19. FEIR No. 358 (including responses) — Anaheim City Council, December 16, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I I

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e0030.1141 8.8000e0040.1150 0.0303 8.1000e0040.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e003105.6992 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e0030.1141 8.8000e0040.1150 0.0303 8.1000e0040.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e003105.6992 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 231
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..
' ' ' '
i
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
' '

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 232
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 233
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..
' ' ' '
i
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
' '

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 234
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I I
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60
34 2.1807 50,361.12
08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60
34 2.1807 50,361.12
08 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 235

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
:: : : : : : : : : : i : : : : : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----------.r--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------· -------~-------,--------,--------,--------,, ------- .. ..
..
..

I I
I I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------ -------------------------- • I I • ····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------ -------------------------- • I I • ····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------ -------------------------- • I I • ····································~--------------~-----------t-----------~------------------------ -------------------------- • I I • ····································~--------------~-----------t-----------~------------------------ -------------------------- • I I • ····································~--------------~-----------t-----------~------------------------ -------------------------- : I I • I I
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 236

I I I I I I
i • I I ■ I I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r----------~---------T••••••••••T--------~•••••••••r••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••r••••••••••••••••• ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
•
r----------~---------T••••••••••T--------~•••••••••r•••••••••••••••••••••••r••••••••••r••••••••••••••••• I
I
I
I •
• I
I
I
I ••• •••
I I I ■ I I ■ ■ ■
I I I ■ I I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r----------~---------T••••••••••T--------~•••••••••r•••••••••••r•••••••••••r••••••••••r••••••••••••••••• I I I ■ I I ■ ■ ■
• I I • I I • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r----------~---------T••••••••••T--------~•••••••••r•••••••••••r•••••••••••r••••••••••r••••••••••••••••• I I I ■ I I ■ ■ ■
I I I ■ I I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r----------~---------T••••••••••T--------~•--•-----r•••--••••--••••--••••--•--••••--••r••••--••••--••••- 1 I I • I I ■ ■ • • I I • I I ■
• • • ■ • • ■ • ■ • • ■ ■ • • • • ■ ■ • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • T • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -,. • • • • • • • • •r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I
-. --.. ----. -----. --. --. --. -.. -~------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ~------- ~------- ~------- -------- -------- -------- --. -.. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..;.-------· ---------· ---------· ---------· ---------· ---------· ---------· ,--------· ---------· ---------· ---------· ....... ' -• ----•• --•• -• --• --• --- -----• --=-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----• - ·······················+·······~.-----+,,-----~,,-------11-----+,,-------11""""----+,,-----l----- l-----+,,-------11e--------1-••····· • • I I I I I I I I I I
....................... .;. ....... ..;.-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------- ■ • I I I I I I I I I I • • I I I I I I I I I I ••••••••••••••••••••••• .;. ••••••• ..;.-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------- ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 237

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------.r--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------· -------~-------,--------,--------,--------,, ------- .. ..
..
..

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e0048.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e003131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e0032.4100e003132.4486 Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e0049.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e003150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e0032.7700e003151.8884 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e0030.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e0030.0247 0.0207 1.5000e0041.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e00329.6019 29.6019 5.7000e0045.4000e00429.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 238
1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 • I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I, I

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e0048.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e003131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e0032.4100e003132.4486 Apartments Mid
Rise

35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building

1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e0049.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e003150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e0032.7700e003151.8884 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant

5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e0030.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center

0.251616 2.7100e0030.0247 0.0207 1.5000e0041.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e00329.6019 29.6019 5.7000e0045.4000e00429.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 239
1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 • I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I &1 '
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e0030.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 240

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - ~-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------· - - - - - - -r--------,--------,--------,--------r - - - - - - - ., .,
.,
.,
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' '

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 241
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
I

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 243
I I I I I • I I I • I I I
------------------------------~-------------------------------1---------------l------------------i--------------- • I I I • I I I ------------------------------~-------------------------------1---------------I------------------~--------------- • I I I • I I I ------------------------------~-------------------------------1---------------l------------------i--------------- • I I I • I I I ------------------------------~-------------------------------1---------------I------------------~--------------- • I I I • I I I ------------------------------~-------------------------------1---------------l------------------i--------------- ' I • I I I ------------------------------,1,--------------------------------I----------------~-----------------~--------------- Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 244
I I I
I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • I -----------------------------~------------------------------1------------------------------~--------------------------

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 245
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- ■ ■ I ■ ■ I -----------------------------4------------------------------I------------------------------~--------------------------

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337
7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40
80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051
7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 246
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
I

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 247
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

2.2 Overall Operational
Fugitive SO2 CO NOx ROG
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2e N2O CH4 Total CO2 NBio- CO2 Bio- CO2
lb/day lb/day Category
18,148.59 0.0000 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0944 88.4430 15.0496 30.5020 Area 50 18,148.59
50 18,259.11 0.3300 0.4874
92 8,355.983 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.0418 4.2573 6.7462 0.7660 Energy 2 8,355.983
2 8,405.638 0.1532 0.1602
7 47,917.80 12.6083 0.3132 12.2950 46.2965 0.3373 45.9592 0.4681 110.0422 45.9914 9.5233 Mobile 05 47,917.80
05 47,972.68 2.1953
39 74,422.37 0.0000 14.7349 2.4399 12.2950 48.4231 2.4640 45.9592 0.6043 202.7424 67.7872 40.7912 Total 87 74,422.37
87 74,637.44 0.4832 2.8429
17 Unmitigated Operational
Fugitive SO2 CO NOx ROG
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2e N2O CH4 Total CO2 NBio- CO2 Bio- CO2
lb/day lb/day Category
18,148.59 0.0000 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0944 88.4430 15.0496 30.5020 Area 50 18,148.59
50 18,259.11 0.3300 0.4874
92 8,355.983 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.0418 4.2573 6.7462 0.7660 Energy 2 8,355.983
2 8,405.638 0.1532 0.1602
7 47,917.80 12.6083 0.3132 12.2950 46.2965 0.3373 45.9592 0.4681 110.0422 45.9914 9.5233 Mobile 05 47,917.80
05 47,972.68 2.1953
39 74,422.37 0.0000 14.7349 2.4399 12.2950 48.4231 2.4640 45.9592 0.6043 202.7424 67.7872 40.7912 Total 87 74,422.37
87 74,637.44 0.4832 2.8429
17 Mitigated Operational
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Page 6 of 35 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 248
r
r
r I I I I T I I I I I I I I I
,.
,.
••••••-~-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••-------•-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••••• I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I ■ I f ■
r I I I I T I I I I I I I I I
••••••-~-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••-------•-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••••• I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I ■ I f ■
r
'
r
r
r I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I
•••••••~-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••-------•-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••••• I : : : : i : : : : : : : : : ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I
•••••••~-------L-------L-------L-------•••••••••-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------•----------- 1 I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I ■

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
r
'

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 249

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------s----····················=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- • ■ I I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
•····••l••····················•·I-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~---······················ ■ ■ I I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------s----····················=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- • ■ I I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------s------------------------1-----------------------1------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- • ■ I I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------s----····················~----------------------~-----------4-----------4--------~--------~------------------------- Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 250
I I
I
I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------:---------------------------~---------------- I I
I
-------------1---------T--------------
1 I
------------ :1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
------------ •1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
---- ----- --- .1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
-------------1---------T--------------
1 I
------------ :1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
------------ •1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
---- ----- --- .1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
-------------1---------T--------------
1 I
------------ :1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
------------ •1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
---- ----- --- .1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
-------------1---------T--------------
1 I
------------ :1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
------------ •1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
---- ----- --- .1---------T••••••••••••••
I
I
-------------1---------T--------------
1 I
I I I
----------------------------~---------------------------1------------------ ~ ------------1---------------~--------------

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 251
• I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I ----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------t----------~----------1--------------1----------~---------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------t----------~----------1--------------1----------~---------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------t----------~----------1--------------1----------~---------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------t----------~----------1--------------1----------~---------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ················~---------------l-----------~---------+---------~-----------l-----------~----------l---------------1-----------!-••·--·---- ■ ■
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -•-----•--•n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
I

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855
5 0.0908 1,272.125
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e0030.1141 9.5000e0040.1151 0.0303 8.8000e0040.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e003110.5539 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326
2 0.0941 1,382.679
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 252
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

I
I
I
I
i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
I
I

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 253
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e0030.1369 1.1400e0030.1381 0.0363 1.0500e0030.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e003132.6646 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e0030.1369 1.1400e0030.1381 0.0363 1.0500e0030.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e003132.6646 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 254
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

I
I
I
'
' I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
I
I

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 255
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e0030.1521 1.2700e0030.1534 0.0404 1.1700e0030.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e003147.4051 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e0030.1521 1.2700e0030.1534 0.0404 1.1700e0030.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e003147.4051 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 256
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 257
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e0030.1521 1.2300e0030.1534 0.0404 1.1300e0030.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e003142.2207 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e0030.1521 1.2300e0030.1534 0.0404 1.1300e0030.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e003142.2207 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 258
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 259
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• - I I I I I I I
- I I I I I I I
- I I I I I I I
- I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I I '
' II I
I
I
I
I

I I I I

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075
0 0.2381 3,795.028
3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935
4 0.1602 5,695.940
8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010
4 0.3984 9,490.969
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 260
' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' II I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• --
' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 261
' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' II I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• --
' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400
7 0.2096 3,676.641
7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797
4 0.1442 5,487.402
0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198
1 0.3538 9,164.043
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 262
' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' II I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• --
' ' ' '

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 263
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..
' ' ' '
i
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
' '

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e0030.1141 9.0000e0040.1150 0.0303 8.3000e0040.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e003102.7603 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e0030.1141 9.0000e0040.1150 0.0303 8.3000e0040.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e003102.7603 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 264
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..
' ' ' '
i
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
' '

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 265
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e0030.1141 8.8000e0040.1150 0.0303 8.1000e0040.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e00399.5663 Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e0030.1141 8.8000e0040.1150 0.0303 8.1000e0040.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e00399.5663 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 266
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..
' ' ' '
i
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
' '

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 267
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 268
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..
' ' ' '
i
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------••••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
' '

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e0031.2266 0.3229 8.6800e0030.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 269
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I I
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 270

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 271

0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 272

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e0048.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e003131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e0032.4100e003132.4486 Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e0049.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e003150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e0032.7700e003151.8884 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e0030.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e0030.0247 0.0207 1.5000e0041.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e00329.6019 29.6019 5.7000e0045.4000e00429.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 273
1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 • I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I, I

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e0048.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e0038.3400e003131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e0032.4100e003132.4486 Apartments Mid
Rise

35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building

1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e0049.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e0039.5600e003150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e0032.7700e003151.8884 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e0030.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center

0.251616 2.7100e0030.0247 0.0207 1.5000e0041.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e0031.8700e00329.6019 29.6019 5.7000e0045.4000e00429.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 274
1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 • I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I &1 '
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e0030.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 275

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 276
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
I

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 277
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
278

EXHIBIT B
279

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. 280
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
281
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
282
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
283
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. 284
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. 285
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
286
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
287
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
288
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
289

EXHIBIT C
290
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 291
JswAPEJ Technical Cons111!ation, Data Analy·sts and
Lftlgatlon Suppo.rt for tho Environment
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
292
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 293
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
294
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 295
Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
296
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
297
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 298
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
299
From: Jan Fagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 8:47 AM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival project.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Good morning. Please regard this letter as opposed to the size of this project . I understand the need for more housing but the size of this project is too large for this area. Emergency evacuation is already near impossible and to add this many residents in this spot would only exasperate the situation. Their only exit points put them into already strained streets. Please take this in consideration when looking at the size of this project .thank you. Rich Fagner 7944 Altair ln Anaheim 92808. [email protected] Sent from my iPad
C1-1
300
From: Shelley Shuff <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2025 1:06 PM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim Hills Festival - Project Number: DEV2023-00043 Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Amanda,
Thank you in advance for your time and
consideration.

I live at 7976 E. Altair Lane in Anaheim Hills where I
have been a resident for over 31 years.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the
Anaheim Hills Festival Project Number: DEV2023-
00043 to add 450 multiple-family attached residential
units. Adding a complex with at least 1,000 more
residents would be disastrous for our community’s
safety.

Please consider the negative impact such a project
would have on an already existing congested traffic
problem and the issue of evacuation in any
emergency (fire, flooding, etc.).

My family has personally experienced several
evacuations. During one of the fires we were unable
to leave the area and we fearfully sat in our car in the Festival parking lot for over 6 hours while we watched
the fires all around us. In addition, my disable mother was trapped at her senior apartment on Festival Drive
(previously name The Fountains). Traffic was blocked
and police would not let us pass to get in the
apartment complex to assist her to evacuate.

Our neighbor and local retired Fire Chief has
expressed his great concern for adding more than
1,000 permanent residents at Festival Center. The
additional traffic would be a detriment to our safety.

Please protect our community and prevent this project
from proceeding.

Your careful consideration is greatly appreciated.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important C2-1
301
I
Sincerely,
Shelley Shuff
302
From: Joy Pickett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:23 PM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival Project
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

I completely and totally oppose this project. As a longtime resident in the area, I am concerned about the traffic congestion already on Santa Ana Canyon Road. It will be impossible to leave in a timely manner in case of emergency if this project goes through.

Have I learned anything at all from the rejection of the SALT project? Joy Pickett.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important C3-1
303
I
From: Grace McGee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 12:16 PM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival project
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hello,
I am a 31 year resident of Anaheim Hills, and have major concerns about existing resident fire evacuation safety, should the City approve the Festival Center apartment project. This project will easily add 1,000+ cars to the area, an area it already takes 3+ hours to evacuate from Weir Canyon to Imperial Hwy.

The City’s Know Your Way plan does not realistically do much to improve evacuation times, even when the Fairmont overpass is added, and we are all sitting ducks stuck on city streets full of highly flammable trees whenever we evacuate (3 times in last 20 years). Let alone all the children at the public and private schools in the area.

Approving more housing of any type in this VERY HIGH FIRE DANGER area is putting 10’s of thousands of lives at great risk.

Please do not move forward with this project. We will fight this, just as we did and continue to do with the Deer Canyon project. It is too great a risk to endanger so many people.

Sincerely,
Grace McGee
Sent from my iPhone
C4-1
304
From: Marcia Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 10:45 AM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival cinema project
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

As a resident of Anaheim Hills EastHills development, I am informing you of my opinion and requesting that you really research that many apartment buildings in this congested area. We are a high fire fire area and have extremely limited access points. They are Weighr Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon. I’m not against development, but I am concerned for our neighborhood and our welfare in this with with regard to fires. I employ you to please study this further and either reduce the amount of apartments or consider another use for that area.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marcia Anderson
206 South Raspberry Ln., Anaheim, CA. 92808.

