 357 157 08:15 286 126 292 143 08:30 306 135 308 135 08:45 248 124 1141 531 238 146 1195 581 2336 1112 09:00 251 122 228 152 09:15 242 101 210 124 0930 239 105 229 104 09:45 225 93 957 421 213 132 880 512 1837 933 10:00 201 67 174 103 10:15 224 86 213 105 1030 246 66 243 85 10.45 257 46 928 265 218 77 848 370 1776 635 11:00 223 61 218 84 11:15 259 32 277 58 11:30 229 42 270 55 11:45 238 42 949 177 257 48 1022 245 1971 422 _ Total _ 7102 10484 7102 10484 6562 11500 6562 11500 1366a 21984 Combined Total 17586 17586 18062 18062 35648 AM Peak - 06:45 - - - 07:15 - - - - - V01. - 1401 - - - 1347 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.949 0.920 PM Peak - - 0430 - - - 05:30 - - - - Vol. - - 1468 - - - 1642 - - - - P.H.F. 0.934 0.966 Percentag 404° / 59.6% 36.3% 63.7 % e ADT /AADT ADT 35,648 _ AADT 35,648 Counts Unlimited, Inc. Page 1 City of Seal Beach PC BOX 1178 Pacific Coast Highway Corona, CA 92878 S/ Main Street -12th Street Phone: (951) 268 -6268 SBH002 24 Hour Directional Volume Count email: counts @countsunlimited.com Site Code: 075 -16662 Start 12/14/2016 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wart Mnrninn Aftarnnnn Mnrninn Aftarnnnn Mnrninn Aftarnnnn Mnrninn Aftamnnn Mnrninn Aftcrnnnn 1200 29 189 31 242 - — 1215 34 186 24 250 12:30 25 203 31 205 12:45 26 248 114 826 21 210 107 907 221 1733 01:00 25 245 9 197 01:15 15 267 14 202 01:30 17 265 15 200 01.45 7 275 64 1052 10 202 48 801 112 1853 0200 7 212 16 236 02:15 10 236 9 223 02:30 9 213 8 248 02:45 14 264 40 925 12 260 45 967 85 1892 03:00 21 280 4 282 03:15 8 270 11 310 0330 3 276 7 287 03.45 10 326 42 1152 15 359 37 1238 79 2390 04.00 18 312 22 367 0415 20 342 31 338 0430 26 341 42 364 04:45 32 313 96 1308 61 391 156 1460 252 2768 05:00 50 358 67 389 05:15 61 343 84 379 05:30 76 321 120 376 05:45 113 336 300 1358 137 408 408 1552 708 2910 06.00 190 274 200 382 0615 297 298 253 375 0630 389 209 290 345 0645 381 180 1257 961 254 271 997 1373 2254 2334 0700 415 161 382 266 07:15 341 140 336 213 07:30 292 142 356 162 0745 339 162 1387 605 322 145 1396 786 2783 1391 0800 319 149 303 140 08:15 266 136 315 151 08:30 280 118 289 110 08:45 203 111 1068 514 224 113 1131 514 2199 1028 09.00 197 109 215 92 0915 210 87 235 105 0930 186 100 246 102 0945 198 90 791 386 200 130 896 429 1687 815 10:00 219 71 181 119 10:15 193 76 211 95 10:30 179 65 216 93 10:45 202 48 793 260 202 62 810 369 1603 629 11:00 190 48 242 51 11:15 188 38 241 30 11:30 171 34 287 56 11:45 197 26 746 146 231 40 1001 177 1747 323 I otal Combined Total AM Peak Vol. P.H.F. PM Peak Vol, P.H.F. Percentag e ADT /AADT 8698 9493 16191 06:30 - 1526 0.919 5698 9493 16191 0500 1358 0.948 41.4% 58.6% ADT 33,796 AADT 33,796 7032 10573 17605 0700 - 1396 0.914 - 05:00 - 1552 0.951 39.9% 60.1% 7032 10573 13730 20066 17605 33796 APPENDIX C Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization /Delay EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Overview The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If capacity is 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1,600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2,400 vehicles per hour for that approach. The technique used to compare the volume and capacity at a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization. Intersection Capacity Utilization, usually expressed as a percent, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity (i.e., an Intersection Capacity Utilization of 80 percent), then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indications 20 percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching traffic. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north -south traffic the northbound traffic is 1,600 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 1,200 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3,200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,600/3,200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for east -west traffic, 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the Intersection Capacity Utilization is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left turn arrows (left turn phasing) exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through movements. The Intersection Capacity Utilization technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operation. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the Intersection Capacity Utilization. Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets That Follow This Discussion The Intersection Capacity Utilization worksheet table contains the following information: 1. Peak hour turning movement volumes. 2. Number of lanes that serve each movement. 3. For right turn lanes, whether the lane is a free right turn lane, whether it has a right turn arrow, and the percent of right turns on red that are assumed. 4. Capacity assumed per lane. 5. Capacity available to serve each movement (number of lanes times capacity per lane). 6. Volume to capacity ratio for each movement. 7. Whether the movement's volume to capacity ratio is critical and adds to the Intersection Capacity Utilization value. 8. The yellow time or clearance interval assumed. 9. Adjustments for right turn movements. 10. The Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet also has two graphics on the same page. These two graphics show the following: 1. Peak hour turning movement volumes. 2. Number of lanes that serve each movement. 3. The approach and exit leg volumes. 4. The two -way leg volumes. 5. An estimate of daily traffic volumes that is fairly close to actual counts and is based strictly on the peak hour leg volumes multiplied by a factor. 6. Percent of daily traffic in peak hours. 7. Percent of peak hour leg volume that is inbound versus outbound. A more detailed discussion of Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service follows. Level of Service Level of Service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service C is typically the standard to which rural roadways are designed. Level of Service D is characterized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level of Service D is the standard to which urban roadways are typically designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop- and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various Levels of Service appears at the end of the Intersection Capacity Utilization description, along with the relationship between Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service. Signalized Intersections Although calculating an Intersection Capacity Utilization value for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes with a signal. A traffic signal becomes warranted before Level of Service D is reached for a signalized intersection. Signal Timing The Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation assumes that a signal is properly timed. It is possible to have an Intersection Capacity Utilization well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficientgreen time to satisfy its demand, and excess green time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem that should be remedied. Lane Capacity Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width; however, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1,750 vehicles per hour of green time, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1,600 vehicles per hour of green per lane. Right turn lanes have a slightly lower capacity; however 1,600 vehicles per hour is a valid capacity assumption for right turn lanes. This finding is published in the August 1978 issue of Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by William Kunzman. A capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane with no yellow time penalty, or 1,700 vehicles per hour with a 3 or 5 percent yellow time penalty is reasonable. Yellow Time The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for approximately 10 percent of a signal cycle, and a penalty of 3 to 5 percent is reasonable. During peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there is no left turn phasing, the left turn vehicles completely use the yellow time. Even if there is left turn phasing, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. Shared Lanes Shared lanes occur in many locations. A shared lane is often found at the end of an off ramp where the ramp forms an intersection with the cross street. Often at a diamond interchange off ramp, there are three lanes. In the case of a diamond interchange, the middle lane is sometimes shared, and the driver can turn left, go through, or turn right from that lane. If one assumes a three lane off ramp as described above, and if one assumes that each lane has 1,600 capacity, and if one assumes that there are 1,000 left turns per hour, 500 right turns per hour, and 100 through vehicles per hour, then how should one assume that the three lanes operate. There are three ways that it is done. One way is to just assume that all 1,600 vehicles (1,000 plus 500 plus 100) are served simultaneously by three lanes. When this is done, the capacity is 3 times 1,600 or 4,800, and the amount of green time needed to serve the ramp is 1,600 vehicles divided by 4,800 capacity or 33.3 percent. This assumption effectively assumes perfect lane distribution between the three lanes that is not realistic. It also means a left turn can be made from the right lane. Another way is to equally split the capacity of a shared lane and in this case to assume there are 1.33 left turn lanes, 1.33 right turn lanes, and 0.33 through lanes. With this assumption, the critical movement is the left turns and the 1,000 left turns are served by a capacity of 1.33 times 1,600, or 2,133. The volume to capacity ratio of the critical move is 1,000 divided by 2,133 or 46.9 percent. The first method results in a critical move of 33.3 percent and the second method results in a critical move of 46.9 percent. Neither is very accurate, and the difference in the calculated Level of Service will be approximately 1.5 Levels of Service (one Level of Service is 10 percent). The way Kunzman Associates does it is to assign fractional lanes in a reasonable way. In this example, it would be assumed that there is 1.1 right turn lanes, 0.2 through lanes, and 1.7leftturn lanes. The volume to capacity ratios for each movement would be 31.3 percent for the through traffic, 28.4 percent for the right turn movement, and 36.8 percent for the left turn movement. The critical movement would be the 36.8 percent for the left turns. Right Turn on Red Kunzman Associates' software treats right turn lanes in one of five different ways. Each right turn lane is classified into one of five cases. The five cases are (1) free right turn lane, (2) right turn lane with separate right turn arrow, (3) standard right turn lane with no right turns on red allowed, (4) standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns on red allowed, and (5) separate right turn arrow and a certain percentage of right turns on red allowed. Free Right Turn Lane If it is a free right turn lane, then it is given a capacity of one full lane with continuous or 100 percent green time. A Free right turn lane occurs when there is a separate approach lane for right turning vehicles, there is a separate departure lane for the right turning vehicles after they turn and are exiting the intersection, and the through cross street traffic does not interfere with the vehicles after they turn right. Separate Right Turn Arrow If there is a separate right turn arrow, then it is assumed that vehicles are given a green indication and can proceed on what is known as the left turn overlap. The left turn overlap for a northbound right turn is the westbound left turn. When the left turn overlap has a green indication, the right turn lane is also given a green arrow indication. Thus, if there is a northbound right turn arrow, then it can be turned green for the period of time that the westbound left turns are proceeding. If there are more right turns than can be accommodated during the northbound through green and the time that the northbound right turn arrow is on, then an adjustment is made to the Intersection Capacity Utilization to account for the green time that needs to be added to the northbound through green to accommodate the northbound right turns. Standard Right Turn Lane, No Right Turns on Red A standard right turn lane, with no right turn on red assumed, proceeds only when there is a green indication displayed for the adjacent through movement. If additional green time is needed above that amount of time, then in the Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation a right turn adjustment green time is added above the green time that is needed to serve the adjacent through movement. Standard Right Turn Lane, With Right Turns on Red A standard right turn lane with say 20 percent of the right turns allowed to turn right on a red indication is calculated the same as the standard right turn case where there is no right turn on red allowed, except that the right turn adjustment is reduced to account for the 20 percent of the right turning vehicles that can logically turn right on a red light. The right turns on red are never allowed to exceed the time the overlap left turns take plus the unused part of the green cycle that the cross street traffic moving from left to right has. As an example of how 20 percent of the cars are allowed to turn right on a red indication, assume that the northbound right turn volume needs 40 percent of the signal cycle to be satisfied. To allow 20 percent of the northbound right turns to turn right on red, then during 8 percent of the signal cycle (40 percent of signal cycle times 20 percent that can turn right on red) right turns on red will be allowed if it is feasible. For this example, assume that 15 percent of the signal cycle is green for the northbound through traffic, and that means that 15 percent of the signal cycle is available to satisfy northbound right turns. After the northbound through traffic has received its green, 25 percent of the signal cycle is still needed to satisfy the northbound right turns (40 percent of the signal cycle minus the 15 percent of the signal cycle that the northbound through used). Assume that the westbound left turns require a green time of 6 percent of the signal cycle. This 6 percent of the signal cycle is used by northbound right turns on red. After accounting for the northbound right turns that occur on the westbound overlap left turn, 19 percent of the signal cycle is still needed for the northbound right turns (25 percent of the cycle was needed after the northbound through green time was accounted for [see above paragraph], and 6 percent was served during the westbound left turn overlap). Also, at this point 6 percent of the signal cycle has been used for northbound right turns on red, and still 2 percent more of the right turns will be allowed to occur on the red if there is unused eastbound through green time. For purpose of this example, assume that the westbound through green is critical, and that 15 percent of the signal cycle is unused by eastbound through traffic. Thus, 2 percent more of the signal cycle can be used by the northbound right turns on red since there is 15 seconds of unused green time being given to the eastbound through traffic. At this point, 8 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve northbound right turning vehicles on red, and 15 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve right turning vehicles on the northbound through green. So 23 percent of the signal cycle has been available for northbound right turns. Because 40 percent of the signal cycle is needed to serve northbound right turns, there is still a need for 17 percent more of the signal cycle to be available for northbound right turns. What this means is the northbound through traffic green time is increased by 17 percent of the cycle length to serve the unserved right turn volume, and a 17 percent adjustment is added to the Intersection Capacity Utilization to account for the northbound right turns that were not served on the northbound through green time or when right turns on red were assumed. Separate Right Turn Arrow, With Right Turns on Red A right turn lane with a separate right turn arrow, plus a certain percentage of right turns allowed on red is calculated the same way as a standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns allowed on red, except the turns which occur on the right turn arrow are not counted as part of the percentage of right turns that occur on red. Critical Lane Method Intersection Capacity Utilization parallels another calculation procedure known as the Critical Lane Method with one exception. Critical Lane Method dimensions capacity in terms of standardized vehicles per hour per lane. A Critical Lane Method result of 800 vehicles per hour means that the intersection operates as though 800 vehicles were using a single lane continuously. If one assumes a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour, then a Critical Lane Method calculation resulting in 800 vehicles per hour is the same as an Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation of 50 percent since 800/1,600 is 50 percent. It is our opinion that the Critical Lane Method is inferior to the Intersection Capacity Utilization method simply because a statement such as "The Critical Lane Method value is 800 vehicles per hour" means little to most persons, whereas a statement such as "The Intersection Capacity Utilization is 50 percent' communicates clearly. Critical Lane Method results directly correspond to Intersection Capacity Utilization results. The correspondence is as follows, assuming a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour and no clearance interval. Critical Lane Method Method Result 800 vehicles per hour 960 vehicles per hour 1,120 vehicles per hour 1,280 vehicles per hour 1,440 vehicles per hour 1,600 vehicles per hour 1,760 vehicles per hour Intersection Capacity Utilization Result 50 percent 60 percent 70 percent 80 percent 90 percent 100 percent 110 percent INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION' Level of Service Description Volume to Capacity Ratio A Level of Service A occurs when progression is extremely 0.600 and below favorable and vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B generally occurs with good progression 0.601 to 0.700 and /or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level of Service A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level of Service C generally results when there is fair 0.701 to 0.800 progression and /or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D generally results in noticeable congestion. 