01. PH Development of a New 33-Unit Residential Townhome Condominium Development — Downey City Council, May 14, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

Item No.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
BY: IRMA HUITRON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
D ATE: MAY 14, 2024
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE PLAN REVIEW,

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DENSITY BONUS, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION REQUEST TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEW 33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT (PLN-23-00035)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council will consider approving a request to construct a 33-unit residential condominium townhome ownership development on a 1.35-acre site. The applicant’s requests include consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the site to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and change its zoning classification to Multi-Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-O).

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the requested applications due to the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, and more specifically the City’s Housing Element. In particular, the Housing Element states that the City’s role is to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites. This includes supporting the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1.INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE
DESIGNATION FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3-O (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD

2.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-8240, (1) APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 33-UNIT TOWNHOME PROJECT AT 7360 FOSTER

BRIDGE BOULEVARD THEREBY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN

DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 2
RESIDENTIAL AND (2) ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE

PROJECT

3.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-8241, APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW (PLN-23-00035) AND A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION, THEREBY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL

CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT
7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD

4.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-8242, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 84168 (PLN-23-00035) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD (APN NO.: 6358-015-058).

BACKGROUND
The applicant, Steven Armanino, representing the Olson Company, submitted the request for the development on March 20, 2023. The application is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and City Staff began the selection process of recruiting a consultant for environmental review on April 24, 2023. After sequent resubmittals and City Staff reviews, the application was deemed complete on March 20, 2024.

The application was heard by the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of May 1, 2024. After considering all evidence and testimony provided at the public hearing, and following deliberation, a motion to recommend approval to the City Council passed with a 3-1 vote.

The item was previously heard by the Planning Commission prior to May 1, 2024, at the Planning Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting of April 17, 2024. A motion to approve did not carry with a 2-2 vote, meaning that no action was taken on the item. The applicant then submitted a request that the item be reagendized at the May 1, 2024 meeting.

Site and Location
The 1.35-acre project site is located in northwest Downey at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge Boulevard, Suva Street, and South Bluff Road, adjacent to the Rio Hondo River to the south. The City of Bell Gardens is located northwest of the site. The project site currently supports an operating church (“TLG House”). The site is developed with one 8,480 square-foot building, which was constructed in 1959. The building’s floor plan consists of a sanctuary, offices, and classrooms, and since its construction the building has not had any major upgrades or alterations.

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 3

Surrounding uses include single family residential to the north, east, and southeast, a 28- unit multi-family residential development to the south, and self-storage to the west. The project site is located within the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone, and is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) by the City’s General Plan.

Figure A – Vicinity Map and Surrounding Uses

Figure B – Frontage at Intersection of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road

City of
Bell Gardens
Subject
Property
R-1
Single Family
Residences
R-1
Multi-family
Residences
R-1
Single Family
Residences
R-1
Self Storage
Facility

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 4

ANALYSIS

General Plan Amendment and Zone Change

The project includes a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning designation for the property from the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation with a corresponding R-1 zone, to the Medium-Density Residential Land Use Designation with the corresponding R-3-O zone, in order to facilitate the development of the proposed townhome condominium ownership project.

Existing Proposed
Figure C – Zoning (Existing and Proposed)

Existing Proposed
Figure D – General Plan (Existing and Proposed)

R-3-O
Medium
Density
Low
Density
Open
Space
General
Manufacturing General
Manufacturing
Low
Density
Open
Space
R-1
City of
Bell Gardens City of
Bell Gardens
City of
Bell Gardens
City of
Bell Gardens

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 5
The current R-1 zoning and corresponding General Plan designation only allows typically for the development of detached single-family residential units at the maximum density of

8.9 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to a maximum of one housing unit for a standards 5,000 square foot lot. The proposed R-3-O zoning and corresponding Medium- Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation typically allows for a range of housing types that involves densities at 18 to 24 housing units per acre with a 1,815 square foot lot minimum per dwelling unit. The proposed R-3-O zone would allow for the development of attached and detached townhouse design condominium developments, provided the overall density is not exceeded. The R-3-O Zone is intended to provide for the development of ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for home ownership.

General Plan Consistency
The Downey General Plan is the basis for all local land use decisions. State law requires zoning and subdivisions to be consistent with the General Plan for approval. The purpose of the General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element, two of the seven (7) elements required of the General Plan, is to address issues concerning the relationship between land uses and environmental quality, potential hazards, and social and economic objectives. The Land Use Element accompanied with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element constitutes the City’s official policy for the location of various uses, particularly housing developments, to ensure the City remains compliant with State Law and to ensure the orderly development of the City. A project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all aspects of the proposed project, the project will further the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.

As a part of meeting the required findings, listed in the Ordinance (Attachment F) and Resolutions (Attachments G, F, and I), it must be supported with appropriate justification that the proposed project is consistent with the overall General Plan. In staff’s assessment of the project, and as described in the Resolutions, the policies and goals identified in the City’s recently adopted Housing Element Update are consistent with the project proposal.

In particular, the Housing Element states that the City’s role is to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites. This includes supporting the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would fall under this description.

In addition, Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), determine a projected housing

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 6

need for the region covered by SCAG. The City of Downey has a RHNA of 6,525 housing units to accommodate in the current housing element period of 2021 - 2029. The RHNA is further broken down into specific affordability categories. The City is not obligated to build these units, instead the City is obligated for creating the policy framework to facilitate the construction of these units by private or non-profit developers.

The City has designated various sites throughout the City that can potentially accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 6,525 units. This list of potential housing sites is known as the “sites inventory.” These sites are to be either rezoned or included in new overlay zones to allow for housing to be built on those sites. The City’s Housing Element Implementation Plan is currently underway and is expected to conclude by Spring of 2025. The “sites inventory” includes commercial properties located along Firestone Boulevard and Lakewood Avenue, among other street segments, and other sites such as the Stonewood Mall and Downey Landing which are located within Specific Plan areas.

In addition, Planning procedures such as rezoning and General Plan Amendments are included in the Housing Element’s list of potential actions that may be taken to help facilitate the creation of housing units.

The proposed project, if approved, would reduce the RHNA obligation. However, it should be noted that the subject property for this application is not included in the “sites inventory”, and the City did not previously consider the site when planning where to accommodate the City’s 6,525 RHNA obligation. It is also important to note that if sites currently in the “sites inventory” elect to not construct housing then the City is obligated to locate alternate potential sites to compensate for the loss of units that could have been built on that particular site. This obligation is required per the State’s “No Net Loss” law.

Therefore, the subject site while currently not a “site inventory” parcel could potentially be considered to be included in the “site inventory” at later time which would require a separate analysis and action by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Within the current Housing Element period, 2021 – 2029, the City’s RHNA obligation of 6,525 has only been reduced by the creation of 17 market rate housing units not including Accessory Dwelling Units or Senate Bill 9 units. Aside from the proposed project, the City has four (4) other housing development applications currently under review. Each of these four (4) applications face individual development constraints such as narrow lots which pose site plan layout challenges.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO)

The proposed project would provide a total of three moderate income units as required per a combination of Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Article I Chapter 5 (Inclusionary Housing) and California Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus). The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) was approved by City Council on April 12, 2022 and the applicant’s proposal is the first housing project to be considered under the City’s IHO. The IHO’s goal is to facilitate the construction of affordable housing units by requiring that a share of the units built are constructed, or a fee is paid, at the moderate affordability

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 7

level. The amount of affordability units to be provided is calculated at a rate of 10% the amount of proposed units, not including Density Bonus units. The standard only applies, in the case of for-sale, to projects constructing ten (10) or more units. For this particular application the IHO requirement is 3.1 and rounded up to a total of four (4) units to be provided at moderate level affordability. However, via allowances provided per the State’s Density Bonus the IHO unit requirement is reduced to 3.1 units. Further details regarding Density Bonus allowances are provided in the following staff report section. Per the DMC, the applicant may elect to construct the IHO units, pay an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both. The applicant has proposed to construct three units and pay the fraction of .10 of a unit. The in-lieu fee amount to be paid is $26,341.

Density Bonus

At the request of the applicant, the project is exercising Density Bonus rights afforded by California’s Government Code Section 65915. This allows the applicant to construct an additional three units, or 5%, on top of the 30-units allowed per the DMC’s R-3-O zone.

Although the 5% Density Bonus calculation results in an increase of two (2) units, the City’s baseline density of 30.82 must be rounded up per the state’s legislation allowing for the additional third unit. Traditionally, the 30.82 density calculation would be rounded down to 30 units per the DMC.

In addition to the added units, the project is also allowed to include one Concession and various Waivers from the DMC. Specifically, the project is allowed these rights because at least 10% of the units are to be sold at moderate income levels. Concessions are allowed within the State’s Density Bonus Law dependent upon the affordability level provided for the project. The applicant is allowed to request only one Concession because they have elected to provide an affordability level of “moderate-income” for the respective three (3) IHO units.

Concessions and Waivers

The one requested Concession is a deviation from DMC Section 1503(c) pertaining to the IHO. The DMC details how to calculate the amount of required inclusionary housing units and the need to round up to the next whole number when a calculation results in a fraction.

The applicant has requested a Concession to eliminate having to “round up”, and ultimately have the inclusionary amount requirement end in a fraction. This fraction amount results in a need to provide 3.1 inclusionary units. Without the Concession this calculation would result in a need to provide four (4) IHO units. Per the City’s IHO, the applicant may elect to construct, all or a portion, of the units or pay an in-lieu fee, for all or a portion of the units. With the Concession, the applicant has elected to construct three (3) IHO units and pay an in-lieu fee for the fractional amount of 10% of a unit, which would be a total of $26,341.

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 8

The applicant has also requested seven (7) Waivers from the DMC. State Density Bonus law allows for an unlimited amount of Waiver requests. Per Density Bonus law, Waivers to development standards are limited to physical changes that would help better accommodate all the allowed units on the site. For example, a reduction to setbacks may be necessary to appropriately position a housing unit on the site. The requested Waivers are summarized below:

Table 1
Summary of Requested Density Bonus Waivers
DMC Requirement Deviation
Section 9144. Definition
for “Lot Area”
Density calculated
using the net lot size,
which does not include
certain easements.

Applicant has request that
density be calculated using gross
lot size resulting in an increased
allowable density.

DMC Section 9312.08(a)
Residential Zones
Property Development
Standards

Setback Front Setback =15’ Ranges from 12.75’ to 14.25’ Setback Rear Setback = 46’ Reduced Rear Setback = 37.5’ Setback Side Setback = 10’ Reduced Sideyard Setback = 5’ Height Maximum Height = 35’
Increased Height = 37.5’
*Increased height varies for
each building, between 1’ to 2’-
6”
DMC Section 9710.02
Parking - R-3-O Zone
Design Standards
Two-car garage with
side by side parking
Applicant has requested that 15
of the 33 dwelling units (45%)
be designed with enclosed
tandem garage parking.

DMC Section
9312.08(b)(10) Usable
Open Space
Private open space
requires a 10’ x 10’
minimum dimension
Applicant has requested to
provide private open space in
the form of patios for Buildings
1, 2, and 4, and in the form of
balconies for units in Building 3
with varying non-conforming
dimensions

The applicant also proposes to deviate from the DMC pursuant to the less restrictive minimum mandatory parking standards allowed within the State’s Density Bonus Law.

The Density Bonus parking standards require a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit and no guest parking. The applicant’s proposal exceeds the Density Bonus parking

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 9

requirements by providing a total of two spaces per unit and five guest parking spaces. A comparison table of the DMC, State Density Bonus Law parking standards, and the applicant’s proposal for on-site parking is provided below.

Table 2
Parking Requirements
DMC Requirement Density Bonus Law Proposed
Section 9708.

Residential
Off-Street
Parking
Requirements.

2.0 covered
spaces within a
garage; plus 0.5
guest parking
space per unit
(Total: 83 spaces)

1.5 parking spaces
per unit
(Total: 49.5 spaces)
66 covered with each
unit having a cover two
car garage; 5 guest
parking spaces
(Total: 71 spaces)
*Exceeds Density
Bonus minimum parking
standards

Site Plan Review

The Site Plan Review examines the proposed site changes, landscaping, and compliance with the Downey Municipal Code. The project includes the construction of 33 dwelling units. The proposed units will be located within four separate three-story buildings, with dwelling units ranging from 1,188 square feet to 1,792 square feet. Each dwelling unit will also include a two-car garage, and either a private patio or balcony.

The project will also include 7,766 square feet of landscape area, 26’ wide drive-aisles, and five guest parking spaces (71 parking spaces overall). A copy of the proposed plans are attached as Attachment C. A summary of the unit details is provided in the table below.

Table 3
Project Components
Unit
Breakdown Unit Sizes Number of Bedrooms
3 units 1,188sf 3bd/3ba
12 units 1,477sf 3bed/3ba
5 units 1,600sf 3bed/2.5ba
10 units 1,657sf 3bed/3.5ba
3 units 1,792sf 3bed/3.5ba
Total Units 33

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 10

Table 3
Project Components
Ingress/Egress
Two (2) total driveways:
• one (1) along Suva Street (exit only, right turn out/west) and • one (1) along Foster Bridge Road (both entry and exit)1

Note #1. A Condition of approval was added to the Site Plan Review and Density Bonus Resolution to provide the installation of street markings indicating “Keep Clear” in front of the Foster Bridge Boulevard driveway entrance on the Southbound traffic lane.

Various applicable development standards are summarized in Table 4:

Table 4 – Development Standards
Standard Zoning Code
Standards
Proposed Compliance
Lot Coverage 50% 41.77% Yes
Building Height 35 ft. / 3 stories 37.5 ft. / 3 stories No (Waiver) Setbacks:

Front

Rear (3 story building
abutting an R-1)

Street Side

Side

15 ft. Min.

46 ft. Min.

7.5 ft. Min.

10 ft. Min.

12.75 ft.

37 ft. 6 in.

7.5 ft.

5 ft.

No (Waiver)

Yes (Waiver)

No (Waiver)

Architecture

The architectural style inspiration for the project is Spanish style. All buildings are designed to be consistent with one another in terms of architectural treatment, materials, color, and interior layout. The units fronting the street are designed to be oriented towards Foster Bridge Road and Suva Street, and the other units are oriented to the interior of the lot. The building materials include sand stucco siding painted white with wood like cement board accents selectively placed along the front elevations. Additional architectural features include exposed rafter tails, corbel trims around the windows, and traditional tile venting. Lastly, the roofing material will be clay tile.

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 11

Front Elevation (Foster Bridge Blvd.)

Front Elevation (Suva St.)
Figure E – Project Colored Elevations

Tract Map No. 84168

A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is the corresponding subdivision application required for the creation of condominium developments consisting of five (5) or more units. The tract map defines the boundaries of common spaces and privately-owned airspace. Common spaces include the 26’ driveway and 20’ drive aisles throughout the site, common landscaped areas, paths, and guest parking areas. The private airspace areas outline the individual parcels that will be sold separately to individual parties. Each of these airspaces will be assigned an independent Assessor’s Parcel Number. The proposed placement of these airspace areas is deemed permanent and may not be modified at an administrative level. Modifications to the proposal would require submittal of a new map and approval from the Planning Commission. The TTM is attached as Exhibit B of Attachment I.

As required per the Subdivision Map Act, the TTM was provided to the Downey Unified School District, Caltrans, and the Central Basin Municipal Water District in order to allow these agencies the opportunity to comment on the proposed map. None of the agencies provided comments.

Park and Recreation Areas and Facilities (Quimby Act)

Per the City’s Open Space Element of the General Plan and DMC Section 9931.8 as allowed by the Quimby Act, a subdivider shall dedicate a portion of land, or pay a fee, for the purposes of providing park and recreation facilities to serve future residents of such subdivisions. If the applicant were to elect to dedicate land, a total of 9,900 square feet would be required. Alternatively, these requirements may be met by providing sufficient

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 12

amounts of open space on site via the DMC’s Credit for Private Open Space. However, the project does not propose open space and is requesting Density Bonus Waivers from providing such space as explained in the Density Bonus section. Therefore, the applicant has elected to pay an in-lieu fee. The purpose of the in-lieu fee is to collect funds for the City to later create and expand park lands or rehabilitate existing park and recreation facilities. The total applicable in-lieu (Quimby Act) fee for the 33-unit project is $34,264.56.

Traffic Analysis

A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted for the project to analyze both existing conditions and potential traffic impacts. Regarding existing conditions, the TIA finds the intersections and street segments that will primarily serve the project to score Level of Service (LOS) grades of “acceptable” at a C or better, with the exception of the Suva and Guatemala eastbound stop. The Suva and Guatemala eastbound stop scores LOS grades at peak periods ranging from “acceptable”, grade D, to “approaches capacity”, grade E. These intersections and street segments along with their LOS are listed below.

In addition, public comment, as summarized in the public comments section of this report and in Attachment L, indicate traffic congestion at greater levels than indicated in the TIA.

Staff recently observed that existing conditions resembled what is indicated in the TIA.

However, Staff finds through the TIA that the project is not forecasted to alter the current LOS of any of the intersections or street segments. Furthermore, the TIA indicates a minimal increase in trip generation coming and going to the site. Staff ultimately finds that the traffic conditions are a result of preexisting conditions specific to the nearby area and not a result of the project proposal. Therefore, Staff is unable to deem the project will independently create or significantly contribute as a major impact to the nearby area.

Figure F - Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Notes:
(1) See Table 1.
(2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume.
(4) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
(5) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1).

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 13

Figure G - Existing Intersection Level of Service
Notes:
(1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
(2) Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown.
(3) LOS = Level of Service

Aside for LOS, the site will generate a total daily net increase of 158 trips, with an additional 10 trips at AM peak times and 13 additional trips at PM peak times. This means within any 15-minute interval between the hours of 7am and 9am (for AM peak periods) the highest expected traffic volume will be 10 additional vehicles entering or existing the site and between 4pm and 6pm (for PM peak periods) a maximum of an additional 13 vehicles would be the highest volume entering or exiting the site. All other 15-minute intervals between those times would be less than the estimated peak trips.

Considering the potential increase of traffic during peak times, as well as concerns expressed regarding there being heavier traffic than what was indicated in the TIA, Public Works Department Staff adjusted the timing of the traffic signal at Suva Street and Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard to accommodate clearing up to an additional 14 vehicles from the queue during any single cycle of the signal beginning on April 15, 2024. The Public Works Department will evaluate the timing of the signal and re-adjust, as needed, to ensure that traffic flow is optimized. In addition to the adjustment to the timing, the traffic signal at Suva Street and Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard is in the City’s plan over the next two to five years for full upgrade to the signal poles, traffic and pedestrian signal heads, safety lights, controls, and equipment cabinet. The new traffic signal and equipment would result in better operations and fewer maintenance call-outs to replace parts. In addition, a new traffic signal will provide an upgrade to safety with larger, more visible traffic and pedestrian signal heads, and improved signal and safety lighting for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Condition No. 73 (Attachment H-Exhibit A) has been included to alleviate potential southbound queuing at the Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road Intersection, which will require a revision to the attached plans. As initially presented by the applicant, the project driveway along Suva Street was proposed for emergency vehicles only. With staff’s proposed condition of approval, the driveway will now also serve northbound right turn exits only as well. The exit only will now alleviate approximately 30% of traffic exiting the site away from the Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road intersection.

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 14
In addition to the TIA, Staff also looked at data collected from the City’s Traffic Calming Program. The program was adopted in 2010 and is intended to layout steps for addressing traffic calming requests and complaints. The steps include the following: (1) Traffic calming request is submitted to the City, (2) Petition prepared and sent to requestor, (3) Stage 1 traffic calming study performed, (4) Stage 1 traffic calming measure(s) implemented as appropriate, (5) Follow-up evaluation, (6)Conduct Stage 2 traffic calming study (if issue was not resolved), and (7) City Council approval (if necessary) and implement Stage 2 traffic calming measure. The data generated helps inform Staff of potential improvements that can be made to alleviate the existing conditions.

With regard to nearby intersections and street segments, the City’s Public Works Committee met on March 21, 2024 to discuss the Traffic Calming Program in general (Attachment J) as well as touched on the potential measures to traffic infrastructure on Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue. One point of interest was speeding that occurs on these street segments. Potential remediations include Stage 1 traffic calming measures, such as signs and pavement markings, and Stage 2 traffic calming measures, such as speed humps and bulb-outs. Following completion of traffic studies for the addition of speed humps on Guatemala Avenue between Lubec Street and Coolgrove Drive, Staff is currently preparing petitions to be circulated to residents along this stretch for support of a speed hump installation project. If the project has adequate support from the residents (75%), the project would proceed as a capital improvement project to take place between July 2024 and February 2025. Traffic issues burdening these street segments are not directly, or entirely a result, of the proposed project; therefore, any necessary modifications will be taken on by the City.

California Environmental Quality Act
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed proj ect pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and made available for a thirty (30) day public review period November 22, 2023 to December 22, 2023. The following comments were submitted to the City of Downey during the public review period:

1.Patricia Horsley – Environmental Planner, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, December 13, 2023

2.Lourdes Almazan – Glencliff Drive Resident, November 28, 2023 A copy of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Comments/Response to Comments and errata are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment E.

The public comments and responses are available for decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision whether to approve the proposed project.

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 15

Although the State Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a City to prepare written responses to the comments received, the City elected to prepare written responses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines:

• None of the comments provide substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
• None of the information in the letters or responses constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the MND for further public review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption.
• None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Project MND. • None of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.

The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration found potentially significant impacts of (1) Aesthetics (2) Biological Resources (3) Cultural Resources (4) Geology and Soils (5) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, (6) Noise and (6) Tribal Cultural Resources. However, no impacts would be generated as they relate to greenhouse gases, land use/planning, population/housing, traffic, agriculture, mineral resources, public services/recreation, utilities, air quality, water quality, and wildfires.

Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would be no significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been prepared and incorporated into the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution. An MND was prepared and with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adverse impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and below a level of significance.

Alternative Housing Development Scenarios

The applicant has provided Attachment N, which includes a cover letter and attachment letter detailing the applicant’s analysis of what they believe are the residential development rights of the property under its current land use and zoning designation. The applicant indicated that their intent in providing such information is to demonstrate that the applicant’s proposed project is consistent with the residential density currently permitted by-right under State Density Bonus and Accessory Development Unit law. The

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 16

City commissioned an independent peer review of the applicant’s letters and associated analyses which are included as Attachment N. This information is being provided to the Planning Commission to ensure the Commission has the background necessary to deliberate on the General Plan Land Use Designation change requested by the applicant.

The City-initiated peer review memo (Attachment O) provides an analysis of the development scenarios utilizing the application of R-1 zoning, State Density Bonus law and provisions related to allowable accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units which would render a total of 39 dwelling units. The peer review memo further describes development scenarios using SB9 or SB4 provisions, if the low-density land use designation and single-family (R-1) zoning would remained unchanged.

The applicant also provided within Attachment N, a summary that describes the potential development of the site using SB 4 provisions. The City’s commissioned peer review memo summarizes that such development would require that the project meet very specific criteria regarding the provision of a very high percentage of housing unit affordability levels and the applicability of prevailing wages requirements.

The City Council has been provided with one Ordinance (Attachment F) and two Resolutions (Attachments G, H, and I) for consideration which describes the merits of the project being proposed, with the applicant’s request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone change to allow a medium density project (MDR) land use designation with the corresponding zone (R-3-O). For clarity, the applicant’s proposal does not include a proposal to develop the site utilizing R-1 or low-density standards.

Community Outreach and Public Comment

Community Outreach: City staff encouraged the applicant to conduct community outreach, including a community meeting, while City staff conducted its evaluation of the project. The applicant verbally communicated to staff that their preferred option would be door-to-door visits to meet and inform residents of the proposed project. Staff received several calls from concerned residents of the Treasure Island neighborhood. Staff again encouraged the applicant to conduct a community outreach meeting so that the neighborhood could learn more about the proposed design and layout of the project while staff was still evaluating the project. The applicant informed City staff verbally several times that a community meeting was not their preferred option for conducting outreach and that they would continue with the door-to-door outreach approach. After the March 6, 2024 continued Planning Commission public hearing, staff once again met with the applicant to encourage them to host a community meeting to listen and potentially address the community concerns. In late March 2024, the applicant informed staff that the Olson Company (the applicant) held a community meeting at a community center located in the City of Bell Gardens and that several community members voiced concerns regarding the project. Despite requests by City staff, a written summary of the concerns has not been provided to staff. A copy of the community meeting invitation is attached in

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 17

Attachment P Exhibit A - Items submitted into the Record at Planning Commission April 17, 2024 Meeting.

Public Comments: As of the preparation of this report, staff received written correspondence from three individuals stating opposition to the project due to concerns related to impacts to privacy, traffic, and street parking. A copy of the previous public comments is included in Attachment L. In addition to written comments, a total of 18 individuals either previously provided public comment at a past Planning Commission meeting or shared their thoughts directly with Staff. A general summary of the public comments/concerns received to date are provided below.

In Opposition
• Traffic concerns
• Cleanliness of Treasure Island Park
• Project is incompatible with single family housing,
• Project should be built elsewhere
• There is better utilization of the site (i.e. parks and recreation) • Parking congestion, especially for guests due to potential special occasions hosted at townhomes
• Lack of parking to accommodate each unit
• Current dangers for pedestrians due to existing traffic conditions including speeding when streets are not congested
• Health concerns related to added vehicle congestion
• Believes traffic study misrepresents actual traffic conditions • Density and over development of the site
• Garage use for storage is difficult to enforce
• Sense of community lost with loss of church
• Misrepresentations provided from applicant when canvasing area • Over population in the area
• School enrollment/overcrowding
• Will alter quality of life
• The Treasure Island neighborhood has historical significance • Current traffic conditions impact people exiting their homes • Will potentially negatively affect property values
• Congestion makes it difficult for first responders to access the area

In Favor
• Development of site would eliminate vagrant activity
• Activate the site
• May potentially raise nearby property values
• Provide younger and those in need with affordable housing • Will raise the housing stock

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 18

In addition, the City of Bell Gardens staff verbally expressed concerns, in January 2024, regarding the potential impacts of the project. City staff requested that a written summary be provided for further evaluation. The City received a comment letter from Bell Gardens on April 16, 2024. The letter is added to the additional public comment letters found in Attachment Q. The letter requests copies of utility “will serve” letters and notification if hazardous materials are found on site. In addition, the letter requested that a traffic impact analysis study existing and future traffic impacts, measure Level of Service, and impacts to the intersection of Suva St./Foster Bridge Blvd./ Bluff Road. A response is provided by staff and found as Attachment M, and notes that the traffic impact analysis covers the items presented by the City of Bell Gardens.

On April 16, 2024 and April 17, 2024, the City received an email regarding a petition opposing the project with 283 of signatures included. The email and petition are attached as Attachment L.

Lastly, the applicant at the public hearing provided 178 letters of support for the project.

The letters were not previously provided to Staff, and many are identical to one another with different signatures provided. The letters are found in Attachment Q Exhibit B – Items submitted into the Record at the April 17, 2024 and May 1, 2024 Planning Commission Meetings.

CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES

Economic Vibrancy
Quality of Life, Safety and Infrastructure

BOARD/COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION:

The application was previously heard by the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of May 1, 2024. After considering all evidence and testimony provided at the public hearing, and following deliberation, a motion to recommend approval to the City Council passed with a 3-1 vote.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Attachment B: Colored Renderings
Attachment C: Submitted Project Plans dated May 14, 2024 Attachment D: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Attachment E: CEQA Documents

OLSON CO. - FOSTER BRIDGE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT
MAY 14, 2024
PAGE 19
•Exhibit A - Response to comments/Final MND Memo- Addendum Materials •Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) •Exhibit C - Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) •Exhibit D – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendices Attachment F: Draft Ordinance No. 24-XXXX – Zone Change (ZC) •Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
•Exhibit B – Existing and Proposed Zoning Designation
Attachment G: Draft Resolution No. 24-8240 – General Plan Amendment (GP) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
•Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
•Exhibit B – Existing and Proposed General Plan Designation •Exhibit C – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Attachment H: Draft Resolution No. 24-8241 – Site Plan Review and Density Bonus •Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
Attachment I: Draft Resolution No. 24-8242 – Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 •Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
•Exhibit B – Tentative Tract Map No. 84168
Attachment J: Traffic Calming Program PW Committee Report March 21, 2024 Attachment K: Public Noticing
Attachment L: Public Comments
Attachment M: Staff Response to Comments provided by City of Bell Gardens Attachment N: Applicant’s (Olson Co.) Density, R-1, and SB 4 Information Attachment O: Peer Review Memo - Density, R-1, SB 9, SB 4 Analysis Attachment P: Applicant’s Request to Re-agendize Project for May 1, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment Q: Items submitted into the Record at Planning Commission April 17, 2024 Meeting
•Exhibit A – Olson Company Community Meeting Invitation •Exhibit B – Letters of Support Submitted by the Olson Company Attachment R: Planning Commission Staff Report May 1, 2024

Attachment A

Location

Aerial Photograph
Subject Property

Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070411.01.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023NTSA1.1VIEW 1RENDERING AT FOSTER BRIDGE BLVD.Attachment B

Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070411.01.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023NTSA1.2VIEW 1RENDERING AT FOSTER BRIDGE (NO TREES)Attachment B

Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070411.01.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023NTSA1.4VIEW 2RENDERING AT SUVA STREET (NO TREES)Attachment B

Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023NTSA0.1SHEET INDEXSHEET INDEXARCHITECTURECOVER SHEETSHEET INDEXARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANBLDG. 1 (13 PLEX) COMPOSITE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBLDG. 1 (13 PLEX) COMPOSITE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBLDG. 1 (13 PLEX) COMPOSITE - BUILDING PLANSBLDG. 1 (13 PLEX) COMPOSITE - BUILDING PLANSBLDG. 2 (9 PLEX) COMPOSITE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBLDG. 2 (9 PLEX) COMPOSITE - BUILDING PLANSBLDG. 2 (9 PLEX) COMPOSITE - BUILDING PLANSBLDG. 3 (5 PLEX) COMPOSITE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBLDG. 3 (5 PLEX) COMPOSITE - BUILDING PLANSBLDG. 4 (6 PLEX) COMPOSITE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBLDG. 4 (6 PLEX) COMPOSITE - BUILDING PLANSPLAN 1&5- UNIT PLANPLAN 2&4- UNIT PLANPLAN 2ALT- UNIT PLANPLAN 3- UNIT PLANA0.0A0.1A1.0A2.0A2.1A2.2A2.3A3.0A3.1A3.2A4.0A4.1A5.0A5.1A6.0A6.1A6.2A6.3LANDSCAPECOLORED LANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANPLANT PALETTE IMAGERYCONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE & TRASHPICKUP PLANCONCEPTUAL WALLS & FENCES PLANCONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR LIGHTINGL1L2L3L4L5L9CIVILSITE PLAN DOWNEY FOSTER BRIDGEVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPCONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN1C1C2C3ELECTRICALELECTRICAL SITE PLANPHOTOMETRIC SITE PLANLIGHT FIXTURE CUTSHEETSES1ES2ES308.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

SSSSSUVA STREETFOSTER BRIDGE BLVDBLUFF ROADRIO
HONDO
B
IKE
PATH20' Rear SetbackEXISTING SLOPE EASEMENTEXISTING STREET EASEMENTREARSIDE CORNER SIDEFRONT12'-9" Front Setback5' Side Setback7.5' Street SetbackGated EntryEVA OnlyExisting Pole and Queens PostFire HydrantFire Hydrant25.0'

37.5'10.0'26.0'3.0'9.7'8.3'10.8'14.3'9.0'25.0'Proposed Transformer LocationCommon & Private O.S.(See L-scape)5.0'BLDG 3BLDG 2BLDG 4BLDG 111.4'20.0' 10 .
0 '8.0'14.2'13.9'12.9'2.4'11.0'12.0'9.7'6.9'7.5'20.0'22.5' 15 .
0 'Project Marquee41.5'41.8'41.8'42.8'34.0'32.0'15.9'32.0'21.0'P1P5P2ALT P2P4P39.0'20.0'ResidentialResidentialAUAUAUCONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN0306015SITE SUMMARYAPN: 6358-015-058Address: 7360 Foster Bridge BlvdCity: Downey, CACounty: Los Angeles CountyZoning: R-1 6000General Plan Designation: Low Density ResidentialR-3-O DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSMax Density: 1815sf/unit (24 du/ac) for lots greater than 15,000sfCoverage: 50%Max Bldg Height: 3 stories (35' max)SetbacksFront Yard: 15'Side Yard: 5' (10' if abuts R-1 Zone)Street Side: 7.5'Rear Yard Min. Setbacks:R-1 Zone - twenty feet (20′) for a one (1) story building, thirty feet (30′) fora two (2) story building, and forty-six feet (46′) for a three story building.Abuts a fully dedicated public alley - no setback required for a one (1) storybuilding, ten feet (10′) for a two (2) story building, and twenty-six feet (26′)for a three (3) story building.Abuts another R-3 Zone - ten feet (10′) for a one (1) story building, fifteenfeet (15′) for a two (2) story building, and twenty feet (20′) for a three (3)story building.Min Distance Between Bldgs: 10'Min Usable OS: 200sf/unit (min. 15' dim)Parking: 2.5 sp/unitMin Parking Dims: 10'x20'State Density Bonus Parking Standards2bd: 1.5 sp/unit3bd: 1.5 sp/unit4bd: 2.5 sp/unitSITE SUMMARYSite Area: ±1.3 ac (±55,961sf)Units: 3 units - Plan 1 – 1188sf - 3bd/3ba, tandem (new narrow interlock) 2 units - Plan 2alt – 1477sf - 3bed/3ba, tandem (stand alone 16' plan type)10 units - Plan 2 – 1477sf - 3bed/3ba, tandem (typ. interlock) 5 units - Plan 3 – 1600sf - 3bed/2.5ba+flex, sxs (35' deep)10 units - Plan 4 – 1657sf - 3bed+flex/3.5ba, sxs (typ. interlock) 3 units - Plan 5 – 1792sf - 3bed+flex/3.5ba, sxs (new narrow interlock)33 units - TotalAU - Accessible UnitDensity: ±25.4 du/acParking Provided:66 spaces - Garages 5 spaces - Guest71 spaces - TotalOpen Space Provided: See Landscape Dwg. Sheet L-4Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023A1.008.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

12101131813141617211519198'-1"9'-1"8'-1"9'-1"8'-1"6182P4RP2RP2P4P4RP2RP2 ALT RP2P4P2P4P2P4736'-3" 38'-6"
OVERALL MATERIALS LEGENDStuccoStucco Scalloped Sill TrimSpanish 'S' Roof TileStucco Wall Guardrail (W.O.)Stucco Sill Trim (1"x3"H)Stucco Recess /Reveal at Windows/DoorsStucco Decorative Foam EaveStucco Battered RecessMetal Juliet Railing (W.O.)Stucco Finial /Faux Chimney (W.O.)Decoractive Fiberglass Entry DoorVinyl WindowsSloped Stucco SillFiber Cement Board Trim & Panel at Bay Window (W.O.)Simulated Wood Corbels (W.O.)Exposed Decorative Truss TailsStucco ArchStucco Decorative Foam CorbelStucco FurringSectional Metal Garage DoorDecorative Exterior Lights & Raised Number AddressMetal Utility DoorDecorative Stucco/Metal Scupper at Decks (W.O.)Line of Patio Walls (W.O. - See Landscape Plans forHeight and Location)56432171312111081716151418212423221992020135224FRONT0 4 8162.0BUILDING 1BUILDING ELEVATIONArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023REAR08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

22LEFT0 4 8162.1BUILDING 1ELEVATIONArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023RIGHT08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

212'-2"42'-9"3'-6"48'-9"2'-6"SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR0 4 8162.2BUILDING 1BUILDING PLANArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.04.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.202308.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

4:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:125:12
5:12 5:12

6.5:12
5:12
5:125:12
5:12
5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12

6.5:12

6.5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12THIRD FLOOR0 4 8162.3BUILDING 1BUILDING PLANArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.04.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023ROOF PLAN08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

MATERIALS LEGENDStuccoStucco Scalloped Sill TrimSpanish 'S' Roof TileStucco Wall Guardrail (W.O.)Stucco Sill Trim (1"x3"H)Stucco Recess /Reveal at Windows/DoorsStucco Decorative Foam EaveStucco Battered RecessMetal Juliet Railing (W.O.)Stucco Finial /Faux Chimney (W.O.)Decoractive Fiberglass Entry DoorVinyl WindowsSloped Stucco SillFiber Cement Board Trim & Panel at Bay Window (W.O.)Simulated Wood Corbels (W.O.)Exposed Decorative Truss TailsStucco ArchStucco Decorative Foam CorbelStucco FurringSectional Metal Garage DoorDecorative Exterior Lights & Raised Number AddressMetal Utility DoorDecorative Stucco/Metal Scupper at Decks (W.O.)Line of Patio Walls (W.O. - See Landscape Plans forHeight and Location)56432171312111081716151418212423221992037'-6"

OVERALL
121131813141615191016P4RP2RP2P2P4RP2P2P4P4R28171821678'-1"9'-1"8'-1"24520FRONT0 4 8163.0BUILDING 2BUILDING ELEVATIONArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023REAR08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

220 4 8163.1BUILDING 2ELEVATIONArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023RIGHTLEFT08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

147'-8"42'-9"
46'-7"
2'-6"1'-4"SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR0 4 8163.2BUILDING 2BUILDING PLANArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.04.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.202308.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

4:124:124:124:124:124:125:12
5:12 5:12

6.5:12

6.5:126.5:12

6.5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12

6.5:12

6.5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12THIRD FLOOR0 4 8163.3BUILDING 2BUILDING PLANArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.04.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023ROOF PLAN08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

36'-0"P3P3P3P3P31243123913267111617188'-1"9'-1"8'-1"MATERIALS LEGENDStuccoStucco Scalloped Sill TrimSpanish 'S' Roof TileStucco Wall Guardrail (W.O.)Stucco Sill Trim (1"x3"H)Stucco Recess /Reveal at Windows/DoorsStucco Decorative Foam EaveStucco Battered RecessMetal Juliet Railing (W.O.)Stucco Finial /Faux Chimney (W.O.)Decoractive Fiberglass Entry DoorVinyl WindowsSloped Stucco SillFiber Cement Board Trim & Panel at Bay Window (W.O.)Simulated Wood Corbels (W.O.)Exposed Decorative Truss TailsStucco ArchStucco Decorative Foam CorbelStucco FurringSectional Metal Garage DoorDecorative Exterior Lights & Raised Number AddressMetal Utility DoorDecorative Stucco/Metal Scupper at Decks (W.O.)Line of Patio Walls (W.O. - See Landscape Plans forHeight and Location)5643217131211108171615141821242322199202352022FRONT0 4 8164.0BUILDING 3BUILDING ELEVATIONArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023REARLEFTRIGHT08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

108'-5 1/2"35'-8"1'-10"
37'-6"4:124:125:12
5:12 5:12
5:12 5:12 5:12
SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR0 4 8164.1BUILDING 3BUILDING PLANArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.04.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023THIRD FLOORROOF PLAN08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

P1P1P5P1P5123191326161718P57810111718218'-1"9'-1"8'-1"
36'-6"MATERIALS LEGENDStuccoStucco Scalloped Sill TrimSpanish 'S' Roof TileStucco Wall Guardrail (W.O.)Stucco Sill Trim (1"x3"H)Stucco Recess /Reveal at Windows/DoorsStucco Decorative Foam EaveStucco Battered RecessMetal Juliet Railing (W.O.)Stucco Finial /Faux Chimney (W.O.)Decoractive Fiberglass Entry DoorVinyl WindowsSloped Stucco SillFiber Cement Board Trim & Panel at Bay Window (W.O.)Simulated Wood Corbels (W.O.)Exposed Decorative Truss TailsStucco ArchStucco Decorative Foam CorbelStucco FurringSectional Metal Garage DoorDecorative Exterior Lights & Raised Number AddressMetal Utility DoorDecorative Stucco/Metal Scupper at Decks (W.O.)Line of Patio Walls (W.O. - See Landscape Plans forHeight and Location)564321713121110817161514182124232219920135207REAR0 4 8165.0BUILDING 4BUILDING ELEVATIONArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023FRONTRIGHTLEFT08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

99'-5"41'-6"6"
44'-0"
2'-0"
6:126:126:126:12 6:126:126:12
6:12
6:12 6:124:124:124:124:12SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR0 4 8165.1BUILDING 4BUILDING PLANArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.04.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023THIRD FLOORROOF PLAN08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

2-CARGARAGE20' X 20' CLR.FLEX/OFFICE10'-8" x 12'-4"POWDERPLAN 5ENTRY20'-8"11'-2"32'-0"2'-0"41'-6" 43'-6"2-CARTANDEM GARAGE10' X 35' CLR.UP15RUP15RPLAN 1ENTRYCLOSETDROP ZONE OPT.
42'-0"
35'-1 1/2"10'-6 1/2"VEST./DROP ZONELIVING15'-9" x 10'-9"KITCHEN16'-4" x 10'-0"BED 310'-4" x 10'-7"PANTRYBATH 3LIVING11'-3" x 11'-6"KITCHEN10'-7" x 12'-0"BATH 3BED 310'-7" x 10'-0"1'-6"40'-8"1'-4" 43'-6"20'-8"11'-2"32'-0"DN15RUP17RUP17RDINING12'-0" x 8'-2"DN15RKITCHEN16'-4" x 10'-0"DEN12'-9" x 10'-7"PANTRY POWDERVESTIBULEOPT. DR.44'-0"PRIMARY BED12'-0" x 11'-4"PRIMARY BED11'-3" x 11'-0"BED 210'-8" x 10'-0"BED 210'-7" x 9'-6"BATH 2BATH 2LAUNDRYLAUNDRYPRIMARYBATHPRIMARYBATHW.I.C.W.I.C.40'-8"1'-6"43'-6"11'-2"32'-0"DN17RDN17RLINEN 20'-8"1'-4"LOW LIN./OPT. FULL HT.OPT. LIN.OPT. W.I.C.P1 - GROSS AREA1ST FLOOR116 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR558 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR514 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1188 SQ. FT.GARAGE460 SQ. FT.P5 - GROSS AREA1ST FLOOR324 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR758 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR710 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1792 SQ. FT.PORCH16 SQ. FT.GARAGE451 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORTHIRD FLOOR0 2 486.0PLAN 1 & 5Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023SECOND FLOOR - DEN OPTION08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

2-CARGARAGE20' X 20' CLR.BED 310'-11" x 10'-2"BATH 3PLAN 4ENTRYW.I.C.20'-9 1/2"11'-1 1/2"32'-1"2'-6"42'-9" 45'-3"2-CARTANDEM GARAGE10' x 35' CLR.UP15RUP15RPLAN 2ENTRY10'-6 1/2"20'-0"20'-2 1/2"LIVING15'-4" x 15'-10"KITCHEN11'-8" x 15'-2"FLEX SPACE9'-7" x 9'-5"POWDERLIVING15'-4" x 15'-3"KITCHEN11'-8" x 14'-10"PANTRY UTILITY BATH 3BED 310'-0" x 9'-11"9"42'-0"2'-6" 45'-3"16'-0 1/2"15'-10 1/2"32'-1"DN15RDN15RUP17RUP17RPANTRY UTILITY OPT. BEVERAGEBARFLEX10'-11" x 10'-2"BATH 3PLAN 4ENTRYUP15RPRIMARY BED10'-11" x 14'-9"PRIMARY BED10'-11" x 13'-9"BED 210'-0" x 10'-1"BED 210'-0" x 10'-1"BATH 2BATH 2LAUNDRYLAUNDRYPRIMARYBATHPRIMARYBATHW.I.C.W.I.C.2'-6"42'-0"9"45'-3"16'-0 1/2"15'-10 1/2"32'-1"DN17RDN17RLIN.LIN.OPT. STACKW/D/LIN.OPT. STACKW/D/LIN.P2 - GROSS AREA1ST FLOOR147 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR691 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR640 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1477 SQ. FT.PORCH8 SQ. FT.GARAGE425 SQ. FT.P4 - GROSS AREA1ST FLOOR331 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR689 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR638 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1657 SQ. FT.PORCH19 SQ. FT.GARAGE450 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORTHIRD FLOOR0 2 48A6.1PLAN 2 & 4Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023FIRST FLOOR/OPT FLEX BAR08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

2-CARTANDEM GARAGE10'X 35' CLR.PLAN 2 ALTENTRY41'-9"15'-10 1/2"2'-6" 44'-3"UP15R35'-2 1/2"15'-3 1/2"LIVING15'-4" x 15'-3"KITCHEN11'-8" x 14'-10"PANTRY UTILITY BATH 3BED 310'-0" x 9'-11"44'-3"15'-10 1/2"DN15RUP17RPRIMARY BED10'-11" x 13'-9"BED 210'-0" x 12'-7"BATH 2LAUNDRYPRIMARYBATH44'-3"15'-10 1/2"DN17RW.I.C.P2ALT - GROSS AREA1ST FLOOR147 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR691 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR640 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1477 SQ. FT.DECK8 SQ. FT.GARAGE517 SQ. FT.0 2 48A6.2PLAN 2 ALTArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORTHIRD FLOOR08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

2-CARGARAGE20' X 20' CLR.FLEXUP15R21'-0"35'-0"ACCESSIBLEBATHPLAN 3ENTRY20'-5"20'-0"OPT.DRLOT 23KITCHEN20'-0" x 9'-11"POWDERLIVING14'-0" x 12'-0"DN15R21'-0"34'-0"2'-6" 37'-6"PANTRYDINING14'-0" x 8'-2"DECK1'-0"BED 210'-1" x 10'-0"BED 310'-1" x 9'-6"PRIMARYBED12'-4" x 10'-10"PRIMARYBATHW.I.C.BATH 221'-0"34'-0"DN17RLAUNDRYP3 - GROSS AREA1ST FLOOR276 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR670 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR653 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1600 SQ. FT.GARAGE467 SQ. FT.DECK76 SQ. FT.0 2 48A6.3PLAN 3Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070408.03.2023#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 07.26.2023SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORTHIRD FLOOR08.04.2023Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

Private YardTownhouseResidencePatio w/Low WallSidewalkFoster Bridge Ave.Sidewalk131'-0" Aproximate Distance175'-0" Aproximate DistanceA7.01FOSTER BRIDGE AVE.SITE SECTIONSArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comThe Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 9070402.26.2024#DOWNEY - FOSTER BRIDGE & BLUFFDOWNEY, CA 2022-0925Plot Date:1st Planning Submittal Set: 05.10.20232nd Planning Submittal Set: 08.04.2023048 16Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

Attachment C
Date Stamped: May 14, 2024

Attachment CDate Stamped: May 14, 2024

Attachment D

prepared by

Bryan Crawford
Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP

GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, California 92705
714.795.3100 | ganddini.com Project No. 19658
7360 FOSTER BRIDGE

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
(REVISED)
City of Downey
November 15, 2023
Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
i 19658

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ IV

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 2

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Intersection Delay Analytical Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Roadway Segment Capacity Analytical Methodology ........................................................................................... 6

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Roadway System .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Bicycle Routes .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 General Plan Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Existing Levels of Service .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Existing Traffic Signal Warrants ................................................................................................................................... 9

4. PROJECT FORECASTS ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................................................. 23

5. FUTURE VOLUME FORECASTS ...................................................................................................................... 31 Other Development ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Ambient Growth ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Analysis Scenario Volume Forecasts ....................................................................................................................... 31 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative ....................................................................................... 31 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project ................................................................ 31

6. FUTURE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 40 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative ................................................................................................... 40 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project............................................................................ 40 Future Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ................................................................................................................... 40

7. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION .................................................................................................................. 46 Project Design Features .............................................................................................................................................. 46

8. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 47 Criteria for Requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis for CMP ................................................................................... 47 CMP Transit Impact Review ...................................................................................................................................... 47

9. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 49 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................. 49 Forecast Levels of Service .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Congestion Management Program .......................................................................................................................... 49 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
ii 19658

APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Scoping Agreement
Appendix C Volume Count Worksheets
Appendix D Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Graphs

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. County of Los Angeles Roadway Segment Daily Capacities .................................................................... 7 Table 2. Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis ................................................................................ 11 Table 3. Existing Intersection Level of Service .......................................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Existing Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 5. Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6. Project Trip Generation Comparison ........................................................................................................... 26 Table 7. Other Development Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 32 Table 8. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 9. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service ................................ 43 Table 10. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Table 11. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service.................................................................................................................................................................. 45

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Existing Lane Geometry and Intersection Traffic Controls .................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Existing Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. County of Los Angeles Bikeways Map ........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority System Map ....................................... 16 Figure 7. City of Downey Circulation Plan .................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 8. City of Downey Roadway Cross-Sections ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 9. City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 10. City of Bell Gardens Roadway Cross-Sections ......................................................................................... 20 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
iii 19658
Figure 11. Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................................................... 21 Figure 12. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................................................... 22 Figure 13. Existing Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 14. Project Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 15. Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................... 29 Figure 16. Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................... 30 Figure 17. Other Development Location Map .............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 18. Other Development AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................. 34 Figure 19. Other Development PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .............................. 35 Figure 20. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 21. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 22. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 23. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 39

Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
iv 19658

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1.3-acre project site is located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in the City of Downey.

The project site is currently developed with an 8,480 square foot church which is proposed to be demolished.

The proposed project involves construction of a new multifamily residential development with a total of 33 dwelling units. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed and fully operational by year 2025.

The project involves a Zone Change from R-1 to R-3 and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential).

The project site is proposed to provide one full access driveway on Foster Bridge Boulevard and will have gated entry. An emergency vehicle access only driveway is proposed on Suva Street.

Existing Conditions

The existing roadway segments currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service. The study intersections currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing conditions.

Project Trip Generation

The existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour.

The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour.

The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional trips during the PM peak hour.

Forecast Levels of Service

For Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative traffic conditions, the study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service, except for the following roadway segment that is projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service, without improvements:

 Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street

Although this roadway segment is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, the intersection of Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard (Int. #4) is projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours. Two through lanes along Paramount Boulevard are maintained through the intersection of Suva Street. Thus, since the roadway segment acts as a free-flowing corridor between points of conflict (intersections), and the point of conflict (Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard – Intersection # 4) is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment.

In addition, the project is forecast to add a relatively negligible number of trips per day along this segment such that no appreciable change in the volume-to-capacity ratio is expected for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
v 19658
The study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended.

Congestion Management Program

The proposed project would result in no operational CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes and no further CMP analysis is warranted. A transit impact review was conducted for compliance with the CMP requirements and found that the proposed project is forecast to have a nominal impact on transit demand.

Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
1 19658

1. INTRODUCTION

This section describes the purpose of this traffic and circulation analysis, project location, proposed development, and study area. Figure 1 shows the project location map. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan.

Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential for transportation impacts resulting from development of the proposed project both in the context of the City of Downey’s discretionary authority for conformance with locally established operational standards. Assessment of the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact is evaluated in a separate document for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Although this is a technical report, effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. A glossary is provided in to assist the reader with terms related to transportation engineering.

This study was prepared in consultation with City of Downey staff and in accordance with the procedures and methodologies for assessing transportation impacts established by the City. To assess the project’s conformance with local operational standards, this study evaluates the project’s effect on traffic operations and, if necessary, identifies recommended improvements or corrective measures to alleviate operational deficiencies substantially caused or worsened by the proposed project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The 1.3-acre project site is located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in the City of Downey.

The project site is currently developed with an 8,480 square foot church which is proposed to be demolished.

The project site is proposed to provide one full access driveway on Foster Bridge Boulevard and will have gated entry. An emergency vehicle access only driveway is proposed on Suva Street.

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

The scope of this analysis was determined in consultation with City of Downey staff as documented in the City-approved scoping agreement provided in Appendix B.

1 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
2 19658
Study Area

Based on the study intersections identified in the approved scoping agreement, the study area consists of the following study intersections and roadway segments within the City of Downey:

Study Intersections Jurisdiction

1. Suva Street (NS) at Scout Avenue (EW) Bell Gardens

2. Suva Street (NS) at Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard (EW) Downey

3. Suva Street (NS) at Guatemala Avenue (EW) Downey

4. Suva Street (NS) at Paramount Boulevard (EW) Downey

5. Foster Bridge Boulevard (NS) at Project Driveway (EW) Downey Notes:
(NS) = north-south roadway; (EW) = east-west roadway

Study Roadway Segments Jurisdiction

1. Suva Street, between Scout Avenue and Bluff Road Downey

2. Suva Street, between Bluff Road and Guatemala Avenue Downey

3. Scout Avenue, west of Suva Street Bell Gardens

4. Paramount Boulevard, east of Suva Street Downey

4. Paramount Boulevard, west of Suva Street Downey

5. Foster Bridge Boulevard, north of Bluff Road Downey

Analysis Scenarios

In accordance with City of Downey requirements, the following scenarios are analyzed for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions:

 Existing (2023);
 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (2025); and  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project (2025).

2 Attachment D

Figure 1Project Location Map7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#53Attachment D

Figure 2
Site Plan
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis
19658
N
4 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
5 19658

2. METHODOLOGY

This section discusses the analysis methodologies used to assess transportation facility performance as adopted by the respective jurisdictional agencies. In the absence of published traffic study guidelines from the City of Downey, the City generally follows the County of Los Angeles guidelines. Accordingly, this analysis has been performed based on the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 23, 2020).

INTERSECTION DELAY ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

The methodology used to assess the performance of intersections is known as the intersection delay methodology based on the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology compares the traffic volume using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection to calculate the delay associated with the traffic control at the intersection. The intersection delay is then correlated to a performance measure known as Level of Service based on the following thresholds:

Level of Service
Intersection Control Delay (Seconds / Vehicle)
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B > 10.0 to ≤ 20.0 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0
C > 20.0 to ≤ 35.0 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0
D > 35.0 to ≤ 55.0 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0
E > 55.0 to ≤ 80.0 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 7th Edition).

If the paved lane width of a shared through/right turn lane is wide enough to permit a separate right turn, it is common practice for a right turn lane to be considered “de facto.” To function as a de facto right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lane. This analysis uses a minimum lane width of 20 feet from curb to lane stripe. Additionally, a de facto right turn lane was only considered where on-street parking is prohibited near the intersection approach.

Performance Standards

The City of Downey General Plan Circulation Element has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable Level of Service at intersections and roadway segments.

If a project is forecast to result in a substantial operational deficiency, recommended corrective measures will be identified that would reduce the project’s effect to a level that does not exceed the specified deficiency criteria. Corrective measures can be in many forms, including the construction of physical improvements (e.g., addition of travel lanes, traffic control modifications, etc.) or the implementation of transportation demand management measures.

5 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
6 19658

ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

The technique used to assess the capacity needs of the roadway is known as the Volume to Capacity Ratio.

Roadway segment operations were evaluated using daily volume to daily capacity ratios, (V/C). The average daily traffic volumes of the study roadways were compared with the county standards by roadway classification. General volume to capacity ratio ranges used for the purposes of estimating overall daily performance along the study roadway segments are as follows in conformance with the City of Downey General Plan:

0.00– 0.80 = Acceptable Capacity. This represents a range of free flow to stable flow, where the unrestricted speed and freedom to maneuver begins to become more limited by the increase in traffic. In general, the driver experiences only minor inconvenience, and traffic flow is quick but light during off-peak hours.

0.81 – 1.00 = Approaches Capacity. This represents high-density but stable flow, where speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. In general, the driver experiences a degree of inconvenience during peak hours, and traffic flow is slow but steady during peak hours.

1.00 + = Potentially Exceeds Capacity. This is used to define forced or breakdown flow during peak hours.

This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic exceeds the amount which can reasonably be handled by the roadway. In general, the driver experiences a high degree of inconvenience, and traffic flow is extremely slow with stop-and-go flow and traffic queues begin to form. This condition is typical of the breakdown in flow which occurs when an accident is present on the roadway.

A roadway segment is considered to operate within an acceptable level when the average daily traffic volume is below the daily roadway capacity. Table 1 shows the daily roadway capacities by roadway classification as established in the County of Los Angeles General Plan Update.1

The roadway segment capacity thresholds represent the theoretical maximum two-way average daily traffic volumes that any given roadway is able to accommodate within one day, given typical peak hour characteristics. Generally, roadway segment analysis is performed for planning purposes to determine where potential capacity issues may occur during peak hours and is affected by such factors as the number of intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignments), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic), and bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Roadway segments benefit from on-going traffic signal progression timing adjustments that maximize green time during peak traffic demands.

In the cases where the roadway segment potentially exceeds daily capacity, further evaluation of peak hour operations should be considered. As intersections are typically the most constrained points along a roadway segment, a roadway segment may be considered to operate acceptably if the intersections on both ends of the roadway segment operate acceptably during peak hours, even if the average daily traffic volume exceeds the theoretical capacity.

1 Programmatic Traffic Impact Study County of Los Angeles General Plan Update (Iteris, June 10, 2014) 6 Attachment D

A B C D E
Major Highway 6 32,400 37,800 43,200 48,600 54,000
Major Highway 8 43,200 50,400 57,600 64,800 72,000
Secondary Highway 4 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000
Limited Secondary Highway 4 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000 Limited Secondary Highway 2 10,800 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000 Parkway 2+Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies
Collector 2 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
Local St 2 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500
Expressway 4 26,400 30,800 35,200 39,600 44,000
Expressway 8 52,800 61,600 70,400 79,200 88,000
Volume
Level to
of Capacity
Service Ratio
A 0.000 - 0.600
B 0.601 - 0.700
C 0.701 - 0.800
D 0.801 - 0.900
E 0.901 - 1.000
F >1.000
Notes:
(2) Average Daily Traffic Volumes
(1) Source: Programmatic Traffic Impact Study County of Los Angeles General Plan Update (Iteris, June 10, 2014); Table 4: Roadway Classifications.
(3) These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. The Level of Service "E" volumes are estimated maximum daily capacity for respective classifications.

Maximum Two-Way Traffic Volume (ADT)1,2
Level of Service
Table 1
County of Los Angeles Roadway Segment Daily Capacities
Roadway Classification Number of Lanes
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
196587
Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
8 19658

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM

Figure 3 identifies the lane geometry and intersection traffic controls for Existing conditions based on a field survey of the study area. Regional access to the project area is provided by the Interstate 5 freeway approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site and the I-710 freeway approximately 1.80 miles west of the project site. The key north-south roadways providing local circulation are Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard. The key east-west roadways providing local circulation are Scout Avenue, Bluff Road, Guatemala Avenue, and Paramount Boulevard.

Suva Street is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Suva Street is classified as a Collector north of Paramount Boulevard to the City of Downey boundary and unclassified south of Paramount Boulevard in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. The City of Bell Gardens also classifies Suva Street as a Collector north of the City boundary. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area, Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway north of Paramount Boulevard and not provided south of Paramount Boulevard.

Foster Bridge Boulevard is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Foster Bridge Boulevard is classified as a Collector in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.

Scout Avenue is a 4-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Scout Avenue is classified as an Avenue in the City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on the north side of the roadway.

Bluff Road is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Bluff Road is classified as a Collector east of Suva Street and is not classified west of Bluff Road in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway west of Suva Street and not provided east of Suva Street.

Guatemala Avenue is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Guatemala Avenue is not classified in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are intermittently provided on the north side of the roadway east of Suva Street and generally not provided west of Suva Street and on the south side of the roadway east of Suva Street.

Paramount Boulevard is a 4-lane divided roadway in the study area. Paramount Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is prohibited in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity are shown on Figure 4.

BICYCLE ROUTES

No on-street bicycle facilities are provided in the project area. The County of Los Angeles Bikeways Map is depicted on Figure 5, and shows the Rio Hondo bike path just south of the project site with bike path access points located on the southern boundary of Bluff Road near the project site.

8 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
9 19658

TRANSIT FACILITIES

Figure 6 shows the existing transit routes available in the project vicinity. As shown on Figure 6, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Route 265 services Paramount Boulevard.

GENERAL PLAN CONTEXT

Figure 7 shows the City of Downey Circulation Plan roadway classifications map. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial and collector highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City of Downey standard roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Figure 8.

Figure 9 shows the City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan roadway classifications map. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial and collector highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City of Bell Gardens standard roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Figure 10.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes.