Sent from my iPhone
C5-1
305
From: Alli <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 8:21 AM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival project
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Amanda,
I'll just cut to the chase..

PLEASE....

Please do everything in your power to stop this development.

My only concern is that this area of Anaheim hills is unable to evacuate safely with the number of residents we already have and the lack of exit routes puts us all in danger. You are aware of the extreme fire zone this is.

During the 2017 fire the helicopter flew over my home announcing to leave. I got in the car with my pets and drove down the hill only to be told by the police there was no way they could merge me in with the traffic jam of people trying to flee.

So many residents fought with everything in us to stop the Salt project. I'm not sure if that's really been permanently stopped.

This great city of Anaheim just can't approve any more building until more evacuation routes are created.

Thanks for taking the time to read this
Allison Valdivia
297 S. Raspberry lane anaheim
Sent from my iPhone
C6-1
306
From: Betty Farnsworth <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 7:23 PM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival Development
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hi Amanda,
I hope all is well with you.

First, I believe you presented the EIR on July 14th. I wanted to thank you again and tell you how well you did.

My husband and I want to go on record regarding the proposed apartments being built at the Festival Center.

We are against this proposal.

Our primary reason is evacuation in an emergency. This is a very likely occurrence due to this being in a very severe fire area. The last time evacuation occurred it took 3 hours to go about 3 miles.

We believe any additional housing developments along Santa Ana Canyon should be stopped until infrastructure improvements are made.

Lives are at stake!
We believe the Fairmont overpass should be completed first. I believe this overpass has been on the radar for sometime and should be moved forward before any housing developments are considered.

We need more evacuation options not more evacuation congestion.

Again, lives are at stake.

Thank you so much
Also, will you make sure my email address is included for any future meetings/ information regarding the Festival project.

Thank you so much!
I appreciate your hard work on this.

Betty and Dana Farnsworth
7912 E Altair Lane
Anaheim CA92808
Sent from my iPhone
C7-1
307
From: Evalina Loyo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 6:41 PM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concerns Regarding Proposed 447-Unit Development at Anaheim Festival Commercial Zone
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Amanda,
I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to express my growing concern regarding the proposed development of a 447- unit apartment complex in the Anaheim Festival commercial zone. As a local resident and stakeholder in the community, I feel compelled to raise significant issues surrounding the project’s potential impact on our existing infrastructure, public safety, and quality of life.

The area is already experiencing substantial congestion, both on local streets and on the adjacent 91 Freeway. Traffic volumes have reached critical levels, particularly during peak hours, and any additional strain from a development of this magnitude could prove unsustainable. More urgently, our neighborhood lies within a designated high fire hazard zone, and the current access to evacuation routes, especially onto the 91, is severely limited and inefficient during emergencies.

During past fire-related events, many of us have experienced firsthand the chaos and delays due to traffic bottlenecks. Introducing hundreds of new residents into this already overburdened area without first addressing the evacuation infrastructure could compromise public safety and impede emergency response times.

While I understand the city’s ongoing efforts to address housing needs, I respectfully urge the planning department to carefully reevaluate this project’s location and scale in light of the safety and traffic challenges it would exacerbate.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this further or participate in any upcoming community hearings related to the project.

Warm regards,
Evalina Loyo
Rresident of East Hills Community
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important C8-1
308
I
DRE #02019473
BA Entrepreneur
Mobile: 714-930-3319
309
From: Joy Pickett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 11:09 AM
To: Amanda Lauffer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Festival Project
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

I vehemently oppose this proposed project. Have we not learned from the reasons given to reject the Deer Canyon project down the road?
The same applies to Festival. Too much traffic, unable to evacuate in case of emergency, a burden on the schools. In addition, the Festival project would destroy the ambience of those living in the area and the noise echoing up to the apartments where I've lived for the past fifteen years would be annoying to say the least. Most concerning, of course, would be the inability to evacuate.

Joy Pickett
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important C9-1
310
I

APPENDIX B

VERBAL COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS AT PLANNING COMMISSION

WORKSHOP
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix B Final Environmental Impact Report Verbal Comments from Individuals at Planning Commission Workshop City of Anaheim 1
Verbal Commentsfrom Individuals at the Planning Commission Workshop (July 14, 2025)
John M. Uh, good evening. Thank you very much for having this forum here and the workshop.

Um, I'm a resident less than a mile away from this proposed development. Um, and last November, you know, I watched the city council meeting, which they just voted no on the salt project. And there were two main issuesthat were raised there. And there was a gentleman who raised the idea of the medical term do no harm. And the deal is in where I live, that whole area is a very high-risk fire zone, as was pointed out. And you're going to add a thousand more vehicles, a thousand more people. And already, the evacuation is a nightmare. Um, as you saw with the fires in the Pacific Palace, they had to take a bulldozer and I to add a thousand more vehiclesthat would probably definitely happen down Sana Canyon Road. And I myself, my insurance was not renewed at the end of the year. My State Farm decided not to renew my insurance because I live in a high-risk fire zone, and I was rejected by four insurance companies because of the high-risk insurance zone before I was finally able to find an insurance company that would insure me for more money and at a much higher premium. So, unfortunately, I know that you want to find an area to put apartments in, but this is not the area to do it. It's already the evacuation of which I believe in 2017 took people two hours just to go a few miles down San Canyon, and you're basically literally adding fuel to the fire by putting a development like this into this area. So, one last thing was that a gentleman made a comment. He worked on the general plan, and he said that with the salt development, if you allow that to happen, you can just take the general plan and throw it in the toilet. And the email address for Shea Properties for this development is the future of the festival. So I think they foresee the whole future of the festival is that they're going to take it bit by bit and try to put apartments in this area. The area was originally zoned this way.

It was just shown that, environmentally, the best option is to leave it the way it is or just rezone it commercially for that theater. And I know that the model of movie watching has somewhat changed, but, um, theaters are coming back in certain areas. Thisisthe only there is no uh theater in that area.

Jimmy A. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jimmy Aravalo, speaking on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. We're deeply concerned about Shea Homes' proposed development, not because we oppose housing, but because of Shea Homes' historical use to build their projects. Shea's track record of using contractors who don't pay livable wages, misclassify workers, and sometimes don't pay them at all. We urge you, don't greenlight this project unless Shea commits to using contractors who treat workers fairly and follow the law.

Thank you. Thank you very much,
Betty. Hello again. Hi. First, um, thank you to the staff for all their hard work. These people are just incredible. I appreciate them every day. And thank you for allowing us to speak.

Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix B Final Environmental Impact Report Verbal Comments from Individuals at Planning Commission Workshop City of Anaheim 2
Um, I am concerned about the development of the festival. It does need a shot in the arm. Do we need 377 apartments? No. Um, I think the biggest issue is wildfire in evacuation and transportation, which was even outlined in the presentation. Um, it took over three hours for people to go less than three miles down San Canyon. And if you add to that even more and more vehicles, it's just going to make matters worse. Um, in just reviewing this, I haven't made up my mind, I am leaning more towards option number two, where the movie theater is developed into a home improvement type of development. I think that's going to have different ingress and egress throughout the day as opposed to that log jam down San Ana Canyon in '91. Um, if you look at travel down that way anytime after 11:35, then in the morning, the 91 eastbound is a parking lot, and to or in order to try and evacuate the existing homes up behind the festival and up Eucalyptus and Mhler. I know there are two different zones where they go, perhaps in different ways, but nobody can predict which way the fire goes. One of the things that I do have to give credit to in the presentation and reading through some of the wildfire stuff, the company that did the study really took some of the salt development and studies to task, and really did not agree with some of their numbers. So, I give them kudos for bringing that out into the open. Um, again, I'd like to reiterate that I think option numbertwo is the better way to go. One of the otherthings that they mentioned was the VMT, transportation, and fewer parking spots. That's just going to force people to park in the neighborhoods. If you go down any street where there are condos or apartments, even up Soriano to what isit? Um, by the elementary school, there are people parked throughout because they can't park in their own condo area.

I like that gentleman who said Do no harm. I think that'sreally critical. I think one of the important things to remember is Paradise, Lahina, Pacific Palisades, Aladina, Anaheim. Thank you.

Mark H. Hello again. Hi, Mark Herbert, anaheimgree.com. In a company town, the city often provides cover for the special interest within the city limits. In this case, it was indicated that the environmental impact report was conducted by the city. My question was, was it conducted by the city staff? Wasit outsourced to a consultant? And three, if it was outsourced, who paid forit? The salt development had some questions around that.

On the question of affordable housing, I like that it's included in this, but let's remember that the target for Anaheim is 9,100 units in their housing element target, which isstill out of compliance.

And so far, they have 453 in the pipeline halfway through the 8-year cycle. And let's remember that affordable housing has three categories.

Will this have any in the bottom category, or will they all be in the top category? Uh, it was mentioned that they thought the mostsignificant fire risk was a fire to the west of this.

It's beenmy experience living in this area for 60-plus years. The highest fire risk isin the fall when we have Santa Ana winds blowing from east to west.

Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix B Final Environmental Impact Report Verbal Comments from Individuals at Planning Commission Workshop City of Anaheim 3
As far as the evacuation plan, oftentimes in Orange County now, developers are responsible for the construction or funding of a toll road to aid in the traffic mitigation for their developments.

Perhaps the bridge at Fairmont over the 91 freeway should be a project like that, where the developer contributes or orchestrates it using their influence to get it done. The city hasn't been able to do it. As for the overriding considerations in a company town, there's always surprise information at the end, and it's not often introduced at the beginning of the process. We found that out at Disney Forward when the overriding consideration was presented at the end of a long process and remained private. We were not allowed to look at it, nor was the council. I wish the overriding consideration were presented now so the public could engage with it.

Mr. Hill. Good evening, and thank you again for allowing us all to speak today. Um, and thank you especially to the uh, planning commission for the hard work you guys do in order to protect the citizens of this community. It is my understanding that it is the government's primary responsibility to protect its citizens.

Allowing dense housing to be developed in a high fire hazard area is the absolute opposite of that. You not only put us existing residents at risk, but also any new residents that come into the area. This project, along with what Salt is now proposing, 300 more homes in Deer Canyon, puts us all at severe risk.

Paradise, Lahina, and Pacific Palisades at Altadena are perfect examples of city councils allowing development to take place without proper evacuation. There's really only one way out of this area and that's Sana Canyon Road. The 91 freeway would be so congested during a fire evacuation that it would be difficult even to access that highway.

To me, the solution is to build another route out. The most logical route would be an overpass over Fairmont. Why any of these developments are being considered without that being first is irresponsible and needs to be addressed and built prior to any further dense housing developments in East Anaheim. Thank you.

ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN

AMENDMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Prepared for City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805
Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Date: September 2025
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
1 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) §21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines §15097. CEQA requires public agencies to adopt a monitoring or reporting program whenever a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts.

This MMP ensures that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project EIR are implemented in a timely and verifiable manner, and that project implementation remains fully consistent with the mitigation commitments disclosed in the environmental document. As the Lead Agency, the City of Anaheim is responsible for administering and ensuring compliance with the MMP.

Public Resources Code §21081.6 provides that:

The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.

Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines §15097(a) requires that the MMP be adopted when a project is approved and that the program be enforceable and capable of ensuring actual implementation of mitigation measures during all relevant phases of the project.

The MMP for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project has been developed to:
• Provide a clear and enforceable mechanism for monitoring and verifying the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR; • Ensure that mitigation measures are incorporated into the design, permitting, construction, and operation phases of the Project as applicable; • Assign responsibilities for monitoring;
• Document compliance through written verification and record-keeping; and • Ensure consistency with City of Anaheim procedures and CEQA legal standards.

The MMP includes a comprehensive table that identifies each mitigation measure by number and title (as presented in the EIR), the timing of implementation, the department responsible for verification, and a method for documenting compliance. The table also includes a column for City staff or authorized representatives to sign off once implementation has been verified.

All mitigation measures contained in this MMP are incorporated into the Project either through conditions of approval, permit requirements, or development agreements, and are enforceable Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2 pursuant to CEQA. The MMP will be maintained as part of the administrative record for the Project and will be available for public inspection at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department.

In summary, this MMP serves as the implementation tool for ensuring the Project’s compliance with CEQA mitigation requirements and the long-term protection of environmental resources in accordance with the intent of CEQA.

Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE
In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines §15097, the following MMP has been prepared for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project. This program is designed to ensure that all Mitigation Measures (MMs), Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) identified in the EIR are implemented and verified during the appropriate stages of Project approval, permitting, construction, and operation.

This MMP ensures compliance with CEQA by establishing a clear and enforceable implementation framework for each environmental commitment. It assigns responsibilities for implementation and oversight and establishes verification procedures to be followed by the City of Anaheim, the Project Applicant, and any retained qualified professionals (e.g., biologists, archaeologists, tribal monitors).

This program includes three categories of environmental commitments:
• Mitigation Measures (MMs): Measures adopted to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.
• Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs): Existing requirements under federal, State, regional, or local law or regulation that apply independently of CEQA but are relevant to the Project’s environmental effects and help reduce potential impacts. • Project Design Features (PDFs): Specific features of the Project or applicant-proposed commitments that reduce potential impacts. While not considered formal mitigation under CEQA, these are binding and enforceable components of the Project as analyzed in the EIR.

Each commitment is included in the table below with the following columns:
• Measure Number and Title (e.g., MM BIO-1, RCM AQ-1, PDF HAZ-2) and the full text of the requirement;
• Implementation Timing indicating when the commitment must be implemented; • Responsible for Monitoring indicating the responsible parties for verification; • Verification Section for sign-off by City staff, with fields for date and initials.

Unless otherwise stated, the Project Applicant is responsible for implementing all measures. The City of Anaheim, primarily through its Planning and Building Department, is responsible for ensuring compliance and maintaining documentation in the Project’s administrative record.

This MMP shall be adopted concurrently with Project approvals and incorporated into all relevant permits and conditions of approval. It will be maintained on file at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department and used as a tool to track and verify compliance throughout Project implementation.

Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 4 ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
Air Quality
AQ RCM-1
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
• All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

Ongoing during all
construction activities
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.