0.801 to 0.900 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. E Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable 0.901 to 1.000 delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to most 1.001 and up drivers. This condition often occurs when oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volume to capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 'Source: Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2010. EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE USING DELAY METHODOLOGY The levels of service at the unsignalized and signalized intersections are calculated using the delay methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology views an intersection as consisting of several lane groups. A lane group is a set of lanes serving a movement. If there are two northbound left turn lanes, then the lane group serving the northbound left turn movement has two lanes. Similarly, there may be three lanes in the lane group serving the northbound through movement, one lane in the lane group serving the northbound right turn movement, and so forth. It is also possible for one lane to serve two lane groups. A shared lane might result in there being 1.5 lanes in the northbound left turn lane group and 2.5 lanes in the northbound through lane group. For each lane group, there is a capacity. That capacity is calculated by multiplying the number of lanes in the lane group times a theoretical maximum lane capacity per lane time's 12 adjustment factors. Each of the 12 adjustment factors has a value of approximately 1.00. A value less than 1.00 is generally assigned when a less than desirable condition occurs. The 12 adjustment factors are as follows: 1. Peak hour factor (to account for peaking within the peak hour) 2. Lane utilization factor (to account for not all lanes loading equally) 3. Lane width 4. Percent of heavy trucks 5. Approach grade 6. Parking 7. Bus stops at intersections S. Area type (CBD or other) 9. Right turns 10. Left turns 11. Pedestrian activity 12. Signal progression The maximum theoretical lane capacity and the 12 adjustment factors for it are all unknowns for which approximate estimates have been recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual. For the most part, the recommended values are not based on statistical analysis but rather on educated estimates. However, it is possible to use the delay method and get reasonable results as will be discussed below. Once the lane group volume is known and the lane group capacity is known, a volume to capacity ratio can be calculated for the lane group. With a volume to capacity ratio calculated, average delay per vehicle in a lane group can be estimated. The average delay per vehicle in a lane group is calculated using a complex formula provided by the Highway Capacity Manual, which can be simplified and described as follows: Delay per vehicle in a lane group is a function of the fallowing: 1. Cycle length 2. Amount of red time faced by a lane group 3. Amount of yellow time for that lane group 4. The volume to capacity ratio of the lane group The average delay per vehicle for each lane group is calculated, and eventually an overall average delay for all vehicles entering the intersection is calculated. This average delay per vehicle is then used to judge Level of Service. The Level of Services are defined in the table that follows this discussion. Experience has shown that when a maximum lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour is used (as recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual), little or no yellow time penalty is used, and none of the 12 penalty factors are applied, calculated delay is realistic. The delay calculation for instance assumes that yellow time is totally unused. Yet experience shows that most of the yellow time is used. An idiosyncrasy of the delay methodology is that it is possible to add traffic to an intersection and reduce the average total delay per vehicle. If the average total delay is 30 seconds per vehicle for all vehicles traveling through an intersection, and traffic is added to a movement that has an average total delay of 15 seconds per vehicle, then the overall average total delay is reduced. The delay calculation for a lane group is based on a concept that the delay is a function of the amount of unused capacity available. As the volume approaches capacity and there is no more unused capacity available, then the delay rapidly increases. Delay is not proportional to volume, but rather increases rapidly as the unused capacity approaches zero. Because delay is not linearly related to volumes, the delay does not reflect how close an intersection is to overloading. If an intersection is operating at Level of Service C and has an average total delay of 18 seconds per vehicle, you know very little as to what percent the traffic can increase before Level of Service E is reached. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION'S Level Average Total Delay Of Per Vehicle (Seconds) Service Description Signalized Unsignalized A Level of Service A occurs when progression is 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00 extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B generally occurs with good 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00 progression and /or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level of Service A, causing higher levels of average total delay. C Level of Service C generally results when there is fair 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00 progression and /or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant atthis level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D generally results in noticeable 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00 congestion. 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. E Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00 acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to 80.01 and up 50.01 and up most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volume to capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010. Existine Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: Existing - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File: J:\...\AM.vistro Scenario 1: Existing - PM Peak Hour Report File: J:\... \Existing.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.023 11.4 B (EW) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 NWB Left 0.666 - B Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) 3 Main St (NS) Electric Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 9.3 A Ea V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KLNZMAN As_ IA rES, INC. 1 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.011-00 Scenario 1: 1: Existing - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave (EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay (sec / veh): 11.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.023 Intersection Setup Name Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 r 17 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane WSdth [ft) 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100 OG 10000 100 00 100.00 1000C ±00.00 100 00 100.00 100.00 55.00 I DODO 00 00 Speed (mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No volumes Name Base Volume Input (veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %J 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h] 5 3 1 0 3 3 37 3 4 9 7 29 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 - KuNn NA\_i1 IATE5 INC. 2 12122/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: Existing - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No 1, 10 0 50 Storage Area [vehl u 0 C. 0 Two -Stage Gap Acceptance No No 11 43 9.21 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 ., C 7.fi8 Movement, Approach, S Intersection Results V /C. Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0 00 1, 10 0 50 0.02 0.02 C 30 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 11.21 10.76 9.31 10.78 11 43 9.21 0.00 0.00 0 00 7.64 7.fi8 ? 00 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th - Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.88 3.88 3.88 2.79 2.79 2.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.38 3.38 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [stveh[ 10.83 10.37 0.00 2.67 Approach LOS B B A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 2.65 Imersetlion LOS B KUN ?MAN A5A�IATES, l \l. 3 12122/2016 Generated with WE= The Bay Theater Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: Existing - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main SVBolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU 1 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.666 Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration -11r -11r -11F 111r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ftj 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 G 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length (ft] 105.00 100 00 105.00 75.00 t OO.JO 85.00 115.00 100 00 100 OG 155.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%j 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h) 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips (veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume (vehi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 11 18 5 11 40 18 335 3 29 354 27 Total Analysis Volume Iveh/h] 70 43 73 19 43 161 73 1339 11 116 1418 108 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/hi 0 0 0 0 KLINZW\N A5A�CIATES, INC. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with MEE= The Bay Theater Vprsinn 4 nn-nn Scenario 1: 1: Existina - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s) 100 Lost time [s) 10.00 Phasing 8. Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Overlap ProtecHPermiss Permiss P rotects Permiss Penniss Signal group 0 8 0 0 4 4 5 0 1 6 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead /Lag - - - - - - Lead - Lead - - KLINZ V A N A._ �.an re <. INC. 5 12/22/2016 Generated with Mom The Bay Theater versinn a nn-nn Scenario 1: 1: Existino - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.666 KLINZ]tAV As=tiL\TES, NC, 6 12/2212016 Generated with LOB= The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 1: 1: Existing - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EW) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 9.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration + I r I r + Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thm Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane VMdlh [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 D 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 101]. 00 10D "C 100 c•C t00.00 50.00 I DO DO 100.00 145.00 100.00 100 O6 1110.M Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade ( %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [ veh/h] 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage 1%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [ veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [ veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume(veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [ veh/h] 8 106 B 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h] 2 27 2 5 32 10 7 13 7 12 14 5 Total Analysis Volume [ veh/h] 8 106 1 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZMAN AS_ Y LIA I E5, INC. 7 12/22/2016 Generated with Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results The Bay Theater 1 1 Existing - PM Peak 95th - Percentile Queue Length [veh) 0.66 0.83 0.17 0.42 0.12 0.68 95th- Percentile Queue Length [ft] 16.60 20.64 4.14 10.46 3.01 17.12 Approach Delay [s /veh] 9.59 9.12 8.77 9.75 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay [sNeh1 9.30 Intersection LOS A KnN -MAN AS- lLIATE, INC. 8 12/22/2016 Existing Plus Project Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File: J: \...WM.vistro Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \ ... \E +P,pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.027 11.7 B (EW) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 SEB Left 0.673 B Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) 3 Main St (NS) at Electric Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 9.3 A (EW) V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KUNZMA.N A <_ x[in res. INC. 1 12/22/2016 Generated with COZEN The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Boise Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Driveway /Botsa Ave (EM Control Type: Two-way slop Delay (sec / veh): 11.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.027 Intersection Setup Name Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Ncrtheejastbound Lane Configuration "to 1' 1 r 91 Turning Movement Left Thm Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 [Thru 0 1 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100 00 100 00 100,00 100 00 100.00 00.00 100.00 55.00 100.00 100 40 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%J 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No volumes Name Base Volume Input jveh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 0 12 0 0 Diverted Tnps (veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 15 28 146 11 17 46 27 114 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume (veh /h) 5 3 1 0 4 7 37 ff 12 7 29 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h[ 18 10 4 0 15 28 146 46 27 114 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KtNZMAN Ac_ k IATE >, INL. 2 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No 0 00 000 Storage Area[veh] .. C 0 . Two -Stage Gap Acceptance No No 11.70 9.32 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 0 0 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C. Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 400 0 00 000 0.03 0.02 0 Cn d_M, Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11A3 11.04 9.44 11.05 11.70 9.32 400 0.00 0.00 Z67 7.70 X00 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th- Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length [ft] 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.60 4.60 4.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s /veh] 11.06 10.15 0.00 3.00 Approach LOS B B A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.10 Intersection LOS B KlMZMAN A,_, ICI rES, INC. 3 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Signalized Delay (sec / veh): ICU 1 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.673 Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 69 42 Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration -d'+ 114 -1 I1 106 -11F 1 I I 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1200 . 12.00 12.00 12.00 1200 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 ., 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 105.00 100 O0 105.00 75.00 I00 00 85.00 115.00 100.00 t OOA0 155.00 100 00 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 2 30.00 0 30.00 4 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crosswalk Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 t0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ % 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 2.OD 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips [veh/hl 1 2 1 6 2 8 0 0 4 6 1 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /hl 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Other Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 70 44 73 25 44 166 72 1315 15 120 1393 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h) 18 11 19 6 11 42 18 335 4 31 355 27 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 71 45 74 25 45 169 73 1339 15 122 1419 108 Pedestrian Volume [ped/hl 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycfes/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZMAN A_, YIim ES, Wc. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with LOSE= The Bay Theater versinn 4 nn -nn Scenario 2: 2: Existina Plus Proiect - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s] 100 Lost time [s] 10,00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Overlap Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 0 a 0 0 4 4 5 2 1 6 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead l Lag - - - - - Lead - - Lead - - KuvzMn,� Assxinrss, Nc, 5 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00-00 Scenario 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.673 Kunz +ins A «YL\TES, INC. 6 12122/2016 Generated with == • Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period. Intersection Setup The Bay Theater Scenario 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EW) All -way stop Delay (sec / veh) HCM 2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes 9.3 A Name Approach Northeastbound Southwt estbound Northw estbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration + M r }} 1 1 29 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane NAdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ftj 100 00 100 cc I CO 10 100 00 7 n_0 00 50.00 100.00 100.00 145.00 100,00 10000 10000 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [vehRQ 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 10000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%j 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 200 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/h[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh /hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/hj 8 107 8 21 50 32 47 57 19 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 00 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 00 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/hj 2 27 2 5 ftio 13 8 12 14 5 Total Analysis Volume (veh/h] 8 107 8 21 50 32 47 Pedestran Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 KUNZVAN A,_,�I\TES, I,vc, 7 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 2: 2: Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th- Percentile Queue Length (veh] 0.67 0.84 0.17 0.42 0.13 0.69 95th- Percentile Queue Length [R] 16.81 21.06 4.15 10.48 3.34 17.17 Approach Delay [s /veh] 9.62 9.17 8.76 9.77 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay (s /veh] 9.32 Intersection LOS A KuNZMn,u A.-_ rinrE, INC. 8 12/2212016 Existing Plus Proiect Plus Cumulative Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File. J. \ ... �AM.vistro Scenario 3. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \... \EPC.