Existing peak hour intersection volumes are based upon AM peak period and PM peak period intersection turning movement counts obtained in August 2023 during typical weekday conditions when schools were in session. The weekday AM peak period was counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the weekday PM peak period was counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM; these periods capture the peak times for commuter traffic when the roadway system is typically experiencing peak demand. The actual peak hour within each two-hour count period is determined based on the sum of the four consecutive 15-minute periods with the highest total volume. Thus, the weekday PM peak hour at one intersection may be 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM if those four consecutive 15-minute periods have the highest total volume and may vary at other intersections.

Intersection turning movement count worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

Existing average daily traffic volumes have been based 24-hour roadway segment counts obtained by Ganddini Group, Inc. in August 2023 (see Appendix C) for the roadway segments that have been analyzed in this report as part of the roadway segment analysis.

EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE

The roadway segment Levels of Service for Existing conditions are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the existing roadway segments currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service.

The intersection Levels of Service for existing conditions are shown in Table 3. Existing intersection Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix D. As shown in Table 3, the study intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing conditions.

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS

The application of traffic control devices is governed by Federal standards adopted by the State of California and contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California Department of Transportation, 2014 Edition) [“CA MUTCD”]. Part 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies of the CA MUTCD contains a series of warrants, or criteria, which serve to determine whether installation of a traffic signal is justified at a particular location. The CA MUTCD states that a traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more warrants are satisfied. Application of the traffic signal warrants should be based 9 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
10 19658
on engineering judgement and satisfaction of one or more traffic signal warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal.

The unsignalized study intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue was evaluated for the potential need to install a traffic signal using the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3). Peak hour traffic signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix E.

For existing conditions, a traffic signal does not appear to be warranted at the intersection of Suva Street/Guatemala Avenue based on the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3).

10 Attachment D

Lanes Capacity2
Scout Ave to Bluff Road 2 15,000 6,354 0.42 Acceptable A Bluff Road to Guatemala Ave 2 15,000 11,972 0.80 Acceptable C Scout Ave West of Suva St 4 36,000 7,036 0.20 Acceptable A East of Suva St 4 36,000 35,660 0.99 Approaches Capacity E West of Suva St 4 36,000 33,234 0.92 Approaches Capacity E Foster Bridge Blvd North of Bluff Road 2 15,000 4,094 0.27 Acceptable A Notes:
(1) See Table 1.
(2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume.
(4) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
(5) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1).

Table 2
Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis
Classification
Suva St Collector
Collector
Roadway Segment Standards1
V/C4Existing ADT3RoadwaySegment LOS5Capacity Threshold
Ave
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Collector
Paramount Blvd
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965811
Attachment D

Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3

1. Suva St at Scout Ave AWS 16.9 C 11.6 B

2. Suva St at Bluff Rd/Foster Bridge Blvd TS 15.9 B 12.8 B

3. Suva St at Guatemala Ave AWS 19.6 28.0 D

4. Suva St at Paramount Blvd TS 20.8 C 34.6 C
Notes:

C
(1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
(2)
(3) LOS = Level of Service
ID
Table 3
Existing Intersection Level of Service
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown.

Study Intersection
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965812
Attachment D

Figure 3Existing Lane Geometry and Intersection Traffic Controls7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 23451Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)3Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)4Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)5Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)2Foster Br i
d
g
e

BlvdAWSSTOPAWSSTOPSTOPAWS#U#DLegendExisting Lane#-Lane Undivided Roadway#-Lane Divided RoadwayStop SignAll Way StopTraffic Signal2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U4D4D4U4Udd De Facto Right Turn Lane13Attachment D

Figure 4Existing Pedestrian Facilities7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658NSiteSCOUT AVE

FOST ER BRIDGE
BL VDBLUFF RDSUVA STSidewalkLegendCross Walk14Attachment D

Figure 5County of Los Angeles Bikways Map7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658NSiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
DExisting Bikeway PathLegendBike Path Access PointSource: County of Los Angeles15Attachment D

Figure 6
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority System Map
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis
19658
Source: L.A. Metro
N
Site
16 Attachment D

Figure 7
City of Downey Circulation Plan
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis
19658
N
Source: City of Downey
Site
17 Attachment D

Figure 8
City of Downey Roadway Cross-Sections
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis
19658
Source: City of Downey
18 Attachment D

Figure 9
City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis
19658
Source: City of Bell Gardens
Site
19 Attachment D

Figure 10
City of Bell Gardens Roadway Cross-Sections
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis
19658
Source: City of Bell Gardens
20 Attachment D

Figure 11Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)1 1 8
8 32Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)137831
736511010258160
1273513Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)121934
973011541062713
4201244Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)161734
2002516710511219
1311001315Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)0178
1890
002218214
22375204
1110621Attachment D

Figure 12Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)2 1 9
9 52Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)1631085
7173352388242
136153Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)1234512
134410131753612
1426924Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)564
2052816196113224
1412631765Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)0187
2060
000259180
114253002
500522Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
23 19658

4. PROJECT FORECASTS

This section describes how project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment forecasts were developed. The forecast project volumes are illustrated on figures contained in this section.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

Table 4 and Table 5 show the existing land uses and project trip generation for potential church and residential uses based upon trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the ITE land use descriptions, trip generation rates for Church (ITE Land Use Code 560) and Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use Code 220) were determined to adequately represent the existing land use and proposed project and were used for calculating the project trip generation forecasts. The existing land use and project trip generation forecasts were determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantities.

As shown in Table 4, the existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour.

As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour.

As shown in Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional trips during the PM peak hour.

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the existing and forecast directional distribution patterns for the project generated trips. The existing and project trip distribution patterns are based on review of existing volume data, surrounding land uses, and the local and regional roadway facilities in the project vicinity.

The project-generated AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 15 and Figure 16.

23 Attachment D

% In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Church ITE 560 TSF 62% 38% 0.32 44% 56% 0.49 7.60
In Out Total In Out Total
Church 8.480 TSF 2 1 3 2 2 4 64
Notes:
(1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021);### = Land Use Code (2) TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Table 4
Existing Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Source1 Unit2
AM Peak Hour
Daily
PM Peak Hour
Trips Generated
Land Use Quantity Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965824
Attachment D

% In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) ITE 220 DU 24% 76% 0.40 63% 37% 0.51 6.74 In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise)33 DU 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Notes:
(1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code (2) DU = Dwelling Units
Table 5
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Source1 Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trips Generated
Land Use Quantity Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965825
Attachment D

In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Land Use1 2 1 3 2 2 4 64
Proposed Project2 3 10 13 11 6 17 222
Net New Trips +1 +9 +10 +9 +4 +13 +158
Notes:
(1) See Table 4.
(2) See Table 5.

Table 6
Project Trip Generation Comparison
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965826
Attachment D

Figure 13Existing Trip Distribution7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658NSiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 10%5%5%5%5%5%5%40%10%35%30%20%5%10%60%25%10%15% 10%5%45%55%90%40%Percent To/From ProjectLegend10%27Attachment D

Figure 14Project Trip Distribution7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658NSiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D25%25%50%30%25%5% 20%100%Percent To/From ProjectLegend10%80%28Attachment D

Figure 15Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)0 3 42Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)310
000001
0003Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)020
030000
0004Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)000
301100
0015Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)30
01 27002
100000
00029Attachment D

Figure 16Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)0 1 22Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)200
010003
0003Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)060
010000
0004Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)000
201300
0035Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)100
02 13006
400000
00030Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
31 19658

5. FUTURE VOLUME FORECASTS

This section describes how future volume forecasts for each analysis scenario were developed. Forecast study area volumes are illustrated on figures contained in this section.

OTHER DEVELOPMENT

To account for trips generated by future development, trips generated by other development projects in the Cities of Downey, Bell Gardens, Pico, Rivera, Commerce, and Montebello were added to the study area as provided by each City Planning Department staff. Table 7 shows the trip generation summary for other development projects. Figure 17 shows the other development location map.

Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the forecast AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for trips generated by other developments.

AMBIENT GROWTH

To account for ambient growth on roadways, existing traffic volumes were increased by a growth rate of 0.2- percent per year over a two-year period for Cumulative [Opening Year (2025)] conditions; this equates to a total growth factor of approximately 1.004. The ambient growth rate was conservatively applied to all movements at the study intersections.

ANALYSIS SCENARIO VOLUME FORECASTS

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative volume forecasts were derived by adding the other development generated trips to Existing volumes with ambient growth. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 20 and Figure

21. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project volume forecasts were derived by adding project generated trips to Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative volumes. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 22 and Figure 23.

31 Attachment D

In Out Total In Out Total
City of Downey
Commercial ITE 821 59.500 TSF 64 39 103 151 157 308 4,017 - Pass-By (40% PM)-- -- -- -60 -63 -123 -123
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru Window ITE 221 6.508 TSF 148 142 290 112 103 215 3,042 - Pass-By (50% AM, 55% PM)-74 -71 -145 -62 -57 -119 -264 Subtotal 138 110 248 141 140 281 6,672
City of Pico Rivera
PR1 8101 Rosemead Blvd Office ITE 710 68.837 TSF 92 13 105 17 82 99 746 City of Commerce
Existing
Warehousing
- Passenger Cars 29 13 41 9 37 45 653
- Trucks 7 12 19 16 3 19 276
Proposed
Light Industriall/Warehousing [a] 296.166 TSF
- Passenger Cars 97 15 112 16 87 103 746
- Trucks 1 1 2 4 3 7 140
Difference
- Passenger Cars 69 3 71 8 51 58 94
- Trucks -6 -11 -17 -12 0 -12 -136
Subtotal 63 -9 55 -4 51 47 -42
293 114 408 154 273 427 7,376
Notes:
(2) TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Table 7
Other Development Trip Generation
Map
ID Land Use Source1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DailyAddress
(1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code C1 7400 Slauson Ave3
[a] = 7400 Slauson Ave Focused Traffic Assessment (Urban Crossroads, January 4, 2023).

Quantity2
7201 Firestone BlvdD1
Total
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965832
Attachment D

Other DevelopmentOther Development
Legend
N
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 17
Other Development Locaon Map
7360 Foster Bridge Residenal Project
Traffic And Circulaon Analysis
19658
MAIN STSite
5 33
Attachment D

Figure 18Other DevelopmentAM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)0 0 02Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)000
030000
0003Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)000
030003
2004Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)002
8000150
0805Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)00
00 00000
030000
00034Attachment D

Figure 19Other DevelopmentPM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)0 0 02Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)020
010000
0003Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)222
010001
0004Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)000
200090
21565Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)00
00 00020
010000
00035Attachment D

Figure 20Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus CumulativeAM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)1 1 8
9 32Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)138831
736811010258161
1273513Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)121944
973051551062716
6201244Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)161736
2092516810511409
1311121325Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)0179
1900
002219215
22414304
1110436Attachment D

Figure 21Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus CumulativePM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)2 2 0
0 52Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)1641105
7175352388243
136153Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)1434814
135413132753613
1426924Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)564
2082816296114624
1612831835Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)0188
2070
000262181
114283002
500537Attachment D

Figure 22Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus ProjectAM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)1 1 9
2 72Foster Br
i
d
g
e

Blvd1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)141841
736811010258162
1273513Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)121964
973081551062716
6201244Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)161736
2122516910611409
1311121335Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)3179
1901
272219217
32414304
1110638Attachment D

Figure 23Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus ProjectAM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectTraffic And Circulation Analysis19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Suva St (NS)/Bluff Rd (EW)2Foster Br i
d
g
e

Blvd2
2 0
1 7
1Suva St (NS)/Scout Ave (EW)1661105
7176352388246
136153Suva St (NS)/Guatemala Ave (EW)1435414
135414132753613
1426924Suva St (NS)/Paramount Blvd (EW)564
2102816399114624
1612831865Foster Bridge Blvd (NS)/Project Dwy (EW)10188 2072
130262187
154283002
500539Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
40 19658

6. FUTURE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

Detailed intersection Level of Service calculation worksheets for each of the following analysis scenarios are provided in Appendix D.

EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE

Table 8 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 8, the study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative conditions, except for the following roadway segment that is forecast to potentially exceed capacity:

 Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street

Although this roadway segment is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, the intersection of Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard (Int. #4) is projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours (see Table 9). Two through lanes along Paramount Boulevard are maintained through the intersection of Suva Street. Thus, since the roadway segment acts as a free-flowing corridor between points of conflict (intersections), and the point of conflict (Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard – Intersection # 4) is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment.

Intersection Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative are shown in Table 9. As shown in Table 9, the study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended.

EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

Table 10 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 10, the study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions, except for the following roadway segment that is forecast to potentially exceed capacity:

 Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street

Improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment even though the roadway segment due to acceptable peak hour operations at the adjacent points of conflict (Suva Street/Paramount Boulevard intersection) as previously described. In addition, the project is forecast to add a relatively negligible number of trips per day along this segment such that no appreciable change in the volume-to-capacity ratio is expected for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Intersection Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project are shown in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, the study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended.

FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
41 19658

For all future conditions evaluated, a traffic signal does not appear to be warranted at the intersection of Suva Street/Guatemala Avenue based on the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3).

41 Attachment D

Lanes Capacity2 Existing
Existing Plus
Ambient
Growth
Cumulative
Existing Plus
Ambient
Growth Plus
Cumulative
Scout Ave to Bluff Road 2 15,000 6,354 6,379 22 6,401 0.43 Acceptable A Bluff Road to Guatemala Ave 2 15,000 11,972 12,020 22 12,042 0.80 Approaches Capacity D Scout Ave West of Suva St 4 36,000 7,036 7,064 0 7,064 0.20 Acceptable A East of Suva St 4 36,000 35,660 35,803 480 36,283 1.01 Potentially Exceeds Capacity F West of Suva St 4 36,000 33,234 33,367 408 33,775 0.94 Approaches Capacity E Foster Bridge Blvd North of Bluff Road 2 15,000 4,094 4,110 0 4,110 0.27 Acceptable A Notes:
(1) See Table 1.
(2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume.
(4) Ambient Growth Rate of 0.2% per year.
(5) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
(6) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1).

Table 8
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Classification
Roadway Segment Standards1
Roadway Segment LOS6Capacity Threshold
Collector
Suva St Collector
Collector
V/C5
ADT3
Ave
Paramount Blvd Major Arterial
Major Arterial
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965842
Attachment D

Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3

1. Suva St at Scout Ave AWS 17.1 C 11.7 B

2. Suva St at Bluff Rd/Foster Bridge Blvd TS 16.0 B 12.8 B

3. Suva St at Guatemala Ave AWS 20.3 29.1 D

4. Suva St at Paramount Blvd TS 20.9 C 38.6 D
Notes:

C
(1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
(2)
(3) LOS = Level of Service
ID Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown.

Table 9
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965843
Attachment D

Lanes Capacity2
Existing Plus
Ambient
Growth Plus
Cumulative4
Project
Existing Plus
Ambient
Growth Plus
Cumulative
Plus Project
Scout Ave to Bluff Road 2 15,000 6,401 52 6,453 0.43 Acceptable A Bluff Road to Guatemala Ave 2 15,000 12,042 73 12,115 0.81 Approaches Capacity D Scout Ave West of Suva St 4 36,000 7,064 50 7,114 0.20 Acceptable A East of Suva St 4 36,000 36,283 50 36,333 1.01 Potentially Exceeds Capacity F West of Suva St 4 36,000 33,775 51 33,826 0.94 Approaches Capacity E Foster Bridge Blvd North of Bluff Road 2 15,000 4,110 151 4,261 0.28 Acceptable A Notes:
(1) See Table 1.
(2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume.
(4) See Table 8.
(5) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
(6) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1).

Classification
Table 10
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Capacity Threshold
Paramount Blvd Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Collector
Suva St Collector
Collector
Ave
SegmentRoadway
Roadway Segment Standards1 ADT3
V/C5 LOS6
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965844
Attachment D

Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3

1. Suva St at Scout Ave AWS 17.4 C 11.8 B

2. Suva St at Bluff Rd/Foster Bridge Blvd TS 16.1 B 12.9 B

3. Suva St at Guatemala Ave AWS 20.7 29.6 D

4. Suva St at Paramount Blvd TS 21.0 C 39.7 D

5. Foster Bridge Blvd at Project Dwy CSS 9.7 9.9 A
Notes:

A
C
(1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop (2)
(3) LOS = Level of Service
Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, Level of Service is based on average delay of the worst minor street approach or major street left turn movement.

Table 11
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus
Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ID Study Intersection
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
1965845
Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
46 19658

7. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

This section includes a description of project improvements necessary to provide site access and an evaluation of site access and circulation.

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

 Construct the Foster Bridge Boulevard (NS) at Project Driveway (EW) (#5) to provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane with eastbound stop-control.

This analysis also assumes the project shall comply with the following conditions as part of the City of Downey standard development review process:

 A construction work site traffic control plan shall comply with State standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit or start of construction. The plan shall identify any roadway, sidewalk, bike route, or bus stop closures and detours as well as haul routes and hours of operation. All construction-related trips shall be restricted to off-peak hours to the extent possible.

 All on-site and off-site roadway design, traffic signing and striping, and traffic control improvements relating to the proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with applicable State/Federal engineering standards and to the satisfaction of the City of Downey.

 Site-adjacent roadways shall be constructed or repaired at their ultimate half-section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, or as otherwise required by the City of Downey.

 Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to the satisfaction of City of Downey.

 Adequate emergency vehicle access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Downey Fire Department.

 The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that sight distance requirements are met in accordance with applicable City of Downey sight distance standards.

46 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
47 19658

8. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

This section provides analysis of the project impacts at County facilities in accordance with typical Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements.

CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CMP

The Los Angeles County 2010 CMP provides the following thresholds for requiring a CMP-compliant traffic impact analysis:

 All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic)

 If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions).

 Mainline freeway monitoring locations were the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.

As previously shown in Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 10 new AM peak hour trips and 13 new PM peak hour trips, which are distributed to/from the project site. The project will not add 50 or more peak hour trips to CMP intersections or 150 or more peak hour trips to the freeway network since the project generates less than this threshold in total during each peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes and no further CMP traffic analysis is warranted.

CMP TRANSIT IMPACT REVIEW

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2010 Congestion Management Program, Appendix D - Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis, utilizes a conversion factor based on the daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation to provide for a transit analysis. The conversion is as follows:

 Multiply the total trips generated by 1.4 to convert vehicle trips to person trips;  For each time period, multiply the result by one of the following factors:

3.5% of Total Person Trips Generated for most cases, except:

10% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 15% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 7% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 9% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 5% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 7% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 0% if no fixed route transit services operate within one mile of the project

Accordingly, the proposed project-generated transit trips are calculated as follows:

 Daily: ((158 trips x 1.4) x 0.035) ≈ 8
 Morning Peak Hour: ((10 trips x 1.4) x 0.035) ≈ 1
 Evening Peak Hour: ((13 trips x 1.4) x 0.035) ≈ 1

47 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
48 19658
The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately one (1) transit trip during the AM and PM peak hour. Based on the existing transit services available in the project vicinity and the relatively low transit trip generation, the proposed project is forecast to have a nominal impact on transit demand.

48 Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised)
49 19658

9. CONCLUSIONS

This section summarizes the findings and mitigation measures (if any) identified in previous sections of this study.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

The existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour.

The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour.

FORECAST LEVELS OF SERVICE

 Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street

Although this roadway segment is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, the intersection of Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard (Int. #4) is projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours (see Table 9). Two through lanes along Paramount Boulevard are maintained through the intersection of Suva Street. Thus, since the roadway segment acts as a free-flowing corridor between points of conflict (intersections), and the point of conflict (Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard – Intersection # 4) is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment.

The study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended.

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

49 Attachment D

APPENDICES

Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Scoping Agreement
Appendix C Volume Count Worksheets
Appendix D Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Graphs
Apx-1
Attachment D

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY
Apx-2
Attachment D

ACRONYMS

AC Acres
ADT Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
DU Dwelling Unit
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
GFA Gross Floor Area
LOS Level of Service
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
SP Service Population
TSF Thousand Square Feet
V/C Volume/Capacity
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

TERMS

ACTUATED SIGNAL CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which display of each phase depends on whether the corresponding phase detector has registered a service call or the phase is on recall.

ACTUATION: Detection of a roadway user that is forwarded to the signal controller.

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The average 24-hour volume for a stated period divided by the number of days in that period. For example, Annual Average Daily Traffic is the total volume during a year divided by 365 days.

BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression.

BOTTLENECK: A point of constriction along a roadway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location.

CALL: An indication within a signal controller that a particular phase is waiting for service, either through actuation from a roadway user or phase recall.

CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass through a roadway facility during a specified period.

CHANNELIZATION: The separation of conflicting traffic movements by use of pavement markings, raised curbs, or other suitable means to facilitate free flow movement.

CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Equal to the yellow plus all-red time, if any, when a traffic signal changes between phases (i.e., the amount of time between the end of a green light from one movement to the beginning of a green light for the next).

COORDINATED SIGNAL CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which non-coordinated phases associated with minor movements are constrained such that the coordinated phases are served at a specific time during the signal cycle, thus maintaining the efficient progression of traffic flow along the major roadway.

CONTROL DELAY: The portion of delay attributed to the intersection traffic control (such as a traffic signal or stop sign). It includes initial deceleration, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.

CORDON: An imaginary boundary line around or across a study area across which vehicles, persons, or other information can be collected for survey and analytical purposes.

Apx-3
Attachment D

CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: The minimum sight distance required by the driver of a vehicle to cross or enter the lanes of the major roadway without requiring approaching traffic traveling at a given speed to radically alter their speed or trajectory.

CYCLE: A complete sequence of signal indications for all phases.

CYCLE LENGTH: The total time for a traffic signal to complete one full cycle.

DAILY CAPACITY: A theoretical value representing the daily traffic volume that will typically result in a peak hour volume equal to the capacity of the roadway.

DELAY: The total additional travel time experienced by a roadway user (driver, passenger, bicyclist, or pedestrian) beyond that required to travel at a desired speed.

DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile.

DETECTOR: A device used to count or determine the presence of a roadway user.

DESIGN SPEED: A speed used for purposes of designing horizontal and vertical alignments of a highway.

DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of two-way traffic traveling in a specified direction.

DIVERSION: The rerouting of traffic from a normal path of travel between two points, such as to avoid congestion or perform a secondary trip.

FREE FLOW: Traffic flow that is unaffected by a traffic control and/or or upstream or downstream conditions.

GAP: Time or distance between two vehicles measured from rear bumper of the front vehicle to front bumper of the second vehicle.

GAP ACCEPTANCE: The method by which a driver accepts an available gap in traffic to enter or cross the road.

HEADWAY: Time or distance between two successive vehicles measured from same point on both vehicles (i.e., front bumper to front bumper).

LEVEL OF SERVICE: A grading scale of quantitative performance measures representing the quality of service of a transportation facility or service from an average traveler’s perspective.

LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle.

MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode, such as automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian.

OFFSET: The time interval between the beginning of a traffic signal cycle at one intersection and the beginning of signal cycle an adjacent intersection.

PLATOON: A set of vehicles traveling at similar speed and moving as a general group with clear separation between other vehicles ahead and behind.

PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT: A metric used to assess the impact of larger vehicles, such as trucks, recreational vehicles, and buses, by converting the traffic volume of larger vehicles to an equivalent number of passenger cars.

Apx-4
Attachment D

PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Also known as the “Flashing Don’t Walk” interval, it signals the end of pedestrian entry into the crosswalk following the “Walk” indication and provides time for pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk to finishing crossing.

PEAK HOUR: The hour within a day in which the maximum volume occurs.

PEAK HOUR FACTOR: The peak hour volume divided by the four times the peak 15-minute flow rate.

PHASE: In traffic signals, the green, yellow, and red clearance intervals assigned to a specified traffic movement.

PRETIMED SIGNAL: A traffic signal operation in which the cycle length, phasing sequence, and phasing times are predetermined and fixed, regardless of actual demand for any given traffic movement. Also known as a fixed time signal.

PROGRESSION: The coordinated movement of vehicles through signalized intersections along a corridor.

QUEUE: The number of vehicles waiting at a service area such as a traffic signal, stop sign, or access gate.

QUEUE LENGTH: The length of vehicle queue, typically expressed in feet, waiting at a service area such as a traffic signal, stop sign, or access gate.

RECALL: A signal phasing operation in which a specified phase places a call to the signal controller each time a conflicting phase is served, thus ensuring the specified phase will be serviced again.

SEMI-ACTUATED CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which only the minor movements are provided detection.

SIGHT DISTANCE: The continuous length of roadway visible to a driver or roadway user.

STACKING DISTANCE: The length of area available behind a service area, such as a traffic signal or gate, for vehicle queuing to occur.

STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: The minimum distance required by the driver of a vehicle traveling at a given speed to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible, including reaction and response time.

TRIP OR TRIP END: The one-directional movement of a person or vehicle. Every trip has an origin and a destination at its respective ends (i.e., trip ends). In terms of site trip generation, the same vehicle entering and exiting a site generates two trips: one inbound trip and one outbound trip.

TRIP GENERATION RATE: The rate at which a land use generates trips per the specified land use variable, such per dwelling unit or per thousand square feet.

TRUCK: A heavy motor vehicle generally used for transporting goods.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED: A measure of the amount and distance of automobile travel essentially calculated as the sum of each trip times the trip length.

Apx-5
Attachment D

APPENDIX B

SCOPING AGREEMENT
Apx-6
Attachment D

transportation ■noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 714 795 3100 | ganddini.com

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
TO: CITY OF DOWNEY
FROM:Bryan Crawford, Senior Transportation Planner | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.

DATE: August 9, 2023
SUBJECT:7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement The purpose of this traffic study scoping document is to outline the proposed traffic analysis parameters and assumptions for review/concurrence by City of Downey staff.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 shows the project location map. The project site is located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in the City of Downey. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan.

The 1.3-acre project site is currently developed with an 8,480 square foot church which is proposed to be demolished. The proposed project involves construction of a new multifamily residential development with a total of 33 dwelling units. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed and fully operational by year 2025.

The project site is proposed to provide one full access driveway on Foster Bridge Boulevard and will have gated entry. An emergency vehicle access only driveway is proposed on Suva Street.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 and Table 2 show the existing land uses and project trip generation for potential church and residential uses based upon trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the ITE land use descriptions, trip generation rates for Church (ITE Land Use Code 560) and Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use Code 220) were determined to adequately represent the existing land use and proposed project and were used for calculating the project trip generation forecasts. The existing land use and project trip generation forecasts were determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantities.

As shown in Table 1, the existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily vehicle trips, including 3 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 4 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.

As shown in Table 2, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily vehicle trips, including 13 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 17 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.

Apx-7
Attachment D

7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement August 9, 2023
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement
2 19370
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily vehicle trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Figure 3 to Figure 5 illustrate the forecast outbound and inbound directional distribution patterns of project- generated trips.

STUDY AREA
Intersections identified for analysis typically include signalized intersections at which a project is forecast to contribute 50 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hours. The proposed project does not generate 50 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hour and would not meet this threshold for intersections in the neighboring City of Bell Gardens. The study area is proposed to consist of the following five (5) study intersections, even if the project may not contribute 50 or more trips during either peak hour.

Study Intersections (Figure 1)

1. Suva Street (NS) at Scout Avenue (EW)

2. Suva Street (NS) at Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard (EW)

3. Suva Street (NS) at Guatemala Avenue (EW)

4. Suva Street (NS) at Paramount Boulevard (EW)

5. Foster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Driveway (EW)
Study Roadway Segments

1. Suva Street, between Scout Avenue and Bluff Road

2. Suva Street, between Bluff Road and Guatemala Avenue

3. Scout Avenue, west of Suva Street

4. Paramount Boulevard, east of Suva Street

5. Paramount Boulevard, west of Suva Street

6. Foster Bridge Boulevard, north of Bluff Road

TRAFFIC COUNTS
New intersection turning movement counts will be obtained at the study intersections during the AM peak period (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) while schools are in session.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The traffic study shall evaluate the following analysis scenarios for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions:
Existing [2023]
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative [2025]
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project [2025] Apx-8
Attachment D

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
To assess the performance of an intersection, the City of Downey uses the intersection delay method based on procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 7th Edition). The methodology considers the traffic volume and distribution of movements, traffic composition, geometric characteristics, and signalization details to calculate the average control delay per vehicle and corresponding Level of Service (LOS). Control delay is defined as the portion of delay attributed to the intersection traffic control (such as a traffic signal or stop sign) and includes initial deceleration, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The intersection control delay is then correlated to Level of Service based on the following thresholds:

Level of Service
Intersection Control Delay (Seconds / Vehicle)
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B > 10.0 to ≤ 20.0 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0
C > 20.0 to ≤ 35.0 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0
D > 35.0 to ≤ 55.0 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0
E > 55.0 to ≤ 80.0 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition).

Level of Service is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from Level of Service A (free-flow conditions) to Level of Service F (extreme congestion and system failure). At intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, Level of Service is determined by the average control delay for the overall intersection. At intersections with cross street stop control (i.e., one- or two-way stop control), Level of Service is determined by the average control delay for the worst individual approach.

The analysis will be performed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, July 23, 2020. Intersection Level of Service analysis shall be performed using the Vistro software.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
City of Downey
The City of Downey General Plan Circulation has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable Level of Service at intersections and roadway segments.

OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS
If a project is forecast to result in a substantial operational deficiency, recommended corrective measures will be identified that would reduce the project’s effect to a level that does not exceed the specified deficiency criteria. Corrective measures can be in many forms, including the construction of physical improvements (e.g., addition of travel lanes, traffic control modifications, etc.) or the implementation of transportation demand management measures.

Apx-9
Attachment D

FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
Ambient Growth Rate
To account for area-wide ambient growth, the Opening Year Conditions will include a 0.2% annual growth for 2 years (total growth factor = 1.004) over the 2023 base volumes. The ambient growth rate is based on Exhibit D-1 (RSA 21) from Appendix D of the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County.

Other Cumulative Projects
A list of pending and approved cumulative development projects will be obtained from the Cities of Downey, Pico Rivera, Commerce, Montebello, and Bell Gardens staff. This list will be narrowed down to include projects within a 1.5-mile radius of the project site.

Trip forecasts for other development projects within the project study area will be determined based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021 and will be added to existing roadway volumes for the Opening Year scenario.

SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
A review of site access and on-site circulation needs will be provided, including site access traffic controls, lane configurations, and recommendations will be provided to maintain adequate circulation.

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Los Angeles County 2010 CMP provides the following thresholds for requiring a CMP-compliant traffic impact analysis:
All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic)
If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). Mainline freeway monitoring locations were the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.

The study area does not include any CMP monitoring intersections, does not contribute 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours, and does not contribute 150 or more peak hour trips to a mainline freeway monitoring location. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes.

VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
A separate VMT screening assessment will be performed for the project.

CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this scoping document for your review. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed scope, please contact Bryan Crawford at (714) 795-3100 x 104 or [email protected].

Apx-10
Attachment D

% In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Church ITE 560 TSF 62% 38% 0.32 44% 56% 0.49 7.60
In Out Total In Out Total
Church 8.480 TSF 2 1 3 2 2 4 64
Notes:
(1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021; ### = Land Use Code (2) TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Trips Generated
Land Use Quantity Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Table 1
Existing Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Source1 Unit2
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Scoping Agreement
19658
Apx-11
Attachment D

% In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) ITE 220 DU 24% 76% 0.40 63% 37% 0.51 6.74 In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise)33 DU 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Table 2
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Source1 Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trips Generated
Land Use Quantity Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Scoping Agreement
19658
Apx-12
Attachment D

In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Land Use1 2 1 3 2 2 4 64
Proposed Project2 3 10 13 11 6 17 222
Net New Trips +1 +9 +10 +9 +4 +13 +158
Notes:
(1) See Table 1
(2) See Table 2
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Table 3
Project Trip Generation Comparison
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Scoping Agreement
19658
Apx-13
Attachment D

Figure 1Project Location Map7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectScoping Agreement19658N1SiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDG E

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T B
LV
D 234Study IntersectionLegend#Project Driveway#5Apx-14Attachment D

Figure 2
Site Plan
7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project
Scoping Agreement
19658
N
Apx-15
Attachment D

Figure 3Existing Trip Distribution7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectScoping Agreement19658NSiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDGE

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
L
V
D 10%5%5%5%5%5%5%40%10%35%30%20%5%10%60%25%10%15% 10%5%45%55%90%40%Percent To/From ProjectLegend10%Apx-16Attachment D

Figure 4Project Trip Distribution7360 Foster Bridge Residential ProjectScoping Agreement19658NSiteSCOUT AVE

FOSTER BRIDG E

BLVDBLUFF RDGUATEMALA AVESUVA STP
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T B
LV
D25%25%50%30%25%5% 20%100%Percent To/From ProjectLegend10%80%Apx-17Attachment D

To: Edwin Norris , Kent Norton , Bob Prasse ,
"Alfonso S. Hernandez"
Edwin,
Attached is the revised scoping agreement based on our meeting earlier today for your review. [Quoted text hidden]
19658sco_2023-0809.pdf
767K
Bryan Crawford Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 6:02 PM
To: Edwin Norris , Kent Norton , Bob Prasse ,
"Alfonso S. Hernandez"
Edwin,
Can I get a status update on the review and approval of the scoping agreement? Specifically the study intersections and roadway segments. Thanks.
[Quoted text hidden]
Edwin Norris Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 11:43 AM
To: Bryan Crawford , Kent Norton , Bob Prasse
, "Alfonso S. Hernandez"
I’ll have a response to you this morning. My apologies for the delay. [Quoted text hidden]
image001.jpg
12K
Edwin Norris Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 3:59 PM
To: Bryan Crawford , Kent Norton , Bob Prasse
, "Alfonso S. Hernandez"
Good afternoon, Bryan – I reviewed the scoping document and my only comment is that the City actually follows the ICU intersection analysis methodology per the LA County CMP guidelines vs. the HCM delay methodology as you indicate on pg. 3 of the document. Otherwise, the document looks fine. Thanks again for the opportunity to review.

Gmail - Downey-Foster Bridge Rd Residential Project No 17005.00 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=62aeb8b5c5&view=pt&search=a ... 7 of 9 10/2/2023, 10:38 PM
Apx-18
Attachment D

Bryan Crawford Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:06 PM
To: Edwin Norris
Cc: Kent Norton , Bob Prasse , "Alfonso S. Hernandez"

Edwin,
The County of Los Angeles no longer uses the ICU methodology as they have converted over to the HCM Methodology for LOS analysis. Per the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 23, 2020), Section 4.1.4.1 - Level of Service and Queueing Methodology:
"Intersection level of service (LOS) and queueing methodologies from the latest edition of the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) should be used to evaluate the operation of the project driveways and nearby intersections. For individual isolated intersection analysis, the use of software packages such as Synchro, Vistro, or HCS that implement the HCM methodologies is acceptable." [Quoted text hidden]
Edwin Norris Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:59 PM
To: Bryan Crawford
Cc: Kent Norton , Bob Prasse , "Alfonso S. Hernandez"

Hi Bryan – understood. Since that is the case, please proceed with the HCM methodology as originally proposed.

Thanks.
[Quoted text hidden]
image001.jpg
12K
Gmail - Downey-Foster Bridge Rd Residential Project No 17005.00 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=62aeb8b5c5&view=pt&search=a ... 9 of 9 10/2/2023, 10:38 PM
Apx-19
Attachment D

APPENDIX C

VOLUME COUNT WORKSHEETS
Apx-20
Attachment D

CITY: Downey PROJECT:

AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB
0:00 0 9 12:00 40 36
0:15 6 3 12:15 43 28
0:30 1 2 12:30 34 35
0:45 1 8 3 17 25 12:45 31 148 36 135 283
1:00 2 5 13:00 37 38
1:15 2 4 13:15 45 37
1:30 2 1 13:30 49 27
1:45 2 8 7 17 25 13:45 50 181 29 131 312
2:00 7 5 14:00 52 37
2:15 6 4 14:15 54 30
2:30 7 1 14:30 84 53
2:45 5 25 2 12 37 14:45 84 274 66 186 460
3:00 4 5 15:00 94 70
3:15 0 3 15:15 83 46
3:30 3 7 15:30 80 62
3:45 4 11 4 19 30 15:45 86 343 60 238 581
4:00 7 12 16:00 78 71
4:15 8 3 16:15 96 63
4:30 9 10 16:30 115 76
4:45 20 44 24 49 93 16:45 106 395 71 281 676
5:00 10 15 17:00 104 74
5:15 27 17 17:15 103 55
5:30 19 24 17:30 96 68
5:45 29 85 33 89 174 17:45 106 409 68 265 674
6:00 13 17 18:00 111 42
6:15 20 20 18:15 83 56
6:30 22 32 18:30 74 54
6:45 32 87 31 100 187 18:45 59 327 39 191 518
7:00 26 47 19:00 56 50
7:15 53 49 19:15 36 38
7:30 69 59 19:30 38 37
7:45 61 209 69 224 433 19:45 29 159 23 148 307
8:00 54 44 20:00 39 25
8:15 35 41 20:15 29 10
8:30 34 40 20:30 26 9
8:45 33 156 35 160 316 20:45 23 117 11 55 172
9:00 30 29 21:00 21 23
9:15 35 26 21:15 21 29
9:30 23 18 21:30 23 21
9:45 18 106 27 100 206 21:45 13 78 15 88 166
10:00 30 40 22:00 14 16
10:15 36 25 22:15 8 10
10:30 34 37 22:30 10 17
10:45 30 130 28 130 260 22:45 2 34 6 49 83
11:00 29 32 23:00 6 9
11:15 33 27 23:15 10 14
11:30 31 42 23:30 10 11
11:45 42 135 33 134 269 23:45 3 29 4 38 67
Total Vol.1004 1051 2055 2494 1805 4299
EB WB Combined
3498 2856 6354
Split %48.9% 51.1%32.3%58.0% 42.0%67.7%
Peak Hour 7:15 7:00 7:15 16:30 16:15 16:15
Volume 237 224 458 428 284 705
P.H.F.0.86 0.81 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.92
Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157
ADT2 Suva east of Scout.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-21
Attachment D

CITY: Downey PROJECT:

AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB
0:00 5 15 12:00 67 68
0:15 6 8 12:15 79 61
0:30 3 6 12:30 78 67
0:45 1 15 9 38 53 12:45 78 302 76 272 574
1:00 2 7 13:00 67 68
1:15 4 5 13:15 79 87
1:30 2 8 13:30 83 61
1:45 2 10 9 29 39 13:45 103 332 64 280 612
2:00 6 7 14:00 107 73
2:15 6 6 14:15 118 65
2:30 8 2 14:30 154 97
2:45 6 26 7 22 48 14:45 132 511 128 363 874
3:00 5 4 15:00 151 122
3:15 1 5 15:15 121 106
3:30 8 10 15:30 136 117
3:45 7 21 5 24 45 15:45 137 545 136 481 1026
4:00 10 12 16:00 142 132
4:15 12 4 16:15 157 142
4:30 17 12 16:30 172 134
4:45 24 63 23 51 114 16:45 170 641 124 532 1173
5:00 17 16 17:00 169 122
5:15 35 22 17:15 170 131
5:30 29 37 17:30 151 135
5:45 27 108 33 108 216 17:45 164 654 131 519 1173
6:00 26 31 18:00 186 92
6:15 38 40 18:15 150 102
6:30 53 58 18:30 121 112
6:45 63 180 69 198 378 18:45 109 566 95 401 967
7:00 60 86 19:00 101 90
7:15 109 83 19:15 80 83
7:30 167 112 19:30 58 74
7:45 148 484 129 410 894 19:45 62 301 61 308 609
8:00 124 101 20:00 67 56
8:15 75 102 20:15 61 42
8:30 81 81 20:30 60 41
8:45 65 345 68 352 697 20:45 44 232 35 174 406
9:00 68 59 21:00 32 42
9:15 63 46 21:15 28 54
9:30 57 50 21:30 45 52
9:45 55 243 56 211 454 21:45 23 128 36 184 312
10:00 56 60 22:00 25 38
10:15 68 57 22:15 17 32
10:30 73 56 22:30 23 31
10:45 71 268 47 220 488 22:45 8 73 18 119 192
11:00 63 54 23:00 8 17
11:15 69 44 23:15 14 23
11:30 57 86 23:30 13 19
11:45 77 266 70 254 520 23:45 6 41 8 67 108
Total Vol.2029 1917 3946 4326 3700 8026
EB WB Combined
6355 5617 11972
Split %51.4% 48.6%33.0%53.9% 46.1%67.0%
Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:15 16:30 15:45 16:30
Volume 548 444 973 681 544 1192
P.H.F.0.82 0.86 0.87 0.99 0.96 0.97
Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157
ADT1 Suva east of Bluff.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-22
Attachment D

CITY: Downey PROJECT:

AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB
0:00 1 5 12:00 43 52
0:15 5 3 12:15 46 27
0:30 5 3 12:30 38 36
0:45 5 16 4 15 31 12:45 51 178 41 156 334
1:00 3 4 13:00 38 48
1:15 3 4 13:15 52 37
1:30 2 3 13:30 61 44
1:45 1 9 9 20 29 13:45 67 218 32 161 379
2:00 6 2 14:00 64 80
2:15 3 2 14:15 57 41
2:30 6 4 14:30 74 60
2:45 5 20 3 11 31 14:45 78 273 73 254 527
3:00 2 5 15:00 90 84
3:15 1 7 15:15 73 58
3:30 5 5 15:30 83 70
3:45 8 16 9 26 42 15:45 83 329 69 281 610
4:00 16 12 16:00 69 63
4:15 7 10 16:15 77 60
4:30 15 22 16:30 87 71
4:45 24 62 35 79 141 16:45 94 327 59 253 580
5:00 20 23 17:00 93 66
5:15 34 25 17:15 79 63
5:30 25 35 17:30 89 66
5:45 35 114 31 114 228 17:45 74 335 74 269 604
6:00 14 26 18:00 77 46
6:15 25 26 18:15 68 60
6:30 28 33 18:30 68 60
6:45 41 108 43 128 236 18:45 44 257 30 196 453
7:00 31 54 19:00 50 54
7:15 51 48 19:15 45 46
7:30 82 81 19:30 52 34
7:45 117 281 100 283 564 19:45 33 180 25 159 339
8:00 70 91 20:00 37 32
8:15 48 52 20:15 35 21
8:30 45 63 20:30 38 23
8:45 44 207 36 242 449 20:45 33 143 23 99 242
9:00 32 32 21:00 35 27
9:15 28 30 21:15 37 26
9:30 26 30 21:30 25 19
9:45 20 106 31 123 229 21:45 20 117 13 85 202
10:00 30 53 22:00 17 14
10:15 42 28 22:15 16 13
10:30 29 40 22:30 12 14
10:45 39 140 31 152 292 22:45 8 53 6 47 100
11:00 28 33 23:00 5 5
11:15 43 34 23:15 17 20
11:30 36 47 23:30 18 10
11:45 44 151 40 154 305 23:45 7 47 7 42 89
Total Vol.1230 1347 2577 2457 2002 4459
NB SB Combined
3687 3349 7036
Split %47.7% 52.3%36.6%55.1% 44.9%63.4%
Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:30 16:45 14:45 16:30
Volume 320 324 641 355 285 612
P.H.F.0.68 0.81 0.74 0.92 0.85 0.96
Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157
ADT2 Scout south of Suva.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-23
Attachment D

CITY: Downey PROJECT:

AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB
0:00 43 83 12:00 211 246
0:15 37 59 12:15 206 236
0:30 26 59 12:30 224 233
0:45 31 137 56 257 394 12:45 194 835 244 959 1794
1:00 32 43 13:00 243 242
1:15 24 34 13:15 182 232
1:30 19 35 13:30 262 223
1:45 19 94 41 153 247 13:45 234 921 235 932 1853
2:00 34 27 14:00 307 264
2:15 40 30 14:15 250 243
2:30 23 27 14:30 307 279
2:45 36 133 25 109 242 14:45 341 1205 313 1099 2304
3:00 31 21 15:00 346 261
3:15 27 19 15:15 294 293
3:30 49 29 15:30 304 313
3:45 48 155 34 103 258 15:45 290 1234 338 1205 2439
4:00 58 37 16:00 335 333
4:15 88 29 16:15 347 378
4:30 112 48 16:30 344 383
4:45 127 385 60 174 559 16:45 315 1341 359 1453 2794
5:00 119 83 17:00 296 379
5:15 165 64 17:15 336 363
5:30 204 98 17:30 291 367
5:45 190 678 104 349 1027 17:45 308 1231 352 1461 2692
6:00 153 113 18:00 303 357
6:15 204 130 18:15 323 362
6:30 225 149 18:30 264 331
6:45 241 823 207 599 1422 18:45 246 1136 277 1327 2463
7:00 310 254 19:00 249 260
7:15 359 314 19:15 235 252
7:30 341 313 19:30 173 257
7:45 316 1326 323 1204 2530 19:45 225 882 196 965 1847
8:00 343 294 20:00 206 144
8:15 251 217 20:15 178 93
8:30 253 249 20:30 182 57
8:45 251 1098 251 1011 2109 20:45 132 698 64 358 1056
9:00 230 172 21:00 165 161
9:15 179 208 21:15 158 162
9:30 210 183 21:30 177 169
9:45 203 822 221 784 1606 21:45 147 647 137 629 1276
10:00 174 218 22:00 138 154
10:15 208 168 22:15 107 130
10:30 208 190 22:30 86 130
10:45 156 746 200 776 1522 22:45 93 424 103 517 941
11:00 203 208 23:00 63 94
11:15 193 207 23:15 64 108
11:30 196 220 23:30 63 92
11:45 205 797 240 875 1672 23:45 58 248 71 365 613
Total Vol.7194 6394 13588 10802 11270 22072
NB SB Combined
17996 17664 35660
Split %52.9% 47.1%38.1%48.9% 51.1%61.9%
Peak Hour 7:15 7:15 7:15 16:00 16:15 16:15
Volume 1359 1244 2603 1341 1499 2801
P.H.F.0.95 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.96
Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157
ADT4 Paramount north of Suva.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-24
Attachment D

CITY: Downey PROJECT:

AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB
0:00 42 76 12:00 196 240
0:15 33 54 12:15 185 232
0:30 23 53 12:30 209 230
0:45 30 128 47 230 358 12:45 186 776 235 937 1713
1:00 27 38 13:00 216 229
1:15 22 29 13:15 180 218
1:30 17 26 13:30 237 229
1:45 15 81 35 128 209 13:45 218 851 234 910 1761
2:00 32 24 14:00 295 254
2:15 32 27 14:15 244 238
2:30 22 25 14:30 292 273
2:45 30 116 19 95 211 14:45 332 1163 343 1108 2271
3:00 28 20 15:00 322 273
3:15 26 16 15:15 271 273
3:30 40 24 15:30 287 306
3:45 42 136 26 86 222 15:45 284 1164 306 1158 2322
4:00 46 29 16:00 318 328
4:15 69 27 16:15 329 369
4:30 96 43 16:30 324 381
4:45 103 314 44 143 457 16:45 281 1252 354 1432 2684
5:00 98 73 17:00 254 359
5:15 135 54 17:15 322 351
5:30 166 85 17:30 279 338
5:45 158 557 90 302 859 17:45 281 1136 346 1394 2530
6:00 132 105 18:00 264 346
6:15 175 119 18:15 273 324
6:30 185 139 18:30 223 303
6:45 205 697 200 563 1260 18:45 210 970 268 1241 2211
7:00 279 241 19:00 220 247
7:15 311 297 19:15 204 254
7:30 329 315 19:30 167 236
7:45 283 1202 352 1205 2407 19:45 209 800 193 930 1730
8:00 312 320 20:00 197 140
8:15 206 231 20:15 156 78
8:30 224 248 20:30 165 59
8:45 202 944 251 1050 1994 20:45 126 644 61 338 982
9:00 203 173 21:00 151 147
9:15 155 206 21:15 148 136
9:30 187 189 21:30 165 156
9:45 174 719 218 786 1505 21:45 139 603 127 566 1169
10:00 156 204 22:00 123 145
10:15 168 169 22:15 102 120
10:30 171 192 22:30 84 116
10:45 137 632 194 759 1391 22:45 93 402 93 474 876
11:00 184 194 23:00 64 87
11:15 172 191 23:15 62 90
11:30 175 219 23:30 63 84
11:45 176 707 232 836 1543 23:45 50 239 69 330 569
Total Vol.6233 6183 12416 10000 10818 20818
NB SB Combined
16233 17001 33234
Split %50.2% 49.8%37.4%48.0% 52.0%62.6%
Peak Hour 7:15 7:15 7:15 15:45 16:15 16:00
Volume 1235 1284 2519 1255 1463 2684
P.H.F.0.94 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.95
Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157
ADT4 Paramount south of Suva.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-25
Attachment D

CITY: Downey PROJECT:

AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB
0:00 2 4 12:00 19 20
0:15 1 4 12:15 32 27
0:30 2 1 12:30 35 25
0:45 0 5 4 13 18 12:45 35 121 20 92 213
1:00 0 2 13:00 25 19
1:15 2 1 13:15 32 30
1:30 0 6 13:30 30 28
1:45 0 2 1 10 12 13:45 44 131 24 101 232
2:00 0 2 14:00 37 35
2:15 0 3 14:15 42 22
2:30 1 2 14:30 44 32
2:45 0 1 1 8 9 14:45 37 160 38 127 287
3:00 1 0 15:00 49 44
3:15 0 2 15:15 25 41
3:30 3 3 15:30 45 41
3:45 2 6 1 6 12 15:45 41 160 55 181 341
4:00 1 1 16:00 51 47
4:15 2 1 16:15 44 55
4:30 1 2 16:30 50 50
4:45 3 7 2 6 13 16:45 53 198 39 191 389
5:00 8 1 17:00 50 43
5:15 3 4 17:15 57 45
5:30 4 11 17:30 42 45
5:45 4 19 8 24 43 17:45 54 203 53 186 389
6:00 6 7 18:00 54 30
6:15 9 15 18:15 50 29
6:30 13 20 18:30 47 32
6:45 21 49 34 76 125 18:45 40 191 34 125 316
7:00 22 28 19:00 37 24
7:15 35 36 19:15 34 31
7:30 50 32 19:30 25 31
7:45 65 172 49 145 317 19:45 25 121 29 115 236
8:00 47 53 20:00 16 21
8:15 28 44 20:15 22 20
8:30 39 28 20:30 23 18
8:45 23 137 30 155 292 20:45 17 78 14 73 151
9:00 26 20 21:00 4 11
9:15 16 16 21:15 8 10
9:30 26 25 21:30 14 16
9:45 22 90 22 83 173 21:45 7 33 15 52 85
10:00 15 14 22:00 5 16
10:15 17 22 22:15 8 18
10:30 25 14 22:30 12 5
10:45 26 83 14 64 147 22:45 1 26 7 46 72
11:00 25 18 23:00 1 6
11:15 22 19 23:15 3 8
11:30 19 31 23:30 1 5
11:45 30 96 29 97 193 23:45 1 6 4 23 29
Total Vol.667 687 1354 1428 1312 2740
EB WB Combined
2095 1999 4094
Split %49.3% 50.7%33.1%52.1% 47.9%66.9%
Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:30 16:30 15:45 15:45
Volume 197 178 368 210 207 393
P.H.F.0.76 0.84 0.81 0.92 0.94 0.98
Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157
ADT1 Foster Bridge west of Bluff.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-26
Attachment D

T218
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157
Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:2
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP ALL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 6 7 18 1 16 3 0 7 7 31 15 1 112 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 6 11 34 6 15 2 3 13 5 28 20 1 144 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 25 12 45 4 26 12 9 20 23 32 27 0 235 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 54 16 47 1 14 32 40 13 44 42 27 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 17 19 34 1 18 5 21 19 38 35 9 0 216 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 14 17 17 3 18 4 3 15 9 25 15 1 141 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 9 15 21 1 11 5 5 12 29 23 16 1 148 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 14 10 20 3 11 0 0 10 10 15 18 2 113 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 145 107 236 20 129 63 81 109 165 231 147 6 1,439 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %30%22%48%9%61%30%23%31%46%60%38%2%
APP/DEPART 488 /194 212 /525 355 /365 384 /355 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 102 58 160 12 73 51 73 65 110 137 83 1 925
APPROACH %32%18%50%9%54%38%29%26%44%62%38%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.684 0.723 0.639 0.801 0.701
APP/DEPART 320 /132 136 /320 248 /237 221 /236 0
4:00 PM 4 19 46 2 11 1 0 30 3 49 22 0 187 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 2 24 51 6 13 0 1 39 7 40 21 2 206 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 8 15 64 5 13 0 1 46 8 50 26 0 236 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 8 30 56 4 14 0 2 46 9 36 32 3 240 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 4 26 63 2 13 2 1 39 10 43 30 1 234 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 3 17 59 2 21 3 3 42 8 34 20 1 213 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 11 16 62 6 10 3 3 29 5 51 15 2 213 0 1 0 0 1
5:45 PM 7 21 46 7 22 4 12 53 11 41 25 2 251 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 47 168 447 34 117 13 23 324 61 344 191 11 1,780 0 1 0 0 1 APPROACH %7%25%68%21%71%8%6%79%15%63%35%2%
APP/DEPART 662 /203 164 /522 408 /804 546 /251 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 23 88 242 13 61 5 7 173 35 163 108 5 923
APPROACH %7%25%69%16%77%6%3%80%16%59%39%2%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.939 0.760 0.943 0.908 0.961
APP/DEPART 353 /100 79 /259 215 /428 276 /136 0
Scout

NORTH SIDE
Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva

SOUTH SIDE
Scout

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Scout
Suva

U-TURNS
Scout Scout Suva Suva
AM7:15 AM
PM4:30 PM
Apx-27
Attachment D

376 76 246 54 TOTAL 397
164 13 117 34 PM 203
212 63 129 20 AM 194
384 546 930 606 251 355 6 11 17 147 191 338 TOTALPMAM231 344 575 104 23 81 AMPMTOTAL433 324 109 226 61 165 365 804 1,169 763 408 355 525 AM 145 107 236 488 522 PM 47 168 447 662
1,047 TOTAL 192 275 683 1,150
215 56 134 25 TOTAL 232
79 5 61 13 PM 100
136 51 73 12 AM 132
221 276 497 372 136 236 1 5 6 83 108 191 TOTALPMAMAM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 137 163 300 80 7 73 #N/A AMPMTOTAL238 173 65 PM 4:30 PM 5:45 PM
145 35 110 237 428 665 463 215 248 320 AM 102 58 160 320 259 PM 23 88 242 353
579 Total 125 146 402 673
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Scout
SuvaSuvaDowney
SC4157

ALL HOURS
Scout
Scout
Scout
SuvaSuvaPEAK HOUR
Apx-28
Attachment D

T218
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157
Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 1 0 1 15 0 1 0 23 2 0 50 8 101 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 52 0 0 44 4 122 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 3 42 0 0 0 72 1 0 66 15 199 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 1 0 0 26 0 1 0 58 1 0 69 14 170 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 1 21 0 1 1 55 2 2 39 9 132 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 35 1 0 41 17 107 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 1 9 0 1 1 33 0 0 33 20 98 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 3 0 1 11 0 0 1 32 1 1 30 8 88 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 6 0 7 159 0 4 3 360 8 3 372 95 1,017 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %46%0%54%98%0%2%1%97%2%1%79%20%
APP/DEPART 13 /98 163 /11 371 /526 470 /382 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 2 0 4 111 0 2 1 237 4 2 218 42 623
APPROACH %33%0%67%98%0%2%0%98%2%1%83%16%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.673 0.829 0.789 0.783
APP/DEPART 6 /43 113 /6 242 /352 262 /222 0
4:00 PM 1 0 0 13 0 0 1 80 0 0 67 18 180 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 92 0 0 70 17 201 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 15 0 0 2 108 0 0 67 18 210 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 107 2 0 69 18 209 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 13 0 2 3 105 1 0 69 10 204 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 1 9 0 1 3 105 0 0 54 34 207 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 11 0 1 1 98 1 0 75 16 203 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 97 1 1 64 14 193 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 1 0 3 110 0 5 10 792 5 1 535 145 1,607 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %25%0%75%96%0%4%1%98%1%0%79%21%
APP/DEPART 4 /155 115 /6 807 /905 681 /541 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 2 50 0 3 8 425 3 0 259 80 830
APPROACH %0%0%100%94%0%6%2%97%1%0%76%24%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.883 0.991 0.963 0.988
APP/DEPART 2 /88 53 /3 436 /477 339 /262 0
Bluff

NORTH SIDE
Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva

SOUTH SIDE
Bluff

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Bluff
Suva

U-TURNS
Bluff Bluff Suva Suva
AM7:15 AM
PM4:30 PM
Apx-29
Attachment D

278 9 0 269 TOTAL 253
115 5 0 110 PM 155
163 4 0 159 AM 98
470 681 1,151 923 541 382 95 145 240 372 535 907 TOTALPMAM3 1 4 13 10 3 AMPMTOTAL1,152 792 360 13 5 8 526 905 1,431 1,178 807 371 11 AM 6 0 7 13 6 PM 1 0 3 4
17 TOTAL 7 0 10 17
166 5 0 161 TOTAL 131
53 3 0 50 PM 88
113 2 0 111 AM 43
262 339 601 484 262 222 42 80 122 218 259 477 TOTALPMAMAM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 2 0 2 9 8 1 #N/A AMPMTOTAL662 425 237 PM 4:30 PM 5:45 PM
7 3 4 352 477 829 678 436 242 6 AM 2 0 4 6
3 PM 0 0 2 2
9 Total 2 0 6 8
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Bluff
SuvaSuvaDowney
SC4157

ALL HOURS
Bluff
Bluff
Bluff
SuvaSuvaPEAK HOUR
Apx-30
Attachment D

T218
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157
Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 28 0 49 0 0 1 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 0 0 35 0 71 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 31 0 81 0 0 0 1 1
7:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 64 0 0 46 0 113 0 0 1 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 47 0 0 51 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 0 0 44 0 72 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 38 0 0 28 0 67 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 21 0 0 29 0 52 0 0 1 0 1
VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 0 6 3 303 0 0 292 0 609 0 0 3 1 4
APPROACH %100%0%0%0%0%100%1%98%0%0%100%0%
APP/DEPART 1 /3 6 /0 309 /304 293 /302 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 188 0 0 172 0 368
APPROACH %100%0%0%0%0%100%1%99%0%0%99%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.500 0.731 0.848 0.807
APP/DEPART 1 /1 4 /0 190 /189 173 /178 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 0 47 0 97 0 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 0 0 55 0 99 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 49 0 98 0 0 1 1 2
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 50 0 0 37 0 91 0 0 1 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 43 0 93 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 55 0 0 43 0 99 0 0 2 1 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 42 0 0 44 0 87 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 52 0 106 0 0 0 1 1
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 390 0 0 370 0 778 0 0 5 3 8
APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%100%1%97%0%0%99%0%
APP/DEPART 0 /6 4 /0 401 /393 373 /379 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 199 0 0 182 0 389
APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%100%1%98%0%0%99%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.250 0.890 0.836 0.909
APP/DEPART 0 /2 2 /0 203 /201 184 /186 0
Bluff

NORTH SIDE
Foster Bridge WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foster Bridge

SOUTH SIDE
BluffAM7:30 AM
PM5:00 PM

U-TURNS
Bluff Bluff Foster Bridge Foster Bridge

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Bluff
Foster Bridge
Apx-31
Attachment D

10 10 0 0 TOTAL 9
4 4 0 0 PM 6
6 6 0 0 AM 3
293 373 666 681 379 302 0 0 0 292 370 662 TOTALPMAM0 0 0 9 6 3 AMPMTOTAL693 390 303 0 0 0 304 393 697 710 401 309 0 AM 1 0 0 1 0 PM 0 0 0 0
0 TOTAL 1 0 0 1
6 6 0 0 TOTAL 3
2 2 0 0 PM 2
4 4 0 0 AM 1
173 184 357 364 186 178 0 0 0 172 182 354 TOTALPMAMAM 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 0 0 0 3 2 1 #N/A AMPMTOTAL387 199 188 PM 5:00 PM 5:45 PM
0 0 0 189 201 390 393 203 190 0 AM 1 0 0 1
0 PM 0 0 0 0
0 Total 1 0 0 1
Bluff
Bluff
Bluff
Foster BridgeFoster BridgePEAK HOUR
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Bluff
Foster BridgeFoster BridgeDowney
SC4157