Biological Resources
BIO RCM-1 Nesting Migratory Birds. To prevent inadvertent disturbance to potential nesting migratory birds, a qualified biologist shall be contracted by the Property Owner/Developer prior to the issuance of any demolition permits to perform biological monitoring during all demolition, clearing, grubbing, and grading activities. To the extent feasible, all demolition, clearing, grubbing, and grading activities shall be conducted outside of the state-identified nesting season for migratory birds (i.e., typically February 1 through August 31). If not feasible, a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey within and adjacent to the Project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days before beginning these activities. If active nests are found during the PreConstruction Nesting Bird Survey, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented during construction with approval from the City. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing the active nest(s), proposed protective buffers, proposed monitoring approach, and proposed reporting approach. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based on the nesting species, nesting sage, nest location, its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration Prior to demolition or
ground disturbance; during
demolition, clearing,
grubbing, and grading (if
within nesting season)
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 6 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
of the disturbance activity. A memorandum describing the results of the Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for verification prior to proceeding with demolition, clearing, grubbing, and/or grading activities, subject to this measure. Any NBP developed pursuant to this measure shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation.

Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1. Archaeologist Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide written evidence to the City that the Property Owner/Developer has retained a qualified archaeologist to observe grading activities within previously undisturbed soils and to salvage and catalog archaeological resources, as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance within previously undisturbed soils, and shall establish, in cooperation with the Property Owner/Developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If soils cannot be shown in geotechnical reports or by other means to have been previously disturbed, archaeological monitoring shall be conducted. If archaeological resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery, and the archaeologist and City shall be notified immediately. If the City, in consultation with the archaeologist, determines the archaeological resources to be significant, the City, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall determine appropriate actions for exploration and/or salvage. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

Prior to grading permit
issuance; during grounddisturbing activities
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 7 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
RCM CUL-1. If human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Coroner shall be notified of the discovery immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains are or are believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours of the discovery. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site by the City. The City would meet and confer with the most likely descendant regarding their
recommendations prior to disturbing the site with further construction activity.

During all ground-disturbing
activities City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the City of Anaheim Building Division and Public Works Department shall review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the recommendations contained in the Project’s Geotechnical Exploration and Feasibility Report.

Prior to issuance of grading
and building permits
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Building Division
City of Anaheim Public Works Department,
Development Services Division
MM GEO-2. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or permit for ground-disturbing activities, the Project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department that a qualified professional paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology has been retained. If paleontological resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing Prior to issuance of grading
permit; during grounddisturbing activities
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 8 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
activities within a 50-foot radius of the discovery area. The qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, the Project applicant shall follow salvage operation requirements pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. After the Project applicant has appropriately avoided or mitigated the find, work in the area may resume.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
PDF HAZ-1 Construction Fire Prevention Plan. Prior to
commencement of construction activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall prepare and implement a Construction Fire Prevention Plan that identifies fire safety measures to be followed by the Project’s contractor throughout all phases of construction.

The Plan shall be submitted to Anaheim Fire & Rescue for review and approval prior to the start of construction activities.

Prior to commencement of
construction City of Anaheim Fire & Rescue
PDF HAZ-2 Wildfire Evacuation and Awareness Plan. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first multiple-family residential unit, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare and implement a Project-specific Wildfire Evacuation and Awareness Plan. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Anaheim Planning Department, Anaheim Police Department, and Anaheim Fire & Rescue. The Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: (1) The Plan shall be provided to all tenants along with all lease agreements for tenants; (2) The Plan shall include the development and dissemination of wildfire evacuation outreach materials. These materials shall be provided to residents and employees within the Project annually. The outreach materials shall depict evacuation routes to use in case of a wildfire event and will provide other practical wildfire preparedness information; (3) The Plan shall include requirements for annual emergency evacuation drills for residents and employees in the Project site; and (4) The Plan shall include the development, implementation, and ongoing maintenance of a method for the Property Owner/Developer to Prior to certificate of
occupancy for first
residential unit
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
City of Anaheim Police Department
City of Anaheim Fire & Rescue
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 9 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
quickly and effectively communicate emergency alerts to individuals at the Project site, such as through the installation and maintenance of a wireless Public Address (PA) system and/or wireless texting services, or other equivalent systems or methods approved by Anaheim Fire & Rescue.

MM HAZ-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared by the Property Owner/Developer for the review and approval by Anaheim Fire and Rescue. The Construction Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Construction activities shall comply with the approved Construction Management Plan to the reasonable satisfaction of the Anaheim Fire and Rescue. The Property Owner/Developer shall begin coordination with the City on the Construction Management Plan as soon as practicable during the final design process and in advance of construction so that effective measures can be developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate, to the extent feasible, construction impacts to parking and circulation on-site and in the vicinity of the Project site. At a minimum, the Construction Management Plan shall identify emergency access points and emergency access routes to allow for adequate emergency access to/within the Project site and to parcels surrounding the site throughout all phases of construction.

During final design; prior to
issuance of grading permits City of Anaheim Fire & Rescue Hydrology and Water Quality
RCM HYDRO-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the Project site and available for City review upon request. Evidence of permit attainment shall be Prior to issuance of grading
permit; ongoing during
construction
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Building Services Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 10 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division.

Transportation
PDF TRANS-1 Affordable Housing (CAPCOA Measure T-4). The Project shall include 45 moderate-income level housing units, representing 10 percent of the total 447 dwelling units. This measure is estimated to reduce project generated VMT by approximately 2.86 percent or 1,621 VMT.

Prior to issuance of grading
permit City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
PDF TRANS-2 Limit Residential Parking Supply (CAPCOA Measure T15). The Project shall provide a total of 893 parking spaces, which is 70 spaces fewer than the 963 spaces required by the City’s development standards. This reduction in parking supply is expected to reduce project-generated VMT by 1.0 percent, or 567 VMT. No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the significant impact to a level less than significant.

Prior to issuance of grading
permit City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM TCR-1. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer or contractor as designee shall provide evidence in the form of an executed Agreement to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department that they have retained a qualified Native American tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring (Monitor) during specified excavation and grading activities and to evaluate any previously unknown TCRs that are discovered during Project ground-disturbing activities, and also to provide recommended mitigation measures, such as, for example, recovery and catalogue, as necessary to the extent the find is determined to be significant. The Monitor shall be from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and shall be a qualified professional based on generally accepted professional qualifications and/or certifications, as may be applicable.

The Agreement shall include (i) the professional qualifications of the Monitor; (ii) a reasonably detailed scope of services to be provided, Prior to issuance of grading
permit; during grounddisturbing activities
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Planning Services Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 11 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
including but not limited to pre-construction education, observation, evaluation, protection, salvage, notification, and/or curation requirements, as applicable, with final documentation/report to Public Works Inspector; (iii) contact information; (iv) communication protocols between Contractor and Monitor for scheduling to facilitate timely performance; (v) acknowledgment that if the Monitor is unavailable or unresponsive based on terms stipulated in the Agreement, Property Owner/Developer or Contractor as designee may contract with another qualified professional Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and/or Native American tribe with established ancestral decadency to the project location, and reasonably acceptable to the City.

The cover sheet of the grading plans shall include a note to identify that (a) third-party monitoring for tribal cultural resources is required during specified excavation and grading activities in accordance with the Agreement, and (b) contact information for the Tribe-approved Monitor shall be provided by the Contractor to the City inspector at the pre-construction meeting.

Utilities and Service Systems
RCM UTIL-1 Commercial/Multifamily Mandatory Recycling. In compliance with AB 341, recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote the recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable materials. These bins shall be emptied and recycled accordingly as part of the Project’s regular solid waste disposal program. The Project Applicant shall only contract for waste disposal services with a company that recycles solid waste in compliance with AB 341.

Ongoing during construction
and operation City of Anaheim Public Works Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division
RCM UTIL-2 Construction Waste Recycling. To meet the diversion goals of the California Integrated Waste Management Act, the Applicant shall salvage and recycle construction and demolition materials to ensure that a minimum of 65 percent of constructionrelated solid waste that can be recycled is diverted from the waste Prior to demolition permit;
ongoing during construction
City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, Building Division
Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Appendix C Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program 12 Measure Number and Title Implementation Timing Department Responsible for Monitoring Verification
Date Initials
stream to be landfilled. Solid waste diversion would be accomplished by either using Republic Services, the City’s franchise trash hauler, or completing a Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Application before a demolition permit may be issued.

APPENDIX D

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

ANAHEIM HILLS
FESTIVAL SPA NO. 6

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
15699-08A TA Report City of Anaheim August 11, 2025
PREPARED BY: Charlene So, PE | [email protected]
Jared Brawner | [email protected]
Aric Evatt | [email protected]

URBAN CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices......................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Exhibits..................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviated Terms ............................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Deficiencies .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

1.6 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................12 2 Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................15

2.1 Level of Service....................................................................................................................................................15

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis........................................................................................................................15

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology..........................................................................................17

2.4 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis..........................................................................................................18

2.5 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ...........................................................................................................................19

2.6 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) .........................................................................................19

2.7 Deficiency Criteria ..............................................................................................................................................19

2.8 Fair Share Contribution....................................................................................................................................20 3 Area Conditions ......................................................................................................................................21

3.1 Existing Circulation Network ..........................................................................................................................21

3.2 Existing Roadway Network .............................................................................................................................21

3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities....................................................................................................................24

3.4 Transit Service......................................................................................................................................................24

3.5 Existing Traffic Counts ......................................................................................................................................28

3.6 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................30

3.7 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................30

3.8 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................................................30

3.9 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ...........................................................................................................................30

3.10 Existing Deficiencies and Improvements ...................................................................................................32 4 Projected Future Traffic .........................................................................................................................33

4.1 Project Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................33

4.2 Project Trip Distribution...................................................................................................................................35

4.3 Modal Split.............................................................................................................................................................35

4.4 Project Trip Assignment...................................................................................................................................35

4.5 Background Traffic .............................................................................................................................................35

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic..................................................................................................................38

4.7 Near-Term Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................................42

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
iii

4.8 General Plan Buildout Volume Development..........................................................................................42 5 Opening Year (2029) Traffic Conditions...............................................................................................43

5.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................43

5.2 Opening Year (2029) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts.....................................................43

5.3 Opening Year (2029) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ...........................................................43

5.4 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................43

5.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................46

5.6 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................................................47

5.7 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ...........................................................................................................................47

5.8 Deficiencies and Improvements....................................................................................................................50 6 General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions............................................................................................53

6.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................53

6.2 General Plan Buildout Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts...................................................53

6.3 General Plan Buildout With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts..........................................................53

6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................53

6.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................56

6.6 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................................................56

6.7 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ...........................................................................................................................58

6.8 Deficiencies and Improvements....................................................................................................................58 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms...........................................................................................61

7.1 City of Anaheim Transportation Impact and Improvement Fee Program.....................................61 8 References...............................................................................................................................................63

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Existing (2024) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.4: Existing (2024) Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 4.1: Post Processing Worksheets
Appendix 5.1: Opening Year (2029) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 5.2: Opening Year (2029) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 5.3: Opening Year (2029) Without Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.4: Opening Year (2029) With Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.5: Opening Year (2029) Without Project Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.6: Opening Year (2029) With Project Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: General Plan Buildout Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.2: General Plan Buildout With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.3: General Plan Buildout Without Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.4: General Plan Buildout With Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.5: General Plan Buildout Without Project Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.6: General Plan Buildout With Project Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Location Map..................................................................................................................................2 Exhibit 1-2: SPA Proposed Development Areas .............................................................................................4 Exhibit 1-3: Preliminary Site Plan .....................................................................................................................5 Exhibit 1-4: Study Area.......................................................................................................................................8 Exhibit 1-5: Site Access Recommendations ..................................................................................................13 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls .............................................22 Exhibit 3-2: City of Anaheim General Plan Planned Roadway Map...........................................................23 Exhibit 3-3: City of Anaheim Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities .........................................................25 Exhibit 3-4: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................26 Exhibit 3-5: City of Anaheim Transit Facilities...............................................................................................27 Exhibit 3-6: Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................29 Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution..............................................................................................................36 Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................37 Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location Map ..................................................................................40 Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................41 Exhibit 5-1: Opening Year (2029) Without Project Traffic Volumes ...........................................................44 Exhibit 5-2: Opening Year (2029) With Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 45 Exhibit 6-1: General Plan Buildout Without Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................54 Exhibit 6-2: General Plan Buildout With Project Traffic Volumes ..............................................................55

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ......................................................................................................7 Table 1-2: Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Locations ..........................................................................9 Table 1-3: Summary of Intersection LOS.........................................................................................................9 Table 1-4: Summary of Roadway Segment Analysis Results ......................................................................10 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds......................................................................................15 Table 2-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds with HCM....................................................................16 Table 2-3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds .................................................................................17 Table 2-4: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations ...................................................................................18 Table 2-5: City of Anaheim Deficiency Criteria .............................................................................................19 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions ................................................................. 31 Table 3-2: Roadway Segment Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions......................................................31 Table 3-3: Peak Hour Queuing Summary for Existing (2024) Conditions .................................................32 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................................................33 Table 4-2: Project Trip Generation Summary ...............................................................................................34 Table 4-3: Trip Generation Comparison........................................................................................................34 Table 4-4: Cumulative Development land use Summary ...........................................................................38 Table 4-5: Cumulative Development Trip Generation Rates......................................................................39 Table 4-6: Cumulative Development Trip Generation Summary...............................................................39 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year (2029) Conditions .......................................................46 Table 5-2: Roadway Segment Analysis for Opening Year (2029) Conditions ...........................................48 Table 5-3: Peak Hour Queuing Summary for Opening Year (2029) Conditions.......................................49 Table 5-4: Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis for Opening Year (2029) Conditions ........................51 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for General Plan Buildout Conditions ....................................................56 Table 6-2: Roadway Segment Analysis for General Plan Buildout Conditions.........................................57 Table 6-3: Peak Hour Queuing Summary for General Plan Buildout Conditions ....................................58 Table 6-4: Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis for General Plan Buildout Conditions .....................60

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ATAM Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CMP Congestion Management Program
DA Development Area
EIR Environmental Impact Report
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MPH Miles Per Hour
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
SP Specific Plan
SPA Specific Plan Amendment
TA Traffic Analysis
TIIF Transportation Impact and Improvement Fee
TIM Transportation Implementation Manual
v/c Volume to Capacity
vphgpl Vehicles per Hour Green per Lane

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08B TA Report
viii
AUGUST 11, 2025 REVISIONS
The revisions included on August 11, 2025, were prepared in response to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) comment letter dated August 4, 2025. Specifically, these revisions include the following:
• Revisions to Table 4-1 to include the Shopping Center trip generation rates. • All Turning Volume exhibits updated to ensure volumes are only displayed for applicable turning movements at each location.
• Typographical error in all Queuing tables updated to correctly reference SR-91 Freeway.