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.027 11.7 B (EV ) 2 Main SUBolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 NWB Left 0.677 B Pacific Coast Hwy (EVE 3 Main St (NS) at Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 9.4 A V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KUNZNAv AsAYIATES, INC. 1 12/22/2016 Generated with Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup The Bay Theater Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at DdvewayBolsa Ave (E" Two-way stop Delay (sec / veh): 11.7 HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.027 Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 Approach Southbound Eastbound 34 Westbound Nonheeastbound Lane Configuration 1.0000 of 1.0000 1.0000 i 1.0000 1.0000 1 r 1.0000 i f 1.0000 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left I Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100 00 10000 10400 100.00 100 00 10000 1 00.0 0 100.00 100.00 55.00 100 00 i00A0 Speed [mph] Diverted Trips [veh/h] 30.00 0 0 30.00 0 0 30.00 0 30.00 0 Grade [ %] 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Crosswalk 0 Yes Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 0 No 0 volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips [veh1h] 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 0 12 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh[h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 15 28 149 11 17 46 27 114 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume (veh/h] 5 3 1 0 4 7 37 3 4 12 7 29 Total Analysis Volume (veh/h) 18 10 4 0 15 28 149 11 17 46 27 114 Pedestrian Volume jped/h] 0 0 0 0 KU NZMAN A<SY IAI es, INC, 2 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No ^.A0 e.IF Storage Area [veh] 0 0 u 0 Two -Stage Gap Acceptance No No 11.73 9.34 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 0 0 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 ^.A0 e.IF 0.03 0.02 0 00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s /veh] 11,46 11.07 9.45 11.08 11.73 9.34 0 00 0.00 ) 00 7.68 7.71 0.00 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th- Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length [ft] 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.62 4.62 4.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.09 4.09 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s /veh] 11.08 1017 0.00 3.00 Approach LOS B B A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 108 Intersection LOS B KUNI IAN' A5AkIA res, INC. 3 12/22/2016 Generated with Control Type: Analysis Method Analysis Period: Intersection Setup The Bay Theater Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Proiect Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Signalized Delay (sec / veh): ICU 1 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.677 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastboound Lane Configuration -11r - l r -11F -111r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thm Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 105.00 100 00 106.00 75.00 100 00 85.00 115.00 100 00 100 00 155.00 100 00 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2,00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 11 0 0 8 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 1 2 1 6 2 8 0 0 4 6 1 0 Diverted Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh /hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 70 44 73 28 44 166 82 1326 15 120 1401 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume (veh /h] 18 11 19 7 11 42 21 338 4 31 357 27 Total Analysis Volume [veh/hj 71 45 74 29 45 169 84 1350 15 122 1427 108 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Kl1NZMAN As_ I<IAFES INC. 4 12122/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s] 100 Lost time [s] 10.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss I Permiss Permiss Permiss I Overlap IProtecte I Permiss I Permiss I Protecte I Permiss Permiss Signal group 0 a 0 0 4 4 5 2 0 1 6 , Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead /Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - - KUNZ 41N As-�kin res, INC. 5 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4,00-00 Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS I Intersection V/C 1 - 0.677 1 KuuzvnN AS@OCIATES, INC 6 12/22/2016 Generated with Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period. Intersection Setup The Bay Theater Scenano 3: 3: Existina Plus Proiect Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EVq All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): HCM 2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes 9.4 A Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeestbound Lane Configuration .{+ I r i 1 T Turning Movement Left Thm Right Left Thru I Right Left I Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 .. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100 00 100DC 00 on t pG.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 145.00 100 00 10000 100 00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30,00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/hj 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ % ] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 a Diverted Trips [veh /h] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh[h] 8 109 8 21 127 41 29 51 33 57 19 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 F48 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume ]veh/h] 2 27 2 5 32 10 7 13 8 14 5 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 8 109 8 21 127 41 29 51 33 57 19 Pedesman Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Kl NZMAN A,ALIA TEs, Kc. 7 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 3: 3: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th- Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.69 0.85 0.17 0.43 0.14 0.70 95th - Percentile Queue Length [R] 17.19 21.13 4.16 10.81 3.46 17.39 Approach Delay [s/vehj 9.67 9.19 8.79 9.80 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay [s /veh] 9.35 Intersection LOS A KUVZSIA.N Ae- �.IATES, luc. 8 12/22/2016 Opening Year 120171 Without Project Generated with =� The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File. J'. \ ... \AM.vistro Scenario 4'. Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \... \OY.pdf 12/22/2016 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 ES Thru 0.023 11.5 B (EV ) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 NWB Left 0.672 B Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) 3 Main St (NS) aElectric Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 9.3 A V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KUNZMAN A53YIATES, INC, 1 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Boise Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Driveway /Bolsa Ave (EW) Control Type: Two -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 11.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: 8 Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.023 Intersection Setup Name Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northeastbound Lane Configuration 1 4 1 r+ l Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1200 . 1200 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 10000 100.00 100.00 100.00 IDOA0 700 00 100.00 100.00 55.00 100 0 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No volumes Name Base Volume Input (veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume ]veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h) 18 10 4 0 13 12 147 10 17 34 27 115 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h) 5 3 1 0 3 3 37 3 4 9 7 29 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 18 1 10 4 0 13 12 147 10 17 34 27 115 Pedestnan Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 9 KL NZAiAN ASEYIdTES, tuc 2 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No 0100 0.00 Storage Area [veh] 0.02 0 0 0 Two -Stage Gap Acceptance No No 11.45 9.22 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 6 0 0 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0100 0100 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 d M, Delay for Movement [&/veh] 11.23 10.77 9.31 10.80 11.45 9.22 GAD 000 0,00 7.65 7.68 0.00 Movement LOS B B A B 6 A A A A A A A 95th- Percentile Queue Length (veh] 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 95th- Percentile Queue Length (Itj 3.89 3.89 3.89 2.80 2.80 2.80 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 3.38 3.38 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s /veh] 10.84 10.38 0.00 2.66 Approach LOS B B A A dl, Intersection Delay [s /veh] 2.64 Intersection LOS 6 Kuw_�tAN ASAYJATES, INC. 3 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU 1 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.672 Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwesttbound Scuuttheastbound Lane Configuration -i I r of l r -11F 1 I I r Turning Movement Left Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 1200 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 G 1 Pocket Length [ftj 105.00 100.00 105.00 75.00 100.00 85.00 115.00 10400 100 00 155.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 10000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [vehlh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh[h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 70 42 73 19 42 160 73 1328 11 115 1406 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h] 18 11 19 5 11 41 19 338 3 29 358 27 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 71 43 74 19 43 163 74 1352 11 117 1432 109 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicyclesm] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAV .L<akmreS, INC. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s] 100 Lost time [s] 10.00 Phasing 8 Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Overlap Protecte Permiss Permiss Protects Permiss Permiss Signal group 0 8 0 0 4 4 5 2 C. 1 6 .. Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead I Lag KUN7MAN As_ ki,cre5, We 5 12/2212016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, S Intersection Results Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.672 KUNZMAN AsswiATes, luc. 6 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4: 4: Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EW) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 9.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Penod: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration + 1 r i 1 29 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left I Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left I Thru Right Lane Width [ri[ 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 2.00 0 0 C 1 0 0 1 0 G 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100 00 1 I 7n 'o -C )0. C0 ' CC C0 50.00 100 -0 10000 145.00 100.00 100 00 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume (veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips lveh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h[ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h[ 8 107 8 20 127 41 28 51 29 47 58 19 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 10000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h[ 2 27 2 5 32 10 7 13 7 12 15 5 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 8 107 8 20 127 41 28 51 29 47 58 19 Pedestrian Volume 1ped/h] 0 0 0 0 K uvzarn.N A5_ pi a res, luc. 7 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 4'. 4. Opening Year (2017) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th- Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.43 0.12 0.69 95th - Percentile Queue Length [ft] 16.80 20,86 4.15 10.63 3.01 17.32 Approach Delay [s/vehl 9.62 9.15 8.79 9.77 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay js /veh] 9.33 Intersection LOS A KUNZnb\N A,e� IATes, I\ . 8 12/22/2016 Opening Year (2017) With Project Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File. J. \ ... WAM.vistro Scenario 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour Report File: J'. \ ... \OYP.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.027 11.7 B (EW) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 SEB Left 0.679 - B Pacific Coast Hwy (EVE 3 Main St (NS) Electric Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 9.3 A (Ea V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KUNZk4AN A_s4CIA TES, INC. 1 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Balsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave (EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay (sec / veh): 11.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Penod: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.027 Intersection Setup Name Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northeastbound Lane Configuration 1 4 1 r I r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Wolin [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100 00 100.00 100 00 100.00 100 00 100 00 100.00 65.00 100.00 100 00 Speed (mph) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No volumes Name Base Volume Input [ veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 100 Growth Rate 1.01 101 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 0 12 0 0 Diverted Tnps [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips(veh/h] 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [ veh/h] 18 10 4 0 15 28 147 11 17 46 27 115 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 10000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [ veh/h] 5 3 1 0 4 7 37 3 4 12 7 20 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 15 28 147 11 17 46 27 115 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KUV ?MAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No O 00 O. W Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 11.45 Two -Stage Gap Acceptance No No 11.72 9.33 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 6 C. 0 r, Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.02 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 'i.00 O 00 O. W 0.03 0.02 090 d_M, Delay for Movement [s /veh] 11.45 11.05 9.44 11.07 11.72 9.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 771 0.00 Movement LOS B B A 8 B A A A A A A A 95th - Percentile Queue Length [veh 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length [ft) 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.61 4.61 4.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.08 4.08 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [slveh) 11.07 10.16 0.00 2.98 Approach LOS B B A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s /veh] 3.09 Intersection LOS B KUNZ \iAN ASS Vtnres, INC. 3 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU 1 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.679 Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration -11r -11r -11 I'+ I I I r+ Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left I Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Wdlh [11] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 105.00 10000 105.00 75.00 '.00 00 85.00 115.00 100.00 !Of) 00 155.00 10000 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [ veh/h] fig 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %] 100 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 1 2 1 6 2 8 0 0 4 6 1 0 Diverted Trips [ veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips (veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume ( veh/h] 71 44 74 25 44 168 73 1328 15 121 1407 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume (veh/h] 18 11 19 6 11 43 19 338 4 31 358 27 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 72 45 75 25 45 171 74 1352 15 123 1433 109 Pedestrian Volume [ped/hj 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLN2 \N \V As_tii.ares, I\r. 4 12122/2016 Generated with MM The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project- PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s] 100 Lost time [s] 10.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Permiss Penniss Permiss Permiss Permiss Overlap Protecte Permiss Peoniss Protecte Penniss Permiss Signal group 0 8 n a 4 4 5 2 n 1 s 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead /Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - - KuvznrnN ASAYb\TES, Nc 5 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) Wth Project - PM Peak Hour Movement. Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.679 KUNZMAN AS- �CIATE, INC. 6 12122/2016 Generated with LWOM The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EN) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 9.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southwastbound Lane Configuration + 1 r i r •t+ Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane VMdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 1200 . No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100 00 700 OG 10090 10C.00 '00 00 50.00 100 30 100 GC 145.00 100.00 100.TI-100 00 Speed [mph[ 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h) 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 101 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Tnps [veh/h) 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Tnps [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume (veh /h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 8 108 8 21 128 41 28 51 32 47 58 19 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h[ 2 27 2 5 32 10 7 13 8 12 15 5 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 8 108 8 21 128 41 28 51 32 47 58 19 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZNAN As.iti IATES, INC. 7 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 5: 5: Opening Year (2017) With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th - Percentile Queue Length (vehJ 0.68 0.85 0.17 0.43 0.13 0.69 95th - Percentile Queue Length (ft) 17.01 21.28 4.16 10.65 3.35 17.37 Approach Delay [sivehj 9.65 9.19 8.78 9.79 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay [s /vehJ 9.35 Intersection LOS A KUNZIIAN AsaxiATeS, INC. 8 12122/2016 Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulaitve Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 6: 6: Opening Year (2017) VMth Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File: J: \...