ALL HOURS
Apx-32
Attachment D

T218
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157
Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:3
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP ALL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 13 4 1 1 4 25 5 42 17 1 44 2 159 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 15 5 3 0 2 26 17 61 25 0 49 0 203 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 27 5 3 1 5 31 16 95 45 4 48 0 280 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 31 5 4 0 11 49 38 85 42 2 45 2 314 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 33 12 3 3 2 18 26 60 42 6 51 2 258 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 29 7 1 0 5 17 16 43 14 6 53 0 191 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 29 2 3 1 3 15 9 48 25 3 38 1 177 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 16 5 2 0 4 15 9 43 13 2 37 1 147 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 193 45 20 6 36 196 136 477 223 24 365 8 1,729 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %75%17%8%3%15%82%16%57%27%6%92%2%
APP/DEPART 258 /189 238 /283 836 /503 397 /754 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 106 27 13 4 20 124 97 301 154 12 193 4 1,055
APPROACH %73%18%9%3%14%84%18%55%28%6%92%2%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.760 0.617 0.836 0.886 0.840
APP/DEPART 146 /128 148 /186 552 /318 209 /423 0
4:00 PM 21 8 1 3 1 22 37 87 23 1 106 1 311 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 31 6 3 0 4 16 31 81 40 2 93 0 307 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 15 8 3 0 5 27 29 112 38 1 89 1 328 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 17 6 5 8 8 26 26 106 30 5 82 5 324 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 12 13 2 4 7 15 47 97 32 3 91 1 324 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 31 9 2 2 6 24 32 95 31 3 83 5 323 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 24 10 4 2 4 14 35 96 32 5 91 2 319 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 30 5 3 1 5 17 18 104 31 4 88 2 308 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 181 65 23 20 40 161 255 778 257 24 723 17 2,544 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %67%24%9%9%18%73%20%60%20%3%95%2%
APP/DEPART 269 /337 221 /321 1,290 /821 764 /1,065 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 75 36 12 14 26 92 134 410 131 12 345 12 1,299
APPROACH %61%29%10%11%20%70%20%61%19%3%93%3%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.732 0.786 0.943 0.971 0.990
APP/DEPART 123 /182 132 /169 675 /436 369 /512 0
Guatemala

NORTH SIDE
Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva

SOUTH SIDE
Guatemala

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Guatemala
Suva

U-TURNS
Guatemala Guatemala Suva Suva
AM7:15 AM
PM4:30 PM
Apx-33
Attachment D

459 357 76 26 TOTAL 526
221 161 40 20 PM 337
238 196 36 6 AM 189
397 764 1,161 1,819 1,065 754 8 17 25 365 723 1,088 TOTALPMAM24 24 48 391 255 136 AMPMTOTAL1,255 778 477 480 257 223 503 821 1,324 2,126 1,290 836 283 AM 193 45 20 258 321 PM 181 65 23 269
604 TOTAL 374 110 43 527
280 216 46 18 TOTAL 310
132 92 26 14 PM 182
148 124 20 4 AM 128
209 369 578 935 512 423 4 12 16 193 345 538 TOTALPMAMAM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 12 12 24 231 134 97 #N/A AMPMTOTAL711 410 301 PM 4:30 PM 5:45 PM
285 131 154 318 436 754 1,227 675 552 186 AM 106 27 13 146 169 PM 75 36 12 123
355 Total 181 63 25 269
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Guatemala
SuvaSuvaDowney
SC4157

ALL HOURS
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
SuvaSuvaPEAK HOUR
Apx-34
Attachment D

T218
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157
Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:4
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 14 263 2 1 227 26 40 1 11 3 4 7 599 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 20 291 0 2 269 43 58 3 24 3 4 9 726 1 1 0 0 2
7:30 AM 35 292 2 2 271 40 45 4 41 3 3 4 742 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 25 254 4 1 290 32 52 11 54 8 5 10 746 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 25 284 3 8 270 16 45 7 48 2 5 11 724 0 3 0 0 3
8:15 AM 9 194 3 3 197 17 51 6 32 2 0 5 519 0 1 0 0 1
8:30 AM 15 208 1 2 230 17 39 1 15 1 1 5 535 2 1 0 0 3
8:45 AM 7 194 1 1 231 19 53 2 19 1 4 4 536 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 150 1,980 16 20 1,985 210 383 35 244 23 26 55 5,127 3 6 0 0 9 APPROACH %7%92%1%1%90%9%58%5%37%22%25%53%
APP/DEPART 2,146 /2,424 2,215 /2,255 662 /65 104 /383 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 105 1,121 9 13 1,100 131 200 25 167 16 17 34 2,938 APPROACH %9%91%1%1%88%11%51%6%43%24%25%51%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.938 0.963 0.838 0.728 0.985
APP/DEPART 1,235 /1,359 1,244 /1,284 392 /43 67 /252 0
4:00 PM 23 288 7 4 284 45 45 6 44 0 2 2 750 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 24 301 4 4 328 46 44 5 39 2 3 2 802 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 26 295 3 2 337 44 49 10 40 1 0 0 807 3 0 0 0 3
4:45 PM 23 248 10 4 314 41 67 7 38 2 1 0 755 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 11 239 4 4 327 48 54 12 30 1 2 3 735 1 0 0 0 1
5:15 PM 38 279 5 6 323 34 54 10 24 3 0 3 779 1 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 23 245 11 6 308 53 40 6 29 1 1 6 729 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 24 250 7 4 314 34 55 9 30 1 0 3 731 1 0 0 0 1
VOLUMES 192 2,145 51 34 2,535 345 408 65 274 11 9 19 6,088 6 0 0 0 6 APPROACH %8%90%2%1%87%12%55%9%37%28%23%49%
APP/DEPART 2,388 /2,572 2,914 /2,826 747 /150 39 /540 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 96 1,132 24 14 1,263 176 205 28 161 5 6 4 3,114 APPROACH %8%90%2%1%87%12%52%7%41%33%40%27%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.951 0.948 0.879 0.536 0.965
APP/DEPART 1,252 /1,341 1,453 /1,432 394 /66 15 /275 0
Paramount

NORTH SIDE
Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva

SOUTH SIDE
Paramount

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Paramount
Suva

U-TURNS
Paramount Paramount Suva Suva
AM7:15 AM
PM4:00 PM
Apx-35
Attachment D

5,129 555 4,520 54 TOTAL 4,996
2,914 345 2,535 34 PM 2,572
2,215 210 1,985 20 AM 2,424
104 39 143 923 540 383 55 19 74 26 9 35 TOTALPMAM23 11 34 791 408 383 AMPMTOTAL100 65 35 518 274 244 65 150 215 1,409 747 662 2,255 AM 150 1,980 16 2,146 2,826 PM 192 2,145 51 2,388
5,081 TOTAL 342 4,125 67 4,534
2,697 307 2,363 27 TOTAL 2,700
1,453 176 1,263 14 PM 1,341
1,244 131 1,100 13 AM 1,359
67 15 82 527 275 252 34 4 38 17 6 23 TOTALPMAMAM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 16 5 21 405 205 200 #N/A AMPMTOTAL53 28 25 PM 4:00 PM 5:45 PM
328 161 167 43 66 109 786 394 392 1,284 AM 105 1,121 9 1,235 1,432 PM 96 1,132 24 1,252
2,716 Total 201 2,253 33 2,487
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Paramount
SuvaSuvaDowney
SC4157

ALL HOURS
Paramount
Paramount
Paramount
SuvaSuvaPEAK HOUR
Apx-36
Attachment D

APPENDIX D

LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
Apx-37
Attachment D

EXISTING
Apx-38
Attachment D

Intersection Analysis Summary
10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\AME.pdf
Scenario 1 Existing AM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\AME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

C20.80.705WB RightHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount
Blvd (EW)4
C19.60.822SB ThruHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala
Ave (EW)3
B15.90.632SWB ThruHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2
C16.90.628SB RightHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave
(EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-39
Attachment D

0.628Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

16.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
731041722883146157931041118195Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1826457213639232603049Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.7010Peak Hour Factor 517312160581021106573183137Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 517312160581021106573183137Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20232
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-40
Attachment D

CIntersection LOS

16.90Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BCCCApproach LOS

12.1515.3519.5619.10Approach Delay [s/veh]

17.8419.7850.2363.80108.6695.1095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.710.792.012.554.353.8095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.190.210.410.480.630.59Degree of Utilization, x
499459554477564532Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/20233
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-41
Attachment D

0.632Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

15.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20234
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-42
Attachment D

000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
5031530311220542783Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1010176005513701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 4021423711172422182Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 4021423711172422182Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20235
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-43
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050005000050Walk [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 019000190000190Split [s]

0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
012000012000001200Maximum Green [s]
010000100000100Minimum Green [s]
------------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
040006000020Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/20236
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-44
Attachment D

3.5299.83219.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.143.998.7995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

1.9655.46127.2350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.082.225.0950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesCritical Lane Group
BBBLane Group LOS

16.4611.7315.83d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.020.400.77X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.020.341.80d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.11k, delay calibration

16.4311.4014.03d1, Uniform Delay [s]
412773719c, Capacity [veh/h]
169918641720s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.010.170.32(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.180.370.37g / C, Green / Cycle
91818g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
484848C, Cycle Length [s]
CCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/20237
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-45
Attachment D

ABBBicycle LOS

1.5702.0692.112I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection

11.5511.5511.55d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
619619619c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS

1.6951.9312.391I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection

16.0716.0716.07d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
Other Modes

0.632Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS

15.94d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBApproach LOS

16.4611.7315.83d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS

16.4616.4616.4616.4611.7311.7311.7311.7315.8315.8315.8315.83d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
10/13/20238
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-46
Attachment D

YesYesCrosswalk
NoNoCurb Present

0.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.00Speed [mph]

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
SouthwestboundWestboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20239
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-47
Attachment D

00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
402401530142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1060011035Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 301881420111Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 301881420111Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202310
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-48
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoMinimum Recall

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
00500050Walk [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0022000190Split [s]

0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
001200001200Maximum Green [s]
0010000100Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
001000080Signal Group
PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202311
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-49
Attachment D

112.4664.8795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

4.502.5995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

62.4836.0450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.501.4450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
YesYesCritical Lane Group
BBLane Group LOS

19.9618.45d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.660.36X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

2.020.53d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.11k, delay calibration

17.9517.92d1, Uniform Delay [s]
371415c, Capacity [veh/h]
18641510s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.130.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.200.18g / C, Green / Cycle
109g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
4848C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202312
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-50
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45 19.96 19.96 19.96 19.96 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.45 19.96
Approach LOS B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]15.94
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.632
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]16.07 16.07
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.837 1.817 Crosswalk LOS A A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]619 743
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.55 9.57
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.799 1.957 Bicycle LOS A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------86Ring 2
-------------1042Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202313
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-51
Attachment D

0.822Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

19.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1482451532126183358115523014Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 376148324690291574Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.8400Peak Hour Factor 124204132710615430197419312Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 124204132710615430197419312Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202314
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-52
Attachment D

CIntersection LOS

19.60Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBDBApproach LOS

11.9613.0625.5613.87Approach Delay [s/veh]

32.2935.2628.02209.4453.9795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

1.291.411.128.382.1695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.310.330.280.820.43Degree of Utilization, x
578529664575578Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/202315
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-53
Attachment D

0.705Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

20.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/202316
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-54
Attachment D

0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1331117139113810717025203351716Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 33279322852742651944Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.9850Peak Hour Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name
Volumes
10/13/202317
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-55
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050050050050Walk [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s]

0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s]
0107010701000100Minimum Green [s]
--Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
047083020060Signal Group
PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
65Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202318
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-56
Attachment D

336.39343.343.29246.06246.5128.71239.6931.3995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

13.4613.730.139.849.861.159.591.2695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 215.90221.341.83146.73147.0715.95141.9817.4450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

8.648.850.075.875.880.645.680.7050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group
CCABBBCBLane Group LOS

25.7925.379.8115.9215.9112.8223.0814.45d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.930.920.040.700.700.260.640.11X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

6.125.740.041.111.100.335.030.33d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration

19.6719.649.7714.8114.8112.4918.0614.11d1, Uniform Delay [s] 664689362817819414621640c, Capacity [veh/h]
180118706231865187075915151613s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.340.340.020.310.310.140.260.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.370.370.520.440.440.520.350.35g / C, Green / Cycle
2424342929342323g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202319
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-57
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.45 14.45 14.45 23.08 23.08 23.08 12.82 15.92 15.92 9.81 25.55 25.79 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.45 23.08 15.65 25.42
Approach LOS B C B C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]20.75
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.705
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.755 2.027 2.972 3.260 Crosswalk LOS A B C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.94 12.94
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.672 2.216 2.594 2.602 Bicycle LOS A B B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202320
Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-58
Attachment D

Intersection Analysis Summary
10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\PME.pdf
Scenario 1 Existing PM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\PME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

C34.60.781WB RightHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount
Blvd (EW)4
D28.00.934SB ThruHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala
Ave (EW)3
B12.80.485WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2
B11.60.444NB LeftHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave
(EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-59
Attachment D

0.444Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

11.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
5631425292243618075112170Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
116363236945212842Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.9610Peak Hour Factor 5611324288233517375108163Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5611324288233517375108163Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20232
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-60
Attachment D

BIntersection LOS

11.60Intersection Delay [s/veh]
ABBBApproach LOS

9.8611.1211.3112.95Approach Delay [s/veh]

5.966.2244.3718.6437.6757.0695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.240.251.770.751.512.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.070.080.380.200.340.44Degree of Utilization, x
555533664577655646Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/20233
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-61
Attachment D

0.485Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

12.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20234
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-62
Attachment D

000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
200034308317482620Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1000110821442660Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 200034258317282590Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 200034258317282590Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20235
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-63
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050005000050Walk [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 020000210000210Split [s]

0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/20236
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-64
Attachment D

0.62123.14127.8995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.024.935.1295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

0.3468.4171.0550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.012.742.8450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesCritical Lane Group
BBBLane Group LOS

14.4512.3212.93d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.010.640.69X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.010.991.34d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.11k, delay calibration

14.4411.3311.59d1, Uniform Delay [s]
266693643c, Capacity [veh/h]
141418631712s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.000.240.26(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.120.320.32g / C, Green / Cycle
41212g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
373737C, Cycle Length [s]
CCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/20237
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-65
Attachment D

ABBBicycle LOS

1.5632.2792.005I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection

6.015.455.45d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
862916916c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS

1.6691.9572.198I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection

10.6510.6510.65d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
Other Modes

0.485Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS

12.80d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBApproach LOS

14.4512.3212.93d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS

14.4514.4514.4514.4512.3212.3212.3212.3212.9312.9312.9312.93d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
10/13/20238
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-66
Attachment D

YesYesCrosswalk
NoNoCurb Present

0.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
SouthwestboundWestboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20239
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-67
Attachment D

00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
50201223051Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1050111013Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 50199223050Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 50199223050Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202310
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-68
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoMinimum Recall

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
00500050Walk [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0019000200Split [s]

0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202311
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-69
Attachment D

58.9317.5595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.360.7095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

32.749.7550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

1.310.3950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
YesYesCritical Lane Group
BBLane Group LOS

12.9215.06d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.470.15X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.770.18d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.11k, delay calibration

12.1514.88d1, Uniform Delay [s]
444375c, Capacity [veh/h]
18611586s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.110.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.240.12g / C, Green / Cycle
94g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
3737C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202312
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-70
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 12.92 12.92 12.92 12.92 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.06 12.92
Approach LOS B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]12.80
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.485
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]10.65 10.65
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.780 1.772 Crosswalk LOS A A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]862 808
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]6.01 6.59
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.649 1.895 Bicycle LOS A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------86Ring 2
-------------1042Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202313
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-71
Attachment D

0.934Volume to Capacity (v/c):

DLevel Of Service:

28.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
9326141236761324141351234812Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2374391933104343873Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.9900Peak Hour Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202314
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-72
Attachment D

DIntersection LOS

28.04Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBECApproach LOS

11.7612.3939.5518.01Approach Delay [s/veh]

23.8723.8117.86303.14104.8495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.950.950.7112.134.1995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.240.240.190.930.62Degree of Utilization, x
544507680588605Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/202315
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-73
Attachment D

0.781Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

34.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/202316
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-74
Attachment D

0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1821309152511739916729212465Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 46327462932542753121Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.9650Peak Hour Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202317
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-75
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050050050050Walk [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s]

0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
65Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202318
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-76
Attachment D

580.72564.633.63252.99254.1625.33254.586.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

23.2322.590.1510.1210.171.0110.180.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 393.94384.832.02151.92152.8014.07153.123.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

15.7615.390.086.086.110.566.120.1550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group
FFABBBCBLane Group LOS

57.0151.749.6015.7415.7313.2024.9814.31d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

1.071.050.040.720.720.250.670.03X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

37.0031.730.051.171.160.335.910.08d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration

20.0120.019.5614.5714.5712.8719.0714.23d1, Uniform Delay [s] 689719363833839393605600c, Capacity [veh/h]
179218706061856187067415281542s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.410.400.020.320.320.150.270.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.390.390.540.450.450.540.340.34g / C, Green / Cycle
2525352929352222g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202319
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-77
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.31 14.31 14.31 24.98 24.98 24.98 13.20 15.73 15.74 9.60 53.96 57.01 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A D E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.31 24.98 15.54 53.89
Approach LOS B C B D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]34.63
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.781
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.744 2.041 3.014 3.339 Crosswalk LOS A B C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.93 12.93
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.584 2.233 2.630 2.802 Bicycle LOS A B B C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202320
Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-78
Attachment D

EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE
Apx-79
Attachment D

Intersection Analysis Summary
10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\AMEAC.pdf
Scenario 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour
Vistro File: G:\...\AME.vistro
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

C20.90.716WB RightHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount
Blvd (EW)4
C20.30.835SB ThruHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala
Ave (EW)3
B16.00.634SWB ThruHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2
C17.10.637SB RightHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave
(EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-80
Attachment D

0.637Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

17.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
731041723083146157971041118197Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1826457213639242603049Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.7010Peak Hour Factor 517312161581021106873183138Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000030000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 517312160581021106573183137Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20232
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-81
Attachment D

CIntersection LOS

17.15Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BCCCApproach LOS

12.2115.4820.0019.38Approach Delay [s/veh]

17.9519.8951.1064.45112.1397.0495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.720.802.042.584.493.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.200.210.420.480.640.60Degree of Utilization, x
497456551475562529Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/20233
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-82
Attachment D

0.634Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

16.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20234
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-83
Attachment D

000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
5031530811221542803Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1010177005513701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 4021424111173422192Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000003000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 4021423711172422182Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20235
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-84
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050005000050Walk [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 019000190000190Split [s]

0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/20236
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-85
Attachment D

3.54101.85221.2395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.144.078.8595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

1.9756.58128.3350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.082.265.1350th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesCritical Lane Group
BBBLane Group LOS

16.5211.7515.85d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.020.410.77X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.020.341.81d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.11k, delay calibration

16.5011.4114.04d1, Uniform Delay [s]
411775721c, Capacity [veh/h]
169918641721s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.010.170.32(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.180.380.38g / C, Green / Cycle
91818g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
494949C, Cycle Length [s]
CCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/20237
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-86
Attachment D

ABBBicycle LOS

1.5702.0782.116I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection

11.6211.6211.62d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
617617617c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS

1.6951.9342.395I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection

16.1416.1416.14d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
Other Modes

0.634Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS

15.97d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBApproach LOS

16.5211.7515.85d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS

16.5216.5216.5216.5211.7511.7511.7511.7515.8515.8515.8515.85d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
10/13/20238
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-87
Attachment D

YesYesCrosswalk
NoNoCurb Present

0.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
SouthwestboundWestboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20239
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-88
Attachment D

00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
402411530142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1060011035Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 301891420111Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 301881420111Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202310
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-89
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoMinimum Recall

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
00500050Walk [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0022000190Split [s]

0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202311
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-90
Attachment D

113.6265.1895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

4.542.6195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

63.1236.2150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.521.4550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
YesYesCritical Lane Group
CBLane Group LOS

20.0918.52d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.660.36X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

2.060.53d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.11k, delay calibration

18.0317.99d1, Uniform Delay [s]
370414c, Capacity [veh/h]
18641510s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.130.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.200.18g / C, Green / Cycle
109g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
4949C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202312
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-91
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.52 18.52 18.52 18.52 20.09 20.09 20.09 20.09 Movement LOS B B B B C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.52 20.09
Approach LOS B C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]15.97
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.634
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]16.14 16.14
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.838 1.818 Crosswalk LOS A A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]617 741
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.62 9.64
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.799 1.959 Bicycle LOS A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------86Ring 2
-------------1042Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202313
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-92
Attachment D

0.835Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

20.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1482471932126185363115523114Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 376258324691291584Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.8400Peak Hour Factor 124206162710615530597419412Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
002300030000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 124204132710615430197419312Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202314
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-93
Attachment D

CIntersection LOS

20.27Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBDBApproach LOS

12.1113.2226.7114.04Approach Delay [s/veh]

33.1836.6128.68218.4054.9995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

1.331.461.158.742.2095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.310.340.280.840.44Degree of Utilization, x
573528659572573Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/202315
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-94
Attachment D

0.716Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

20.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/202316
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-95
Attachment D

0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1341129139115710717125212371716Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 34282322892743653944Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.9850Peak Hour Factor 1321112139114010516825209361716Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0800150008200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name
Volumes
10/13/202317
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-96
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050050050050Walk [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s]

0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
65Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202318
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-97
Attachment D

340.54347.243.27249.68250.1228.50248.6532.5195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

13.6213.890.139.9910.001.149.951.3095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 219.15224.411.81149.44149.7715.83148.6718.0650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

8.778.980.075.985.990.635.950.7250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group
CCABBBCBLane Group LOS

25.9925.539.8415.9415.9412.8523.8514.58d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.930.930.040.710.710.260.660.11X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

6.355.930.041.141.140.335.500.35d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration

19.6319.609.8014.8014.8012.5218.3514.23d1, Uniform Delay [s] 668694359822824413617638c, Capacity [veh/h]
180118706141865187075415141618s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.340.340.020.310.310.140.270.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.370.370.530.440.440.530.350.35g / C, Green / Cycle
2424342929342323g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202319
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-98
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.58 14.58 14.58 23.85 23.85 23.85 12.85 15.94 15.94 9.84 25.73 25.99 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.58 23.85 15.68 25.59
Approach LOS B C B C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]20.93
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.716
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.756 2.032 2.981 3.284 Crosswalk LOS A B C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.94 12.94
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.675 2.233 2.610 2.612 Bicycle LOS A B B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202320
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-99
Attachment D

Intersection Analysis Summary
10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\PMEAC.pdf
Scenario 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour
Vistro File: G:\...\PME.vistro
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

D38.60.795WB RightHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount
Blvd (EW)4
D29.10.945SB ThruHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala
Ave (EW)3
B12.80.488WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2
B11.70.450NB LeftHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave
(EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-100
Attachment D

0.450Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

11.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
5631425392243618275114171Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
116363236946212943Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.9610Peak Hour Factor 5611324388233517575110164Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000010020Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5611324288233517375108163Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20232
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-101
Attachment D

BIntersection LOS

11.68Intersection Delay [s/veh]
ABBBApproach LOS

9.8811.1711.3813.06Approach Delay [s/veh]

5.986.2444.8518.7038.2958.2395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.240.251.790.751.532.3395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.070.080.380.200.340.45Degree of Utilization, x
553532662576653645Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/20233
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-102
Attachment D

0.488Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

12.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20234
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-103
Attachment D

000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
200034338317582650Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1000110821442660Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 200034288317382620Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000001000020Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 200034258317282590Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20235
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-104
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050005000050Walk [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 020000210000210Split [s]

0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/20236
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-105
Attachment D

0.62124.49129.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.024.985.1995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

0.3469.1672.0750th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.012.772.8850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesCritical Lane Group
BBBLane Group LOS

14.5212.3312.95d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.010.640.69X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.010.991.35d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.11k, delay calibration

14.5111.3411.60d1, Uniform Delay [s]
266697646c, Capacity [veh/h]
141818631712s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.000.240.26(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.120.320.32g / C, Green / Cycle
41212g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
373737C, Cycle Length [s]
CCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/20237
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-106
Attachment D

ABBBicycle LOS

1.5632.2842.010I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection

6.085.525.52d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
858912912c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS

1.6691.9602.201I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection

10.7310.7310.73d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
Other Modes

0.488Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS

12.83d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBApproach LOS

14.5212.3312.95d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS

14.5214.5214.5214.5212.3312.3312.3312.3312.9512.9512.9512.95d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
10/13/20238
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-107
Attachment D

YesYesCrosswalk
NoNoCurb Present

0.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
SouthwestboundWestboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20239
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-108
Attachment D

00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
50202223051Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1051111013Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 50200223050Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 50199223050Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202310
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-109
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoMinimum Recall

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
00500050Walk [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0019000200Split [s]

0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202311
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-110
Attachment D

59.7317.6695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.390.7195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

33.189.8150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

1.330.3950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
YesYesCritical Lane Group
BBLane Group LOS

13.0115.14d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.470.15X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.780.18d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.11k, delay calibration

12.2314.96d1, Uniform Delay [s]
443374c, Capacity [veh/h]
18611586s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.110.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.240.12g / C, Green / Cycle
94g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
3737C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202312
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-111
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 13.01 13.01 13.01 13.01 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.14 13.01
Approach LOS B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]12.83
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.488
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]10.73 10.73
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.781 1.773 Crosswalk LOS A A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]858 805
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]6.08 6.66
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.649 1.896 Bicycle LOS A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------86Ring 2
-------------1042Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202313
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-112
Attachment D

0.945Volume to Capacity (v/c):

DLevel Of Service:

29.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
9326141336761334171361435214Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2374391933104344884Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.9900Peak Hour Factor 9226141336751324131351434814Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000100010222Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202314
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-113
Attachment D

DIntersection LOS

29.12Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBECApproach LOS

11.8512.4841.3118.61Approach Delay [s/veh]

24.0924.2318.13312.89110.4995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.960.970.7312.524.4295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.250.250.200.940.63Degree of Utilization, x
539504677586602Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/202315
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-114
Attachment D

0.795Volume to Capacity (v/c):

DLevel Of Service:

38.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/202316
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-115
Attachment D

0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1901330172511889916829216465Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 47332462972542754121Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.9650Peak Hour Factor 1831283162411469616228208465Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
6152090002000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202317
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-116
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050050050050Walk [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s]

0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
65Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202318
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-117
Attachment D

640.95619.104.12258.77259.9325.33258.676.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

25.6424.760.1610.3510.401.0110.350.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 435.19422.452.29156.27157.1414.07156.193.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

17.4116.900.096.256.290.566.250.1550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group
FFABBBCBLane Group LOS

65.7159.269.7416.0716.0513.2125.2814.31d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

1.091.070.050.730.730.250.680.03X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

45.7039.250.051.261.250.336.130.08d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration

20.0120.019.6914.8114.8112.8719.1614.23d1, Uniform Delay [s] 688719362827833393605600c, Capacity [veh/h]
179018706071856187066715271541s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.420.410.030.330.330.150.270.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.390.390.540.450.450.540.340.34g / C, Green / Cycle
2525352929352222g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202319
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-118
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.31 14.31 14.31 25.28 25.28 25.28 13.21 16.06 16.07 9.74 61.97 65.71 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A E E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.31 25.28 15.85 61.85
Approach LOS B C B E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]38.61
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.795
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.746 2.046 3.024 3.358 Crosswalk LOS A B C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.93 12.93
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.584 2.241 2.642 2.828 Bicycle LOS A B B C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202320
Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-119
Attachment D

EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT Apx-120
Attachment D

Intersection Analysis Summary
10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\AMEACP.pdf
Scenario 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Vistro File: G:\...\AME.vistro
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

B11.00.003EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopFoster Bridge Blvd (NS) at
Project Dwy (EW)5
C21.00.720WB RightHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount
Blvd (EW)4
C20.70.843SB ThruHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala
Ave (EW)3
B16.10.641SWB ThruHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2
C17.40.640SB RightHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave
(EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-121
Attachment D

0.640Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

17.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
731041723183146157971041120201Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1826458213639242603050Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.7010Peak Hour Factor 517312162581021106873184141Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000100030013Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 517312160581021106573183137Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20232
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-122
Attachment D

CIntersection LOS

17.38Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BCCCApproach LOS

12.2615.5920.1819.89Approach Delay [s/veh]

18.0620.0051.8264.88113.13101.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.720.802.072.604.534.0595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.200.210.420.480.640.61Degree of Utilization, x
494454549473559528Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/20233
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-123
Attachment D

0.641Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

16.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20234
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-124
Attachment D

000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
5031530813221562803Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1010177015514701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 4021424112173442192Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000003010200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 4021423711172422182Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20235
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-125
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050005000050Walk [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 019000490000490Split [s]

0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
115Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/20236
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-126
Attachment D

3.55102.82222.5795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.144.118.9095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

1.9757.12129.3250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.082.285.1750th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesCritical Lane Group
BBBLane Group LOS

16.5811.7715.89d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.020.410.78X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.020.351.83d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.11k, delay calibration

16.5511.4314.06d1, Uniform Delay [s]
410776722c, Capacity [veh/h]
169918631720s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.010.170.33(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.180.380.38g / C, Green / Cycle
91818g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
494949C, Cycle Length [s]
CCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/20237
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-127
Attachment D

ABBBicycle LOS

1.5702.0812.119I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection

11.680.140.14d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
61518461846c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS

1.6951.9372.398I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection

16.2016.2016.20d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
Other Modes

0.641Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS

16.10d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBApproach LOS

16.5811.7715.89d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS

16.5816.5816.5816.5811.7711.7711.7711.7715.8915.8915.8915.89d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
10/13/20238
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-128
Attachment D

YesYesCrosswalk
NoNoCurb Present

0.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
SouthwestboundWestboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20239
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-129
Attachment D

00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
902451530142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2061011035Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 701921420111Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
40300000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 301881420111Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202310
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-130
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoMinimum Recall

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
00500050Walk [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0047000190Split [s]

0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
115Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202311
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-131
Attachment D

119.5765.4595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

4.782.6295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

66.4336.3650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.661.4550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
YesYesCritical Lane Group
CBLane Group LOS

20.4818.58d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.690.36X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

2.310.53d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.11k, delay calibration

18.1718.05d1, Uniform Delay [s]
369414c, Capacity [veh/h]
18581511s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.140.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.200.18g / C, Green / Cycle
109g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
4949C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202312
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-132
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.58 18.58 18.58 18.58 20.48 20.48 20.48 20.48 Movement LOS B B B B C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.58 20.48
Approach LOS B C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]16.10
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.641
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]16.20 16.20
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.841 1.826 Crosswalk LOS A A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]615 1764
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.68 0.34
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.799 1.966 Bicycle LOS A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------86Ring 2
-------------1042Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202313
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-133
Attachment D

0.843Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

20.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1482471932126185367115523314Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 376258324692291584Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.8400Peak Hour Factor 124206162710615530897419612Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
002300060020Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 124204132710615430197419312Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202314
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-134
Attachment D