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Traffic Analysis (TA) for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) (Project), located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of Roosevelt Road in the City of Anaheim, as shown in Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and, where necessary, recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations consistent with General Plan level of service goals and policies. This traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Anaheim’s Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (City Guidelines) and consultation with City staff during the traffic study scoping process. (1) The City-approved Project Traffic Study Scoping Agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
All study area intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours under Opening Year (2029 With Project traffic conditions and General Plan Buildout traffic conditions based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology.

Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road, is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under Opening Year (2029) traffic conditions and General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Anaheim Hills Road to Fairmont Boulevard, is also anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. Based on the peak hour roadway capacity thresholds, Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road, is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS in the westbound direction during the AM and PM peak hour and in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour only, under Opening Year (2029) With Project traffic conditions and General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. Under both the daily and peak hour analyses, the Project is anticipated to increase the Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) by less than the threshold identified for intersections. As such, the Project-related increase in V/C is deemed not significant.

The high volume of through vehicles is attributable to vehicles bypassing the SR-91 Freeway during peak hour commute hours throughout the day. Introducing additional lanes along Santa Ana Canyon Road would encourage more vehicles to utilize this roadway segment and would be counterintuitive to the State’s goals with regards to Vehicle Miles Traveled. Moreover, roadway widening is infeasible due to right-of-way limitations and is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the intersections on both ends of the roadway segment are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS suggesting that the additional capacity accommodated through turn lanes at the choke-points of the roadway segments (e.g., intersections) can sufficiently handle the anticipated future traffic. 1 URBAN I CROSSROADS
15699-vol_a2.dwg EXHIBIT 1-1 : LOCATION MAP Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 N Imperial Hwy. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Canyon Rim Rd. Serrano Ave. Esperanza Rd. Weir Canyon Rd. Site Fairmont Blvd. Fairmont Blvd. Yorba Linda Blvd. La Palma Ave. UNINCORPORATED YORBA LINDA ANAHEIM Å91 Å241 2

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
3 Access to the Project site will be provided via two driveways on Festival Drive. Driveway 1 is an existing full access driveway (no turn restrictions) on the north side of the Project. The Project is to construct the following improvements in conjunction with development to facilitate site access:
• Project to construct Driveway 2 on Festival Drive. The Project is to install a stop control on the southbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
• Festival Drive appears to be built to its ultimate curb-to-curb width adjacent to the Project. However, the Project should improve the curb-and-gutter, sidewalks, and landscape along the frontage as necessary in addition to accommodating improvements to facilitate site access at the driveways.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The existing Specific Plan (SP) is divided into four Development Areas (DA) by land use. DA 1 is the Scenic Commercial area fronting Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, DA 2 is the Regional Commercial use that contains the department stores, grocery, other food/retail uses, and the vacant cinema, DA 3 is the Visitor Commercial area located west of Festival Drive which includes the existing hotel, and DA 4 is the Senior Residential area south of Festival Drive. The SPA proposes the implementation of a new 16.2-acre mixed-use development area on the upper level of the commercial center as a new DA 5 (which is a portion of the old DA 2). Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the proposed DA locations for the SPA.

Specifically, the Project proposes to demolish the existing 62,676-square-foot vacant cinema and develop in its place 447 multi-family residential dwelling units while retaining the remaining existing commercial uses within the new DA 5. Approximately 13,310 square feet of existing retail would be retained in DA 2 as a result of the new DA 5 (resulting in a net reduction of 49,366 square feet of retail space). The retail within DA 5 will include the following existing uses: 6,475 square feet of restaurant use, 9,200 square feet of office use, 38,160-square-foot fitness/gym, 13,276 square feet of tutor/retail space, and 11,033-square-foot medical office building. A preliminary site plan for the proposed multifamily residential development is shown at Exhibit 1-3. Access to the Project site will be provided via two driveways on Festival Drive. Driveway 1 is an existing driveway on the north side of the Project.

Both driveways are assumed to have full access (no turn restrictions). For the purposes of the Traffic Analysis, the Project is expected to be developed within a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2029.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for ITE Land Use Code 221 for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise, 4-10 Floors) has been utilized. (2) Only traffic for the proposed multi-family development is taken into consideration as the existing retail, restaurant, and office uses would be captured as part of the existing intersection traffic count program. The Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,624 vehicle trip-ends per day with 132 AM peak hour trips and 139 PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.
3 URBAN I CROSSROADS
4 URBAN I CROSSROADS
15699.dwg spa dev
canyon Rd E. santa /1,na
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 1-2: SPA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Roosevelt Park
" ""
----- ------ -
5 URBAN I CROSSROADS Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 1-3: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
15699.dwg site plan
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
6 1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Consistent with the City’s Guidelines, for the purposes of the Traffic Analysis, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2024) Conditions
• Opening Year (2029) Without Project Conditions: Cumulative existing traffic conditions plus all developments within the study area which have not yet been constructed but has been approved through a discretionary action or building permit issuance. This alternative corresponds to the no project alternative for purposes of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). • Opening Year (2029) With Project Conditions
• General Plan Buildout Without Project Conditions: Buildout of all developments anticipated in the City’s General Plan or implied by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) Year 2025 or later projections shall be utilized for this purpose. • General Plan Buildout With Project Conditions

1.3.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2024) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared.

1.3.2 OPENING YEAR (2029) CONDITIONS
The Opening Year (2029) Without Project conditions analysis determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. The roadway network is similar to Existing conditions except for new connections to be constructed other approved cumulative development projects. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing (2024) conditions of

5.10 percent (1 percent per year, compounded over 5 years) is included for Opening Year (2029) Without Project conditions, in conjunction with traffic associated from approved cumulative development projects. This comprehensive list was compiled from information provided by the City of Anaheim. The assumed ambient growth factor is based on the requirements per the City Guidelines.

The Opening Year (2029) With Project conditions include the Opening Year (2029) Without Project conditions traffic forecasts plus the traffic generated by the proposed Project. The roadway network is similar to Opening Year (2029) Without Project except for new connections to be constructed by the Project. The Opening Year (2029) With Project conditions analysis is intended to identify “Opening Year” deficiencies associated with the development of the proposed Project based on the expected background growth within the study area.

1.3.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Traffic projections for General Plan Buildout conditions were derived from the latest ATAM using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing. The General Plan Buildout postprocessing volumes have been provided by the City’s traffic consultant. The General Plan Buildout conditions analysis has been utilized to determine if improvements funded through regional transportation mitigation fee programs can accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of Anaheim (lead agency) General Plan. Each of the applicable transportation fee programs are discussed in more detail in Section 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms.
6 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
7 1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Anaheim’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by City of Anaheim staff prior to the preparation of this report. This agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS
The following 16 study area intersections shown at Exhibit 1-4 and listed in Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Anaheim staff. The “50 peak hour trip” criterion utilized by the City of Anaheim is consistent with the methodology employed by the County of Orange, and generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be affected by a given development proposal. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of influence (i.e., study area). Other analysis intersections within the adjacent cities were not selected for evaluation as the Project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips.

TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
The intent of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related deficiencies, and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. Imperial Highway at the SR-91 westbound and eastbound ramps (study area intersections #1 and #2) are identified as CMP facilities in the County of Orange per the Orange County CMP. (3)
# Intersection Jurisdiction CMP Facility?
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps Anaheim, Caltrans Yes
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps Anaheim, Caltrans Yes
3 Imperial Hwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
4 Anaheim Hills Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
5 Fairmont Bl. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
6 Deer Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
7 Festival Dr. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
8 Festival Dr. & Driveway 1 Anaheim No
9 Driveway 2 & Festival Dr. Anaheim No
10 Festival Center Dwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No 11 Roosevelt Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
12 Roosevelt Rd. & Festival Dr./Monte Vista Rd. Anaheim No 13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps Yorba Linda, Caltrans No 14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps Anaheim, Caltrans No 15 Weir Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim No
16 Weir Canyon Rd. & Monte Vista Rd. Anaheim No
7 URBAN I CROSSROADS
8 URBAN I CROSSROADS Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 1-4: STUDY AREA
® = Future Intersection Analysis Location
15699.dwg stdy
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
9 1.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Based on consultation with City of Anaheim staff, the study area roadway segments selected for evaluation are shown at Exhibit 1-4 and listed in Table 1-2.

TABLE 1-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOCATIONS

1.5 DEFICIENCIES
This section provides a summary of deficiencies by analysis scenario. Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 3 Area Conditions, Section 5 Opening Year (2029) Traffic Conditions, and Section 6 General Plan Buildout Conditions includes the detailed analysis. A summary of the Intersection Operations Analysis LOS results and Roadway Segment Analysis results for all analysis scenarios is presented in Tables 1-3 and 1-4, respectively.

TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS
# Study Area Roadway Segments
1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. 2 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. 3 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Fairmont Bl. to Deer Canyon Rd. 4 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Deer Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr. 5 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Festival Dr. to Roosevelt Rd.
6 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 7 Roosevelt Rd., Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr.
8 Festival Dr., Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Driveway 1
9 Festival Dr., Driveway 2 to Roosevelt Rd.
10 Monte Vista Rd., Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd.
11 Weir Canyon Rd., SR-91 Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Rd. 12 Weir Canyon Rd., Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr. # Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps B A B B B B B B B B
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps B A C A C A C B C B
3 Imperial Hwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. B B B B B B B B B B 4 Anaheim Hills Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. A A B A B A B B B B 5 Fairmont Bl. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. B C B C C C C D C D 6 Deer Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. B B B C B C C D C D 7 Festival Dr. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. A A A A A B B B B B 8 Festival Dr. & Driveway 1 A B A B A B A B
9 Driveway 2 & Festival Dr. A A A A A A A A A A
10 Festival Center Dwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. B B B B B B B B B B 11 Roosevelt Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. A A B B
12 Roosevelt Rd. & Festival Dr./Monte Vista Rd. A A A A A A A A A A 13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps A A A A A A A A A B 14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps A A A A A A A A A A 15 Weir Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. A B A B A B A B B B 16 Weir Canyon Rd. & Monte Vista Rd. A A A B A B A B A B Opening Year (2029) General Plan Buildout
Existing (2024)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Without Project With Project Without Project With Project 9 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
10 TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

1.5.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours.

Roadway Segments
There are no study area roadway segments currently operating at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.

Off-Ramp Queues
There are no movements that currently experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing (2024) traffic conditions. # Roadway Segment Limits
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. C D D D D 2 Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. C C C D D
3 Fairmont Bl. to Deer Canyon Rd. C C C C C
4 Deer Canyon Rd. Festival Dr. C B B C C
5 Festival Dr. to Roosevelt Rd. C A A A A
6 Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. C C C C C
7 Roosevelt Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr. C A A A A 8 Festival Dr. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Driveway 1 C A A A A 9 Driveway 2 to Roosevelt Rd. C A A A A
10 Monte Vista Rd. Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. C A A A A 11 Weir Canyon Rd. SR-91 Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Rd. C C C C C 12 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Monte Vista Rd. C A A A A
* BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). # Roadway Segment Limits Peak Hour Direction
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. AM EB N/A C C C C

AM WB N/A C D D D

PM EB N/A D D D D

PM WB N/A E E E E
2 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. AM EB N/A N/A N/A B B

AM WB N/A N/A N/A C C

PM EB N/A N/A N/A B C
PM WB N/A N/A N/A B C 1
Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analyses has been analyzed for segments anticpated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under the Daily Roadway Segment Analysis.

Imperial Hwy. to
Anaheim Hills Rd.

Anaheim Hills Rd. to
Fairmont Bl.

Summary of Daily Roadway Segment Analysis
Summary of Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis
Existing
(2024)
Opening Year (2029) General Plan
Existing
(2024)
Opening Year (2029) General Plan
10 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
11 1.5.2 OPENING YEAR (2029) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions.

Roadway Segments
The following study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under both Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions:
• Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road (#1) – LOS D Off-Ramp Queues
There are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under both Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions.

1.5.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Intersections
The study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS under General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions.

Roadway Segments
The following study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under both General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions:
• Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road (#1) – LOS D • Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Anaheim Hills Road to Fairmont Boulevard (#2) – LOS D Off-Ramp Queues
There are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under both General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions.
11 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
12 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the proposed Project. The site adjacent recommendations are shown at Exhibit 1-5.

The existing stop control and intersection geometry should remain at the intersections of Festival Drive & Driveway 1 (#8).

Recommendation 1 – Driveway 2 & Festival Drive (#9) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.

Recommendation 2 – Festival Drive is located on the Project’s western and southern boundary.

Festival Drive is a Private Street, and therefore its ultimate condition is not defined by the City of Anaheim General Plan. However, the Project is to construct Festival Drive along the Project’s frontage to its ultimate half width as defined in the SP.

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

Sight distance at each Project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Anaheim sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. 12 URBAN I CROSSROADS
13 URBAN I CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 1-5: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
15699 recs.dwg
8 Festival Dr. &
Drivewayl
LEGEND
... • .. ~· ... . . ..... .. .. . • •, • .. ..... : •I:
, · . . • . .
·.t ':--·, .•
9 ® = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
(i) = Future Intersection Analysis Location
"T" = Existing Stop Sign
..- = Stop Sign Improvement
, = Existing Traffic Lane
""' = Traffic Lane Improvement
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
14 1.6.2 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
There are no off-site improvements recommended as all study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS for all analysis scenarios during the morning and evening peak hours.

However, the Project Applicant shall pay requisite fees for the applicable pre-existing fee programs (see Section 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms).

Although the roadway segments of Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road and from Anaheim Hills Road to Fairmont Boulevard, are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily and peak roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions, no roadway widening improvements have been recommended.

The high volume of through vehicles is attributable to vehicles bypassing the SR-91 Freeway during peak commute hours throughout the day. Introducing additional lanes along Santa Ana Canyon Road would encourage more vehicles to utilize this roadway segment and would be counterintuitive to the State’s goals with regards to Vehicle Miles Traveled. Roadway widening is also infeasible due to rightof-way limitations and is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the Project is anticipated to increase the V/C by less than the City of Anaheim’s deficiency criteria threshold identified for intersections, and the intersections on both ends of the roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) suggesting that the additional capacity accommodated through turn lanes at the choke-points of the roadway segments (e.g., intersections) can sufficiently handle the anticipated future traffic. Discussion in greater detail is found in Sections

5.8.2 and 6.8.2 Improvements to Address Deficiencies at Roadway Segments of this report. 14 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
15 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with the City of Anaheim’s traffic study guidelines.

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term ”Level of Service“ (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors, such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing a breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions.

LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. LOS analysis was conducted to determine existing traffic conditions using the ICU methodology for signalized study intersections.(4) The HCM (7th Edition) methodology was used to determine the LOS for unsignalized intersections and Caltrans facilities. The HCM methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of average control delay time for the various intersection approaches. (5) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Anaheim requires signalized intersection operations analysis to be evaluated through ICU methodology, which compares the peak hour traffic volumes to intersection capacity. Lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour green per lane (vphgpl) have been utilized for this analysis, consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines. A 0.05 lost time factor (clearance) and inherent vehicle delay between cycles with an assumed signal cycle of 100 seconds has been assumed for the ICU calculations. The ICU LOS definitions based on V/C ratio are presented in Table 2-1.

TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Level of Service Critical Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio A 0.00 - 0.60
B 0.61 - 0.70
C 0.71 - 0.80
D 0.81 - 0.90
E 0.91 - 1.00
F > 1.00
15 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
16 Analysis of Caltrans operated facilities has been conducted in Synchro (Version 12) through the application of the HCM 7th Edition methodology for signalized intersections. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing was based on current operating characteristics as obtained from field review and signal timing worksheets provided by Caltrans District 12 staff. Future lane configurations were assumed the same as existing conditions for the General Plan Without Project and With Project scenarios. Table 2-2 presents the signalized intersection delay and LOS standards throughout the study area.

TABLE 2-2: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS WITH HCM Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15- minute volumes. Customary practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute rate of flow.

However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15- minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (5) Average Control Delay Level of Serice,
(Seconds), V/C < 1.0 V/C < 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.01 to 35.00 C
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and indvidual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.01 to 55.00 D
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.01 to 80.00 E
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 7th Edition
1 if V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM
Description
16 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
17 2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Anaheim requires the operations of unsignalized intersections to be evaluated using the methodology described in the 7th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (6) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-3). At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay).

TABLE 2-3: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term ”signal warrants“ refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or determine the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (7) The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (7) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions and for all future analysis scenarios for existing unsignalized intersections. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Urban warrants have been used as posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections are 40 miles per hour or below and rural warrants have been used where speeds exceed 40 miles per hour.

Average Control Delay Level of Serice,
(Seconds), V/C < 1.0 V/C < 1.01
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersections capacity exceeded. >50.00 F Source: HCM, 7th Edition
1 if V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM
Description
17 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
18 Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Similarly, the speed limit has been used as the basis for determining the use of Urban and Rural warrants. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following study area intersections shown in Table 2-4:

TABLE 2-4: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 Opening Year (2029) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 General Plan Buildout Conditions of this report. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

2.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Roadway segment operations have been evaluated using the Roadway Capacity Thresholds provided in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the County of Orange Transportation Implementation Manual (TIM). (8) (9) These roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic.

In other words, while using ADT for planning purposes is suitable with regards to evaluating potential volume to capacity with future forecasts, it is not suitable for operational analysis because it does not account for the factors listed previously. As such, where the ADT based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis and progression analysis are undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. # Intersection
6 Deer Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
8 Festival Dr. & Driveway 1
9 Driveway 2 & Festival Dr.
18 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
19 2.5 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Consistent with Caltrans requirements, the 95th percentile queuing of vehicles has been assessed at the off-ramps to determine potential queuing deficiencies at the freeway ramp intersections at the SR-91 Freeway at the Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road interchanges. Specifically, the off-ramp queuing analysis is utilized to identify any potential queuing and “spill back” onto the freeway mainline from the off-ramps. The 95th percentile queue has also been utilized to assess the queues at the study area interchanges to identify any potential peak hour queuing issues.

The traffic progression analysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro, has been used to assess the potential deficiencies/needs of the intersections with traffic added from the proposed Project. Storage (turn-pocket) length recommendations at the ramps have been based upon the 95th percentile queue resulting from the Synchro progression analysis. The footnote from the Synchro output sheets indicates if the 95th percentile cycle exceeds capacity. Traffic is simulated for two complete cycles of the 95th percentile traffic in Synchro in order to account for the effects of spillover between cycles. In practice, the 95th percentile queue shown will rarely be exceeded and the queues shown with the footnote are acceptable for the design of storage bays. The 95th percentile queue is derived from the average queue plus 1.65 standard deviations.

2.6 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
The City of Anaheim’s Growth Management Element requires a V/C ratio of 0.90 (Level of Service or LOS D) to be the lowest acceptable LOS at intersections following implementation of improvements. (10) Intersection improvements sufficient to bring intersections and roadway segments to the acceptable service levels must be identified. In order to maintain LOS D at intersections, arterial links (roadway segments) should be maintained to LOS C or better.

2.7 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
A transportation impact on an intersection shall be deemed significant in accordance with the following Table 2-5 (per the City’s Guidelines):

TABLE 2-5: CITY OF ANAHEIM DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
The Final v/c Ratio shall mean the future V/C ratio at an intersection considering impacts with Project, ambient Growth, and Related Projects but without any proposed mitigation.

Cumulative traffic deficiencies are created as a result of a combination of the proposed Project together with other future developments contributing to the overall traffic deficiencies requiring additional improvements to maintain acceptable level of service operations with or without the Project. When the pre-Project condition is already below LOS D (i.e., unacceptable LOS), the Project will be responsible for contributing to the recommended improvements at intersections that receive 50 or more peak hour project-related trips through payment of fees into pre-existing fee programs or fair share contribution.

LOS Final v/c Ratio Project-Related Increase in v/c
C > 0.701-0.800 ≥ 0.050
D > 0.801-0.900 ≥ 0.030
E, F > 0.901 ≥ 0.010
19 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
20 2.8 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
For study area intersections identified as meeting the City’s deficiency thresholds (see Section 2.7 Deficiency Criteria), the Project's equitable share is to be calculated using the following equation:

𝑃𝑃 = 𝑇𝑇 / (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇)
Where:

P = The equitable share for the proposed project's traffic impact.

T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during peak hour of adjacent street, vph.

Tb = General Plan Buildout traffic volumes, vph.

Te = Existing traffic volume plus approved projects that have not been constructed or occupied (Opening Year (2029) Without Project), vph.
20 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
21 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses. (10)

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Anaheim staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 16 existing and future intersections as shown previously at Exhibit 1-4 Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element. The City of Anaheim General Plan does not include roadway cross-sections.

Scenic Expressways are defined within the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element as fourto-six-lane lane divided roadways with a right-of-way that varies from a width of 106 to 148 feet.

Scenic expressways have restricted access, serve intercity traffic, and provide scenic vistas.

Major Arterials are typically six-lane divided roadways with a 120-foot right-of-way. Typical major arterials have a landscaped median, left turn pockets, and parking lanes adjacent to each curb.

Primary Arterials are four- to six-lane divided roadways with a typical 106-foot right-of-way. Typical primary arterials with six lanes do not include parking; four-lane primary arterials include left turn pockets and two parking lanes.

Hillside Secondary Arterials are four-lane undivided roadways, with two parking lanes, and a typical right-of-way width of 66 feet without driveway access and 78 feet with driveway access.

Santa Ana Canyon Road is classified as a scenic expressway between Lakeview Avenue and Imperial Highway and between Roosevelt Road and Riverview Drive and is classified as a primary arterial between Imperial Highway and Roosevelt Road. Santa Ana Canyon Road currently exists within the study area with six lanes west of Imperial Highway and east of Festival Drive, five lanes from Imperial highway to Solomon Drive, and four lanes east of Solomon Drive. Santa Ana Canyon Road has a raised median, no street parking, and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (MPH) west of Imperial Highway, 40 MPH from Imperial Highway to Festival Drive, 45 MPH from Festival Drive to Wier Canyon Road, and 50 MPH east of Weir Canyon Road.

Weir Canyon Road is classified as a scenic expressway between the SR-91 westbound ramps and Oak Canyon Drive and exists within the study area with six lanes, a raised median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 40 MPH.
21 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Å91
Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy.

Hills Rd.

Fairmont Blvd.

La Palma Ave.

Weir Canyon Rd.

Canyon Rim Rd.

Serrano Ave.

Dr. Anaheim
Monte Vista Rd. Festival
0 0231?
LEGEND
= Number of Lanes = Existing Traffic Lane
1 2
Imperial Hwy. &
SR-91 WB Ramps
Imperial Hwy. &
SR-91 EB Ramps
3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10
Driveway 2 &
Festival Dr.

Festival Center Dwy. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 12
Roosevelt Rd. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Roosevelt Rd. &
Festival Dr.
13 14
Weir Canyon Rd. &
SR-91 WB Ramps
Weir Canyon Rd. &
SR-91 EB Ramps
Imperial Hwy. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Anaheim Hills Rd. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Fairmont Bl. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Deer Canyon Rd. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Festival Dr. &
Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Festival Dr. &
Driveway 1 FREE
D
U
2 = Speed Limit (MPH)
= Divided
= Undivided
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Sign
15 16
Weir Canyon Rd. &
Santa Ana Canyon Dr. Weir Canyon Rd. &
Festival Dr.

Future
Intersection FREE
= Free Right Turn Lane
= Two-way Left Turn Lane
1 2
3 4
5 7
8 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
6 9 2317
123;
231;
123:
231:
1239
123<
= Existing Intersection Analysis Location
= Future Intersection Analysis Location
2317
= School Zone Speed Limit (MPH)
6D 8D 8D
5D 5D
4D
2U
4D
2U
2D
4D
4D
6D
6D
7D
6D
4D
2D 4D
6D
EXHIBIT 3-1 : EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 FREE FREE FREE
Future
Intersection TWLTL TWLTL FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE

FREE TWLTL
FREE RTO = Right Turn Overlap
RTO
RTO 123;
1239
231:
2319
123:
1239
123:
22 UABAN ICROSSROADS
C I • j
0 • ,►
EXHIBIT 3-2 : CITY OF ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN PLANNED ROADWAY MAP Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 23 UABAN

ICROSSROADS
J Adopted: May 25, 2004 Revised: March 17, 2016 --llliOE:: .5 :::::::::::-------~• 15699~2.dwg gpce
Roadway Classifications
== Complete Streets Collector
"""""" Scenic Expressway
............ Resort Smartstreet
........... Stadium Area Smartstreet
-- Major Arterial
-- Primary Arterial
•-·--- Hillside Primary Arterial
-- Collector Street
-··-··-Hillside Collector Street
-- Secondary Arterial
- ·--··- Hillside Secondary Arterial
- ~ Passenger & Commuter Rail
----· Right-of-Way
Reserve
Planned Roadway
Network
-- Freewayffollroad
• Future Passenger Rail
Grade Separations
[ =:] City Boundary
,--=] Sphere-of-Influence
r-- 1 SITE BOUNDARY
City of Anaheim
General Plan Program
Figure C- 1 Page C-8
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
24 Imperial Highway is classified as a Major Arterial and currently exists within the study area with eight lanes, a raised median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 45 MPH north of SR-91 and 35 MPH south of SR-91.

Yorba Linda Boulevard is classified as a Primary Arterial north of SR-91 and exists within the study area with six lanes, a raised median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 40 MPH.

Anaheim Hills Road is classified as a Hillside Secondary Arterial and exists within the study area with four lanes south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, raised median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 35 MPH,
Fairmont Boulevard is classified as a Hillside Secondary Arterial and exists within the study area with two lanes, a raised median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 35 MPH.

Roosevelt Road is classified as a Hillside Secondary Arterial and exists within the study area with four lanes, a painted median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 25 MPH.

Monte Vista Road is classified as a Hillside Secondary Arterial and exists within the study area with four lanes, a painted median, no on-street parking, and a posted speed limit of 35 MPH.

3.3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Anaheim existing and planned bicycle facilities. As shown at Exhibit 3-3, there are existing Class II bike lanes on Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills Road south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and Weir Canyon Road south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. There is a planned Class I bike path and a planned Class II bike lane along Fairmont Boulevard, north and south of Santa Ana Canyon Road respectively. Class II bike lanes are signed and striped bike lanes on the roadway.

Existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown at Exhibit 3-4. As shown at Exhibit 3-4, there are existing pedestrian facilities along Festival Drive, Roosevelt Road, Monte Vista Road, Weir Canyon Road, and portions of Santa Ana Canyon Road in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE
Exhibit 3-5 shows the City of Anaheim transit facilities. The study area within the City of Anaheim is currently served by OCTA, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within Orange County.

The closest OCTA transit routes (Route 30 and 38) run north of SR-91 with the nearest bus stop located at Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue. Transit service is reviewed and updated by OCTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
24 URBAN I CROSSROADS

URBAN I CROSSROADS
(!]
15699.dwg bike
Adopo,dRevised: July , M,,y 25, 2004

14. 2020
·-,i:-•'====-' --'""'�
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF ANAHEIM EXISTING AND PLANNED BICYCLE FACILITIES

1..--.J
Existing and Planned
Bicycle Facilities
"2
' __) \ _ _.--- r--·:;.-"'
-Existing Planned
-
Class I Regional Bike Path * Transit Station
-Class I Bike Path
-Class II Bike lane Class Ill Bike Route
-- OffRoadTrail
11111 Class I Bike Path &I Pad:::-and-Ridc
I I I I I Class II Bike lane LJ Parks/Open Space
11 I ■ I aass Ill Bike Route School
- - - • Off Road Trai L.J City Boundary
Note: Off Road Trails :lr'e County Riding and Hikiog Tr.ils L_J Spherc-of-Influcocc '.:::=; SITE BOUNDARY
City of Anaheim
General Plan Program
Figure C-5 Page C-33
25 -
EXHIBIT 3-4 : CITY OF ANAHEIM EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 26 UABAN I CROSSROADS
15699~ 2.

Å91 EXHIBIT 3-5 : CITY OF ANAHEIM TRANSIT FACILITIES Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 N Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Imperial Hwy. Nohl Ranch Rd. La Palma Ave.

Anaheim Hills Rd. Fairmont Canyon Blvd. Rim Rd. Weir Canyon Rd. Fairmont Blvd. Esperanza Rd. B B B B B B B LEGEND: = OCTA Route 38 = OCTA Route 30 B = OCTA Stop 27 URBAN I CROSSROADS 15699~2.dwg transit (2)
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
28 3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in November 2023 and January 2024. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) The existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and near-by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. A comparison of historical traffic counts from September 2022 to traffic counts collected in November 2023 at four study area intersections showed a nominal growth factor. Given the short time span of only two months between the November 2023 and January 2024 data collection periods and the minimal growth factor observed, no growth was applied to establish the baseline condition. The existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data has been adjusted in some cases to achieve flow conservation between parallel routes. Flow conservation checks ensure that traffic flow between two closely spaced intersections, such as two adjacent driveway locations, is verified in order to make certain that vehicles leaving one intersection are entering the adjacent intersection and that there is no unexplained loss of vehicles.