\AM.vistro Scenario 6: Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \... \OYPC.pdf 12/2212016 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway /Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.027 11.7 B (EV1) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized g ICU 1 NWB Left 0.683 - B Pacific Coast Hwy (E" 3 Main St (NS) aElectric Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 9.4 A V /C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 6: 6: Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Bolas Ave/Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Drivewsy/Bolsa Ave (EW) Control Type. Two -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 11.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.027 Intersection Setup Name Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northeastbound Lane Configuration 1 If 1 r 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 2.00 0 0 1.01 0 0 1.01 1 1 1.01 0 Pocket Length [ft] 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [veri 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 55.00 0 0 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/hj 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage f %] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [veri 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 0 12 0 0 Diverted Trips jveh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [vehih] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume (veh/h] 18 10 4 0 15 28 150 11 17 46 27 115 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h] 5 3 1 0 4 7 38 3 4 12 7 29 Total Analysis Volume (vehlh] 18 10 4 0 15 28 150 11 17 46 27 115 Pedestnan Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 KnVZ %tNN Asscin rt +, Kc 2 12/2212016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 6: 6: Opening Year (2017) Wth Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No Storage Area [vehj 0.02 d_M. Delay for Movement [s/vehl 11.48 Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No 11.74 9.35 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 7.68 7.71 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C. Movement VIC Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 d_M. Delay for Movement [s/vehl 11.48 11.08 9.45 11,09 11.74 9.35 7.68 7.71 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th- Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 O.DO D.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length (ft) 4.06 4.06 4.06 4.63 4.63 4.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.09 4.09 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [sfveh] 11.10 10.18 0.00 2.99 Approach LOS B B A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s /veh[ 3.07 Intersection LOS B Kuvz%in\ Aswr i n r es. I�r. 3 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 6: 6: Opening Year (2017) Nhth Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main SVBolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EM Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU 1 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.683 Intersection Setup Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 69 42 Approach Northeaslbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i l r 114 -11r 106 7 1 1 l F #111r 1.0000 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane NBdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1200 . 12.00 1200 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1200 . No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 1.01 1 1 1.01 1 1 1.01 0 1 0 t Pocket Length [ft] 105.00 0 105.00 75.00 it 85.00 115.00 8 0 155.00 1 100.00 Speed (mph] 30.00 2 30.00 0 30.00 30.00 6 Grace [%] 0.00 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 Crosswalk Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes Yes Pass -by Trips [veh/hl volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 it 0 0 8 0 Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 1 2 1 6 2 8 0 0 4 6 1 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 71 44 74 28 44 168 83 1339 15 121 1415 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 11 19 7 11 43 21 341 4 31 360 27 Total Analysis Volume [veh/hl 72 45 75 29 45 171 85 1364 15 123 1441 109 Pedestnan Volume [ped/hl 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicydes/h] 0 0 0 0 KUN-MIN As,- XI.vEa Inc. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 6: 6: Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length (s] 100 Lost time (s] 10.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Penniss Permiss Permiss Permiss Penniss Overlap Pmtecle Permiss Permiss Protects Permiss Permiss Signal group 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1.4 Lead /Lag Lead I I Leatl KUNZMAN Ivc. 5 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 6. 6: Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS B Intersection VIC 0.683 KIM N ASSOCIATES, tW. 1 2/2 212 01 6 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00-00 Scenario 6: 6: Opening Year (2017) With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EW) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / van): 9.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration + I I + Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left I Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Vvldth [ftj 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 2.00 0 0 1.01 1 0 1.01 1 0 1.01 0 Pocket Length [ft] 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [vehlh] 0 2 50.00 0 0 145.00 1 1 1 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [vehfij 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 In- Process Volume [vehlh] 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [vehlh] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [vehRQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/hj 0 j 0 j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [vehlh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [vehR] 8 110 8 21 128 41 29 52 33 48 58 19 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/hj 2 28 2 5 32 10 7 13 8 12 15 5 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 8 110 8 21 128 41 29 52 33 48 58 1 19 Pedestnan Volume [pedfnl 0 0 0 0 KuNz um Ass IAM INC. 7 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 6. 6. Opening Year (2017) V1hth Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th - Percentile Queue Length [vehj 0.70 0.85 0.17 0.44 0.14 0.70 95th - Percentile Queue Length [R] 17.39 21.35 4.17 10.98 3.46 17.60 Approach Delay [stveh] 9.69 9.22 8.81 9.82 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay [sNehj 9.38 Intersection LOS A KuN N As Mn& INC. 8 1212212016 Buildout Without Project Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00-00 Scenario 7'. 7: Buildout Without Project - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File: J: \...WM.vistro Scenario 7: Buildout Without Project - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \... \B.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.031 12.2 B (EVE 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 SEB Left 0.797 - C Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) 3 Main St (NS) at Electric Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 10.0 B (EW) V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KuNzm,\V A<�.v,.\res. Kr. 1 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00.00 Scenario 7: 7: Buildout Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Bolsa AvelSilver Shoals Ave (NS) at DrivewaylBolsa Ave (EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay (sec / veh): 12.2 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (Vic): 0.031 Intersection Setup Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 10 Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northeeastbound Lane Configuration Of 34 4 114 1r 1.0000 l l st Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Nhdth [ft] 12.00 1200 . 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 - 0 0 1.23 0 0 1.23 1 1 0 k- 0-Pocket Length (ft) - - 0 0 0 D 0 0 100.00 55.00 0 -. - Speed [mph] 30.00 0 30.00 0 30.00 0 30.00 Grade [ %) 0.00 Diverted Trips [vehrn] 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crosswalk Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 No volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume [vehlh[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [vehrn] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h) 0 j 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [velvh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veNh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 22 12 5 0 16 15 180 12 21 42 33 140 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h) 6 3 1 0 4 4 45 3 5 11 8 35 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 12 5 0 16 15 180 12 21 42 33 140 Pedestrian Volume [pedrh] 0 0 0 KUN MAN ASSOCIATE$ INC. 2 12122/2416 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.0MO Scenario 7: 7: Buildout Without Proiecl - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No Storage Area [veh] d_M, Delay for Movement [aNeh] 12.12 Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No 12.21 9.49 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 7.78 7.80 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C. Movement VIC Rabo 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 d_M, Delay for Movement [aNeh] 12.12 11.33 9.65 11.52 12.21 9.49 7.78 7.80 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th - Percentile Queue Length jveh] 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length [ft] 5.31 5.31 5.31 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.34 4.34 0.00 d_A. Approach Delay [sNeh] 11.56 10.89 0.00 2.71 Approach LOS 8 B A A d_I. Intersection Delay (s/veh] 2.75 Intersection LOS B KuNzM N AS IATr$ INC. 1 212 2/2 01 6 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 7: 7: Buildout Without Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersectlon 2: Main SHBoisa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EM Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU 1 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.797 Intersection Setup Name Approach Nonheastbound Southwestbound Northwesttbound Southwasstbound Lane Configuration A 1 r i I r oil !e i I 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thrru Right Lane Vvldth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 1200 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 - 1 1 1.23 1 1 1.23 0 1 1.23 1 Packet Length [ft] 105.00 1.23 105.00 75.00 - - -. 85.00 115.00 0 - 155.00 - 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%j 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [vehRr] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %j 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 123 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume (veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site-Generated Trips [veh/hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips (vehIhj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 85 52 89 23 52 194 89 1617 14 140 1712 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h] 22 13 23 6 13 49 23 412 4 36 436 33 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 87 53 91 23 53 198 91 1647 14 143 1743 132 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Kuhn N Asso IAM INC. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with ME= The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 7: 7: Buildout VYthout Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings CyGe Length [s[ 100 Lost time [sj 10.00 rasing & Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Pennlss Permiss Permiss Overlap Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Penniss Signal group a 4 4 5 2 1 6 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1.4 Lead /Lag Lead Lead KUNZNAN Ac- o IATK IN.:. 5 1212212016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 7: 7: Buildout Wdhout Project - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intemection Resuhs Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C a.797 KUN MAN ASSLYIATTS, INC. 12rMOis J Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 7: 7: Buildcut Wdhout Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EW) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / van): 10.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Approach Norheastbound Southwestbound Nonhwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration + I r I r + Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane VMdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 2.00 0 0 1.23 1 0 1.23 1 0 1.23 0 Pocket Length [ft] 1,23 1.23 In- Process Volume [vehlh] - 0 50.00 0 0 145.00 0 0 0 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cmsswaik Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ %] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 123 1.23 1.23 1.23 1,23 1.23 In- Process Volume [vehlh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [vehB] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [vehar] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [vehlh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 10 130 10 25 155 50 34 62 36 58 70 23 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh/h] 3 33 3 6 39 13 9 16 9 15 18 6 Total Analysis Volume [vehrh] 10 130 10 25 155 50 34 62 36 58 70 23 Pedestrian Volume (ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KUMMA. AS MTFS, tut 7 12%12/2018 Generated with Version 4.00 -00 The Bay Theater Scenario 7: 7: Buildout Without Proiect - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th - Percentile Queue Length [vehl 0.91 1.14 1 0.22 0.58 I 0.16 0.94 95th - Percentile Queue Length [8] 22.72 28.62 1 5.38 14.03 1 4.00 23.48 Approach Delay [a/vehl 10.37 9.91 9.30 10.57 Approach LOS B A A B Intersection Delay [s/vehl 10.04 Intersection LOS B KUNZMAN A69SIAT -% INC 8 12122/2016 Buildout With Project Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 8: 8: Buildout With Project- PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File: J: \...\AM.vistro Scenario 8: Buildout With Project - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \... \BP.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.036 12.5 B (EW) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 SEB Left 0.804 - D Pacific Coast Hwy (E\M 3 Main St (NS) at Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 10.1 B V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KUNZMAN A35tYIA J E5, INC 1 12/22/2018 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 8: 8: Buildout With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Drivewayl6alsa Ave (EW) Control Type: Two -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 12.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.036 Intersection Setup Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 Approach Southbound 17 Eastbound 27 Westbound Northeastbound Lane Configuration 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 4 1.0000 1.0000 1 r 1.0000 91 1.0000 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thou Right Lane NAdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Pocket Length [fl[ 100 DO 100 0G 190 OU 100 00 100 CO 100A0 100OG 100 00 100.00 55.00 100,00 10G 00 Speed [mph] 0 30.00 0 0 30.00 0 0 30.00 1 0 30.00 0 Grade [ %] Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Crosswalk 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 0 No 0 volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ % ] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 123 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 0 12 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume lveh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 22 12 5 0 18 31 180 13 21 54 33 140 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 L0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h] 6 3 1 0 5 8 45 3 5 14 8 35 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 1 12 i 5 0 18 31 180 13 1 21 54 33 140 Pedestrian Volume [ped /h] 0 0 0 0 KuMAL \V Assrucres, we 2 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 8: 8: Buildout With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Pnonty Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No 0100 0.00 Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 9 Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No 12.51 9.61 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 C G Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C. Movement V/C Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0100 0.00 0.04 0.02 0 00 d_M, Delay for Movement [sJveh] 12.38 11.64 9.79 11.83 12.51 9.61 060 0 00 0, 00 7.79 7.83 0.00 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th - Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 95th- Percentile Queue Length [R] 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.78 5.78 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.08 5.08 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s /veh] 11.82 10.68 0.00 2.99 Approach LOS B B A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s /vehj 114 Intersection LOS B l As_ xCIATes. INC. 3 1222/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 8: 8: Buildout With Project - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU 1 Level Of Service : D Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.804 Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeaastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration -i I r -11 r+ 71 i -111 r+ Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thee Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 72.00 12.00 12.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 `u 1 1 0 0 1.23 =2.O 1.23 Pocket Length [ft] 105.00 ;00 CO 105.00 75.00 100 00 85.00 175.00 1G0.00 100.00 0 0 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [ veh/h] 69 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.2a 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips [ veh/h] 1 2 1 5 2 8 0 0 4 6 1 0 Diverted Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [venorl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[ veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/hj 86 54 g0 29 54 202 89 1617 18 146 1713 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /hj 22 14 23 7 14 51 23 412 5 37 436 33 Total Analysis Volume [ veh/h] 88 55 92 30 55 206 91 1647 18 149 1744 132 Pedestnan Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLVNMAV INC. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 8: 8: Buildout With Project- PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s] 100 Lost fime [sj 10.