CIntersection LOS

20.69Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBDBApproach LOS

12.1513.2627.4314.14Approach Delay [s/veh]

33.3336.7628.74224.1255.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

1.331.471.158.962.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.310.340.280.840.44Degree of Utilization, x
571526658572572Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/202315
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-135
Attachment D

0.720Volume to Capacity (v/c):

CLevel Of Service:

21.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/202316
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-136
Attachment D

0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1351129139115710817225215371716Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 34282322892743654944Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.9850Peak Hour Factor 1331112139114010616925212361716Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
18001511011200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name
Volumes
10/13/202317
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-137
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050050050050Walk [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s]

0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
65Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202318
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-138
Attachment D

341.01347.743.26249.45249.8928.75252.0332.5495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

13.6413.910.139.9810.001.1510.081.3095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 219.52224.791.81149.27149.6015.97151.2018.0850th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

8.788.990.075.975.980.646.050.7250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group
CCABBBCBLane Group LOS

26.0325.579.8315.9215.9112.8524.1114.60d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.930.930.040.710.710.260.670.11X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

6.395.970.041.141.130.335.670.35d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration

19.6419.609.7914.7814.7812.5218.4414.25d1, Uniform Delay [s] 668694359822824413616637c, Capacity [veh/h]
180118706141865187075415131618s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.340.340.020.310.310.140.270.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.370.370.530.440.440.530.350.35g / C, Green / Cycle
2424342929342323g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202319
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-139
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.60 14.60 14.60 24.11 24.11 24.11 12.85 15.91 15.92 9.83 25.77 26.03 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.60 24.11 15.65 25.63
Approach LOS B C B C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]20.98
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.720
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.756 2.035 2.981 3.289 Crosswalk LOS A B C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.94 12.94
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.675 2.239 2.611 2.613 Bicycle LOS A B B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202320
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-140
Attachment D

0.003Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

11.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

Two-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 5: Foster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Dwy (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
7212001883Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
21050471Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor
7211901793Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
721003Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 0001891780Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202321
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-141
Attachment D

BIntersection LOS

0.27d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AAAApproach LOS

9.700.000.12d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]

0.880.880.000.000.130.1395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.040.040.000.000.010.0195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] ABAAAAMovement LOS

9.3410.970.000.000.007.63d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]

0.010.000.000.000.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
NoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
10/13/202322
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-142
Attachment D

Intersection Analysis Summary
10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\PMEACP.pdf
Scenario 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Vistro File: G:\...\PME.vistro
Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

B11.30.002EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopFoster Bridge Blvd (NS) at
Project Dwy (EW)5
D39.70.799WB RightHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount
Blvd (EW)4
D29.60.948SB ThruHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala
Ave (EW)3
B12.90.494WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2
B11.80.454NB LeftHCM 7th
EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave
(EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-143
Attachment D

0.454Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

11.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
5631425692243618375114173Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
116364236946212943Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.9610Peak Hour Factor 5611324688233517675110166Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000300020022Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5611324288233517375108163Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20232
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-144
Attachment D

BIntersection LOS

11.75Intersection Delay [s/veh]
ABBBApproach LOS

9.9111.2511.4313.16Approach Delay [s/veh]

6.006.2645.8318.7438.7059.1495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.240.251.830.751.552.3795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.070.080.390.200.350.45Degree of Utilization, x
551530660574652643Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/20233
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-145
Attachment D

0.494Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

12.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20234
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-146
Attachment D

000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
2000343387175142650Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1000110822444660Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 2000342887173142620Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000001040620Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 200034258317282590Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/20235
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-147
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050005000050Walk [s]

0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 022000190000190Split [s]

0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/20236
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-148
Attachment D

0.63126.48132.7995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.035.065.3195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

0.3570.2673.7750th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.012.812.9550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesCritical Lane Group
BBBLane Group LOS

14.6612.3313.00d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.010.640.70X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.010.981.37d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.11k, delay calibration

14.6411.3411.64d1, Uniform Delay [s]
266703651c, Capacity [veh/h]
142618611710s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.000.240.27(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.120.320.32g / C, Green / Cycle
41212g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
383838C, Cycle Length [s]
CCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/20237
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-149
Attachment D

ABBBicycle LOS

1.5632.2912.020I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection

5.116.796.79d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]
957798798c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS

1.6701.9632.205I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection

10.8810.8810.88d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]

0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]

9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]
Other Modes

0.494Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS

12.89d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBApproach LOS

14.6612.3313.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS

14.6614.6614.6614.6612.3312.3312.3312.3313.0013.0013.0013.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
10/13/20238
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-150
Attachment D

YesYesCrosswalk
NoNoCurb Present

0.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
SouthwestboundWestboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/20239
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-151
Attachment D

00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le
00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th
00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th
00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
70203223051Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2051111013Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 70201223050Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
20100000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 50199223050Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202310
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-152
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoMinimum Recall

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s]
00500050Walk [s]

0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0019000220Split [s]

0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202311
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-153
Attachment D

61.5717.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

2.460.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]

34.219.9350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

1.370.4050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
YesYesCritical Lane Group
BBLane Group LOS

13.1915.28d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

0.480.15X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

0.810.19d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.11k, delay calibration

12.3815.09d1, Uniform Delay [s]
442372c, Capacity [veh/h]
18581585s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.110.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.240.12g / C, Green / Cycle
94g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
3838C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202312
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-154
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]15.28 15.28 15.28 15.28 13.19 13.19 13.19 13.19 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.28 13.19
Approach LOS B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]12.89
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.494
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]10.88 10.88
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.787 1.785 Crosswalk LOS A A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]957 798
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]5.11 6.79
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.649 1.898 Bicycle LOS A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------86Ring 2
-------------1042Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202313
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-155
Attachment D

0.948Volume to Capacity (v/c):

DLevel Of Service:

29.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

All-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
9326141336761334181361435814Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2374391933105344894Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.9900Peak Hour Factor 9226141336751324141351435414Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000100020282Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202314
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-156
Attachment D

DIntersection LOS

29.56Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBECApproach LOS

11.8912.5241.9919.05Approach Delay [s/veh]

24.2124.3418.19316.30114.6595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]

0.970.970.7312.654.5995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results

0.250.250.200.950.64Degree of Utilization, x
537502675584602Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h]
Lanes
Intersection Settings
10/13/202315
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-157
Attachment D

0.799Volume to Capacity (v/c):

DLevel Of Service:

39.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

SignalizedControl Type:

Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present

0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]

40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
10/13/202316
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-158
Attachment D

0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
19313301725118810316929218465Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 48332462972642754121Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.9650Peak Hour Factor 1861283162411469916328210465Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
9152093104000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]

2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202317
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-159
Attachment D

0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s]
050050050050Walk [s]

0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s]

0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]

6.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference

0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
65Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
10/13/202318
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-160
Attachment D

656.44633.784.12258.76259.9126.42261.166.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

26.2625.350.1610.3510.401.0610.450.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 445.62432.442.29156.26157.1214.68158.063.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

17.8217.300.096.256.280.596.320.1550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group
FFABBBCBLane Group LOS

68.2461.539.7416.0716.0513.2125.4714.31d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]

1.091.080.050.730.730.260.690.03X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]

48.1941.480.051.261.250.356.260.08d2, Incremental Delay [s]

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor

0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration

20.0520.059.6914.8114.8012.8619.2114.24d1, Uniform Delay [s] 686717362828834395605599c, Capacity [veh/h]
178918706071856187066915271541s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]

0.420.410.030.330.330.150.270.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate

0.380.380.540.450.450.540.340.34g / C, Green / Cycle
2525352929352222g_i, Effective Green Time [s]

2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]

0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]

4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
10/13/202319
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-161
Attachment D

Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.31 14.31 14.31 25.47 25.47 25.47 13.21 16.06 16.07 9.74 64.34 68.24 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A E E
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.31 25.47 15.84 64.23
Approach LOS B C B E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]39.72
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.799
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.746 2.052 3.025 3.362 Crosswalk LOS A B C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.93 12.93
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.584 2.246 2.645 2.830 Bicycle LOS A B B C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
10/13/202320
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-162
Attachment D

0.002Volume to Capacity (v/c):

BLevel Of Service:

11.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:

HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:

Two-way stopControl Type:

Intersection 5: Foster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Dwy (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoCrosswalk

0.000.000.00Grade [%]

25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]

0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket

12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Name
Intersection Setup
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
31221819811Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
10154493Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor

0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor
31220718810Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
3120010Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]

1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor

2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 0002061870Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Name
Volumes
10/13/202321
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-163
Attachment D

BIntersection LOS

0.29d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AAAApproach LOS

9.900.000.40d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]

0.410.410.000.000.460.4695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]

0.020.020.000.000.020.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] ABAAAAMovement LOS

9.4111.340.000.000.007.68d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]

0.000.000.000.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
NoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
10/13/202322
Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential
Version 2022 (SP 0-8)
Generated with
Apx-164
Attachment D

APPENDIX E

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT GRAPHS
Apx-165
Attachment D

California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing - AM Peak Hour
Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =761 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =148 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach - VPH761148 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
Urban - E AM.xls Sect. 4C.06
Apx-166
Attachment D

California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing - PM Peak Hour
Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1044 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =132 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach - VPH1044132 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
JN19658_Signal Warrant 3 - Urban.xls Sect. 4C.06
Apx-167
Attachment D

California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive - AM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =767 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =150 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach - VPH767150 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
Urban - EAC AM.xls Sect. 4C.06
Apx-168
Attachment D

California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive - PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1056 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =132 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach - VPH1056132 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
Urban - EAC PM.xls Sect. 4C.06
Apx-169
Attachment D

California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =772 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =150 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach - VPH772150 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
Urban - EACP AM.xls Sect. 4C.06
Apx-170
Attachment D

California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1063 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1
Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =132 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach - VPH1063132 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
Urban - EACP PM.xls Sect. 4C.06
Apx-171
Attachment D

GANDDINI GROUP INC.

714.795.3100 | ganddini.com
Attachment D

To: Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner, City of Downey From: Kent Norton, Senior Env. Planner, MIG Riverside
Subject: Foster Bridge & Bluff Residential Project – Response to Comments/Final MND/ Addendum Materials
Date: January 9, 2024
On November 22, 2023 the City of Downey issued an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a 30-day local public review period to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the CEQA process, the State Clearinghouse (SCH) issued the following tracking number for this project: 2023110053. The following information is considered a Response to Comments document for the IS/MND as well as an addendum as it provides supplemental information that merely clarifies and does not change the analysis or conclusions in the IS/MND.

1.Notice of Intent/Availability Circulation
The original NOI/A was issued for the project on November 21, 2023 but City staff noted several minor corrections were needed so a revised NOI/A was issued and filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22, 2023. Any written comments received on the IS /MND from November 21 through December 22 have been responded to in this memorandum (see below)

2.Response to Comments
The public comment period ended on December 22, 2023 and the City re received two (2) written comments on the IS/MND, one from a concerned City resident living near the project and one from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). The following provides the comments received and provides responses to those comments as appropriate.

2.A Email from the Almazan Family dated November 28, 2023 Comment 1: We are the Almazan family living in the island next to the proposed project and we’d like to share our opinion and concerns on the matter. We have lived on Glencliff Drive for the past 27 years, small quaint neighborhood and want to keep it that way. We believe the amount of homes planned to be built is excessive for the small piece of land. This will greatly increase rush hour traffic for a gated community, which means we won’t have access to it but they will have access to our streets and leave their excess vehicles in front of our homes. With the average three bedroom home we very much doubt this new community will have enough parking spaces for their residents.

Everyone knows people use their garages for storage rather than their cars, so where do you think they park? Even if restrictions are imposed, they eventually end up in nearby streets. We have seen this happen in too many neighborhoods. We hope the city of Downey takes our concerns serio Attachment E - (Exhibit A)

City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo
Foster Bridge & Bluff Project

2 MIG, Inc.

protects the quality of life we have here rather than the monetary gain for the city. Sincerely, Javier and Maria Almazan.

Response 1: It should first be noted the most recent changes to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Initial Study Checklist) eliminated consideration of traffic congestion (level of service) on local roadways and intersections, as well as parking provisions, as potential environmental impact issues to be evaluated in an Initial Study. However, these issues still remain as planning and engineering considerations during the City’s development review process, in addition to the CEQA process. The City reviews all development plans to assure they provide the minimum parking spaces required by the City Municipal Code, as well as adopted state and regional standards..

2.B Letter from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts dated December 13, 2023

Comment 1: Patricia Horsley, an environmental planner with the facilities planning department of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD), requested the following information be incorporated into the IS/MND:

The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 2. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:

1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Montebello Trunk, located in Florence Place at Toler Avenue. The Districts’ 21 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.1 mgd when last measured in 2016.

2. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the NOI as 33-unit townhouse, is 8,156 gallons per day, after the church on the project site is demolished.

For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org , under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.

3. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (Warren Facility), formerly known as the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 243.1 mgd.

4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilit ies. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org , under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated Attachment E - (Exhibit A)

City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo
Foster Bridge & Bluff Project

3 MIG, Inc.

use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908 -4288, extension 2727.

5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but is to advise the City that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the City of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Distric ts’ facilities.

Response 1: This information is hereby incorporated into Section 4.19, Utilities (c. Wastewater) of the IS/MND. It does not change the determination of impact significance in Section 4.19.c regarding sewer systems (i.e., less than significant impact with regulatory compliance including the permits and processes outlined above in the LACSD letter). This additional information does not change the analysis or conclusions (no mitigation) in the IS/MND regarding wastewater/sewer systems.

3. Traffic and Circulation Analysis (Revised)

An updated Traffic and Circulation Analysis was prepared for the project by Ganddini Group, Inc. dated Nov 15, 2023 (original dated October 13, 2023). The updated report was included as Appendix H-2 of the IS/MND. It should be noted the most recent changes to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Initial Study Checklist) eliminated consideration of traffic congestion (level of service) on local roadways and intersections, as well as parking, as potential environmental impact issues to be evaluated in an Initial Study. However, these issues still remain as planning and engineering considerations during the City’s development review process, in addition to the CEQA process.

4. Final Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report

The IS/MND included a preliminary (draft) historical/archaeological resources survey memorandum prepared by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 as Appendix C-1. This report was considered preliminary as it did not contain a formal written response from the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding cultural resources listed in their archives. However, the City did receive extensive information on local archaeological/Native American tribal resources from Gabrieleno tribal representatives during the City’s Native American Consultation Process per SB 18 and AB 52, as outlined in Sections 4.5 and 4.18 of the IS/MND.

Attachment E - (Exhibit A)

City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo
Foster Bridge & Bluff Project

4 MIG, Inc.

On December 6, 2023, CRM TECH issued a revised (final) historical/archaeological resources survey report which included NAHC archival information. This additional information supports the analysis and conclusions in the IS/MND that the site and immediate surrounding area do not contain identified historical or cultural resources or artifacts. However, information from local tribal representatives still indicates Native American tribal resources may be present in the project area. Therefore, the IS/MND recommended Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to retain a project archaeologist and TCR-1 through TCR-3 as recommended by the Gabrieleno tribe in their consultation with the City to address tribal monitoring of grading, disposition of unanticipated resources during grading, and treating human remains if found during grading.

The additional information in the revised CRM TECH report does not change the analysis, conclusions, or mitigation in the IS/MND.

5. Revised Noise Mitigation Measure NOI-4

During circulation of the draft IS/MND for public review, MIG and City staff realized a modification to Mitigation Measure NOI-1 was needed regarding the extent of the noise wall to reduce construction noise impacts. The measure outlined in the IS/MND incorrectly indicated the noise barrier would need to extend around the entire site. However, the noise assessment determined the barrier was only needed along the north boundary of the site adjacent to the closest sensitive receptor (one single family residence). The noise study concluded City noise standards would not be exceeded at other sensitive receptor locations around the site without the barrier. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 is hereby modified as shown below (deleted text is shown in strikeout, added text is shown underlined):

Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to:
i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB.

Attachment E - (Exhibit A)

City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo
Foster Bridge & Bluff Project

5 MIG, Inc.

ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB.
iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities.

The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on -site).

Again, the noise study determined the noise barrier was only needed along the north boundary of the site to comply with the City’s noise requirements. Therefore, this change does not result in any significant noise impacts and no significant changes to the analysis of project noise impacts. This change will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) described below.

6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

As described above, the noise study determined the noise barrier proposed in Mitigation Measure NOI-4 was only needed along the north boundary of the site, rather than the entire site, to comply with the City’s noise requirements. Therefore, the corrected measure will be incorporated into the final IS/MND and MMRP (see attached).

7. Conclusion

This additional information, updated reports, and responses to written comments on the IS/MND do not substantially change the data, analyses, conclusions, or mitigation measures considered in the IS/MND (i.e., they do not identify any significant environmental impacts). The only minor revision needed to the “draft” IS/MND is a modification to Mitigation Measure NOI-4 regarding the extent of the noise wall to reduce construction noise impacts. Therefore, there are no “substantial revisions” to the IS/MND required and no need to recirculate the IS/MND for additional public review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.

Attachments: Comment Email 2.A and Letter 2.B
Revised Archaeo/Hist Report (Appdx C-1, 12-6-23)
Mitigation Monitoring Program (1-9-24)
Attachment E - (Exhibit A)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progra m
Project: Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project (VTTM 84168) Date: January 9, 2024 Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification

AESTHETICS
AES-1: Enhanced Landscaping. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site. Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. The design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, shall be the responsibility of the City Planning Department.

Prior to
issuance of the
first certificate
of occupancy
Developer and
landscaping
contractor
City Planning staff
verify installation
prior to COO
issued

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code must be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Los Angeles County extends from February 1 through September 1.

If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the survey(s) will be documented.

If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors and up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged.

No more than 3
days prior to the
start of any
ground
disturbance
City Planning
Department
Written proof of
survey prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 2 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post- degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the qualified biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special- status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA: 14 CCR 15064.5(f): PRC Section 21083.2), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. However, if the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted.

During and after
grading
City Planning
Department, project
archaeologist, and
consulting tribe(s) to
determine
disposition of any
unique archeological
resources
City Planning
Department to
document
continued
consultation as
needed with tribal
representatives

GEOLOGY/SOILS/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GEO-1: Supplemental Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a supplemental geotechnical investigation as recommended by the “Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation” prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 2023. The supplemental report shall be certified by the City Engineer as adequate for the purposes of design, permitting, and construction.

Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
Qualified engineer
shall submit a
supplemental
geotechnical report
to the City
Engineering
Department
City Engineer shall
sign off on the
supplemental
report prior to
issuance of the
permit

GEO-2: Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel before commencement of excavation activities. The training would include a handout and would focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.

Prior to the start
of grading or
clearing the site
Developer shall
retain a qualified
paleontologist to
conduct training of
grading and clearing
staff regarding
paleontological
resources
Project
paleontologist shall
prepare a brief
report to the City
Planning
Department
summarizing their
training efforts.

GEO-3: Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities. The project proponent must retain a During grading Project
paleontologist shall
Project
paleontologist shall

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 3 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six feet from the surface to determine if construction excavations extend into older Quaternary deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks would be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the older Quaternary deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources are required. The project proponent must retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who would work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor must be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth- moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors.

The frequency of monitoring is based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered.

Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist.
conduct
unannounced
checks of project
clearing and grading
to assure proper
procedures of GEO-
2 are being followed
prepare a brief
report to the City
Planning
Department
summarizing the
results of their
monitoring efforts
GEO-4: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities the paleontological monitor may halt or divert away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities are not allowed to continue until an appropriate paleontological treatment plan is approved by the project proponent and the City. Work is allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project proponent and City would coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor would assist in removing rock samples for initial processing.

During grading If summoned to the
site or observes
paleontological
resources, the
project
paleontologist shall
immediately halt
grading to evaluate
the find and
determine
appropriate action
based on the find
and notify the City
Planning
Department
immediately of the
discovery
Once notified, the
Planning
Department shall
monitor any
recovery activities
in consultation with
the project
paleontologist

GEO-5: Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. If paleontological resources are found, upon completion of the activities identified under Mitigation Measure GEO-4, the professional paleontologist Within 45 days
of the
Paleontologist shall
prepare a summary
report of monitoring
The Planning
Department shall
confirm in email or

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
would prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, and a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report would be submitted to the project proponent, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.
completion of
grading
activities, any
resources found,
and the disposition
of any resources
writing the receipt
of the project
paleontologist’s
report(s).

HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will halt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required.

If soils are found to be contaminated at levels that are only slightly in excess of applicable residential standards, the QEP shall exercise professional discretion and have the option to coordinate with the grading contractor and developer to either remove contaminated soil and/or mix the contaminated soil with clean soil from either onsite or offsite to dilute any contaminants to below applicable exposure standards for residential development.

Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable residential standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the City or other agencies as appropriate and no further action is needed. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department.

Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit

During grading
Developer shall
retain a QEP and
provide written proof
to the City Planning
Department

Upon notification or
observing the
discovery of any
unknown materials
during grading, the
Project QEP shall
halt work in that
area and determine
the identify of the
material(s).

If any hazardous
materials are found,
the QEP will
coordinate with the
City, developer, and
LA County Fire
Department, Health
Hazardous Materials
Division (CUPA) if
necessary to
determine the
appropriate
disposition for the
materials.

HAZ-2: ACMs and LBP Survey. Prior to demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite church building and any related structures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints Prior to issuance
of a demolition
permit
Developer shall
retain qualified
personnel to survey
the church buildings
Developer shall
document results of
ACM and LBP
survey and what, if

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
(LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe removal and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Community Development Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site. for ACMs and LBP
and conduct
appropriate
remediation of such
materials are found
any, remediation
was conducted.

Demolition permit
shall not be issued
until the City
Planning
Department
concurs with its
findings
NOISE
NOI-1: Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities.

This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Downey responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per MM NOI- 5). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas.

At least two (2)
weeks prior to
the start of any
construction
activities
Developer shall
provide verifiable
notice to local
residential neighbors
within 200 feet of the
project boundaries
of the start of
construction
Developer shall
provide copies of
notices, mailing
lists, methods of
delivery, and
confirmation of
receiving the
notices

NOI-2: Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 4.50.100. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. The project proponent representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement
During any
construction-
related activities
on the site
Developer shall
certify to the City
they are enforcing
the City’s work hour
restrictions, post
appropriate signs,
and place work hour
limits on
construction plans
City Inspectors as
appropriate to
monitor work hour
limits as necessary

NOI-3: Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site:
a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities.
b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints.
c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). If it is not feasible to provide an electric hook- up, the project proponent shall ensure mitigation measures 3a and 3d are implemented.
d. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- Prior to and
during any
construction
activities on the
site
Developer shall
certify in writing they
will implement these
procedures during
all work activities.

Notes shall be
placed on
construction plans to
this effect and
initialed by all sub-
contractors
City Inspectors
shall verify this
compliance with
unannounced
inspections during
work activities

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 6 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation.
e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities.
f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.

NOI-4: Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to project construction activities:
a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing or other pulverization activities, shall be employed during project construction. b. Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements along the north boundary of the project site*. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to:
i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB.
iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities.

During all
project
construction
activities as
appropriate
Developer shall
certify to the City
these measures will
be implemented by
all contractors and
sub-contractors on
the site
City Inspectors
shall verify this
compliance with
unannounced
inspections during
work activities

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 7 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
iv. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).

NOI-5: Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall:
a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints.
c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.

Prior to issuance
of any permit for
any construction
activities
Developer, in
consultation with
their noise
consultant, shall
prepare a CNCP for
review and approval
by the City Planning
Department
The City Planning
Department shall
approve the CNCP
prior to issuance of
any work permits
for the project

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Tribal Monitor. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit

During grading
Developer shall
submit written
verification of NA
tribal monitoring
agreement(s)

Tribal monitor(s) to
observe grading and
confirm completion
to the City Planning
Department
Planning
Department verify
signed
agreement(s) in
place

Planning
Department confirm
receipt of tribal
completion notice

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 8 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Compliance
Verification
provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

During grading Tribal monitor(s)
and/or archaeologist
communicate
discovery of
resources within one
hour of discovery to
Planning
Department
Planning
Department confirm
tribal notification
and consult with
monitoring tribe as
to the disposition of
the discovered
resource

TCR-3: Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

During grading Tribal monitor(s)
and/or archaeologist
communicate
discovery of remains
within one hour of
discovery to
Planning
Department
Planning
Department confirm
tribal notification
and consult with
monitoring tribe as
to the disposition of
the discovered
remains

* This minor change was made to correct an inaccurate statement in the draft IS/MND noise section that the proposed constructio n noise barrier was needed around the entire site since the noise study determined the barrier was actually needed only on the north side of the site to meet City noise standards. This change is documented in the Final IS/MND Memo dated January 9, 2024.

Attachment E (Exhibit B)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project
Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:

City of Downey
Community Development Department
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, California 92041
Contact: Alfonso Hernandez
[email protected]
Applicant:

The Olson Company
3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100
Seal Beach, California 90740
Contact: Steven Armanino
[email protected]
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, CA 92507
Contact: Kent Norton
[email protected]
Public Review Draft
November 21, 2023
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

- This document is designed for double -sided printing.-

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project i
City of Downey
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 – Purpose of CEQA .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 – Public Comments .................................................................................................... 2

1.3 – Availability of Materials ............................................................................................ 3

1.4 -- History of the Site …………………………………………………………..……………..3 2 Project Description................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................ 5

2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................ 5

2.4 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ..................................................................... 5

2.5 – Project Location....................................................................................................... 5

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation ........................................................................ 6

2.7 – Zoning District ......................................................................................................... 6

2.8 – Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................... 6

2.9 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 7

2.10 – Project Description .................................................................................................. 7

2.11 – Required Approvals ............................................................................................... 10

2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................................ 10 3 Environmental Determination ................................................................................................. 33

3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................... 33

3.2 – Determination ........................................................................................................ 33 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 35

4.1 – Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 35

4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 38

4.3 – Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 40

4.4 – Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 48

4.5 – Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 51

4.6 – Energy ................................................................................................................... 53

4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 55

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 60

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 65

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 70

4.11 – Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 76

4.12 – Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 77

4.13 – Noise ..................................................................................................................... 78

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 90

4.15 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 91

4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 95

4.17 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................... 96

4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 101

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 105

4.20 – Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 112

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 114 5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 119 6 References ......................................................................................................................... 126

6.1 List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 126

6.2 Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 126

6.3 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 127 Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Table of Contents
ii Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

List of Tables
Table 2.8-1 Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.10-1 Project Construction Activities ....................................................................................... 10 Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Basin (Non-Desert) Attainment Status ................................................... 41 Table 4.3-2 Regional Construction Emissions.................................................................................... 43 Table 4.3-3 Regional Operational Emissions ..................................................................................... 44 Table 4.3-4 LST Construction Emissions ........................................................................................... 45 Table 4.3-5 LST Operational Emissions............................................................................................. 46 Table 4.8-1 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 62 Table 4.8-2 Project Consistency with Key GHG Reducing Attributes (2022 Scoping Plan) ................ 63 Table 4.13-1 Potential Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................ 81 Table 4.13-2 Caltrans’ Vibration Criteria for Building Damage ........................................................... 86 Table 4.13-3 Vibration Criteria for Human Response ......................................................................... 86 Table 4.13-4 Potential Project Construction Vibration Levels ............................................................. 87 Table 4.14-1 SCAG Growth Projections for Downey .......................................................................... 90 Table 4.15-1 Local School Enrollments.............................................................................................. 93 Table 4.15-2 School Capacities vs. Projected Enrollment .................................................................. 93 Table 4.17-1 Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 98 Table 4.17-2 Range of Local Daily Trip Screening Thresholds in the Region 103 Table 4.17-3 Daily Trip Threshold that Exceed GHG Emissions Threshold ..................................... 100 Table 4.19-1 Projected City Water Demand and Supply (acre -feet/year) ......................................... 106 Table 4.19-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario ........................................................... 110 Table 4.19-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario ........................................................ 110 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2 Project Area Map ................................................................................................................ 13 Exhibit 3 Site Photographs................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 4 General Plan Designations .................................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 5 Zoning Designations ........................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 6 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 7 Project Elevations ............................................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 8 Open Space Plan ................................................................................................................ 27 Exhibit 9 Landscape Plan .................................................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 10 Wall and Fence Plan ......................................................................................................... 31

List of Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality & GHG & Energy Impact Report
Appendix B Biological Resources Information
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Geotechnical Report
Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan
Appendix G Noise and Vibration Analysis
Appendix H Traffic Study
Appendix I Tribal Consultation Information
Appendix J Utility Information
Appendix K Project Plans
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

iii

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 1
City of Downey
1 Introduction

The City of Downey (“Lead Agency” or “City”) received an application from The Olson Company (“project proponent”) to construct a 33-unit townhouse development (the “project” or “proposed project”) on a

1.29-acre site located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 6358-015-058) in the northwestern portion of the City of Downey, California. The application for the Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential P roject includes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 84168, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, and a Site Plan Review analyzing the architecture, landscaping, circulation of the new proposed design, and demolition of the existing onsite church and parking lot.

The project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.).

This Initial Study was prepared to assess the short -term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from approval of the proposed project. This report was prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (d) which requires an Initial Study to include the following:

▪ A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2) ▪ Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.10) ▪ Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 4)
▪ Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (see Section 4) ▪ Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (see Section 4.1 1)
▪ The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see Section 6)

1.1 – Purpose of CEQA
CEQA is intended to implement the following:

“The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern.
b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man.
c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high -quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state.
d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.
e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

1 – Introduction
2 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.

The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to:

a) Develop and maintain a high -quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. c) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self -perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.
d) Ensure that the long -term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.
e) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations. f) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality.
g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long -term benefits and costs, in addition to short -term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affectin g the environment.”

A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects for some form of approval, is found in CEQA Section 21002 significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic , social, or other conditions make such project alternatives or such mitigation measures infeasible, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.