The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.

Existing weekday ADT volumes are shown at Exhibit 3-6. Where actual 24-hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 10.2 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak-to-daily relationship is approximately 9.82 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 10.2 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of 9.82 percent (i.e., 1/0.0982 = 10.2) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning-level analyses. Existing weekday and weekend peak hour intersection volumes are also shown at Exhibit 3-6. 28 URBAN I CROSSROADS
29 URBAN I CROSSROADS
9 Imperial Hwy,
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING (2024} TRAFFIC VOLUMES
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
= ADT {In Thousands}
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
'r'l'A.. .
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.
1sn32J-' t
226{405 t
"'O = ~N
N~
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
30 3.6 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1, which indicates that the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The delays and V/C reported at each study area intersection is based on an average of the overall intersection, as opposed to reporting of deficiencies to specific turning movements at an intersection. In other words, although intersections may have one or two movements that experience queuing/congestion, the effects are averaged against the operations of other movements at the intersection. The area of Santa Ana Canyon Road experiences congestion/queuing, especially going to the east of Weir Canyon Road which is attributable to commute traffic bypassing the SR-91 Freeway during the afternoon peak period. Queuing and operational deficiencies for specific turning movements may not have feasible improvements as the deficiencies are being caused by regional commute traffic associated with the congestion on the SR-91 Freeway and providing those improvements could potentially encourage additional traffic through the area. Additionally, periodic queues were observed within the study area during the morning peak hour near existing schools. It is common for intersections in close proximity to educational facilities to experience queues during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods.

These queues typically last 15-20 minutes during the morning commute peak hour. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

3.7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. There are no unsignalized study area intersections that currently meet a traffic signal warrant under Existing (2024) traffic conditions. Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 3.3.

3.8 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The roadway capacities utilized for the study area roadway segment analysis are obtained from the OCTA Guidance of Administration of the Orange County MPAH and the County of Orange TIM. These roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 3- 2 provides a summary of the Existing (2024) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis. As shown in Table 3-2, all of the study area roadway segments are currently operating at an acceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.

3.9 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for Existing (2024) traffic conditions are presented in Table 3-3. As shown in Table 3-3, there are no movements that are currently experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under Existing (2024) traffic conditions.

Worksheets for Existing (2024) traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 3.4. 30 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
31 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS Level of
Traffic Evaluation Service
# Intersection Control 3 Methodology AM PM AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS HCM 13.8 9.2 B A
ICU 0.686 0.543 B A
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps TS HCM 12.8 11.2 B B
ICU 0.564 0.548 A A
3 Imperial Hwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.640 0.714 B C 4 Anaheim Hills Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.610 0.700 B B 5 Fairmont Bl. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.531 0.538 A A 6 Deer Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
7 Festival Dr. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.219 0.362 A A 8 Festival Dr. & Driveway 1 CSS HCM 10.2 10.9 B B
9 Driveway 2 & Festival Dr.
10 Festival Center Dwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.197 0.400 A A 11 Roosevelt Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.295 0.484 A A 12 Roosevelt Rd. & Festival Dr./Monte Vista Rd. TS ICU 0.176 0.258 A A 13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS HCM 8.4 10.2 A B ICU 0.480 0.586 A A
14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps TS HCM 11.0 6.4 B
ICU 0.550 0.477 A A
15 Weir Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.508 0.732 A C 16 Weir Canyon Rd. & Monte Vista Rd. TS ICU 0.404 0.500 A A 1 2 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
All signalized intersections are evaluated utilizing Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, reported as a volume-tocapacity ratio. For intersections with all way or cross street stop control, the HCM delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Signalized intersections within Caltrans jurisdiction will be evalutaed utilizing both HCM and ICU methodology.

Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a 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. HCM delay reported in seconds.

Delay1 (secs.)
ICU (v/c)2
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Roadway LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Section Capacity1 2024 V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. 5D 46,875 34,691 0.740 C C 2 Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. 4D 37,500 25,273 0.674 B C 3 Fairmont Bl. to Deer Canyon Rd. 4D 37,500 22,989 0.613 B C 4 Deer Canyon Rd. Festival Dr. 4D 37,500 22,989 0.613 B C 5 Festival Dr. to Roosevelt Rd. 6D 56,250 18,829 0.335 A C 6 Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 6D 56,250 22,929 0.408 A C 7 Roosevelt Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr. 4D 25,000 9,139 0.366 A C 8 Festival Dr. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Driveway 1 2D 22,000 7,140 0.325 A C 9 Driveway 2 to Roosevelt Rd. 2D 22,000 4,300 0.195 A C 10 Monte Vista Rd. Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 4D 25,000 8,989 0.360 A C 11 Weir Canyon Rd. SR-91 Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Rd. 6D 56,250 38,443 0.683 B C 12 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Monte Vista Rd. 6D 56,250 23,919 0.425 A C 1 The volumes shown are based on LOS "E" roadway capacity as defined by the County of Orange Growth Management Plan. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
4 The City of Anaheim roadway standard is LOS "C".

Existing (2024)
31 URBAN I CROSSROADS
II
II
II
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
32 TABLE 3-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS

3.10 EXISTING DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersections that have been identified as deficient under Existing (2024) traffic conditions in an effort to achieve an acceptable LOS.

3.10.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS All study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2024) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified.

3.10.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT ROADWAY SEGMENTS As shown in Table 3-2, there are no roadway segments currently operating at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under Existing (2024) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified.

3.10.3 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS OFF-RAMP QUEUING DEFICIENCIES There are no movements that are currently experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under Existing (2024) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified.
# Intersection AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps WBL 1,280 371 243 Yes Yes WBR 495 459 320 Yes Yes
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps EBL 2,365 335 301 Yes Yes EBR 510 403 360 Yes Yes
13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps WBL 1,580 178 312 Yes Yes WBR 350 213 369 3 Yes Yes
14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps EBL 1,740 294 156 Yes Yes EBR 225 338 3 206 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 25 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the SR-91 mainline.

Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
32 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
33 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The existing SP is divided into four DAs by land use. DA 1 is the Scenic Commercial area fronting Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, DA 2 is the Regional Commercial use that contains the department stores, grocery, other food/retail uses, and the vacant cinema, DA 3 is the Visitor Commercial area located west of Festival Drive which includes the existing hotel, and DA 4 is the Senior Residential area south of Festival Drive. The proposed SPA proposes the implementation of a new 16.2-acre mixed-use development area on the upper level of the commercial center as a new DA 5 (which is a portion of the old DA 2).

Specifically, the Project proposes to demolish the existing 62,676-square-foot vacant cinema and develop, in its place, 447 multi-family residential dwelling units while retaining the remaining existing commercial uses within the new DA 5. Approximately 13,310 square feet of existing retail would be retained in DA 2 as a result of the new DA 5 (resulting in a net reduction of 49,366 square feet of retail space). The retail within DA 5 will include the following existing uses: 6,475 square feet of restaurant use, 9,200 square feet of office use, 38,160-square-foot fitness/gym, 13,276 square feet of tutor/retail space, and 11,033-square-foot medical office building. The Project will be developed within a single phase for the purposes of the Traffic Analysis with an anticipated Opening Year of 2029.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to, and produced by, a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to, and produced by, the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.

The trip generation rates used for the proposed Project are based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their latest Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. ITE Land Use Code 221 for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise, 4-10 Floors) has been used for the proposed Project (see Table 4-1). (2) The Project trip generation summary, illustrating daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the Project based on the applicable ITE trip generation rates, is shown in Table 4-2. Only traffic for the proposed multi-family development is taken into consideration as the existing retail, restaurant, and office uses would be captured as part of the existing intersection traffic count program. However, given the proximity of the proposed residential to the adjacent existing uses within DA 1 and DA 2, the trip generation accounts for internal capture between these uses.

TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES
ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 LU Code In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Residential 221 DU 0.09 0.28 0.37 0.24 0.15 0.39 4.54 Shopping Center > 150,000 SF 820 TSF 0.52 0.32 0.84 1.63 1.77 3.40 37.01 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Units2 Daily
33 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
34 TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Internal capture is a percentage reduction that can be applied to the vehicle trip generation estimates for individual land uses to account for trips internal to a site (trips that travel between uses without leaving the site). In other words, trips may be made between the existing retail, restaurant, and office uses and the proposed multi-family residential use on-site which can be made either by walking or using internal roadways without using external streets. An internal capture reduction was applied to recognize the interactions that would occur between the various complementary land uses within the SP. The internal capture is based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP Report 684) internal trip capture estimation tool. These internal capture worksheets are provided in Attachment A of the scoping agreement (Appendix 1.1). For the purposes of the Traffic Study, the internal capture will be limited to 20%, consistent with the AM peak hour internal capture (although the PM peak hour worksheets reflect up to 67%).

As shown in Table 4-2, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,624 two-way trips per day with 132 AM peak hour trips and 139 PM peak hour trips.

As noted previously, the 62,676-square-foot cinema on the site is currently vacant. The proposed Project will redevelop the site to replace the existing cinema use with 447 multi-family (mid-rise) residential dwelling units and 13,310 square feet of future retail space retained in DA 2. In order to conduct a conservative analysis, no trip credit will be taken for the existing vacant use. However, the net change in trip generation between the multi-family residential, the existing cinema, and the future retail space to be added is summarized in Table 4-3 for informational purposes. As shown on Table 4- 3, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net increase in trips during the AM peak hour but would result in a net reduction of 532 two-way trips per day and 33 PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 4-3: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Daily
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Residential 447 DU 38 127 165 106 68 174 2,030 Internal Capture (20% Reduction)2 -3 -30 -33 -21 -14 -35 -406 Total Project Trips 35 97 132 85 54 139 1,624
1 DU = Dwelling Units
2 Internal capture of residential to the adjacent existing restaurant, food, retail, and medical office uses per NCHRP 684.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip Generation Comparison In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Residential 38 127 165 106 68 174 2,030 Future Retail Space (13,310 SF) 1 0 1 2 2 3 38
Cinema (Vacant)2 0 0 0 -145 -65 -210 -2,600
Net Change in Trips 39 127 166 -37 5 -33 -532
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
2 Source: Anaheim Hills Festival Traffic and Parking Study, dated January 29, 1990, prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
34 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
35 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 4-1 illustrates the Project trip distribution patterns for the Project. The Project trip distribution patterns are based on existing travel patterns.

4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking, or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Project’s traffic projections are ”conservative“ in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown at Exhibit 4-2.

4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 1 percent per year, compounded annually, for 2029 traffic conditions. The total ambient growth is 5.10 percent for 2029 traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth.

This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in conjunction with traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. 2029 traffic volumes are provided in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base volume to determine With Project forecasts. 35 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Å91 Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Imperial Hwy.

Hills Rd.

Fairmont Blvd.

La Palma Ave.

Weir Canyon Rd.

Canyon Rim Rd.

Serrano Ave.

Dr.

Anaheim Monte Vista Rd. Festival
EXHIBIT 4-1 : PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION $QDKHLP HLOOV )HVWLYDO SP$ NR 1

WULSBEGZJ WULS = Car Percent To/From Project = Trip Distribution LEGEND 36 URBAN I CROSSROADS
37 URBAN I CROSSROADS
9 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
=ADT
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
38 4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Anaheim. The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections. Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown in Table 4-4. Consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines, traffic from approved cumulative development projects was added to the Opening Year (2029) Without Project traffic forecasts and traffic from both pending and approved cumulative development projects were added to the Future Conditions (2029) traffic forecasts. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic.

The trip generation rates used for the cumulative projects are based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their latest Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021 (See Table 4-5). The cumulative project trip generation summary, illustrating daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the cumulative projects based on the applicable ITE trip generation rates, is shown in Table 4-6. It should be noted that the trip generations for cumulative projects A1, A11, and Y1 were pulled directly from their respective traffic analyses reports. Cumulative Only ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown at Exhibit 4-4.

TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
No. Project Name / Case Number Land Use Quantity Units
1 Location
A1 The Hills Preserve Project Multi-Family Residential 498 DU S of Santa Ana Canyon Road, Single-Family Residential 6 DU N. of Deer Canyon Park,
Non-Resident Amenity Access 12.700 TSF between S. Eucalyptus Drive & Commercial 80.000 TSF Festival Drive
Open Space & Trails 43.2 AC
A2 DEV2022-00055 Industrial 94.540 TSF 180 N Riverside Drive A3 DEV2021-00046 Retail Plaza 5.315 TSF 8163 E Kaiser Boulevard DEV2013-00024C Preschool 43 STU
A4 DEV2022-00044 RV Storage 160 Spaces S of Crystal Drive & W of Pullman Street A5 DEV2020-00204 Cemetery 180.0 AC APN 51401235
A6 DEV2020-00097 Single-Family Residential 4 DU 6268 E Rio Grande Drive A7 DEV2022-00063 Warehouse 87.912 TSF 5510 E La Palma Avenue A8 DEV2022-00030 Multi-Family Residential 360 DU 4679 E Orchard Drive A9 DEV2019-00151 Single-Family Residential 4 DU 6140 E Santa Ana Canyon Road A10 DEV2020-00096 Warehouse 169.000 TSF 3939 E Coronado Street A11 DEV2021-00057 General Light Industrial 38.251 TSF 3855 E La Palma Avenue A12 DEV2021-00073 Single-Family Residential 3 DU 860 S Peralta Hills Drive Y1 ECTO Homes Senior Housing 240 DU SEC of Mariposa & Lakeview 1 AC = Acres; DU = Dwelling Units; STU = Students; TSF = Thousand Square Feet 38 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
39 TABLE 4-5: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION RATES TABLE 4-6: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ITE
Land Use1 Code Units2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
General Light Industrial 110 TSF 0.651 0.089 0.740 0.091 0.559 0.650 4.870 Passenger Cars (AM=98.6%, PM=99.4%, Daily=94.9%) 0.645 0.085 0.730 0.086 0.554 0.640 4.620 Trucks 0.006 0.004 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.250
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 822 TSF 1.42 0.94 2.36 3.30 3.30 6.59 54.45 Day Care Center 565 STU 0.41 0.37 0.78 0.37 0.42 0.79 4.09 Mini-Warehouse (RV Parking) 151 Spaces 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.18 Cemetery 566 AC 0.14 0.03 0.17 0.14 0.32 0.46 6.02
Single-Family Residential 210 DU 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 9.43 Warehousing 150 TSF 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 1.710 Passenger Cars (AM=88.2%, PM=83.3%, Daily=64.9%) 0.120 0.030 0.150 0.034 0.116 0.150 1.110 Trucks 0.011 0.009 0.020 0.016 0.014 0.030 0.600
Multi-Family Residential 220 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 AC = Acres; DU = Dwelling Units; STU = Students; TSF = Thousand Square Feet AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily A1 - Mixed-Use2 -- -- 159 168 327 167 192 359 3,623
A2 - Industrial 34.46 TSF
Passenger Cars (AM=98.6%, PM=99.4%, Daily=94.9%) 22 3 25 3 19 22 160 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
A3 - Retail Plaza 5.315 TSF 8 5 13 18 18 36 290
A3 - Preschool 43 STU 18 16 34 16 18 34 176
A4 - RV Storage 160 Spaces 1 1 2 1 1 2 30
A5 - Cemetery 180.0 AC 24 6 30 26 57 83 1,084
A6 - Single-Family Residential 4 DU 1 2 3 2 1 3 38
A7 - Warehousing 55.662 TSF 7 2 9 3 7 10 96
Passenger Cars (AM=88.2%, PM=83.3%, Daily=64.9%) 7 2 9 2 6 8 62 Trucks 1 1 2 1 1 2 34
A8 - Multi-Family Residential 360 DU 35 109 144 116 68 184 2,426 A9 - Single-Family Residential 4 TSF 1 2 3 2 1 3 38
A10 - Warehouse 169.000 TSF 22 7 29 9 22 31 290
A11 - General Light Industrial2 38.251 TSF
Passenger Cars 25 3 28 3 21 24 178
Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
A12 - Single-Family Residential 3 DU 1 2 3 2 1 3 28
Y1 - Senior Living2 240 DU/Beds 22 11 33 31 29 60 599
1 AC = Acres; DU = Dwelling Units; STU = Students; TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 The trip generation has been pulled directly from the project's traffic analysis report.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
39 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Å91 15699-vol_a2.dwg EXHIBIT 4-3 : CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 N = Cumulative Development Sites LEGEND: A1A4 A2 A3 A5 A6 A9 A7 A12 A11 A10 Y1A8 Imperial Hwy. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Nohl Ranch Rd. Canyon Rim Rd.Serrano Ave. Esperanza Rd. La Palma Ave.