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Permiss Penniss Permiss Penniss Permiss Overlap Prolecte Permiss Penniss Protects Permiss Penniss Signal group C 8 0 0 4 4 5 2 0 1 6 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead /Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - - KMZMAN Ai_ tii,rEs, iNC. 5 12/22/2016 Generated vdth The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 8: 8: Buildout With Project - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS D Intersection V/C 0.804 KULZM AN As,- YIATFS, INC. 6 12122/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 8: 8: Buildout With Project- PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EW) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 10.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwastbound North� westbound Southeea�stbound Lane Configuration + I r 1 r f 1 Tuming Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12,00 1200 1 1200 . No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ftJ 100.00 100 00 1 OC 00 100.00 100 00 50.00 100 00 10000 145.00 100.00 100.00 100 00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 8 106 8 20 126 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%j 2.00 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site- Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 10 131 10 26 156 50 34 62 39 58 70 23 Peak Hour Factor 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.ODD0 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 10000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh /h] 3 33 3 7 39 13 9 16 10 15 18 6 Total Analysis Volume [veh /h] 10 131 10 26 156 50 34 62 39 58 70 1 23 Pedestrian Volume [ped /h] 0 0 0 0 Kl1NZMA] As_x-IATE7, Inc 7 12/22/2016 Generated vAth The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 8: 8: Buildout With Project- PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th - Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.92 117 0.22 D.56 0.17 0.94 95th- Percentle Queue Length [ft] 22.98 29.14 539 14.06 4.36 23.55 Approach Delay [s /veh] 10.41 9.96 9.30 10.60 Approach LOS B A A B Intersection Delay [s /veh] 10.07 Intersection LOS B KuNZ11AN AS3MATES, NC. 8 12/22/2016 Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 9: 9: Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour The Bay Theater Vistro File: J: \...AM.vistro Scenario 9. Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Report File: J: \... \BPC.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary 12/22/2016 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s /veh) LOS Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave 1 (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave Two -way stop HCM 2010 EB Thru 0.036 12.5 B (EW) 2 Main St/Bolsa Ave (NS) at Signalized ICU 1 NWB Left 0.808 0 Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) 3 Main St (NS) Ave All -way stop HCM 2010 SEB Thru 10.1 B (aWt,Electric V /C, Delay, LOS: For two -way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. KIMZ \4 \V A?sn �nses, Fvc. 1 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 9: 9: Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: Bolsa Ave /Silver Shoals Ave (NS) at Driveway / Bolsa Ave (EW) Control Type: Two -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 12.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: 6 Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.036 Intersection Setup Name Base Volume Input [veh/h) 18 10 4 0 13 12 Approach Southbound Eastbound Westbound Nonheastbound Lane Configuration Base Volume Adjustment Factor Of 1.0000 1 0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 1 0000 ,� 1 1.0000 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left I Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] I00 -00 1 OC 00 100 00 1^0 00 77717 or 100 00 100 00 100.00 55.00 100.00 10000 Speed [mph] 0 30.00 0 0 30.00 0 0 30.00 0 30.00 0 Grade [%] 0 0.00 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Crosswalk 0 Yes 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume ]veh/h] Yes 0 0 Yes 0 No 0 volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h) 18 10 4 0 13 12 146 10 17 34 27 114 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [ h] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Site - Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 0 12 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume ]veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [vehi 22 12 5 0 18 31 183 13 21 54 33 140 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh[h] 6 3 1 0 5 8 46 3 5 14 8 35 Total Analysis Volume [veh/hj 22 12 1 5 0 18 31 183 13 21 54 33 140 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KlWbb\y As Vin'reS Inc 2 12/22/2016 Generated with == The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 9: 9: Buildout With Proles Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free Flared Lane No No 0 GG O.OG Storage Area[veh] 0 2 G 0 Two -Stage Gap Acceptance No No 12.55 9.63 Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 6 0 0 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V /C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 C OG 0 GG O.OG 0.04 0.02 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 12.42 11.67 9.80 11.86 12.55 9.63 O.GG 0.00 O.GO 7.79 7.84 O.GO Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A 95th- Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 TOO 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 95th - Percentile Queue Length ]ft] 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.81 1 5.81 5.81 0.00 0 0 0,00 5.09 5.09 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s /veh] 11.85 10.70 0.00 2.99 Approach LOS B B A A d_L Intersection Delay [s /veh] 113 Intersection LOS B KUNZ \, \V As_l�IATES, N�c 3 12/22/2016 Generated with Lwonguel The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 9: 9: Buildout With Proiect Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Main SVBolsa Ave (NS) at Pacific Coast Hwy (EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay (sec / veh): - Analysis Method: ICU i Level Of Service: D Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v /c): 0.808 Intersection Setup Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southwastbound Lane Configuration -11r -'r+ 1 l F• -111r Turning Movement Left Thm Right Left Thru I Right Left Thru Right Left Thru I Right Lane NAdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 ,. 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 105.00 100 CO 105.00 75.00 ?00 00 85.00 115.00 1000,3 100.00 155.00 10000 100.00 Speed [mph) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade 1 %] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] fig 42 72 19 42 158 72 1315 11 114 1392 106 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume[veh/hJ 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 11 0 0 8 0 Site- Generated Trips [veh/h] 1 2 1 6 2 8 0 0 4 6 1 0 Diverted Trips (veh /h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh[h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 86 54 90 32 54 202 99 1628 18 146 1721 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9820 0.9620 0.9820 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh[h] 22 14 23 8 14 51 25 414 5 37 438 33 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 88 55 92 33 55 206 101 1658 18 149 1753 132 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicyclesm] 0 0 0 0 KUN ?VAV As_ tIATES, INC. 4 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 9: 9: Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Cycle Length [s] 100 Lost time [s] 10.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Overlap Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 0 8 0 0 4 4 5 2 0 1 6 Auxiliary Signal Groups 1,4 Lead /Lag - - - - - - Lead I - I - Lead - - KUNZMAN ASAYIATES, I1c. 5 12/2212016 Generated with == The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 9: 9: Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Intersection LOS D Intersection VIC 0.808 KUVZMAN AS�kIArES, INC. 6 12/22/2016 Generated with LW* The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenario 9: 9: Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Main St (NS) at Electric Ave (EVI) Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 10.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Base Volume Input (veh/h] 8 106 Approach Northeaslbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration + 47 i r i r Base Volume Adjustment Factor •{+ 1.0000 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left I Thru Right Left I Thru I Right Left Thru Right Lane Vddth (ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1100 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 100 00 IOC 00 10000 100 00 400 00 50.00 100.00 700.00 145.00 10000 100 00 700 00 Speed [mph] 30.00 1 30.00 30.00 0 30.00 0 Grade [%I 0.00 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 Crosswalk Yes 0 Yes Yes 0 Yes Pass -by Trips [veh /h] volumes Name Base Volume Input (veh/h] 8 106 8 20 125 41 28 50 29 47 57 19 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 In- Process Volume [veh/hl 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Site - Generated Trips (veh/h] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh /h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh[h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume jveh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 10 133 10 26 156 50 35 63 40 59 70 23 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 10000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15- Minute Volume [veh[h] 3 33 3 7 39 13 9 16 10 15 iff Total Analysis Volume (veh/hl 10 133 10 26 156 50 35 63 40 59 Pedestrian Volume (ped/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNIZIIA � A;_ tiIATES, INC. 7 12/22/2016 Generated with The Bay Theater Version 4.00 -00 Scenano 9: 9: Buildout With Project Plus Cumulative - PM Peak Hour Intersection Settings Lanes Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 95th - Percentile Queue Length [vehl 0.94 1.17 0.22 0.58 0.18 0.95 95th - Percentile Queue Length [flj 23.45 29.26 5.41 14.44 4.49 23.83 Approach Delay [s /veh] 10.46 9.99 9.33 10.64 Approach LOS B A A B Intersection Delay [s/veh] 10.11 Intersection LOS B KUNZMAN A,- p�IATQS, INC. 8 12/22/2016 APPENDIX D Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Plots U) co U N O LL ■ so 1 • I ra LO M O y N p Co L O N _r_ M 2(l) U p O> APPENDIX E City of Seal Beach Main Street Specific Plan m r MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF SEAL BEACH July 8, 1996 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mayor Gwen Forsythe Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Hastings Councilman George E. Brown Councilman Bill Doane Councilman Frank Laszlo* Councilwoman Patti Campbell Joanne Yeo, City Clerk Jerry Bankston, City Manager** Keith R. Till, City Manager Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Barry Curtis, Assistant Planner Dept. of Development Services Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary, Dept. of Development Services ° Former Member of Qty Comeil "Formerly with City Planninr Commission Chairperson Patti Campbell Vice - Chairman Brian Brown Commissioner Anton Dahlman Commissioner Mary Law Commissioner Jim Sharp Consultants Zucker Systems, San Diego Paul C. Zucker, President Laurie Price, Planner Ryan McAweeney, Graphic Designer Amy Becker, Administrative Assistant Linscoa, Law & Greenspan, Costa Mesa Jack Greenspan, P.E. Jay Nelson Main Street Specific Plan Zucker Systems C Main Strea Specific Plan GUy of Seal Beach July. LW6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..... ............................... I A. - Vision ......................................... I B. Statutory Authority .. ............................... 3 C. Relation to the General Plan ........................... 3 D. Relation to the Zoning Code and Other City Ordinances .......... 4 2. LAND USE ......... ............................... 5 3. BUILDING AND DESIGN PROVISIONS .................... 13 4. PARKING AND TRAFFIC .............................. 21 A. Parking ........ ............................... 21 B. Traffic ......... ............................... 23 5. PUBLIC FACILITIES .. ............................... 33 A. Street Trees ..... ............................... 33 B. Utility Lines and Poles .............................. 35 C. Benches ........ ............................... 35 D. Street Lighting ................................... 36 E. Bicycle Facilities .. ............................... 36 F. Landscaping ..... ............................... 36 Main Street Specific Plan i Zucker Systems Main Strea Specific Plan My of Seal Beach July, 1996 G. Signs on Public Sidewalks ........................... 37 H. Other Public Facilities .............................. 37 6. SCREENING OF PRIVATE PARKING LOTS ................. 38 7. DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT .......................... 40 B. RELATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE GENERAL PLAN .... ............................... 42 Main Street Specific Plan ii Zucker Systems Main Saes Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July, 1995 APPENDIX BACKGROUND STUDIES ....................... (Separate Document) LIST OF TABLES 1. 1994 Street Level Land Use by Type and Number of Businesses within Specific Boundary ....................... 6 2. Establishments Serving Alcohol by Type of License ................ 8 3. Parking Inventory ..... ............................... 21 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Main Street Specific Plan Boundary .......................... 2 2. Street Trees ........ ............................... 34 3. Parking Lot Screening .. ............................... 39 Main Street Spec Plan in Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seat Beach Jxly, 1996 1. INTRODUCTION A. Vision The Main Street Specific Plan has been prepared by the City of Seal Beach to provide a long range 'vision" and implementing actions for the preservation and enhancement of downtown Seal Beach. The Plan applies to the approximately 21 acres shown on Figure 1. It includes the previous C -1 zoning district surrounding Main Street, the previous C -2 zone at the corner of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and related public uses. The regulatory portions of the Specific Plan are implemented through the creation of a new Main Street Specific Plan Zone (C -SP Zone) in the City's Zoning Code. This Plan revises a Main Street Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in January 1976. It builds on a report prepared by the Downtown Parking and Urban Design Task Force in 1984. The current Plan is the result of studies conducted in 1994 and 1995. The study included numerous interviews, an opinion survey sent to 1,200 residents and businesses with a 50% return, detailed parking counts, an up-to -date land use survey, and various other field studies. i The Plan is based on the following vision: f VISION The Main Street area is particularly important because it is a cohesive agent for a city that is geographically fragmented. The vision for Main Street is small town America. Important features include a family town with friendly people who care for each other. A pedestrian oriented area where people walk and feel safe on the street at night. An area with both architectural and economic diversity with a mix of offices and businesses. Main Street is surrounded by an area of mixed housing types and institutions, creating a complete small town community. Although it is recognized that the area will have businesses that serve both residents and visitors, the goal is to not have visitor serving uses overwhehn the area at the expense of the small town character. It is also recognized that when the weather and beach conditions are attractive, the demand for parking may exceed the supply. Main Street Spec Plan 1 Zucker Systems Main Sireel SpeclAc Plan MY Of Seal Beach Ady. 1996 Main street speciric Plea 2 Zucker Systems Main Sneer Specific Plan Cry of Seal Beach July, 1996 The differential standards used in the Main Street Specific Plan may seem to some as unfair in relation to the rest of the City. However, the VISION clearly establishes the importance of Main Street and justifies its differential treatment. What would Seal Beach be like without Main Street? The Plan recognizes Main Street as the heart and soul of Seal Beach. What makes a community special is often the very same factor that causes pressure for change. The more charming a town appears, the greater the demand upon the community from the outside. The need to serve the visitor brings with it new businesses that can change the character of the town. Main streets like Seal Beach's have disappeared all over the country. Typical issues include: If they become very tourist popular, tourist uses and chain stores out bid local uses, driving up the rents and driving out local uses. Traditional small one -of -a -kind stores have trouble competing with the big box retailers and chain stores. The Main Street Specific Plan is designed to address these issues. B. Statutory Authority The Specific Plan is authorized by Article 8 of the California Government Code (Section 65450 et. seq.) and this document meets the requirements as specified in Section 65451. C. Relation to the General Plan The Specific Plan carves out the objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan. It provides the detailed criteria for development of specific sites and public improvements. The Specific Plan is relatively high in the land use hierarchy, coming just below the General Plan. Zoning, subdivisions, public works projects and development agreements all must be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Main Street Specific Plan 3 Zucker Systems Main Street Spedfc Plan City of Sad Beach nary, 1996 The Plan creates a bridge between General Plan policies and individual development Proposals. Specific language relating the Specific Plan to the General Plan is included in Chapter B. D. Relation to the Zoning Code and Other City Ordinances The regulatory portions of the Specific. Plan have been incorporated into the City's Zoning Code and are also repeated in this Specific Plan document. Therefore, the City's Zoning Code or other City ordinances, including those ordinances amended or enacted as part of this adoption of this Specific Plan, continue to apply to the Main Street Specific Plan area. Main Street Specific Plan 4 Zucker Systems Main Shea Speck Plan a7 of Seal Bach July, 1996 2. LAND USE The small town village charm of Seal Beach's Main Street area comes from a variety of factors including the eclectic mix of architecture, constrained area (only three blocks long), and relation to the ocean. However, of major importance, if not the single most important element, is the mix of uses in close proximity to one another. . Within the area there are 107 commercial parcels. Along Main Street and immediately adjacent to Ocean, Central and Electric Avenues there are 121 existing businesses located at street level. 