1.2 – Public Comments
Written comments from all public agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in this IS/MND. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the Initial Study or indicate where the information may be found. All comments on the IS/MND must be provided before the close of the 30 - day public review period and are to be submitted to:

Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, California 90241
Phone: (562) 904-7154
Email: [email protected]

Following a 30-day period of circulation and public review of the IS/MND, all written comments will be considered by the City of Downey prior to taking action on the project adopting the IS/MND.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

1 – Introduction
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 3
City of Downey

1.3 – Availability of Materials
All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review at the City Hall, The Columbia Space Center, the City Library, and the Barbara J. Riley Center or available on the City’s website homepage:
https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing- division/public-document-review

To request an appointment to review these materials at City Hall, please contact Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner, via telephone at (562) 904-7154 or via email at [email protected]

City Hall – 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca. 90241
Columbia Space Center – 12400 Columbia Way, Downey, CA 90242 City Library – 11121 Brookshire Ave #586, Downey, CA 90241 Barbara J. Riley Center – 7810 Quill Dr, Downey, CA 90242

1.4 – History of the Site
The project site was undeveloped or in agricultural use between 1896 and 1902. From the 1920s to the mid-1950s, it was developed with agricultural orchards and a rural farmhouse. The existing church was developed in stages, beginning in the late -1950s and expanded to its current configuration with a paved asphalt parking lot around it by 1989. The construction of the church coincides with the time when the Rio Hondo River was realigned and channelized to the southeast of the site, rerouting it from its original course northeast of the site. Today, the church parking lot sits approximately 4 -6 feet higher in elevation than the adjoining residence to the north. It is likely that fill material originating from the river channelization process was placed on the site at that time, raising its elevation.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

1 – Introduction
4 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 5
City of Downey
2 Project Description

2.1 – Project Title
Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project (VTTM 84168)

2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Downey
Community Development Department
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, California 92041

2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner
[email protected]
Phone: (562) 904-7154

2.4 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
The Olson Company
3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100
Seal Beach, California 90740
Contact: Steven Armanino
[email protected]
(562) 596-4770

2.5 – Project Location
The project site is located on 1.29 acres at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street in the northwestern portion of the City of Downey (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context Map). South Bluff Road also runs along the southeast point of the property forming a five -legged intersection (See Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map ). The site is adjacent to the Rio Hondo River and Trail (across South Bluff Road) to the south. The City of Bell Gardens is located northwest of the site and the self-storage facility northwest of the site is divided between the two cities . The site is located 0.9 mile west of the I- 5 Freeway and 1.8 miles east of the I -710 Freeway. Various views of the project site and surrounding area are provided in Exhibit 3, Site Photographs.

Address: 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard
Latitude/Longitude: 33o 57’ 57” North / 118o 08’ 11” West Assessor Parcel Number: 6358-015-058
TRS Listing: Township 2 South Range 12 West Section 00 (Lot 40)(SBBM) USGS 7.5” Topographic Map: Southgate
Thomas Bros. Map: LA County, Page 706 (Downey)

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
6 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan designates the project site as Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows up to 8.9 dwelling units/acre. The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows up to 24 units/acre. The density of the proposed project is 20.6 units per gross acre (See Exhibit 4, General Plan Designations).

2.7 – Zoning District
The City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC) zoning regulations designate the project site as R-1 6,000 which is a single-family detached residential designation. The project proposes to change the site’s zoning designation to Multi-Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0). The project also includes a density Bonus for three moderate income level townhouse units in addition to 30 market rate townhouse units.

The density of the project as proposed is 20.6 units per gross acre while the R -3-O zone allows up to approximately 22 units/acre. According to the City Zoning Code, the R -3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing” (See Exhibit 5, Zoning Designations).

2.8 – Existing and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site currently supports an operating church (“TLG I House”) with a parking lot but no school or pre-school uses. Adjacent land uses include single family homes to the north and across Foster Bridge Boulevard to the east, the Rio Hondo Channel to the southeast, apartments to the southwest across Suva Street, and a self-storage facility to the northwest. Surrounding uses are summarized in Table 2.8-1 (Existing Land Uses). The locations of surrounding land uses are shown in Exhibit 2, Project Area Map, and views of the site and surrounding area are shown in Exhibit 3, Site Photographs. The self-storage facility to the northwest is split between Downey and the City of Bell Gardens to the west.

Table 2.8-1
Existing Land Uses
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning
District
Existing
Land Use
Project Site
Existing
Proposed

Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)

R-1-6,000
R-3-0

Church
Townhomes
North Low Density Residential (LDR) R-1-6,000 SFR homes South Low Density Residential (LDR)
Open Space (OS)
R-1-6,000
R-1-6,000
Apartments
Rio Hondo River
East Low Density Residential (LDR) R-1-6,000 SFR homes
West Low Density Residential (LDR) R-1-6,000 Self Storage Sources: Google Earth, City General Plan and Zoning maps SFR = single family residential

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 7
City of Downey

2.9 – Environmental Setting
The City of Downey occupies approximately 12.8 square miles and is located in the southeastern part of Los Angeles County. The City is surrounded by the cities of Pico Rivera to the north, Santa Fe Springs to the northeast, Norwalk to the east, Bellflower and Paramount to the south, South Gate to the southwest and west, and Commerce to the northwest. The City of Downey is located approximately 13 miles northeast of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. There are four freeways that provide direct access to Downey: Interstate I-605 (San Gabriel River Freeway), which crosses the eastern portion of the City; I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway), which crosses the northern portion of the City; the I -105 intersection, which crosses the southern part of the City; and I -710 (Long Beach Freeway), which does not cross the City but is located west of the City and accessible via three major streets: Florence Avenue, Firestone Boulevard, and Imperial Highway (City of Downey 2005).

The City is generally bounded by the Rio Hondo River channel to the west, Telegraph Road to the north, the San Gabriel River channel to the east, and Gardendale Street and Foster Road to the south. Most of the City was developed during the housing boom in the 1950s and 1960s. The City is a fully developed community with older buildings and very few vacant properties. Since residential uses occupy more than half of the City’s land area, Downey is known mainly as a bedroom community. However, the City also provides a mix of other land uses such as open space, commercial, and manufacturing. Residential uses are located throughout the City but predominantly located to the north, east, and west. Commercial uses are scattered throughout the north, east, south, and west portions of the City, while manufacturing uses are primarily concentrated in the southeastern portion of the City.

The City and the project site are within the South Coast Air Basin which has experienced poor air quality over the years due to climate and weather conditions and decades of growth (i.e., urban development and increased vehicle use). Air quality in the Basin is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

The City is situated on a broad alluvial valley largely built up by sedimentation from runoff out of the San Gabriel Mountains, including from the nearby Rio Hondo River just south east of the site. The City is fully urbanized, and does not support native plants or animals although some animals may travel along the Rio Hondo River channel just southeast of the project site, especially at night. The area only has wildlife that is very tolerant of human activity such as small to medium -sized mammals, reptiles, and song birds.

The project area is urbanized and has a low risk from wildfires although smaller localized urban fires may still occur. The surrounding area does contain some commercial and industrial uses which result in some risks from hazardous materials, transportation accidents, etc. Noise levels in the City are generally moderate depending on distance from nearby freeways and rail lines.

Public services and utilities in the City are provided by a number of agencies, mainly the City and County (e.g., police, fire, wastewater treatment, flood control), as well as some private companies (water, solid waste collection).

2.10 – Project Description
The Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Project in the City of Downey proposes 33 multi -family townhouses on 1.29 acres at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street. South Bluff Road also runs along the southeast point of the property forming a five -legged intersection. The proposed gated townhouse development is adjacent to the Rio Hond o River and Trail (across South Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
8 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Bluff Road) to the south. The project site slopes gently down to the east with elevations ranging from 140 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the western boundary down to 133 feet amsl along the eastern boundary. At present 83% of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. Land use approvals/entitlements for the project include:
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84168 to establish 33 condominium units and a Site Plan review to consider the project's architecture and improvements ;
• General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR, up to 8.9 units/acre) to Medium Density Residential (MDR, up to 24 units/acre);
• Zone Change from R-1 6,000 to Multi-Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0); and • Density Bonus for three moderate income level units in addition to the 30 market rate units.

• Site Plan Review for review of the architecture, landscaping, and circulation of the site.

The density of the proposed project is 20.6 units per gross acre while the R-3-O zone allows up to approximately 22 units/acre. According to the City Zoning Code, the R -3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing”. The layout of the project site is shown in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. It should be noted that 30 of the proposed townhomes will be market rate units while 3 of the units will quali fy for the City’s density bonus under its inclusionary zoning program for affordable housing.

Architecture
Construction of the proposed project includes the demolition of the existing onsite church and parking lot. The proposed multi-family townhouse development includes five different unit designs. Plan 1 is a 1188 square foot (sq. ft.), 3-bedroom, 3-bathroom, tandem townhouse. Three of the new units will use this plan type, all of which will be located in Building 4 of the proposed project. Plan 2 is a 1477 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 3-bathroom tandem townhouse. Twelve of the proposed units will utilize this plan type, all of which will be located in Buildings 1 and 2, facing Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street respectively. Two of those 12 units will utilize an alternate design (Plan 2alt) where the units do not “interlock” with the neighboring Plan 4 townhouses. This is visualized in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. The other 10 units do, however, interlock with their surrounding units. All five of the units located in Building 3 in the center of the development will utilize Plan 3 ; a 1600 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 2.5-bathroom townhouse.

Plan 4 is a 1657 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom townhouse. These 10 units feature an “interlock” layout and will interlock with Plan 2 units in Buildings 1 and 2. Plan 5 is a 1792 sq. ft. 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom townhouse. All three of the units utilizing this design will be located in Building 4 and will interlock with Plan 1 units also a part of the structure. The layout and building locations of the project are shown in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. The maximum building height for the proposed project is 36 feet, or 3 stories. The height and appearance of design features of the proposed townhouses are shown in Exhibit 7, Building Elevations.

Circulation and Parking
Vehicle access to the project will be provided via two gated entrances developed during project construction. The gated entrance located at the northeastern corner of the project site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard will be 26 f eet wide and is accessible by vehicles and pedestrians. The entrance provides access to a roadway within the development that splits in and weaves throughout the project site. The roadway will border the north side of Building 4 and will run along the western side of building one, splitting again. One branch will narrow to 25 feet and run west, providing vehicle access to Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 9
City of Downey
Buildings 2 and 3. The original roadway meets the south gated entrance facing Suva Street. This gate is only accessible to emergency vehicles and is typically closed. There will be 71 total parking spaces provided (2.5 spaces/unit), 66 of those spaces are garage spaces, and the remaining 5 being guest spaces. Vehicle access in and around the project site is shown in Exhibit 6, Site Plan.

Open Space and Landscaping
Total open space area within the project site will be 6,958 sq uare feet with 4,389 square feet of that will consisting of private open spaces. These include uncovered patios and yards, covered front porches, and uncovered and covered decks. The remaining 2,569 sq uare feet of open space will constitute common space, which will be divided into two areas; Open Space A and B. Open Space A will be located at the northwestern corner of the project site and will be 192 sq uare feet in size. Open Space B will take up the central walkways intersecting Buildings 3 and 4 and will be 2,377 sq uare feet in size.

Approximately 7,772 square feet of the project site will be landscaped. Landscaping of the project area will include trees, shrubbery, and groundcover. The open space layout is shown in Exhibit 8, Open Space Plan. The proposed landscaping and layout is shown in Exhibit 9, Landscape Plan.

Walls and Fences
Walls and fencing in and around the project would consist of two types, as well as pilasters connecting the structures.
• Along the eastern perimeter of the project site, a six-foot tall block wall as measured from the highest adjacent grade. Block walls will also feature adjacent to both gated entrances to the development at the planned south and the northeastern gated vehicle entrances. The gated entrance located at the northeastern corner of the project site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard is a community gate accessible by vehicle s and pedestrians. The gate located at the south of the proposed project off of Suva Street is only accessible to emergency vehicles and is typically closed. Both gates will be connected to the block walls by pilasters. • Four-foot. tall stucco block walls are included for private patios. These walls are featured at all private patios at Buildings 1, 2, 4, and one additional private patio at the easternmost unit of Building 3.

The project will also include a three-foot high community entry sign monument with night lights and medium sized boulders will feature at the southern corner of the proposed project, at the intersection of Bluff Road, Foster Bridge Boulevard, and Suva Street.

The location of the various walls and fencing are shown on Exhibit 10, Wall and Fence Plan.

Utilities
Water and sewer services are provided by the City of Downey. Electrical services would be provided by Southern California Edison. All utility connections will be located underground.

Grading and Construction
Project construction will involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating construction activities. Project construction is assumed to begin in early -2024 and last approximately 12 months. Construction will first involve demolition of the existing onsite church and parking lot. Development will then involve grading, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Table 2.10-1 (Project Construction Activities) shows the length of time to complete the various phases of construction along with a list of typical equipment to be used during each phase. The project engineer and the grading plan indicate earthwork on the site will be generally Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
10 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
balanced with little onsite cut and fill anticipated. The grading plan indicates there will be 7,000 cubic yards (cy) of over-excavation due to the presence of unconsolidated fill. Other earthwork will involve 2,500 cy of cut/fill and approximately 4,500 cy will need to be imported after removal and compaction of the unconsolidated fill materials.

Table 2.10-1
Project Construction Activities
Construction Phase Duration
(Days)(A) Typical Equipment Used(B)
Demolition 20 Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe,
Concrete/Industrial Saw
Site Preparation 2 Grader, Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Grading 4 Grader, Dozer, Backhoe
Building Construction 200 Crane, Forklift, Backhoe, Generator, Welder Paving 10 Paver, Roller, Paving Equipment
Architectural Coating 10 Air Compressor
Source: MIG 2023a
(A) Days refers to total active workdays in the construction phase, not calendar days. (B) The typical equipment list does not reflect all equipment that would be used during the construction phase.

Not all equipment would operate eight hours per day each workday.

2.11 – Required Approvals
The City of Downey is the only land use authority for this project requiring the following approvals:

• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84168
• General Plan Amendment
• Zone Change
• Density Bonus
• Site Plan Review
• Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.12 – Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required None.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 11
City of Downey
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 12
City of Downey

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 13
City of Downey

Exhibit 1
Project Area Map

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
14 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 15
City of Downey

Exhibit 2
Site Photographs

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
16 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 17
City of Downey

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
18 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 19
City of Downey

Exhibit 3
General Plan Designations

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
20 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 21
City of Downey

Exhibit 4
Zoning Designations

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
22 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 23
City of Downey

Exhibit 5
Conceptual Site Plan

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
24 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 25
City of Downey

Exhibit 6
Project Elevations

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
26 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November
2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 27
City of Downey

Exhibit 7
Project Elevations

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
28 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 29
City of Downey

Exhibit 8
Project Elevations

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
30 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 31
City of Downey

Exhibit 9
Project Elevations

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

2 – Project Description
32 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 33
City of Downey
3 Environmental Determination

3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a ‘Potentially Significant Impact’ or ‘Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated’ as indicated by the checklist analysis on the following pages.

Aesthetics □ Agriculture / Forest
Resources □ Air Quality / Energy
Biological Resources Cultural/Tribal Resources Geology / Soils/ Paleo □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards / Hazardous
Materials □ Hydrology / Water
Quality
□ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services / Recreation □ Wildfire □ Transportation/Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.2 – Determination
□

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. □

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□

I find that the proposed project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

3 – Determination
34 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 35
City of Downey
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

4.1 – Aesthetics

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? □ □ □
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within view from a state
scenic highway?
□ □ □
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
□ □ □
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
□ □ □

a) No Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). There are no scenic vistas identified in the City of Downey General Plan (Downey Vision 2025).1 The proposed project is located on a developed site within a fully developed area visually dominated by residential land uses and surface streets. Th e project site is not considered to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista.

The project site is comprised of one parcel that is developed with a church and parking lot that will be demolished as part of project construction with 33 townhouse units organized in four buildings with a maximum height of 36 feet (3 stories). See Exhibit 3, Site Photographs, Exhibit 6, Site Plan, and Exhibit 7, Building Elevations.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
The project will be a gated community with an automated gated entry at the northeast corner of the site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard. The site is bounded by single family residential uses adjacent to the north and across Foster Bridge Boulevard to the east. There is also an apartment complex southwest of the site across Suva Street. The general area has views of the San Gabriel Mountains approximately 15 miles to the north when the air is clear. The Rio Hondo Channel is southeast of the site across Bluff Road but is a concrete channel at this location so it provides limited views. However, there is a multi - use trail along the west side of the channel for bicyclists and pedestrians. The site currently contains a one-story church building and surface parking lot so the new project townhouse buildings will incrementally reduce public views to the north from Suva Street and private views from the apartment complex southwest of the project site. However, the evaluation of impacts to scenic vistas under CEQA only addresses views from public locations such as roads, sidewalks, and public facilities such as parks.

Due to the lack of scenic public views and vistas in the surrounding area, the proposed project would result in no significant impacts with respect to views of a scenic vista.

b) No Impact. The Project is not adjacent to a designated state scenic highway or eligible state scenic highway as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System 2. The streets in the project vicinity are not listed in the City of Downey General Plan for consideration as scenic highways. The closest State scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Route 2), located approximately 20 miles north of the project site.2 The project site is located in a fully developed, urbanized area, and contains no scenic resources. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway would occur.

c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is in an urban area. The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan indicates the project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows up to 8.9 units/acre. Under this designation, up to 11 units could currently be built on the project site. The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows up to 24 units/acre while the density of the proposed project is 20.6 units/acre.

The zoning designation of the site is R-1 6,000 which is a single-family detached residential designation.

The project proposes to change the site’s zoning designation to Multi -Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0). According to the City Zoning Code, the R-3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and provid ing sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing”. This owner-occupied townhouse project is also proposed as a buffer between the owner- occupied single family uses to the north and east to the rental apartments to the southwest and the non- residential light industrial uses to the west.

The site is bounded by low density single family residential uses adjacent to the north and across Foster Bridge Boulevard to the east. There is also an apartment complex southwest of the site across Suva Street. The single-family homes are mainly one-story structures while the apartment buildings are two- story structures. The project would be consistent with local General Plan and zoning designations with approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.

The only potential area of visual conflict would be with the single -family residence to the north due to its close proximity to the project site (45 feet from the residence to the northern -most building). The Project Landscape Plan (Exhibit 9) shows shrubs to be planted along the northern perimeter wall, however, these may not be tall enough to block views of the new 3 -story buildings from the adjacent residence. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES -1 is recommended to help minimize any visual impacts from the project on the adjacent residence s.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 37
City of Downey

With the proposed entitlements, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable General Plan or zoning requirements regulating the height, setbacks, open space, and other aesthetic aspects of development. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and there are no regulations governing scenic quality in the City of Downey. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, visual impacts of the project would be reduced to less than significant levels.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact night-time views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused by unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (e.g., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (e.g., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorist s). There are lighting sources adjacent to the project site, including free-standing streetlights, light fixtures on buildings, and pole -mounted lights. The proposed project includes exterior security lighting and interior building lighting throughout the site. The following City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC) sections deal with various forms of lighting: Section 9520, Outdoor Lighting; Section 9933.5, Street Lighting; and Section 9624, Lighting and Design Standards.

These CDMC sections require outdoor lighting to be arranged so as to reflect light away from any other property. The proposed project would be required to comply with these requirements. Complying with these regulations would make the project’s lighting impacts less than significant. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 will further reduce potential lighting conflicts due to the proximity of the northern -most building of the Project to the existing residence just north of the project site.

Sources of daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas and are often associated with retail uses with extensive glass surfaces. Glare results from development that contain s reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass, highly polished surfaces, and expanses of pavement. The proposed project site is located in an area that developed mainly with residential uses. The proposed townhomes include design features that would result in minimal use of glare -inducing materials. With regulatory compliance (i.e., CDMC), potential reflective glare impacts of the project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

AES-1 Enhanced Landscaping. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site . Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. Th e design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, shall be the responsibility of the City Planning Department.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in F orest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? □ □ □
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104 (g))?
□ □ □
d) Result in loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
use? □ □ □
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
use?
□ □ □

a) No Impact. The proposed project is located in a fully developed, largely residential, suburbanized area that does not contain any agricultural or forest uses. The map of Important Farmland in California (2023) prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify the project site as containing Prime Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 39
City of Downey
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.3 The City of Downey is located in an area that is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” with no land considered as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. In addition, the General Plan does not identify any areas for agriculture use within the City. Therefore, there would be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non -agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact would occur.

b) No Impact. No Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contracts through Los Angeles County are active for the project site.4 In addition, the project site is zoned for residential uses which does not permit agricultural uses. Therefore, there would be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.

c) No Impact. CEQA Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in CEQA Section 12220(g). The project site has already been graded and developed with a church and parking lot with no substantial native vegetation onsite. Therefore, developing this project would have no impact on any timberland zoning.

d) No Impact. The project site is land that has been previously developed with a church with limited ornamental landscaping; thus, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use as a result of this project. No impact would occur.

e) No Impact. The site has been previously developed for a church within an urban/suburban environment. The project site is surrounded by residential uses and a self-storage facility. None of the surrounding uses contain existing forest resources. Therefore, development of this project would not change the existing environment in a manner that would result in the conversion of forest land to a non- forest use. No impact would occur.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
40 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

4.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? □ □ □
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
□ □ □
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations? □ □ □
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
□ □ □

An Air Quality Impact Report5 was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 20, 2023 (Appendix A). The report estimates the potential air quality emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significa nce thresholds for construction and operation. A Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment6 was prepared for the proposed project by Ganddini Group, dated November 15, 2023 (Appendix H) that provided trip generation data for the Air Quality Study.

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where efforts to attain state and federal air quality standards are governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as criteria pollutants). These pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb). The state has also established AAQS for additional pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the state and federal standards differ, California AAQS (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national AAQS (NAAQS).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the SCAQMD assess the air quality of an area by measuring and monitoring the amount of pollutants Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 41
City of Downey
in the ambient air and comparing pollutant levels against NAAQS and CAAQS. Based on these comparisons, regions are classified into one of the following categories:

• Attainment. A region is “in attainment” if monitoring shows ambient concentrations of a specific pollutant are less than or equal to NAAQS or CAAQS. In addition, an area that has been re - designated from nonattainment to attainment is classified as a “maintenance area” for 10 years to ensure that the air quality improvements are sustained. • Nonattainment. If the NAAQS or CAAQS are exceeded for a pollutant, the region is designated as nonattainment for that pollutant. It is important to note that some NAAQS and CAAQS require multiple exceedances of the standard in order for a region to be classified as nona ttainment.

Federal and state laws require nonattainment areas to develop strategies, plans, and control measures to reduce pollutant concentrations to levels that meet, or attain, standards. • Unclassified. An area is unclassified if the ambient air monitoring data is incomplete and does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.

Table 4.3-1 (South Coast Air Basin - Non-Desert - Attainment Status), summarizes the Basin’s attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The Basin is currently in nonattainment for state and federal ozone, state PM10, and state and federal PM2.5 standards.

Table 4.3-1
South Coast Air Basin (Non-Desert) Attainment Status
Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 (1-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment
O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Pb -- Nonattainment (Partial)
Hydrogen Sulfide Attainment --
Sulfates Attainment --
Vinyl Chloride Attainment --
Sources: Table 2, MIG 2023a, SCAQMD, 2018

A project that conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of the SCAQMD South Coast Air Basin 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) could hinder implementation of the AQMP, delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines, and/or interfere with SCAQMD efforts to maintain compliance with, and attainment of, applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 o f the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook7, consistency with the AQMP is affirmed if the project:
1) Is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP; and 2) Does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standard, violation, or cause a new one.

Consistency Criterion 1 refers to the growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP was designed to achieve attainment for all criteria air pollutants within the Basin while still accommodating growth in the region. P rojects that are consistent with the AQMP growth Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
assumptions would not interfere with attainment of air quality standards, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. The proposed project would generate approximately 33 new residential units. The existing General Plan would allow 12 units on the 1.29 -acre site (8.9 units/acre max.). The project proposes 33 units which is 22 more units than would be allowed under the existing General Plan and zoning. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth projections for the City of Downey are +1,500 new households and +5,900 residents between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). The incremental growth that would result from the project represents 1.5% of City growth anticipated by SCAG over the next 20 years. Therefore, the growth represented by he proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions contained in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion 2 refers to the CAAQS. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D-3). As shown in Table 4.3-2 (Regional Construction Emissions), in Section 4.3(b) below, the proposed project would not generate construction or operational emissions in excess of SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not conflict with the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP.

b) Less than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project -related emissions would substantially contribute to existing or projected air quality violations. The proposed project would generate both short-term construction emissions and long -term operational emissions. As described in more detail below, the proposed project would not generate emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD - recommended pollutant thresholds.

Construction Emissions

Construction of the proposed project would generate equipment exhaust and dust emissions from demolition activities, ground disturbing activities such as site preparation and grading, and the use of gasoline- and diesel-fuel combustion in on- and off-site heavy duty construction equipment, worker vehicle trips, vendor vehicle trips, and haul truck trips, ground disturbing activities. The proposed project’s potential construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1. The project grading plan indicates there will be 7,000 cubic yards (cy) of over -excavation due to the presence of unconsolidated fill on the site. Other earthwork will involve 2,500 cy of cut/fill and approximately 4,500 cy will need to be imported after removal and compaction of the unconsolidated fill materials. The construction phases, duration, and the type and amount of equipment used during construction was generated using CalEEMod default assumptions, and modified to reflect the following project-specific characteristics:
• The demolition of approximately 8,480 square -foot of existing building square footage (i.e., existing onsite church) was added to the model run;
• Fugitive dust control measures were incorporated into the model consistent with requirements contained in SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.

The proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions are shown in Table 4.3-2, Regional Construction Emissions. As shown in Table 4.3-2, the proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s regional pollutant thresholds for all pollutants. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not generate construction - related emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Construction impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, it should be noted the project is still required to comply with a variety of SCAQMD rules and regulations on construction emissions (e.g., Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust).

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 43
City of Downey
Table 4.3-2
Regional Construction Emissions
Season and Year Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2024 1.2 9.7 12.0 <0.1 0.7 0.4
Winter 2024 33.0 16.1 17.0 <0.1 3.6 2.1
SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: MIG, 2023 (see Appendix A) and SCAQMD 2020.

Operational Emissions

Once operational, the proposed project would generate emissions from the following sources:
• “Area” Sources. The proposed project would generate emissions from small area sources, including landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products (e.g., paints, cleaners, and fertilizers) that result in the evaporation of chemicals into the atmosphere during product us e. • Mobile Sources. The proposed project would generate emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

The proposed project’s operational emissions were also estimated using CalEEMod, V. 2022.1.1. The modeling is based on the project’s first full year of operations (assumed to be 2025), using default data assumptions generated by CalEEMod, modified as neces sary to reflect the following project-specific context, information, and details:
• Project-specific land use information (i.e., lot acreage, building square footage, etc.) was applied to the model;
• Project-specific weekday trip generation rates were applied to the model (Ganddini Group, 2023).
• Area Sources: Hearths were updated to be electric to reflect the project’s all electric building design.
• Energy Use and Consumption: Natural gas consumption was removed and electricity annual consumption was increased using the U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA) energy conversion calculator to reflect the project’s all electric building design. N atural gas water and space heating sources were removed since the project would be all -electric (US EIA 2023).

The proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated operational emissions are shown in Table 4.3-3 (Regional Operational Emissions). As shown in Table 4.3-3, the proposed project’s maximum daily, unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s - recommended regional criteria air pollutant thresholds. Therefore, project operation would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD regional CEQA thresholds. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Table 4.3-3
Regional Operational Emissions
Emission Source
Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (Pounds Per Day)(A)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 1.4 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Demand(B) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 0.8 0.6 6.2 <0.1 1.3 0.3
Total Daily Emissions(C) 2.1 0.6 8.0 <0.1 1.3 0.3
SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table 4, MIG, 2023a (see Appendix A)
(A) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter emissions levels. Maximum daily ROG, CO, SOX emissions occur during the summer. Maximum daily NOX emissions occur during the winter. In general, due to rounding, there is no difference between summer and winter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions levels for the purposes of this table
(B) Energy demand related air quality emissions estimated to be 0 due to the project being all-electric. (C) Totals may not equal due to rounding.

Cumulative Impacts

The Basin is currently designated non -attainment for State and/or federal standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. As discussed in the preceding subsections, the proposed project would not result in construction or operational emissions of criteria air pollutants that exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD considers projects that result in emissions that exceed its CEQA significance thresholds to result in individual impacts that are cumulatively considerable and significant. Since the proposed project would not individually exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, it would also not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in regulated, nonattainment pollutants.

c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate both short -term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions that could impact sensitive residential receptors located near the project; however, as described in more detail below, the proposed project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD-recommended localized significance thresholds or result in other substantial pollutant concentrations.

In addition to regional CEQA thresholds, the SCAQMD has also developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable feder al or state ambient air quality standards, which would result in significant adverse localized air quality impacts.

Construction Emissions

The project’s maximum daily construction emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s - recommended LSTs thresholds in Table 4.3-4 (LST Construction Emissions). Consistent with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, the emissions included in the construction LST analysis are on -site emissions only. The LST thresholds are for source receptor area (SRA) 5, the SRA in which the proposed project is located, and are conservat ively based on a receptor distance of 25 meters (82 feet), the closest LST receptor distance thresholds recommended for use by the SCAQMD, and a project size of 1.0 acre. These thresholds are considered conservative because the proposed project size is approximately 1.3 acres.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 45
City of Downey

As shown in Table 4.3-4 (LST Construction Emissions), the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended construction LSTs. Project construction, therefore, would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD local CEQA thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, it should be noted the project is still required to comply with a variety of SCAQMD rules and regulations on construction emissions (e.g., Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust).

Table 4.3-4
LST Construction Emissions
Construction Phase(A)
Maximum Daily Emissions (Pounds per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 16.1 17.0 1.2 0.7
Site Preparation 13.7 13.4 3.2 1.8
Grading 15.9 16.1 3.6 2.0
Building Construction 9.7 12.0 0.7 0.4
Paving 5.0 7.3 0.4 0.3
Architectural Coating 0.9 1.5 0.1 <0.1
SCAQMD LST Threshold(B) 83 673 5 4
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Table 5, MIG 2023a (see Appendix A) and SCAQMD 2009 (A) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter emission levels. In general, due to rounding, there is no difference between summer and winter emission levels for the purposes of this table. (B) The LST thresholds are conservatively based on 1.0-acre project size and 25-meter receptor distance for SRA 5.

Operational Emissions

Typically, operations related to LSTs become a concern when there are substantial on -site stationary or on-site mobile sources (e.g., heavy duty or idling trucks) that could impact surrounding receptors, which is not the case for the proposed project. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s maximum daily operational emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s -recommended LSTs in Table 4.3-4 and

4.3-5.