Tustin Ave. Orangethorpe Ave. Lakeview Ave. Yorba Linda Blvd. Weir Canyon Rd. Site 40 URBAN I CROSSROADS
41 URBAN I CROSSROADS
9 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
=ADT
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
42 4.7 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast Opening Year (2029) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor accounts for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2029 from the year 2024. Traffic volumes generated by the Project are then added to assess the near-term traffic conditions. The 2029 roadway networks are similar to the Existing conditions roadway network, with the exception of future driveways proposed to be developed by the Project. The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• Opening Year (2029) Without Project Conditions
o Existing 2024 counts
o Ambient growth traffic (5.10%)
o Approved Cumulative Development Traffic
• Opening Year (2029) With Project Conditions
o Existing 2024 counts
o Ambient growth traffic (5.10%)
o Approved Cumulative Development Traffic
o Project traffic

4.8 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Traffic projections for General Plan Buildout Without Project conditions were derived from the ATAM using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing for study area intersections located within the City of Anaheim. The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan or implied by the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

The General Plan Buildout Without Project peak hour turning movements were then reviewed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for reasonableness, and in some cases, were adjusted to achieve flow conservation, reasonable growth, and reasonable diversion between parallel routes. Flow conservation checks ensure that traffic flow between two closely spaced intersections, such as two adjacent driveway locations, is verified in order to make certain that vehicles leaving one intersection are entering the adjacent intersection and that there is no unexplained loss of vehicles. The result of this traffic forecasting procedure is a series of traffic volumes which are suitable for traffic operations analysis. Project traffic was then added for all With Project traffic conditions. The long-range traffic forecasts were developed by the City’s traffic consultant and are included in Appendix 4.1. 42 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
43 5 OPENING YEAR (2029) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Opening Year (2029) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year (2029) conditions are consistent with those shown previously at Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Deer Canyon Road is assumed to be constructed to provide site access by the Hills Preserve Project. The intersection of Deer Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road (#6) is assumed to be a signalized intersection.
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year (2029) With Project conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).

5.2 OPENING YEAR (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes with the application of a 5.10 percent growth adjustment factor plus the addition of traffic generated by approved cumulative development projects. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Opening Year (2029) Without Project traffic conditions are shown at Exhibit 5-1.

5.3 OPENING YEAR (2029) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes with the application of a 5.10 percent growth adjustment factor plus the addition of traffic generated by approved cumulative development projects plus the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Opening Year (2029) With Project traffic conditions are shown at Exhibit 5-2.

5.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Opening Year (2029) Without Project peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1 for Opening Year (2029) Without Project traffic conditions, which indicates that the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year (2029) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2024) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices

5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
43 URBAN I CROSSROADS
44 URBAN I CROSSROADS
9 Imperial Hwy,
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 5-2: E+A+A (2029} TRAFFIC VOLUMES
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
= ADT {In Thousands}
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
'r'l'A.. .
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.
45 URBAN I CROSSROADS Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
9 Imperial Hwy,
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.

EXHIBIT 5-2 E+A+A+P (2029) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
= ADT {In Thousands}
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
'r'l'A.. .
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.
9s11soJ-' t
243(429 t
0,-. MM
N~
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
46 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2029) CONDITIONS

5.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for Opening Year (2029) traffic conditions is based on the peak hour volumes or planning level ADT volume-based traffic signal warrants. The following unsignalized study area intersection is anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under Opening Year (2029) Without Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.3):
• Deer Canyon Road & Santa Ana Canyon Road (#6)
With the addition of Project traffic, there are no additional unsignalized study area intersections anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under Opening Year (2029) With Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.4).

Level of Level of
Evaluation Service Service
Methodology AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS HCM 15.4 10.0 B B 15.5 10.1 B B -- -- ICU 0.722 0.572 C A 0.723 0.573 C A 0.001 0.001
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps TS HCM 14.6 12.7 B B 14.7 12.9 B B -- -- ICU 0.603 0.588 B A 0.605 0.593 B A 0.002 0.005
3 Imperial Hwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.696 0.785 B C 0.700 0.794 C C 0.004 0.009 4 Anaheim Hills Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.677 0.772 B C 0.687 0.781 B C 0.010 0.009 5 Fairmont Bl. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.589 0.597 A A 0.599 0.606 A B 0.010 0.009 6 Deer Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.359 0.606 A B 0.362 0.615 A B 0.003 0.009 7 Festival Dr. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.229 0.391 A A 0.247 0.405 A A 0.018 0.014 8 Festival Dr. & Driveway 1 CSS HCM 10.3 11.0 B B 10.6 11.5 B B -- -- 9 Driveway 2 & Festival Dr. CSS HCM 9.5 9.8 A A -- --
10 Festival Center Dwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.215 0.431 A A 0.215 0.431 A A 0.000 0.000 11 Roosevelt Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.329 0.537 A A 0.346 0.548 A A 0.017 0.011 12 Roosevelt Rd. & Festival Dr./Monte Vista Rd. TS ICU 0.183 0.276 A A 0.208 0.292 A A 0.025 0.016 13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS HCM 9.4 11.6 A B 9.4 11.8 A B -- -- ICU 0.480 0.626 A B 0.517 0.631 A B 0.037 0.005
14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps TS HCM 12.1 6.9 B A 12.3 7.1 B A -- -- ICU 0.583 0.516 A A 0.589 0.525 A A 0.006 0.009
15 Weir Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.557 0.799 A C 0.568 0.806 A D 0.011 0.007 16 Weir Canyon Rd. & Monte Vista Rd. TS ICU 0.425 0.527 A A 0.427 0.530 A A 0.002 0.003 1 2 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Improvement ProjectRelated
Increase in
ICU (v/c) V/C 2 ICU (v/c)2
Future Intersection
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a 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. HCM delay reported in seconds.

Without Project With Project
Opening Year (2029)
# Intersection
Traffic
Control 3
Delay1
(secs.) Delay1
(secs.)
46 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
47 5.6 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The roadway capacities utilized for the study area roadway segment analysis are obtained from the OCTA Guidance of Administration of the Orange County MPAH and the County of Orange TIM. These roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 5- 2 provides a summary of the Opening Year (2029) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis. As shown in Table 5-2, the following study area roadway segment is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under both Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions:
• Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road (#1) – LOS D

5.7 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for Opening Year (2029) are presented in Table 5-3. As shown in Table 5-3, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under both the Opening Year (2029) traffic conditions.

Worksheets for Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendices 5.5 and 5.6, respectively. 47 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
48 TABLE 5-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2029) CONDITIONS Roadway LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Section Capacity1 2029 V/C2 LOS3 2029 V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. 5D 46,875 38,816 0.828 D 39,386 0.840 D C 2 Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. 4D 37,500 28,990 0.773 C 29,558 0.788 C C 3 Fairmont Bl. to Deer Canyon Rd. 4D 37,500 26,633 0.710 C 27,201 0.725 C C 4 Deer Canyon Rd. Festival Dr. 4D 37,500 25,364 0.676 B 25,932 0.692 B C 5 Festival Dr. to Roosevelt Rd. 6D 56,250 20,964 0.373 A 21,046 0.374 A C 6 Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 6D 56,250 25,483 0.747 C 26,051 0.764 C C 7 Roosevelt Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr. 4D 25,000 9,816 0.288 A 10,304 0.302 A C 8 Festival Dr. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Driveway 1 2D 22,000 7,532 0.221 A 8,182 0.240 A C 9 Driveway 2 to Roosevelt Rd. 2D 22,000 4,519 0.205 A 5,493 0.250 A C 10 Monte Vista Rd. Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 4D 25,000 9,448 0.378 A 9,854 0.394 A C 11 Weir Canyon Rd. SR-91 Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Rd. 6D 56,250 42,052 0.748 C 42,784 0.761 C C 12 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Monte Vista Rd. 6D 56,250 25,467 0.453 A 25,791 0.459 A C BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 The volumes shown are based on LOS "E" roadway capacity as defined by the County of Orange Growth Management Plan. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
4 The City of Anaheim roadway standard is LOS "C".

Without Project With Project
48 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
49 a
TABLE 5-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR OPENING YEAR (2029) CONDITIONS # Intersection AM PM AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps WBL 1,280 400 257 Yes Yes 400 257 Yes Yes WBR 495 500 3 340 Yes Yes 500 3 340 Yes Yes
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps EBL 2,365 370 337 Yes Yes 375 341 Yes Yes EBR 510 459 400 Yes Yes 457 407 Yes Yes
13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps WBL 1,580 227 353 Yes Yes 230 356 Yes Yes WBR 350 273 416 3 Yes Yes 274 427 Yes Yes
14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps EBL 1,740 346 170 Yes Yes 347 172 Yes Yes EBR 225 401 3 231 3 Yes Yes 405 3 239 3 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 25 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the SR-91 mainline.

5.8.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS As previously shown in Table 5-1, all study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under Opening Year (2029) With Project traffic conditions. As such, no improvements, aside from those that are needed to facilitate site access, have been identified.

5.8.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT ROADWAY SEGMENTS As shown in Table 5-2, Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road, is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions. The high volume of through vehicles is attributable to vehicles bypassing the SR-91 Freeway during peak commute hours throughout the day. Introducing additional lanes along Santa Ana Canyon Road would encourage more vehicles to utilize this roadway segment and would be counterintuitive to the State’s goals with regards to Vehicle Miles Traveled. Roadway widening is also infeasible due to right-of-way limitations and is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

0.012 (1.2%), which is less than the threshold of 0.030 (3.0%) identified for intersections anticipated to operate at LOS D under pre-Project conditions. Additionally, the intersections on both ends of the roadway segment are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) suggesting that the additional capacity accommodated through turn lanes at the choke-points of the roadway segments (e.g., intersections) can sufficiently handle the anticipated future traffic.

At the City’s request, additional peak hour roadway segment analysis was conducted for the deficient roadway segments to determine whether or not there is a project impact at the respective roadway segment. The peak hour roadway segment analysis utilizes an adjusted segment capacity for each direction of the applicable roadway segment by multiplying the mid-block number of lanes in the applicable direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersections. This methodology is utilized to determine if congestion on a street segment is due to a lack of capacity or if traffic flows are affected by traffic signal coordination. Table 5-4 provides a summary of the Opening Year (2029) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions peak hour roadway segment capacity analysis.
50 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
51 TABLE 5-4: PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2029) CONDITIONS As shown in Table 5-4, Santa Ana Canyon Road between Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS in the following directions and peak hours, based on the peak hour roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria, under Opening Year (2029) With Project conditions:
• Westbound during the AM peak hour
• Eastbound during the PM peak hour
• Westbound during the PM peak hour
As shown in Table 5-4, the Project is anticipated to continue to increase the V/C by less than the applicable threshold identified for intersections. As such, based on criteria similar to the City’s intersection deficiency criteria, the Project-related increase in V/C is deemed not significant.

5.8.3 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS OFF-RAMP QUEUING DEFICIENCIES There are no movements anticipated to experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under Opening Year (2029) With Project traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified.

Without Project:

LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Peak Hour Direction Lanes Capacity1 2029 V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. AM EB 2 1,403 1,073 0.765 C C AM WB 2 2,301 1,837 0.798 C C
PM EB 2 2,166 1,753 0.809 D C
PM WB 2 1,231 1,122 0.911 E C
With Project:

LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Peak Hour Direction Lanes Capacity1 2029 V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. AM EB 2 1,438 1,085 0.755 C C AM WB 2 2,323 1,871 0.805 D C
PM EB 2 2,190 1,783 0.814 D C
PM WB 2 1,265 1,141 0.902 E C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 The adjusted LOS capacity is calculated based on City of Anaheim methodology for Peak Hour Roadway Segment analyses. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
4 The City of Anaheim roadway standard is LOS "C".

Peak Hour Direction Threshold Significant?
1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. AM WB 0.030 No PM EB 0.030 No
PM WB 0.010 No

0.007

0.005
-0.010
Without Project
With Project
Project-Related Increase in v/c
51 URBAN I CROSSROADS
l
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
52 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
52 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
53 6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop General Plan Buildout traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout conditions are consistent with those shown previously at Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Deer Canyon Road is assumed to be constructed to provide site access by the Hills Preserve Project. The intersection of Deer Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road (#6) is assumed to be a signalized intersection.
• Other parallel facilities, that although not evaluated for the purposes of this analysis, are anticipated to be in place for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions and would affect the travel patterns within the study area.
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout With Project conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways).