38 office suites are situated on the second and third floors above Main Street_ The 1994 land use is shown in a separate Background Studies report. The commercial uses are the key to the area's special character. The commercial center has been able to retain its small town character due to those businesses that depend on and support the adjoining residential development. These uses are traditionally found in a small town, village center. It is important that they be retained and other similar uses be encouraged to establish on Main Street whenever possible. In Seal Beach these uses include: grocery store, financial institution, hardware store, Post Office, drug store, movie theater, and nursery. Additional land uses such as bookstores, video rentals, newspaper, cafes, doctor's offices, barber shops etc. are also essential to a small town character. Table 1 summarizes the 1994 land use. Main Street Spec Plan 5 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July, 1996 TABLE 1 1994 Street Level Land Use by Type and Number of Businesses Within Specific Plan Boundary Use Tym Number of Businesses Food and Beverage Food Service w/o liquor 9 Food Service w/ liquor 14 Bar 1 Total 25 Retail Antiques S Books 2 Clothing 17 Flowers 2 Food & Sundries 3 Art Gallery 7 Gas 2 Gift S k'elry 3 liquor 2 Sporting Equipment 3 Drug Store 2 Hon a vccorating & improvement 1 Other 1 Total 65 i IMM Financial 2 LAW 4 Medical 2 Real Estate 2 Travel 2 Other f Total is services Beauty Salon 14 Dry Cleaners 2 Printing 2 Other 3 Total 23 Main Street Spec Plan 6 Zucker Systems Main Sneer Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July. 1996 TABLE 2 Establishments Serving Alcohol By Type of License A. Permitted Uses 1) Barbershops and beauty parlors; 2) Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments provided there is seating for no more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the establishment does not exceed 1,000 sq. ft; Main Street Specific Plan 8 Zucker Systems J� Beer/ General Entertain- closing Hours F•stablishmeat ne MMI ): i Food and Beverage Seaside Grill X 10:00 11:00 Taw Surf X 10:00 10.00 Pasta Grano X 10:00 11:00 Don Juan's Taw X 9-.OD 9 :00 Hennessey's X X 1:30 1:300 Papillon X X X 1-00°* 1:00 Walt's Wharf X X 11:00 12:00 W's Pizzeria X 10:00 11:00 Main St. Cafe & Grille X 10:00 10:00 Mandarin Garden X Bayou St. John X 10:30 10.30 Cafe lafeyetts X 9:00 10:00 Ruby's X 10:00 10:00 Kinds I AM" X X 1100 12:00 El Burrito Jr. X 10:00 12-00 Beverage CUoey'e X X 2:00 2.00 Irisher X X 2 :00 2:00 Off Site Consumption Seal Beach liquor X X 11-00 12:00 Johns Food Xing X 10:00 11:00 Nip •n Stuff X X 2 :00 2:00 "Sun. -11:00 POUCYY 1. Create A New Main Street Specific Plan Zone (Article 12.5, Section 28 -1250 and 28 -1251, C -SP Zone) A. Permitted Uses 1) Barbershops and beauty parlors; 2) Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments provided there is seating for no more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the establishment does not exceed 1,000 sq. ft; Main Street Specific Plan 8 Zucker Systems J� Main Street Specific Plan C City of Seal Beach July, 1996 Businesses that serve the residential community of Seal Beach also receive a percentage of their business from the visitors to the community, and in some cases without the visitors' business, they might not be able to survive. Part of Seal Beach's old town charm is the close proximity of its residential development to the commercial establishments. This arrangement is highly desirable. Frequently, the biggest conflict between a commercial center and an adjoining residential neighborhood is between the residents and the nearby eating and drinking establishments. In the Main Street area of Seal Beach there are 23 restaurants of which 14 serve liquor, see Table 2. Also there are two bars which serve no food and three other businesses licensed to sell liquor for off - premise consumption. Table 2 also indicates which eating establishments serve alcoholic beverages and their closing hours. A majority of the establishments are licensed to sell only beer r and wine, and generally close between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening. The two bars and four restaurants with general liquor licenses (permitted to sell distilled alcohol as well as beer and wine) are allowed to stay open later. All establishments are closed by 2:00 am. The Main Street business area is located in Census Tract 995.05, which is identified by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) as being 'overconcentrated'. Overconcentration is a guideline utilized by the ABC to determine if additional alcoholic beverage licenses should be issued in that area. Seal Beach requires a 'conditional use permit' for any alcoholic beverage type of sale, and the City can consider the potential impact of an 'overconcentration' of ABC licenses during the public hearing process. Without a conditional use permit approval from the City, ABC will not issue a new alcoholic beverage sales license within the City. Based on 1990 U.S. Census population information, Census Tract 995.05 would support a total of 13 on- and off - premise licenses, with the tract currently having 33 licensed location, 20 of which are within the Main Street Specific Plan area. Those alcohol serving businesses with the Main Street Specific Plan area are set forth in Table 2, following. Main Street Specific Play 7 Zucker Systems l Main Sven Speck plan GL" y of Seal Beach July, 1996 3) Financial institutions; 4) General retail businesses such as grocery store, furniture store, etc.; 5) Horticultural Nursery; 6) Medical offices and laboratories facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (2nd floor or above only); 7) Medical offices and laboratories not facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 8) Prescription pharmacies; 9) Professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (2nd floor and above only); 10) Professional offices not facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 11) Service businesses dealing directly with consumers (dressmaker, nail shop, tailor, etc); 12) Accessory buildings and structures; and 13) Other similar uses when determined by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan and compatible with other permitted uses within the zone. B. Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit 1) Automatic ice vending machines; 2) Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments with seating for more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the establishment exceeds 1,000 sq. ft.; 3) Coin operated amusement machines as a secondary use; 4) Commercial activities operating between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; 5) Entertainment cafes; 6) Gas Stations located on a major arterial, subject to compliance with the performance and development standards imposed by Section 23- 2318; 7) Horticultural Nursery; 8) Liquor establishments, if part of a grocery store, provided that the number of such establishments permitted in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone shall not exceed two (2) at any one time. Permitted operating hours for such establishments shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 Main Street Specific Plan 9 Zucker Systems Main Sneer Specific Plan Gary of Seal Beach July. 1996 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, and holidays. Any such establishments which qualify for temporary on -sale or off -sale licenses under the provisions of California Business and Professions Code Sections 24045.1, 24045.2, 24045.3, 24045.4, 24045.6, 24045.7, 24045.8, and 24045.9, as may be amended, shall be exempt from this requirement for a Conditional Use Permit; 9) Medical offices and laboratories facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (1st floor); 10) Movie Theaters; 11) Parking garage; 12) Pet shop; 13) Private parking lots; 14) Professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (1st floor); 15) Recycling facilities as defined in Section 28 -2321 and as follows: s) Reverse vending machines; b) Small collection recycling facilities within a convenience zone; and c) Mobile recycling units within a convenience zone; 16) Restaurant, with or without alcohol sales (not including drive -in restaurants). Permitted operating hours of such restaurants shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, and holidays ; 17) Similar retail or service establishments catering directly to consumers when interpreted by the Planning Commission as meeting the intent of service commercial uses and the General Plan; and 18) Veterinary out - patient clinic.. •,_ „ Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: A. All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building except such uses as: l) Growing stock, only when in connection with horticultural nurseries; 2) Parking lots; Main Street Specific Plan 10 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July. 1996 3) Restaurant, semi-enclosed. B. Storage shall be limited to accessory storage of commodities sold at retail on the premises. C. All operations conducted on the premises shall not be objectionable by reason of noise, odor, dust, mud, smoke, steam, vibration or other similar causes. D. Where any property used for commercial purposes has a common property line with property zoned for residential purposes, no commercial use shall be established thereon unless there is fast erected a solid masonry or concrete block wall not less than eight feet in height at such property line, except where a wall of a building is on such property line, no separate block wall need be provided. E. Findings required for Conditional Use Permits within the Main Street ! Specific Plan boundaries: i 1) Additional Findings Required. In reviewing applications for Conditional Use Permits for the Main Street area, the Planning Commission shall evaluate each proposed use in order to consider its impact on the City. No Conditional Use Permit shall be granted within the Main Street Specific Plan boundaries unless the Planning Commission makes, in addition to those findings required in the Zoning Code, Section 28 -2503 and 28 -2504, all of the following findings: a) The proposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose and Vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan. b) The proposed use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non -local populations. Main Street Specific Plan 11 Zucker Systems Main Shea Specific Plan a+y of Sad Beach Jute. 1996 c) The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide the Main Street a sense of identity. d) The proposed use complies with all applicable City Council policies, such as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol serving uses. Main Street Specific Plan 12 Zucker Systems Main Street Sped Plan City of Seal Beach Aiy, 1996 3. BUILDING AND DESIGN PROVISIONS In preparing the Specific Plan, an urban design analysis of the Main Street area was conducted. This study suggested that the following factors are important ingredients in maintaining the small town village charm and a pedestrian scale: J Transparent storefronts with views into shops, offices and restaurants. J Building facades located near the street property line. J Continuous street side facades from side lot line to side lot line. J Screening of parking lots from the pedestrians' way. J Building facades limited to 35 -50 feet in width. J Eclectic architecture without national trademark buildings. J Low one and two story buildings. J Signs in keeping with the pedestrian scale and atmosphere. Although many communities would use these factors to establish a design review process, the Main Street Specific Plan takes a different approach. Specific design criteria are established to be implemented as part of a ministerial permit process. Main Street Spec Plan 13 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan r CSty of Seal Beach July, 1996 POLICY 2. Create New General Provisions for Lot Size, Open Space, Bulk and Yards (C -SP Zone, Section 28 -1253) y� 1) Minimum Lot Size: Width: .................................... 25 feet Depth: .................................... 110 feet Area: .............................. 2,750 square feet 2) Yard Dimension (minimums): Abutting Front Street: ............................. 0* Abutting Side Street: .............................. 0* Abutting Rear Street: .............................. 0* Abutting Side Alley: ....... . .................... 4 feet Abutting Rear Alley: ........................... 22 feet Not Abutting Street or Alley on Side: ................... 0* Not Abutting Street or Alley on Rear: ........... 10% lot width; 5 ft. min. /10 ft. max.* * Where a property has a front, side or tear yard on a block face with residentially zoned properties, the minimum dimensions for required front, side, or rear yards for the property shall be the same minimum dimensions as required in the residential zone. Notwitbstanding the foregoing, uses with loading zone requirements do not have to provide the minimum dimensions required for residential zone rear yards where such loading zone conflicts with such minimum requirements. 3) Lot Coverage: .. ............................... 75% 4) Maximum Height, Main Building: ............. 30 feet maximum Any portion of structure greater than 20 feet in height must be set back from street facade a minimum of 10 feet. S) Maximum Height, Accessory Building: ............... 15 feet Main Street Specific Plan 14 Zucker Systems i` Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July, 1996 6) Minimum Required Landscape:... 0% of the site, plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout any on -grade parking lot area. If parking area abuts the front or side street(s), a landscape area averaging 3 feet in width shall be required between such parking area and sidewalk(s) subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. Such area shall include a minimum of one tree for each 30 ft. of linear landscape area plus landscaping and /or wall to a height of 2.5 feet designed to screen the automobiles from the sidewalk. In no case shall the landscape area be less than l foot in width. 7) Lot Area Standards: . . . Smaller parcels shall not be merged for development purposes into a parcel that exceeds 6,000 square feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, development may be permitted on parcels that exceed 6,000 square feet as of the effective date of this Article. Main Street Specific Plan 15 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan ary of Seal Beach July, 1996 POLICY 3. Building and Design Provisions 1) All buildings shall meet the following design criteria: a) Transparency: At sidewalk level, buildings shall be primarily transparent. A minimum of 50% of all first floor facades with street frontage shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space. The building wall subject to transparency requirements shall include the portion between three feet and ten feet above the sidewalk. Blank walls should be avoided and lively facades encouraged. b) Glass: All glass in windows and doorways shall be clear for maximizing visibility into stores. A minimal amount of neutral tinting of glass to achieve some sun control is acceptable if the glass appears essentially transparent when viewed from the outside. Opaque and reflecting glass shall not be used. c) Window Security Bars: Window security bars shall only be allowed if installed on the interior of the window area. d) Facade Set -Back: Buildings shall be located on or within 4 feet of the street property line. Exceptions shall be: a) outdoor restaurant seating areas or b) areas where abutting buildings are, as of the effective date of this Article, set back creating in effect continuous store frontages with a Main Street Specific Phan 16 Zucker Systems .J Main Street Specific Plan My of Seal Beach July, 1996 wider sidewalk. In the latter case, the abutting buildings' set back shall be considered the equivalent of the property line. e) Facade Continuity: Building street facades shall be continuous from lot line to lot line. Parking or loading areas shall not abut Main Street or Ocean Avenue frontages. f) Facade Width: Facades of interconnecting buildings should retain their individual identity. Buildings should not be remodeled or painted to give the appearance of a single building. Any street side building facade exceeding 50 feet in width shall be segmented into individual designs not exceeding 50 feet in width. g) Trademark Buildings: Trademark buildings used to house a franchise operation shall be prohibited. 2) All new sidewalks or sidewalk replacements shall be constructed utilizing a textured sidewalk material in a pattern or design representing no less than 50% of the sidewalk surface. .� Roof - mounted mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. i Main Street Spec Plan 17 Zucker Systems Main Street Speck Plan G1ry of Seat Beach : Jury, 1996 POLICY 4. Signs 3. C -0, C -SP, C -1 and C -2 Zones. The following signs are permitted in the C -0, C -SP, C -1 and C -2 zones: a) One unlighted sign pertaining to the sale, lease, or rental of the property on which the sign is displayed. Lots of record and parcels not exceeding: 10,000 square feet ............................ 6 sq. ft. 10,000 square feet to 1 acre ..................... 25 sq. ft. More than I acre ............................ SO sq. ft. b) Political signs, when they pertain to an election, shall be placed no earlier than thirty days prior to the election to which they pertain. Signs posted on a building face or in a window shall not exceed thirty -six inches by forty-eight inches. Said signs shall be removed within seven days after the election. c) Construction signs under the same restrictions as Section 28 -1804 (1) (d); d) For each shopping center, identification signs are permitted as follows: 1) One free - standing or pole identification sign containing the name and logo of the center. Sign not to exceed fifteen feet in overall height and not to exceed sixty square feet on one face of a double -faced sign; Main Street Specific Plan 18 Zucker Systems J l Main Street Specific Plan City of seal Beach July, 1996 2) One monument sign not to exceed ten square feet in area and not to exceed four feet in height at each traffic entrance to the center, in no case shall more than four monument signs be placed in any shopping center. C) Each commercial activity may have signing identifying the activity on the premises as follows: 1) One sign per building face which is visible from streets or parlang lot area. Said sign to be fascia or wall sign. 2) Size of fascia or wall sign shall be one square foot per lineal foot of building face, not to exceed one hundred square feet per sign. 3) In lieu of one or more fascia or wall signs, one free- standing or pole sign not to exceed fifteen feet in overall height may be erected on the parcel or building site on which the building is located. Maximum size of sign shall not exceed sixty square feet per face of a double faced sign. Free standing or pole signs are prohibited in the C -SP zone. 4) In case of buildings having less than twenty-five linear feet of frontage on a street, twenty -five square feet of signing will be permitted. 5) In cases where a business is located on a street with a speed limit of thirty-five mph or more, a free standing sign or larger fascia or wall sign will be permitted. The larger may be an additional one -half square foot per lineal foot of building frontage not to exceed eighty additional square feet. (See subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, above). The maximum sign area per sign of one hundred square feet does not apply in this case. r Main Street Spec Plan 19 Zucker Systems Main Street Speck Plan City of seat Beach �) July. 1996 6) No more than two items of information will be permitted per sign. An example of one item of information would be the name of the business, specialty item, unique service, etc. 7) Projecting signs shall be allowed in the C -SP zone subject to the following conditions: a. 'Projecting sign' means an attached sign (other than a flat - mounted sign) which projects out from a building or structure and usually has two message surfaces. If such sign projects over a public right -of -way, it is subject to Paragraph 7d. b. Projecting signs shall be allowed that: • do not exceed four (4) square feet in area per side; • project no more than three (3) feet from the wall to which attached; • are located at least seven (7) feet but not more than twelve (12) feet above grade; and m are not illuminated or illuminated by external lighting. C. Each ground -level occupancy frontage may have one (1) such projecting sign if such sign is located near its primary entry way. Such sign shall be in addition to signs allowed in Section 28 -1804 3e. d. No sign shall project into any public right -of -way unless the Director of Public Works shall have first issued an encroachment permit therefor. f) When property falls under an adopted planned sign program the above provisions do not apply.° Ruin Street Specific Plan 20 Zucker Systems Main Street Speck Plan Ltiry of Seal Beach July. 1996 4. PARTING AND TRAMC A. Parking In 1994 there were 751 parking spaces as shown in Table 3 generally available for commercial uses within the Specific Plan area. TABLE 3 Parking Inventory Summary On Street (Public) Main Street 163 Ocean, Central & Electric (between 8th and 10th) 94 Off Street and Alleys f parallel to Main St. (private) 415 Off Street (public) Electric Avenue 37 Main Street 42 Total 7S1 In addition to this, there are 425 spaces in the beach lots and 58 spaces in the City employee lot on 8th Street. Parking demand in 1994 was calculated in two ways. Based on the zoning, the 223,600 square feet of commercial activities would theoretically require 1,258 spaces. The second method was to look. at actual parking demand. Parking counts were completed each hour during the mid -day (noon to 2:00 PM) and evening (6:00 PM to 9:00 PM) peak periods on April 9, 1994 (Saturday, Main Street Specific Plan 21 Zucker Systems Main Sneer Specific Plan _ LSty of seal Beach July. 1996 non -peak season) and on July 2, 1994 (Saturday, peak season, July 4th weekend). These counts are shown in the Appendix of the Background Report. The parking counts indicate that the majority of the on- street parking spaces in the study area, as well as the parking in the public parking lots adjacent to Main Street are occupied during peak periods. However, parking in the beach lot is generally under utilized, with 48 percent of the parking spaces vacant at 1:00 PM on Saturday, July 2, 1994, which was when the peak parking demand for the beach lot was observed. After 6:00 p.m., 77% of the parking spaces in the beach lots were vacant. Additionally, parking spaces in the alleys are generally under - utilized. There are 36 short-term (24 Minute) parking spaces designated at key resident serving commercial locations on Main Street, with a two hour time limit for the remainder of the parking on Main Street.. On the surrounding residential streets there is typically a one hour time limit on one side of the street, with no parking restrictions on the other side. However, there is a one hour parking time limit on both sides of Tenth Street and on both sides of Eighth Street south of Electric Avenue. In light of their proximity to and support of area businesses, the curb spaces on Main Street, and in the 800 and 900 blocks along Ocean Avenue, Central Avenue, and Electric Avenue are primarily commercial parking spaces. The remainder of the on- street parking in the residential areas primarily supports the adjacent residential uses. Annual parking passes for the beach lot are sold to Seal Beach Residents and non - residents. Further, Unocal (off -shore oil) uses the beach lot and pays via a key card. A sports fishing boat operating off the end of the pier also has a key card to use this lot. Automobile parking fees for the beach lot vary between summer and winter, and weekends and holidays. The City's residential parking permit program allows residents to purchase a permit that allows their vehicle to park more than one hour on residential streets with one hour parking restrictions. The permit also allows them to park in the municipal parking lots on Main Street and on Eighth Street at Central Avenue Main Street Specific Plan 22 Zucker Systems - Alain Street Spec* Plan City of Seal Beach July, 1996 between the hours of 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM, only. The City also issues guest parking permits with the same parking regulations. Merchants and employees in the Old Town area can buy an annual parking permit that allows them to park in the City parking lots. The permit is to be permanently affixed to the outside of the vehicle on the left rear window or bumper. The merchant permits are not resalable or transferable. In 1954, the City began an "interim in -lieu parking program" in connection with a variety of zoning variances along Main Street. Participants were required to pay $100 /year /space on an interim basis pending development of a more detailed program. According to the approval conditions these in -lieu fees may be increased. In 1994 this fund was generating $19,600 a year in funds to the City. More recent permits have been negotiated as part of development agreements. These have been fixed fees based on $3,500 /parking space, generally paid over several years. Additionally, the California Coastal Commission has required four businesses to lease 72 other non - commercial spaces for commercial use. Based on the parking analysis, the 1994 parking demand and supply is considered in relative balance. However, there is a need to provide additional conveniently located parking to serve Main Street and to provide a base for future parking need. Most significantly, the parking analysis indicates that the primary parking problem in the Specific Plan area is the location and management of the existing parking supply and not an overall shortage of parking. However, as existing buildings are expanded, or new uses are established which would require more parking than existing uses, there will be an increased demand for parking. Since the existing commercial lots on Main Street have inadequate room for new parking, the only likely solution to parking needs is a City in -lieu parking program. E. Traffic Roadways in the Specific Plan are typically two-way with a single travel lane plus a parking lane in each direction. Main Street has diagonal parking along most of Main Street Specific Plan 23 2recdcer Systems Main Street Species Plan My of Seal Beach July, im its length, except for some parallel spaces in the 300 block, which provides enough width for two lams for traffic traveling northeast on the approach to the traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway. A traffic signal also exists at the southwest end of Main Street at Ocean Avenue, and four -way stops are posted at the intersections with Central and Electric Avenues. Mid -block pedestrian crosswalks have been striped in all three Main Street blocks. Electric Avenue has a broad, linear landscaped median, resulting in two one -way roadbeds. The two roadways merge at Main Street to form a single intersection. Each roadbed provides a single travel lane and a bike lane, plus parking at the right curb. The majority of the traffic entering the study area travels southwest on Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway. Generally, if a motorist can not find a parking space new their desired destination as they travel along Main Street, they will turn at Ocean Avenue and travel up Eight or Tenth Street and then re- circulate down Main Street. September, 1993 traffic counts indicated average daily traffic in the vicinity of -� Main Street as 9317 on Main Street, Ocean 4070, Central 3018, and Electric 3660. Using these counts, all streets would be operating at a high Level of Service with the exception of Main Street. However, Main Street is considered a combination parking and traffic street and a high level of traffic service is not anticipated. Traffic flow and traffic control is not perceived to be a problem in the Specific Plan area. POLICY S. Parking Standards ... ,� 1) Off -street parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet by twenty feet. A minimum driver aisle width shall be provided as follows: Main Street Specific Plan 24 Zucker Systems v) Main Sena Specific Plan City of Seal Beach Aly, 199'6 90 degree Right Angle Parking ..................... 24 feet 60 degree Angle One -Way Traffic ................... 18 feet 45 degree Angle One -Way Traffic ................... 12 feet 0 degree Parallel One -Way Traffic .................. 12 feet 2) All parking areas shall be paved with pordand cement concrete or asphaltic concrete. 3) Parking requirements shall be satisfied in one or more of the following ways: (a) By providing required off - street parking spaces on the property on which the building is located; (b) By providing required off -street parking spaces within three hundred feet of such building. (c) Through participation in the City's in -lieu parking program as established in Section 28 -1257. 4) No use shall be established unless there is full compliance with the off -street parking requirements set forth herein or the in -lieu parking program set forth in Section 28 -1257. 5) No onsite loading area is required. Section 28 -1256. Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces Required. 1) Beauty salon; Nail shop ............. 2 spaces per each operator. 2) Business Offices ...... I space for every 300 sq. ft. gross floor area. 3) Coffee houses; Dessert shops ......... 1 space for each 500 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. Main Street Spec Plan 25 Zucker SystemS Alain Street Specific Plan ary of Seal Beach ju y, 19916 4) Financial Institutions; Professional Offices .............. 1 space for every 250 sq. ft. gross floor area. 5) Furniture Stores ...... 1 space for every 1000 sq. ft.gross floor area. 6) Grocery stares .................. 1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. 7) Hardware Stores ................. I space for each 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. 8) Horticultural Nursery ............. 1 space for every 2500 sq. ft. of lot area. 9) Medical Offices ...... 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. gross floor area. 10) Movie Theaters ................... 1 space for every 6 seats. 11) Offices Not Providing Customer Service on the Premises ......... 1 space for every four employees or I space for every 500 sq. ft. gross floor area (whichever is greater). 12) Pharmacy; Drug stores ............. 1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. 13) Restaurants ......... 1 space for every 100 sq. ft. gross floor area. 14) Retail stores ................... 1 space for each 500 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. Main Street Specific Plan 26 Zucker Systems J f Main Street Specy1c Plan ary of Seal Beach hdy, 1996 � .G.. it.i.u�ru A. Participation in Program Required: In the event a use cannot provide the off - street parking spaces required by Section 28 -1255 and Section 28 -1256, such use shall not be established unless there is full compliance with all the requirements of the Main Street In -Lieu Parking Program as established in this Section. All or part of off - street parking space requirements may be satisfied by compliance with this Section. B. In Lieu Parking Fee: The In -Lieu Parking Pee and the formula for calculating said fee shall be established by Resolution of the City Council. C. Existing Uses - Parking Deficiencies: Any use which pre -exists the effective date of this ordinance and which is presently operating under the authority of a discretionary land use entitlement and /or development agreement shall remain subject to the terms and conditions of said approval and agreement. As a condition to those entitlements, the applicants agreed to participate in any in -lieu program established by the City Council. This Article constitutes the in -lieu parking program referenced in the resolutions conferring those entitlements and in those certain development agreements. ANT- Eligible persons or businesses desiring to participate in the In -Lieu Parking Program established herein shall submit a written application for participation to the Director of Development Services on a form prescribed by the City. If the Director determines that such application meets the requirements set forth in Sections 28 -1255, S1 M. of this Code, the Director shall, within thirty (30) days of the completion of such application, calculate the applicable in -lieu fee and grant permission to participate in the program, if the Director makes the following findings: (a) Participation in the In -Lieu Parking Program will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian- vehicle conflicts, or parking impacts. Main Street Specific Plan 27 Zucker Systems Main Streea Spec& Plan GL7 of Seal Beach July. 1996 (b). Participation in the In -Lieu Parking Program will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The Director may deny the request to participate in the program, if the Director is unable to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 3. The Director may restrict the applicant's participation in the program, if the Director determines that such restriction is necessary to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 4. The Director's decision shall be in writing, and shall be served upon the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. E. : The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided in Article 29.4 of Chapter 28 of the Code. F. Payments and Dew: 1. Payments of In -Lieu Parking Program Fees shall be made pursuant to the schedule adopted by Resolution of the City Council. In no event shall a certificate of occupancy be issued for any participating use in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone prior to the receipt by the City of the first installment or, if applicable, full payment of the In- Lieu Parking Fee. 2. Funds collected from the In -Lieu Parking Program shall be deposited in a segregated City In -Lieu Parking Program fund. Such fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting, managing, operating, increasing and maintaining the availability of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of Main Street. G. Transferability: In -Lieu Parking space payments paid for pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be credited only to the use for which participation was granted, and shall not be assigned or otherwise transferred for use on any other property. Main Street Specific Plan 28 Zucker Systems i Main Street Speclfu Plan tzty of Seat Brach Juty. 1996 H. mansion. Intensification or Change in Use to a Use which Requires Additional Off' - Street Parking Spaces: Should the use of any property within the Main Street Specific Plan Zoning be proposed for expansion, enlargement, -structural alterations, intensification or conversion to a new use which requires additional off - street parking spaces, the owner, lessee or sublessee of the property shall provide the required additional off- street parking, either on -site, within 300 feet of the property on which the building is located, or through payment of in -lieu parking program fees, or additional in-lieu parking program fees, as required by this Article. I. Acceptance of Terms and Provisions: An applicant's participation in the program shall not become effective, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued, unless and until the participant fast executes and submits for recording on the title to the property a covenant accepting the terms of the approval, in a form to be provided. by the City Attorney. Said covenant shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder and shall also be maintained in the office of the City Clerk. J. Violators Punishable by Fine and Imprisonment: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Alain Street Specific Plan 29 Zucker Systems Alain Street Specific Plan ay of Seal Beach July, 19915 C. Where a building or buildings located within the Main Street Specific Plan area are nonconforming only by reason of an inadequate number of parking spaces, the provisions of this chapter prohibiting enlargements, structural alteration or expansion shall not apply, provided: that any enlargements, structural alterations, or expansion shall not further reduce the existing number of parking spaces, and 2. new parking spaces shall be supplied to meet the parking requirements for the difference in building area between the existing building and new building, and new parking spaces shall be supplied to meet the difference in parking requirements for the existing