6.2 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME

FORECASTS
This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the ATAM (see Section 4.8 General Plan Buildout Volume Development of this TA for additional discussion on the development of the long-range traffic forecasts). The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour volumes which can be expected for General Plan Buildout Without Project traffic conditions are shown at Exhibit 6-1.

6.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the ATAM plus traffic generated by the proposed Project. The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour volumes which can be expected for General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions are shown at Exhibit 6-2.

6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
General Plan Buildout peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA.

The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1 for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, which indicates that the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.
53 URBAN I CROSSROADS
54 URBAN I CROSSROADS Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 6-1 : GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 Imperial Hwy,
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
= ADT {In Thousands}
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
'r'l'A.. .
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.
55 URBAN I CROSSROADS Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6
EXHIBIT 6-2 : GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 Imperial Hwy,
& SR-91 WB Ramps
Oriveway2
& Festival Or.
15699-vol_d.dwg
2 Imperial Hwy.
& SR-91 EB Ram
10 Festival Center Owy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
3 Imperial Hwy.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
11 Roosevelt Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
4 Anaheim Hills Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
12 Roosevelt Rd.
& Festival Or.
5 Fairmont Bl.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
13 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 WB Ramps
@ = Existing Intersection Analysis Location
Ci) = Future Intersection Anolysis Locotion
= ADT {In Thousands}
6 Deer Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
14 Weir Canyon Rd.
& SR-91 EB Ramps
'r'l'A.. .
7 Festival Or.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
15 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Santa Ana Canyon Rd,
8 Festival Or.
&Oriveway1
16 Weir Canyon Rd.
& Festival Or.

Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
56 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS

6.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions is based on the peak hour volumes or planning level ADT volume-based traffic signal warrants. There are no unsignalized study area intersections anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under both General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions (see Appendices 6.3 and 6.4, respectively).

6.6 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The roadway capacities utilized for the study area roadway segment analysis are obtained from the OCTA Guidance of Administration of the Orange County MPAH and the County of Orange TIM. These roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 6- 2 provides a summary of the General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis. As shown in Table 6-2, the following study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under both General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions:
• Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road (#1) – LOS D • Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Anaheim Hills Road to Fairmont Boulevard (#2) – LOS D Level of Level of
Evaluation Service Service
Methodology AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS HCM 19.3 11.7 B B 19.3 11.8 B B -- -- ICU 0.788 0.612 C B 0.789 0.612 C B 0.001 0.000
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps TS HCM 17.0 14.2 B B 17.1 14.4 B B -- -- ICU 0.655 0.626 B B 0.657 0.630 B B 0.002 0.004
3 Imperial Hwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.753 0.831 C D 0.757 0.840 C D 0.004 0.009 4 Anaheim Hills Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.708 0.808 C D 0.718 0.817 C D 0.004 0.009 5 Fairmont Bl. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.616 0.625 B B 0.626 0.634 B B 0.010 0.009 6 Deer Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.416 0.643 A B 0.420 0.652 A B 0.004 0.009 7 Festival Dr. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.243 0.420 A A 0.255 0.427 A A 0.012 0.007 8 Festival Dr. & Driveway 1 CSS HCM 10.7 12.9 B B 11.0 13.6 B B -- -- 9 Driveway 2 & Festival Dr. CSS HCM 10.3 11.6 B B -- -- 10 Festival Center Dwy. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.238 0.450 A A 0.239 0.450 A A 0.001 0.000 11 Roosevelt Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.376 0.598 A A 0.394 0.609 A B 0.018 0.011 12 Roosevelt Rd. & Festival Dr./Monte Vista Rd. TS ICU 0.229 0.312 A A 0.262 0.336 A A 0.033 0.024 13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS HCM 10.0 13.1 A B 10.1 13.4 B B -- -- ICU 0.539 0.666 A B 0.541 0.671 A B 0.002 0.005
14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps TS HCM 13.4 7.6 B A 13.7 7.8 B A -- -- ICU 0.618 0.556 B A 0.624 0.565 B A 0.006 0.009
15 Weir Canyon Rd. & Santa Ana Canyon Rd. TS ICU 0.622 0.860 B D 0.632 0.866 B D 0.010 0.006 16 Weir Canyon Rd. & Monte Vista Rd. TS ICU 0.443 0.550 A A 0.446 0.548 A A 0.003 -0.002 1 2 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Improvement # Intersection
Traffic
Control 3
General Plan Buildout
Without Project
General Plan Buildout
With Project
ProjectRelated
Increase in
V/C
Delay1 (secs.) Delay1 (secs.)
ICU (v/c)2 ICU (v/c)2
Future Intersection
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a 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. HCM delay reported in seconds.

All signalized intersections are evaluated utilizing Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, reported as a volume-to-capacity ratio. For intersections with all way or cross street stop control, the HCM delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Signalized intersections within Caltrans jurisdiction will be evalutaed utilizing both HCM and ICU methodology. 56 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
57 TABLE 6-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Roadway LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Section Capacity1 GPBO V/C2 LOS3 GPBO V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. 5D 46,875 40,756 0.869 D 41,326 0.882 D C 2 Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. 4D 37,500 30,440 0.812 D 31,008 0.827 D C 3 Fairmont Bl. to Deer Canyon Rd. 4D 37,500 28,000 0.747 C 28,568 0.762 C C 4 Deer Canyon Rd. Festival Dr. 4D 37,500 28,000 0.747 C 28,568 0.762 C C 5 Festival Dr. to Roosevelt Rd. 6D 56,250 22,600 0.402 A 22,682 0.403 A C 6 Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 6D 56,250 26,757 0.785 C 27,325 0.801 C C 7 Roosevelt Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Festival Dr. 4D 25,000 11,400 0.334 A 11,888 0.349 A C 8 Festival Dr. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Driveway 1 2D 22,000 8,500 0.249 A 9,150 0.268 A C 9 Driveway 2 to Roosevelt Rd. 2D 22,000 8,500 0.386 A 9,474 0.431 A C 10 Monte Vista Rd. Roosevelt Rd. to Weir Canyon Rd. 4D 25,000 11,100 0.444 A 11,506 0.460 A C 11 Weir Canyon Rd. SR-91 Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Rd. 6D 56,250 44,155 0.785 C 44,887 0.798 C C 12 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to Monte Vista Rd. 6D 56,250 26,740 0.475 A 27,064 0.481 A C BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 The volumes shown are based on LOS "E" roadway capacity as defined by the County of Orange Growth Management Plan. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
4 The City of Anaheim roadway standard is LOS "C".

Without Project With Project
57 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
58 6.7 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project are presented in Table 6-3. As shown in Table 6-3, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under both the General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions. Worksheets for General Plan Buildout Without Project and With Project traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendices 6.5 and 6.6, respectively.

TABLE 6-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS

6.8 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersections that have been identified as deficient under General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions in an effort to achieve an acceptable LOS.

6.8.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS As previously shown in Table 6-1, all study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions. As such, no improvements, aside from those that are needed to facilitate site access, have been identified.
# Intersection AM PM AM PM
1 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 WB Ramps WBL 1,280 457 302 Yes Yes 457 302 Yes Yes WBR 495 617 2,3 369 Yes Yes 617 2,3 369 Yes Yes
2 Imperial Hwy. & SR-91 EB Ramps EBL 2,365 397 357 Yes Yes 403 366 Yes Yes EBR 510 496 434 Yes Yes 493 436 Yes Yes
13 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 WB Ramps WBL 1,580 258 384 Yes Yes 262 391 Yes Yes WBR 350 309 461 3 Yes Yes 312 461 3 Yes Yes
14 Weir Canyon Rd. & SR-91 EB Ramps EBL 1,740 379 184 Yes Yes 380 187 Yes Yes EBR 225 442 3 260 3 Yes Yes 447 3 267 3 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 25 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the I-215 Freeway mainline.

Without Project With Project
Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
58 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
59 6.8.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT ROADWAY SEGMENTS As shown in Table 6-2, Santa Ana Canyon Road, from Imperial Highway to Anaheim Hills Road and from Anaheim Hills Road to Fairmont Boulevard, is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions. The high volume of through vehicles is attributable to vehicles bypassing the SR-91 Freeway during peak commute hours throughout the day. Introducing additional lanes along Santa Ana Canyon Road would encourage more vehicles to utilize this roadway segment and would be counterintuitive to the State’s goals with regards to Vehicle Miles Traveled. Roadway widening is also infeasible due to right-of-way limitations and is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

The City of Anaheim lacks specific criteria to determine a significant project impact on roadway segments. However, based on criteria similar to the City’s intersection deficiency criteria, the Projectrelated increase in V/C is deemed not significant. The Project is anticipated to increase the V/C by less than 0.01 (1.0%) at each deficient segment, which is less than the threshold of 0.030 (3.0%) identified for intersections anticipated to operate at LOS D under pre-Project conditions. Additionally, the intersections on both ends of the roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) suggesting that the additional capacity accommodated through turn lanes at the choke-points of the roadway segments (e.g., intersections) can sufficiently handle the anticipated future traffic.

As shown in Table 6-4, Santa Ana Canyon Road between Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS in the following directions and peak hours, based on the peak hour roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria, under General Plan Buildout With Project conditions:
• Westbound during the AM peak hour
• Eastbound during the PM peak hour
• Westbound during the PM peak hour
As shown in Table 6-4, the Project is anticipated to continue to increase the V/C by less than the applicable threshold identified for intersections. As such, based on criteria similar to the City’s intersection deficiency criteria, the Project-related increase in V/C is deemed not significant. 59 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
60 TABLE 6-4: PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT

CONDITIONS

6.8.3 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS OFF-RAMP QUEUING DEFICIENCIES There are no movements anticipated to experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified.

Without Project:

LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Peak Hour Direction Lanes Capacity1 GPBO V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. AM EB 2 1,449 1,127 0.778 C C AM WB 2 2,308 1,929 0.836 D C
PM EB 2 2,163 1,840 0.851 D C
PM WB 2 1,223 1,178 0.963 E C
2 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. AM EB 2 1,604 1,101 0.687 B C AM WB 2 2,097 1,610 0.767 C C
PM EB 2 2,614 1,828 0.699 B C
PM WB 2 1,520 1,065 0.700 B C
With Project:

LOS Acceptable
# Roadway Segment Limits Peak Hour Direction Lanes Capacity1 GPBO V/C2 LOS3 LOS4 1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. AM EB 2 1,429 1,139 0.797 C C AM WB 2 2,329 1,963 0.843 D C
PM EB 2 2,186 1,870 0.856 D C
PM WB 2 1,256 1,197 0.953 E C
2 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Anaheim Hills Rd. to Fairmont Bl. AM EB 2 1,578 1,113 0.705 B C AM WB 2 2,329 1,709 0.734 C C
PM EB 2 2,577 1,858 0.721 C C
PM WB 2 1,498 1,084 0.723 C C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 The volumes shown are based on the lane capacities per the City of Anaheim's guidelines. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
4 The City of Anaheim roadway standard is LOS "C".

Peak Hour Direction Threshold Significant?
1 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Imperial Hwy. to Anaheim Hills Rd. AM WB 0.030 No PM EB 0.030 No
PM WB 0.010 No
Project-Related Increase in v/c

0.007

0.005
-0.010
Without Project
With Project
60 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
61 7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Anaheim are funded through a combination of construction of improvements, development impact fee programs or fair share contributions, such as the City of Anaheim Transportation Impact and Improvement Fee (TIIF) program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.

7.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND IMPROVEMENT FEE

PROGRAM
The Project will be subject to City of Anaheim’s TIIF program which includes a component for streets, traffic signals, and bridges. This program aims to mitigate the additional traffic burdens created by new development to the City’s arterial and collector street system. A transportation fee will be imposed on all new development in the City to finance the costs of street improvements, including widening and reconstruction, new traffic signals, street landscaping, intersection improvements, and freeway interchange improvements.
61 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
62 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
62 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
63 8 REFERENCES

1. City of Anaheim. Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. City of Anaheim : s.n.

2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.

3. Orange County Transportation Commission. 2021 Orange County Congestion Management Program. County of Orange : s.n., November 2021.

4. Husch, David and Albeck, John. Intersection Capacity Utilization: Evaluation Procedures for Intersections and Interchanges. Albany, California : Trafficware, 2003 Edition.

5. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. Washington, D.C. :

National Academy of Sciences, 2016. 978-0-309-16077-3.

6. —. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.

7. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).

8. Agency, Orange County Transit. Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. County of Orange : s.n., August 14, 2017.

9. County of Orange. Transportation Implementation Manual. County of Orange : s.n., September 2021.

10. City of Anaheim. City of Anaheim General Plan. City of Anaheim : s.n., May 2004.

11. California Department of Transportation. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.

December 2002.
63 URBAN I CROSSROADS
Anaheim Hills Festival SPA No. 6 Traffic Analysis
15699-08A TA Report
64 This page intentionally left blank
64 URBAN I CROSSROADS

APPENDIX E

VMT ANALYSIS
DATE: December 23, 2024; Revised August 7, 2025
TO: Cory Wilkerson, City of Anaheim
FROM: Alex So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15699-05 VMT
ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has completed the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 (Project), which is located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of Roosevelt Road in the City of Anaheim.

AUGUST 7, 2025 REVISIONS
The revisions included on August 7, 2025, were prepared in response to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) comment letter dated August 4, 2025. These revisions consist of typographical edits and clarifications to the sections titled Orange County Baseline VMT per SP and Project Design Features – VMT Reductions; T1 – Increase Residential Density.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The existing Specific Plan is divided into four Development Areas (DA) by land use.

DA 1 is the Scenic Commercial area fronting Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, DA 2 is the Regional Commercial use that contains the department stores, grocery, other food/retail uses, and the vacant cinema, DA 3 is the Visitor Commercial area located west of Festival Drive which includes the existing hotel, and DA 4 is the Senior Residential area south of Festival Drive. The Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) proposes the implementation of a new

16.2-acre mixed-use development area on the upper level of the commercial center as a new DA 5 (which is a portion of the old DA 2).

Approximately 13,310 square feet of existing retail would be retained in DA 2 as a result of the new DA 5 (resulting in a net reduction of 49,366 square feet of retail space). The retail within DA 5 will include the following existing uses: 6,475 square feet of restaurant use, 9,200 square feet of office use, 38,160-square-foot fitness/gym, 13,276 square feet of tutor/retail space, and 11,033-square-foot

URBAN CROSSROADS
Cory Wilkerson, City of Anaheim
August 7, 2025

Page 2 of 9 ends

Anaheim City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Anaheim City Council
December 16, 2025