building between the prior use and the new use. Where property owners cannot meet off- street parking requirements, permits may be granted if said owners instead pay an in-lieu parking fee pursuant to the provisions of Section 28-1257. POLICY 6. Parking Management Plan Although parking studies can establish theoretical demand, the actual demand for parking and behavior habits of parkers cannot be totally determined and changes over time. Therefore, the City shall establish a parking management plan. Such a plan should include, but not be limited to: a) Conducting and analyzing an annual parking count for the Specific Plan area, similar to the one prepared for the Specific Plan; b) First Phase — Management Improvements: Main Street Spec Plan 30 Zucker Systems Main Street SpecW Plan City of Seal Beach July, 1996 ✓ Limit the 24 minute parking restrictions to the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period except for spaces serving resident oriented businesses that stay open past 6:00 p.m. ✓ Change the merchants' parking permit program to only allow parking in the beach lots. ✓ Increase enforcement of the parking restrictions for all parkws to emphasize a consistent and fair enforcement program. ✓ Work with the merchants to conduct a program so that employees do not park in street curb spaces. ✓ Allow public parking in the 8th Street lot after 5:00 p.m. and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays and post appropriate signs to this effect. ✓ Analyze City employee parking needs at the 8th Street lot and open any non - needed spaces to the public. ✓ Change the beach lots from a flat fee to an hourly fee, offer a merchant validation program, and explore use of the lots for a merchant valet program. ✓ Improve signage to the beach lots. ✓ Formalize the in -lieu parking program in conformance to AB 1600 requirements. c) Second Phase — Management Improvements: ✓ Adjust beach parking lot rates depending upon the result of parking surveys. If usage remains low, lower the rates. If usage reaches an average occupancy of 85 %, raise the rates. Main Street Specific Plan 31 Zucker Systems Alain Strea Specific Plan GYry of seal Beach ) July. 1996 J Conduct a license plate analysis to determine the number of curb -side parkers who move their cars every two hours or rub off the chalk. If this is a problem, adopt a computerised system that records license plate numbers for enforcement. J Improve pedestrian amenities, access and directional signs to the beach lots. J Consider parking meters in the public parking lots located in the 100 and 300 blocks of Main Street. d) Third Phase — Management Improvements J Construct a two level depressed parking structure on the 8th Street lot adjacent to the Fire Station. J Look for opportunities to purchase land between 8th and 10th Streets between Ocean Avenue and Electric Avenue for future surface parking. The target cost should be less than $15,000 / space. J Consider parking meters for curbside spaces on Main Street. Main Street Specific Pian 32 Zucker Systems --� Afain Street Specific Plan Qty of Seal Beach Judy, 1996 S. PUBLIC FACILITIES A. Street Trees A key feature of pedestrian oriented streets and sidewalks are street trees. The three blocks of Main Street have 50 street trees which provide an appropriate atmosphere for much of the street. however, there are important gaps on both sides of the street In addition to trees missing in front of commercial establishments, there is a lack of continuity of street trees on both sides of Main Street as it crosses Electric Avenue. The trees being used on Main Street were not planted with root barriers and the type of tree being used has invasive roots that creates problems with the sidewalks. POLICY 7. free Types The City should hire a landscape architect to recommend a tree type and planting ` methods for Main Street. The trees selected should grow to have substantial canopies, equal to or greater than the existing mature trees on Main Street. POLICY g. AZissing Trees The City and /or private interest should plant an additional 18 trees as shown in Figure 2. POLICY 9. Tree Replacement When existing trees need to be replaced due to damage or sidewalk problems, trees should be replaced consistent with the findings of Policy 7 and 12. Main Street Specific Plata 33 Zucker Systems aft 1\L. FACIFIC COAV WN. main street spedric pim Alain Sneer Specific Plan Lary of Seat Beach ji,&, 1996 LEGEND a. ]x 1]L • TFIGU�j RE.- yq� 2@ T TREES T esosee Zucker Systems .J Alain Street Specific Plan LSry of Seal Beach July, 1996 B. Utility Lines and Poles Most of the electric utilities in the area are either underground or located in alleys. There are two areas where overhead utilities are particularly noticeable. One is a series of poles and lines leading off the 100 block of Main Street, another is along Electric Avenue. POLICY 10. Undergrounding of Utilities The City should adopt a long term plan to underground utilities in the Specific Plan area. Priorities should be: Ist — Poles and lines in the 100 block 2nd — Poles and lines along Electric Avenue 3rd — Other poles and lines in the area C. Benches In 1994 there was an eclectic mix of bench designs on Main Street; some located next to buildings, some next to the curb. The eclectic mix of bench designs adds to the small town flavor of Main Street. The City issues permits for benches but the merchants buy their own benches and the City approves the bench design. POLICY 11. Benches Merchants shall be encouraged to add additional benches to Main Street since they add to the pedestrian scale and atmosphere. All bench designs shall be approved by the City and the appropriate encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City. r Main Street Spec Plan 35 Zucker Systems Main Street Speck Plan City of Sal Beach July, 1996 D. Street Lighting Street lighting on Main Street is supplied by Southern California Edison. The lighting level as of 1994 is considered adequate. Decorative lights are placed in the trees during the Christmas holidays. POLICY 12. Street bighting Year round lights in the Main Street trees should be undertaken as a joint project of the Main Street merchants and the City. E. Bicycle Facilities In 1995 there was an eclectic mix of bicycle racks on Main Street; some located next to buildings, some next to the curb. The eclectic mix of bicycle racks adds to the small town flavor of Main Street. POLICY 13. Bicycle Facilities Merchants shall be encouraged to add additional bicycle racks along Main Street. All bicycle rack designs and locations shall be approved by the City, and the appropriate encroachment pemdt shall be obtained from the City. F. Landscaping Parking lots should be landscaped and also be separated from the sidewalks by landscaping. In 1994, the City's Electric Avenue parking lots met this standard, but the lot in the 100 block of Main Street and the 8th Street lot did not. POLICY 14. Parking Lot Landscaping The City should landscape the lot in the 100 block of Main Street and 8th Street parking lots. Main Street Specific Plan 36 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July, 1996 G. Signs on Public Sidewalks Some businesses along Again Street currently have sidewalk signs for business identification and advertising purposes. Properly controlled and designed, these types of signs can be beneficial to both the local business community, visitors to Main Street and the City. However, the current City Code prohibits such signs. POLICY 15. Signs on Public Sidewalks The City should amend the City Code to allow selected sidewalk signs within the Main Street Specific Plan area. All such signs shall be approved by the City and the appropriate encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City. H. Other Public Facilities Since no extensive new construction is contemplated by this Specific Plan, the City will continue to utilize existing services for sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal and energy. -Main Street Specific Plan 37 Zucker Systems Alain Street Specific Plan Airy of seat Beach July, 1995 6. SCREENING OF PRrVATE PARW NTG LOTS When creating a pedestrian atmosphere, it is generally useful to screen parking lots from pedestrians. Screening can be accomplished by a low wall or hedge or a landscape strip and trees between the pedestrian way and the parking area. Where space is particularly tight, bollards can also be used to separate parking areas from pedestrian sidewalk areas. Eight parking lots on Main Street, as shown in Figure 3, lack the appropriate screening feature. POLICY 16. Screening of Parking hots The City should develop a program to encourage owners of parking lots located on Main Street to screen their parking lots from the pedestrian ways. The City should also explore the possibility for design assistance grants or low cost loans as an incentive for owners to improve their lots. Main Street Specific Plan 38 Zucker Systems ON Main Street Specific Plan City of Sed Beach Judy, 1996 LEGEND ® PARKING LOTS THAT NEED SCREENING FROM PEDESTRIAN WAY EBB NHNHHHHI Ru�HiNxWxoxul IFIGUREs 3 a�umtMxr�sx�,ualnnle xnxnxxxluA�x PARKING LOT Imuenmmlmx SCREENING eeae�s epees�oe }o•e }.rte • ...eta .tt.a.� .t++�• ®® ZUL� ELI 1 J 1...71 �� U .w. Main Street Specific Plan 39 Zucker Systems Alain Sneer Syeelfic Plan ary of Seal Beach Ady, 1996 IVA The goal of the Main Street Specific Plan is to set clear standards for Main Street. Under these standards, merchants and property owners can proceed with improvements in a timely fashion and residents can feel comfortable about Main Street development. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to assume that standards, once set, can remain the same for all time. Since circumstances can change, it is important to monitor Main Street's evolution over time. The adoption and implementation of the Main Street Specific Plan can provide a major impetus for downtown revitalization. However, most communities involved with downtown revitalization have found that focusing on land use, circulation and design can be most effective when coupled with an additional emphasis on organization, promotion and economic restructuring. Such activities are strongly encouraged by the City to be undertaken by the local business community on a voluntary basis. POLICY 17. Business Improvement Activities The local business community may wish to develop on a voluntary basis additional organizational, promotional, economic restructuring, and improvement programs. Such voluntary activities of the local business community could include: Organization: Building consensus for action. Seeking cooperation from all parties. Providing long -term management and planning. Promotion: Advertising downtown as a place to shop, invest and Eve. Economic Recruiting businesses or developers to fulfill Restructuring: specific downtown needs and assisting existing businesses through business seminars and the like. Improvements: Trees, lighting, sidewalks, undergrounding utilities, and signs. Main Street Specific Plan 40 Zucker Systems t Main Street Specific Port City of Seal Beach July. tm POIJCY 18. Bi- Annual Alain Street }review Every two years the City should prepare a Main Street review. Said review should include an analysis of: a. Sales tax trends b. Store vacancies C. Store turnovers d. Parldng as per Policy 6 e. Report from the Main Street business community Based on an analysis of this report, the City should determine what, if any, additional actions are appropriate to carry out the intent of the Specific Plan. This review should be presented before the City Council at a noticed hearing. Main Street Specific Peen 41 Zucker Systems Alain Shea Specific Plan My of Seat Beach July, 1996 S. RELATION OF THE SPECIIFIC PLAN TO THE GENERAL PL4k.1T The Main Street Specific Plan carries out the objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan. It specifically carries out the following: a. Goal 3. Parks, Recreation and Community Beautification; Land Use Element, Page 4 "A master plan should be developed for street tree planting and other community beautification programs with emphasis on major arterials entering the City." This item is carried out through the Specific Plan's street tree program as described in Policies 7, 8 and 9. b. Goal 6. Commercial; Land Use Element, Page 5 (as amended) "A precise specific plan should be developed for the coastal business district." This Specific Plan includes the coastal business district and thus implements this goal. C. Goal 9. Circulation; Land Use Element, Page 6 "Efforts should be made to improve traffic circulation in the Coastal section of the City." The Specific Plan land use and parking proposals should assist traffic circulation. More specifically, the land use policies coupled with the parking and traffic policies set appropriate parking standards for various uses. Where parking standards cannot be met, they are mitigated through a fee program. Main Street Specific Plan 42 Zucker Systems J Man Street Specific Plan City of Sral Beach Judy, 1996 d. Commercial Land Use, Page 22 "The Again Street commercial serves both local residents and, to some extent, beach going people from other areas. The diversity in market attraction of the various commercial areas indicates that each area should be treated differently than any of the others due to the particular clientele of each." This item is carried out in the Specific Plan by recognizing Alain Street as a unique area. Specific unique land use tables are included in Policy 1, special design features are included in Policies 2, 3 and 4, and new commercial parking and loading requirements in Policies 5 and 6. e. 3.2 Proposed Service Commercial Uses "The proposed Hand Use Element would continue the Seal Beach Shopping Center and the Leisure World Shopping Center as functioning service commercial uses. Again Street commercial is also proposed to be designated a service commercial use. As pointed out earlier, the proposed new land use designation would be a name change only, because the present existing uses are of a service commercial nature. Alain Street commercial, with the attraction of the beach and the proximity of relatively high density residential, has the potential to become a unique shopping area. With strong attraction for beach users, this commercial area can and should turn to a more pedestrian-oriented environment through the design application of textured waHmvys, street furniture, sign graphics, landscaping, lighting, and other design features." t Again Street Specific Plan 43 Zucker Systems Alain Serea Specrk Plan My of Seal Beach July, 1996 = . The Specific Plan is consistent with this language. The Specific Plan establishes special design standards for the Main Street area in Policies 2, 3 and 4 and Policies 7 through 16. f. 3.19 3.1c, 3.1e Civic Center Functions, Pacific Electric Right -of -Way, and Seal Beach Pier, Pages 32 and 33 "3.1 Civic Center Functions Civic Center functions are divided into four main categories: Administration, Police, Fire and Public Works. It is envisioned that the Administration offices will remain in the Coastal District at Eighth Street and Central Avenue, in the City Administration Building which was constructed in 1969. Fire Department services will continue to be administered from Fire Station No. 3 located on Beverly Manor Road and Fire Station No. I will continue to serve the portion of the City nearest to the beach." "3.1c Pacific Electric Right-of-Way The Pacific Electric Right -of -Way has been developed as a park allowing for uses such as open space, recreation, public facilities (e.g., library, senior citizens' center, Red Car Museum, etc.). Development was through the Specific Plan Process." 3.1e Seal Beach Pier The Seal Beach Pier, one of the very few piers in use today along the California coastline, should be maintained as its present use to allow for both fishing and pleasure walking to enjoy ocean Main Street Specific Plan 44 - Zucker Systems J Main Street Speelfu Plan City of Seal Beads July, 1996 amenities. Any needed repairs for the pier should be carried out so that the present use can be continued and enhanced." The retention of the Administrative Offices and a Fire Station on Eighth Street along with the Electric Avenue Park and the Pier are all key ingredients for the Main Street area. The Administrative Offices, Fire Station, Pier and portions of Green Belt Park are included within the Specific Plan Boundary (see Figure 1). g. Scenic Highway Element Ocean Avenue is shown as a I;ocal Scenic Highway and Pacific Coast Highway is shown as a Proposed Scenic Highway in the Scenic Highway Element. The Main Street Specific Plan design guidelines in Policies 2, 3 and 4 are consistent with these designations and implement scenic features. h. 3.1d Beach Parking; Land Use Element "Additional Coastal Area land should not be committed to beach visitor parking; instead the concept of periphery parking In the outlying areas with a transport system should be explored. Ile advantage of periphery parking Is that beach visitors from inland Orange County could be intercepted and then transported to the beach via a tram /minibus system, thus alleviating traffic congestion directly adjacent to the beach." The Main Street Specific Plan is consistent with this language. No new beach parking is proposed within the Specific Plan area. Better use of existing parking is proposed in Policy 6 through a parking management plan. I. 3.1e Seal Beach Pier, band Use Element, Page 33 "The Seal Beach Pier, one of the very few piers in use today along the California coastline, should be maintained as Its present use to allow for both Main Street Specific Plan 45 Zucker Systems Alain Street Specific Plan Oly of Seal Beach Auly, 1996 fishing and pleasure walking to enjoy ocean amenities. Any needed repairs for the pier should be carried out so that the present use can be continued and enhanced." The Main Street Specific Plan is consistent with the importance of maintaining the Seal Beach Pier. The Plan does not specifically make any changes to the Pier. j. 13 Central Business Commercial Area Along Main Street; Land Use Element, Page 9 The language in this section concerning Main Street is the same as the Main Street Specific Plan Vision Statement, see Page 1 of the Specific Plan. :J Main Street Specific Plan 46 Zucker Systems 1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 Orange, California 92868 (714) 973 -8383 ww araffc_en¢ineer com 3t .. Y 1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 Orange, California 92868 (714) 973 -8383 ww araffc_en¢ineer com