The project’s maximum daily operational emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s - recommended LSTs in Table 4.3-5 (LST Operational Emissions). Consistent with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, the emissions included in the operational LST analysis are onsite emissions only, and the LST thresholds against which these onsite emissions are compared are based on the project size, in acres. The LST thresholds are for SRA 11 (South San Gabriel Valley), the SRA in which the project is located and are based on a receptor distance of 82 feet (approximately 25 meters), the closest LST receptor distance threshold recommended for use by the SCAQMD. As shown in Table 4.3-5, proposed project’s on-site operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended operational LSTs. Project operation, therefore, would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD local CEQA thresholds. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Table 4.3-5
LST Operational Emissions
Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (Pounds per Day)(A)
NOX CO PM10(B) PM2.5(B)
Area Sources 1.0 6.1 0.1 0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile Sources(A) 2.3 24.7 <0.1 <0.1
Total Emissions(B) 3.3 30.8 0.1 0.1
SCAQMD LST Threshold(C) 121 1,031 2 2
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: MIG 2023 (see Appendix A).
(A) Mobile source emissions estimates reflect potential onsite vehicle emissions only and were derived by assuming 2% of operational mobile source emissions in Table 4 will occur onsite. (B) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter emissions levels. In general, due to rounding, there is no difference between summer and winter emissions levels for the purposes of this table.
(C) LST threshold is based on a 2.0-acre project size and 25-meter (82-foot) receptor distance.

Sensitive Air Quality Receptors/Health Risks

The SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Some people are more affected by air pollution than others.

Sensitive air quality receptors include specific subsets of t he general population that are susceptible to poor air quality and the potential adverse health effects associated with poor air quality. Both CARB and the SCAQMD consider residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes to be sensitive air quality land uses and receptors (SCAQMD 2017a; CARB 2005). The potential sensitive air quality receptors adjacent or in close proximity to the perimeter of the project area (i.e., within 1,250 feet) include:
• The single-family residential land uses on Foster Bridge Boulevard that border or are in close proximity to the project site (the closest of which is adjacent to the northern property line); • Other single-family residences southeast of the project along Guatemala Avenue; • The Rio Hondo Bike Path, which is approximately 120 feet south of the project site, that runs adjacent to Bluff Road;
• Suva Elementary School, approximately 1,250 feet northwest of the project site.

In addition to criteria air pollutants, the U.S. EPA and CARB have classified certain pollutants as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) (by U.S. EPA) or Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) (by CARB), respectively. These pollutants can cause severe health effects at very low concentrations (non-cancer effects), and many are suspected or confirmed carcinogens (i.e., can cause cancer). People exposed to HAPs/TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and/or other health problems.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 47
City of Downey
A portion of the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated during construction of the project would be diesel particulate matter, or DPM, a known TAC. The proposed project’s construction activities would not expose adjacent residential receptors to substantial levels of DPM that would pose a substantial adverse health risk for several reasons. First, the proposed project does not involve substantial earthmoving or grading activities that would require large amounts of heavy-duty equipment associated with the highest DPM emissions. This is because the proposed project site is already developed and only approximately 1.3 acres in size. Second, potential long -term adverse health risks from DPM are evaluated assuming a co nstant exposure to emissions over a 70 -year lifetime, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with increased risks generally associated with increased proximity to emissions sources.

Since construction activities would only generate DPM emissions on an intermit tent, short-term basis (lasting approximately 12 months), DPM emissions from construction activities would be unlikely to result in adverse health effects to existing sensitive receptors that exceed the SCAQMD’s significance criteria. In 2019, the SCAQMD established the following thresholds of significance for projects that generate TAC emissions: Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million; Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million); Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (projec t increment).

There is no current evidence to suggest the presence of asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) in the existing church building. However, if ACMs were present, then demolition, removal, and transport of building materials containing ACMs could result in airborne emissions of asbestos resulting in exposure of workers or the environment to a hazardous material. In accordance with Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). If necessary, the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which is the enforcing rule of the Asbestos NESHAP, and sets forth requirement s for asbestos surveying, notification, removal procedures, and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements for asbestos containing waste materials. Regulatory compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 would ensure the proposed project does not expose sensitive receptors to asbestos containing material s. For additional information on ACMs and other impacts related to hazardous materials, see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

CO Hotspot Analysis

A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near high volume intersections. Several screening procedures have been developed by air districts throughout the state to assess whether a project may result in a CO impact. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. Additionally, the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide demonstrated that CO levels were below the CAAQS at an intersection with a daily traffic volume of up to approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would add approximately 331 new vehicle trips to the roadway system per day (see Appendix G). The worst-case hourly intersection volume in the project vicinity would be relatively unaffected by the project, which is projected to add a total of 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 25 trips during the PM peak hour. This is well below the BAAQMD screening threshold, and surrounding roadway segments would not have traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would not cause intersection volumes to exceed any daily (100,000) or hourly (44,000) screening vehicle volumes maintained by the SCAQMD and other regional air districts and, therefore, would not result in significant CO concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, pape r, etc.). The proposed project does not include such sources but would result in the construction of a new townhome Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
facility that could generate odors related to vehicle parking and refuse collection (e.g., oils, lubricants, fuel vapors, short-term waste odors). These activities would not generate sustained odors that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential impact with respect to odors wou ld be less than significant.

4.4 – Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
□ □ □
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
□ □ □
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
□ □ □
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 49
City of Downey
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
□ □ □
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
□ □ □

a ) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a developed property occupied by a church and parking lot in the far northwest corner of the City. The project site and surrounding area are fully developed and not identified as critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species of plant or animal. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)8 shows no record of any occurrence of any sensitive plant, animal, terrestrial natural community, or aquatic community on the project site9 or in the immediate surrounding area, including the Rio Hondo Channel. The most current CNDDB data for the Southgate USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle indicates there are four listed or otherwise sensitive plant species present in the surrounding region, including several species typical of vernal pool habitat. The CNDDB list also shows ten listed or protected animal species in the region, including burrowing owl and several bird species found in riparian habitat (Appendix B). The site contains no vegetation, habitat, or resources that would support any of these listed, sensitive, or protected species of plants or animals. Landscaping currently exists onsite, including a number of mature landscaped Ficus and palm trees. However, ornamental vegetation is not typically native habitat for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

The only plants onsite are landscaped or non-native weedy species. The site is completely covered with man-made structures/surfaces and there are no drainage features, wetlands, or water features present. The only wildlife on site would be those native species tolerant of regular human activity including small mammals, reptiles, and songbirds.

Considering the highly developed nature of the project site and lack of native habitat, it is reasonable to conclude the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to sensitive species or their habitats. The highly disturbed nature of the site and surrounding habitat would not provide substantial habitat for any of the sensitive species known to occur within one mile of the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b) No Impact. As outlined in Threshold 4.4.a above, no natural or man-made water features occur within the project site and no riparian vegetation is present on or adjacent to the site, including the nearby concrete-lined Rio Hondo Channel, that could provide habitat for wildlife.10 Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. No impact would occur.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
c) No Impact. As outlined in Threshold 4.4.a above, no wetlands occur on the project site.11 Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact would occur.

d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the General Plan, the City does not maintain any designated wildlife corridors and the project site is surrounded by developed residential and industrial properties.

The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703–711) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 extend protection to a number of avian species that may occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. The project site contains a number of landscaped trees (mainly Ficus and palms) that may possibly provide habitat for nesting birds. The project plan calls for all trees and vegetation to be removed from the site. If the onsite vegetation contained nests for avian species protected by these regulations, there is a potential for a significant impact in this regard. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (nesting bird survey) has been recommended to determine if any onsite vegetation contains nesting birds and if present, restricts construction activities until young birds have fledged from the next. This measure will ensure impacts to nesting/migratory birds are less than significant. With mitigation incorporated, impacts to wildlife corridors or migrating animals would be less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. The only biological resource on the site is the existing trees and landscaping, and the City has no local regulation regarding removal of these materials.

Construction of the proposed project would result in the removal of non-native landscaping shrubs and tree species from the site. Development of the proposed project will install new landscaping and trees on the site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any local regulations related to trees or other biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

f) No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other biological plan are associated with the project site or the immediate surrounding urbanized area.12 Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place during the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code must be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Los Angeles County extends from February 1 through September 1.

If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. Th is survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 51
City of Downey
has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the survey(s) will be documented.

Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mo bilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged.

A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post -degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the quali fied biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special-status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements.

4.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
□ □ □
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
□ □ □
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outsides of
formal cemeteries? □ □ □

a) Less than Significant Impact. In the 1800’s, Downey was one of many towns to spring up in the Los Angeles Basin. The city derived its name from John Gately Downey, an Irish immigrant who had come to California during the 1849 Gold Rush. He helped build the economic foundation of Southern California which transitioned from open cattle range to an agricultural district of small farms. In November 1859, Downey and his former drugstore partner, James McFarland, bought the 17,602 -acre Rancho Santa Gertrudes. In 1873, a 96-acre parcel of the plot became the central district of a community called “Downey City” as a result of the favorable climate, fertile soil, and abundant water sources. In April of 1874, the Southern Pacific Railroad was extended through Downey which brought new residents from back East and delivered agricultural and other goods throughout the country. By Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
the early 1900’s, the downtown Downey area contained a Sunkist packing plant, a department store, banks, restaurants and mercantile shops. Downey remained largely agrarian until the development of the local aircraft industry during the post -World War II years, with light industry and tract homes replacing orange groves. The city was one of the first suburban “planned communities” with quality homes, schools and retail centers. By the beginning of the 21st century, Downey provided a balance of housing, commerce, and jobs for local residents and employees.

A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the project site 13 by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 that included historic and archaeological resources According to the General Plan1 and the CRA13, the project area has no facilities that satisfy any of the criteria for historic resources defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The CRA noted that components of the onsite church building were constructed from the late 1950’s to 1989, so it was at least possible that the structure may have historical value. To answer that question, CRM TECH undertook a preliminary evaluation of the church building and determined it did not meet the criteria for a historical resource under CEQA CRM TECH concluded the site did not have any structures eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any of the significance criteria. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5. During its historical assessment, CRM TECH documented the architectural features of the church building using the required California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523 to help determine if a property meets the defined criteria of historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural significance. The DPR 523 Form is designed to collect enough information to make a preliminary determination of eligibility. The form collects basic information such as location, classification, function, a brief physical description and evaluation of the property’s integrity and associations. With this documentation, potential impacts to historical resources will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the project site by CRM TECH that included the evaluation of archaeological resources. The draft CRA indicated that no cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the project area, but Native American tribes have occupied the Los Angeles Basin for thousands of years. Given the developed, urbanized nature of the project site and vicinity, previously undiscovered archaeological resources are not anticipated to be uncovered during project grading. However, it should be noted that local Native American tribes, most notably the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, have expressed concern regarding the likelihood of finding tribal artifacts or resources during grading generally anywhere within their traditional tribal boundaries which includes the City of Downey (see also Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources).

In the event that archaeological resources , most likely related to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been recommended to ensure that buried archaeological and/or tribal resources are properly treated if found during project grading. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No known human remains are anticipated to be located on or beneath the project site. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities, the contractor is required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, who must then determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, they must contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will help ensure that human Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 53
City of Downey
remains are properly treated in accordance with existing regulations. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts related to the discovery of buried human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

CUL-1 Unanticipated Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted.

Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA: 14 CCR 15064.5(f): PRC Section 21083.2), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. However, if the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment p lan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted.

4.6 – Energy
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency? □ □ □

An Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 20, 2023 (see Appendix A). The report estimates the potential energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds for construction and operation.

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing church and parking lot and construction of a 33-unit townhouse project. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of heavy -duty, off-road equipment and construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. Heavy -duty construction equipment would be required to comply with CARB’s airborne toxic control measures, which restrict heavy -duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. It is estimated that construction activities would consume approximately 19,871 gallons of diesel fuel to power on-site, off-road heavy-duty construction equipment. Worker, vendor, and haul truck trips during construction activities are anticipated to consume 3,802 gallons of gasoline, 1.137 gallons of diesel, and 894 kilo-Watt hours (kWh) of electricity.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Once operational, the proposed project would consume energy for vehicle trips, electricity, and water and wastewater conveyance. As estimated using CalEEMod, the proposed building s would consume approximately 396 megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity per year. Operational vehicle trips are anticipated to consume approximately 3,804 gallons of diesel and 23,191 gallons of gasoline from operational mobile sources on an annual basis.

The proposed project would not consume natural gas as the project is planned to be all electric.

Electricity and gasoline fuel consumption are energy sources necessary to operate and maintain the proposed project in a safe manner. Lighting is essential for safety and security and, due to the all - electric design of the building s, electricity is also needed for heating, cooking, and other temperature - controlled activities. Due to energy efficiency standards being improved over time, the new structures would be more efficient in its energy consumption than the existing structures. In addition, the proposed project includes the use of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to be provided on all townhomes.

Electricity, and gasoline fuel consumption are energy sources necessary to operate and maintain the proposed residential project in a safe manner. Lighting is essential for safety and security as well as heating and other temperature -controlled activities since it will be an all-electric project. Due to energy efficiency standards being improved over time, the new structures would be more efficient in its energy consumption than the existing structures. In addition, the proposed project includes elements th at support modes of transportation that would result in less gasoline consumption than transportation by single-occupancy gasoline-powered cars. For example, the CalGreen Code requires new residential units to be wired so that electric vehicle charging equipment be installed by new homeowners if so desired.

The proposed project would be built to the latest CalGreen Code and State Title 24 energy conservation standards and would be more energy efficient than the existing structures at the site and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy. For example, the development will have photovoltaic solar panels on the roofs of the units to replace electricity from other sources. In addition, the project will be all electric so there will be no consumption of natural gas, and each unit will be wired to support electric vehicle charging equipment.

In these ways, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency because no such plan is in place in the project area. In these ways energy consumption impacts of the project will be reduced to the level equal or greater than that required by the CalGreen Code.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources. This impact would thus be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the project would be constructed and operated consistent with the energy conservation requirements of the CalGreen Code and State Title 24 energy conservation standards. In addition, the City of Downey does not have its own Climate Action Plan (CAP) or other plan that directly addresses energy conservation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency because no such plan is in place in the project area. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 55
City of Downey

4.7 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
□ □ □
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □
iv) Landslides? □ □ □
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? □ □ □
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on -
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
□ □ □
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
□ □ □
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
□ □ □
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? □ □ □

A Geotechnical Investigation 14 was prepared by Albus & Associates, dated February 6, 2023 (Geotechnical Report, Appendix D) and a Paleontological Resources Assessment Report 13 was prepared by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 (Appendix C). The information in this section is largely taken from those reports unless otherwise noted.

a.i) Less Than Significant Impact. No active faults have been identified at the ground surface within the City of Downey as identified in the General Plan Safety Element, nor have any Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault zones been designated.15 The project Geotechichnical Report indicates “no active faults are known to project through or immediately adjacent the subject site and the site do es not lie within an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (page 6, Albus 2023). Table 3.1 in the Geotechnical Report indicates the following faults are the closest to the project site: Puente Hills (0.1 mile); Elsinore (5.4 miles); Elysian Park (6.6 miles); and Newport Inglewood (9 miles). Although there are several faults in the immediate surrounding region, t he Geotechnical Report found the risk from onsite fault rupture to be negligible. Therefore, impacts related to earthquake faults and ground rupture would be less than significant.

a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts from strong seismic ground shaking include injury or loss of life and property damage. The Geotechnical Report found the peak ground acceleration i at the site is 0.834g ii which is considered strong. The City lies within the Los Angeles Basin and underlying geologic formations consist largely of ancient marine and river deposits which are typically sandy and silty-sandy soils. The proposed project lies in the far northwest corner of the City on relatively flat terrain next to the Rio Hondo Channel.

The Geotechnical Report indicates there is two to six feet of unconsolidated artificial fill beneath the project site from deposition of excavated soils when the Rio Hondo Channel was realigned. In its current condition, the site may be susceptible to ground failure during strong seismic events. However, The Geotechnical Report also indicate s that standard excavation and compaction of the soil to applicable engineering standards in the CBC will eliminate this potential for ground failure on the site. Compliance with these regulatory standards is not considered unique mitigation.

The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as are virtually all properties in Southern California. The 2022 California Building Code (California Building Code [CBC], California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2, as adopted by the City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC), Chapter

16.05, contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. The proposed townhomes would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the 2022 CBC. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would reduce the potential for building collapse during an earthquake, thereby

i The mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) ii The term “g” means onsite groundshaking could reach about 83% of the force of gravity exerted horizontally on project buildings.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 57
City of Downey
minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements would minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intende d to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Adherence to existing regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death. Therefore, impacts due to strong ground shaking would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Report indicates there is two to six feet of unconsolidated fill beneath the project site from deposition of excavated soils when the Rio Hondo Channel was realigned. The grading plan indicates there will be 7,000 cubic yards (cy) of over - excavation due to the presence of unconsolidated fill. Other earthwork will involve 2,500 cy of cut/fill and approximately 4,500 cy will need to be imported after removal and compaction of the unconsolidated fill materials.

Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore -water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table (less than 50 feet in depth), and in an area subject to strong groun dshaking. Affected soils lose their strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur.

The City’s General Plan Safety Element indicates the project area is considered to be in a liquefaction zone. The Geotechnical Report found no groundwater beneath the project area to the subsurface exploration depth of 51.5 feet. However, CDMG 16 Special Report 034 suggests that historic high groundwater in the immediate area could be as shallow as 9 feet below the ground surface. After additional research by Arbus using online groundwater well data from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, two wells were found in proximity to the project site. Data from these wells was from 1950 to 2011 and the recorded depths to groundwater in both wells indicate that groundwater has remained below a depth of 50 feet in this area since 1950 (i.e., 70-80 feet). Therefore, the Geotechnical Report concluded that groundwater beneath the site w as expected to be at least 50 feet or more in depth.

The Geotechnical Report indicates the site and surrounding area have not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions . Therefore, there is no potential for permanent ground displacement that would trigger the need for mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). The site exhibits a very low seismic settlement potential and liquefaction would not be significant to the proposed development. Therefore, impacts due to seismically induced ground failure or liquefaction would be less than significant.

a.iv) No Impact. The Geotechnical Report indicates the project site is located in a suburbanized area that is relatively flat and there is no potential for landslides . Therefore, there will be no impacts to the proposed project site and no mitigation is required.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site currently supports a church and parking lot and underlying soils are completely covered by development. However, the project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion would be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Du st), such as daily watering which will minimize the potential for wind erosion. For more information on dust control, see Threshold 4.3, Air Quality. With regulatory compliance, project construction will not have significant impacts relative to wind erosion.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Water erosion would be prevented through the City’s standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing or sandbags. Following project co nstruction, the site would be covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations once construction is complete.

c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed in Sections 4.7.a and 4.7.b. above and both were determined to be less than significant.

Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Late ral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (e.g., retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. Due to the absence of any channel within or near the project site, and the subsurface soil conditions that are not conducive to liquefaction, the potential for lateral spread occurring on the project site is considered to be less than significant (page 7, Geotechnical Report).

The project engineer indicates earthwork on the site will be generally balanced with little onsite cut and fill anticipated. However, there may be a small amount of import or export of soil because the exact amount is not yet known. This is because the site is underlain by an unknown amount of unconsolidated fill.

The City requires a comprehensive geotechnical investigation of a development site prior to issuing grading permits. In addition, the project is required to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the 2022 CBC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City -approved recommendations contained in the soils report be made conditions of the building permit.

The project Geotechnical Report indicated it was prepared for only feasibility purposes and recommended a supplemental Geotech nical report be prepared to determine site specific project grading, design, permitting, and construction parameters. Preparation of that supplemental report is addressed in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Compliance with site specific geotechnical recommendations of the original and supplemental Geotech nical Reports (see Mitigation Measure GEO-1) and current CBC regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from potentially unstable soils to less than significant levels.

d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the project Geotechnical Report, near surface soils have a “very low” medium expansion potential. The project would comply with all recommendations provided in the project Geotechnical Report upon application for grading and building permits. Less than significant impacts would occur.

e) No Impact. The project proposes to connect the existing municipal wastewater system to an eight- inch sewer main line in Suva Street along the southern boundary of the site. The project would connect to this system and would not require use of septic tanks; therefore, no impact would occur .

f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Given the urbanized nature of the project site and vicinity, previously recorded paleontological resources are not anticipated to be uncovered during project construction activities. However, in the event that previously undiscovered paleontological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO- Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 59
City of Downey
5 have been recommended to ensure that paleontological resources are properly treated. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to be less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures

GEO-1 Supplemental Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a supplemental geotechnical investigation as recommended by the “Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation” prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 2023. The supplemental report shall be certified by the City Engineer as adequate for the purposes of design, permitting, and construction.

GEO-2 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. If excavation below 6’ is required, the project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel before commencement of excavation activities. The training would include a handout and would focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered durin g earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources , and the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.

GEO-3 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks During Grading and Earth -Moving Activities. If excavation below 6’ is required, the project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six feet from the surface to determine if construction e xcavations extend into older Quaternary deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks would be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the older Quaternary deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources are required.

The project proponent must retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who would work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor must be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring is based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full -time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. Monitoring shall terminate when grading and trenching activities on the site have been completed.

GEO-4 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the paleontological monitor may halt or divert work away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities are not allowed to continue until an appropriate paleontological treatment plan is approved by the project proponent and the City. Work is allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project proponent and City would coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources.

Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor would assist in removing rock samples for initial processing.

GEO-5 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. If paleontological resources are found, upon completion of the activities identified under Mitigation Measure GEO-4, the professional paleontologist would prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, and a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report would be submitted to the project proponent, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
□ □ □

An Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 20, 2023 (Appendix A). The report estimates the potential energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds for construction and operation.

a) Less than Significant Impact.

Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as GHGs. GHG that contribute to climate change are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 61
City of Downey
air pollutants because climate change is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects.17 Some GHG are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and off -gassing from low oxygen environments such as swamps or exposed permafrost (methane); h owever, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., carbon dioxide) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change. The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride – and two groups of gases – hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. These GHG are the primary GHG emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The six most common GHG’s are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the corresponding effects of global climate change (e.g., rising temperatures, increased severe weather events such as drought and flooding). GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted.

The potential for a GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO 2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH 4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO 2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e), which enables a project’s combined global warming potential to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions (referred to as CO2 equivalents, or CO2e).

GHG Significance Thresholds
The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.

In order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD convened the first GHG Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) meeting on April 30, 2008. To date, the Working Group has convened a total of 15 times, with the last meeting taking place on September 28, 2010. Based on the last Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD identified an interim, tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions intent on capturing 90 percent of development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The following describes the basic structure of the SCAQMD’s tiered, interim GHG significance thresholds:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for applicable CEQA exemptions.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, it would not have a significant impact.
• Tier 3 consists of using screening values at the discretion of the Lead Agency; however, the Lead Agency should be consistent for all projects within its jurisdiction. The following thresholds were proposed for consideration:
o 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; or
o 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial; 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed use projects.
• Tier 4 has three options for projects that exceed the screening values identified in Tier 3:
o Option 1: Reduce emissions from business-as-usual by a certain percentage (currently undefined); or
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Measures; or o Option 3: For plan-level analyses, analyze a project’s emissions against an efficiency value of 6.6 MTCO2e/year/service population by 2020 and 4.1 MTCO2e/year/service Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
population by 2035. For project-level analyses, analyze a project’s emissions against an efficiency value of 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO 2e/year/service population for the 2020 and 2035 calendar years, respectively.

This analysis uses the SCAQMD’s interim Tier 3 GHG threshold to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG emissions levels. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from both short -term construction and long-term operational activities.

Construction Emissions
Construction activities would generate GHG emissions primarily from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the project site during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectu ral coating activities. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year over the life of the project. The SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction GHG emissions over a 30-year period and including them with operational emissions estimates. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions and compared to appropriate thresholds, plans, etc.

Operational Emissions
Once operational, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area, stationary, mobile, water/wastewater, and solid waste sources. The proposed project’s potential GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, V.2022.1.1 using project information if available or CalEEMod default assumptions when project-specific data was not available. The proposed project’s unmitigated GHG emissions for construction and operation are shown in Table 4.8-1 (Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

Table 4.8-1
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source
GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e Per Year)
Operations
Area 3
Energy 93
Mobile 232
Refrigerants <1
Solid Waste 8
Water/Wastewater 4
Subtotal(A)
Construction
Total Construction Emissions 240
Average Annual Emissions (30-Year Lifetime)(B) 8
Total Project Emissions(A) 348
SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening Threshold 3,000
SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold Exceeded? No
Project-Specific GHG Threshold(C) 1,800
Project-Specific Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: MIG 2023a (Appendix B) and SCAQMD, 2010.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 63
City of Downey
(A) Construction emissions value has been averaged over a 30-year assumed project lifetime (B) Totals may not equal due to rounding.
(C) Calculated based on State post-2020 GHG emission targets since it is now 2023

As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project’s potential increase in GHG emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s recommended GHG emissions threshold. Furthermore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would also be below an adjusted project-specific GHG emissions goal of 1,800 MTCO2e per year, which takes into account post 2020 GHG emissions targets towards which the state is currently working. The 1,800 MTCO2e per year goal was developed by taking the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, which was the threshold to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels and reducing it by 40 percent (3,000 MTCO 2e/yr. * (1 - 0.6) = 1,800 MTCO2e/yr.). This reduction is consistent with the GHG reductions required by the year 2025 to meet GHG reductions required under Senate Bill 32 (to reduce GHG emissions to levels 40% below 1990 levels by 2030). This linear reduction approach oversimplifies the threshold development process. The City of Downey is not adopting nor proposing to use 1,800 MTCO 2e as a CEQA GHG threshold for general use; rather, it is only intended to provide additional context and information on the magnitude of the proposed project’s GHG emissions.

Finally, the proposed project’s estimated emissions are presented as gross emissions with no credit applied rather than the net change. For these reasons, the proposed project would therefore not generate GHG emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan ), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS). Appendix D to CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies potential actions that could be undertaken at a local level to support the State’s climate goals. In addition to providing guidance to local lead agencies on long -term climate planning (e.g., developing a qualified climate action plan), this appendix also provides a list of key GHG reducing attributes for residential and mixed-use developments - projects that exhibit these attributes represent growth that is consistent with State’s GHG reduction goals. Table 4.8-2 (Project Consistency with Key GHG Reducing Attributes - 2022 Scoping Plan), evaluates project consistency with these attributes.

Table 4.8-2
Project Consistency with Key GHG Reducing Attributes (2022 Scoping Plan) Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provides electric vehicle (EV) charging
infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets
the most ambitious voluntary standard
in the California Green Building
Standards Code (CalGreen Code) at
the time of project approval.

Consistent. The proposed project would meet
the minimum code compliance specified in the
2022 CalGreen Code.

VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses and
reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land that
is presently served by existing utilities
and essential public services (e.g.,
transit, streets, water, sewer).

Consistent. The proposed project would add
approximately 33 units on an infill site that is
served by existing utilities.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Does not result in the loss or conversion
of natural and working lands.

Consistent. The proposed project site is already
developed; it would not result in the loss or
conversion of natural or working lands.

Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling
units per acre), or

Is in proximity to existing transit stops
(within a half mile), or

Satisfies more detailed and stringent
criteria specified in the region’s SCS.

Consistent. The proposed project would result
in a development intensity of approximately

25.4 dwelling units per acre, which meets the
criteria.

Reduces parking requirements by:

• Eliminating parking requirements
or including maximum allowable
parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of
parking spaces to residential units
or square feet), or
• Providing residential parking
supply at a ratio of less than one
parking space per dwelling unit, or
• For multifamily residential
development, requiring parking
costs to be unbundled from costs
to rent or own a residential unit.

Inconsistent. The proposed project would not
incorporate parking reduction.

At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower-income residents.

Inconsistent. The proposed project would only
designate up to 3 units as affordable to lower-
income residents.

Results in no net loss of existing
affordable units.

Consistent. The proposed project would not
result in the net loss of existing affordable units.

Building
Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without any
natural gas connections and does not
use propane or other fossil fuels for
space heating, water heating, or indoor
cooking.

Consistent. The proposed project would be an
all-electric design. The project would not include
natural gas plumbing nor use fossil fuels for
space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

Source: Table 8, MIG 2023a, CARB 2022, Appendix D, Table 3; and TAG 2023

As shown in Table 4.8-2, the proposed project would be consistent with most of the Key GHG Reducing Attributes identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan, except for electric vehicle infrastructure, parking reductions, and low-income housing provisions. This inconsistency does not necessarily imply that the project would result in a potentially significant impact, because consistency with the project attributes is simply a qualitative means by which to assess whether or not a project would clearly be consistent with the State’s climate goals (CARB 2022, pg. 23). In fact, Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan provides that, “Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals” (CARB 2022, pgs. 23 and 24). The proposed project would provide some VMT reductions because it would be located on an infill site, not result in the loss of natural or working lands, and have transit - supportive densities (i.e., greater than 20 dwelling units per acre), and would not install, nor us e, natural gas or fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor c ooking. Therefore, based on these Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 65
City of Downey
qualitative criteria and the magnitude of the project’s overall GHG emissions levels (less than 350 metric tons of CO2e per year) the growth proposed by the project would be consistent with the State’s long - term GHG emission reduction goals.

As described above, the proposed project would not result in significant GHG emissions nor conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions.

There will be no impact and no mitigation required.

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
□ □ □
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
□ □ □
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
□ □ □
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
□ □ □
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
Project area?
□ □ □
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
□ □ □
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
□ □ □

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)18 was performed by SCS Engineers, dated January 31, 2023 (Appendix E). The information on hazardous materials in this section is largely taken from the ESA.

a) Less than Significant Impact. The project could result in a significant hazard to the public if it includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility, which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The project is located within an area dominated by residential uses and surface streets. The project would not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses, which require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. The project, which is a residential use, does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances.

Construction of the project would require the use and transport of hazardous materials such as asphalt, paints, and other solvents. Construction activities could also produce hazardous wastes associated with the use of such products. Construction would require ordinary construction activities and would not require a substantial or uncommon ly high amount of hazardous materials to complete. All hazardous materials are required to be utilized and transported in accordance with their labeling pursuant to federal and state law. Routine construction practices include good housekeeping measures to prevent/contain/clean-up spills and contamination from fuels, solvents, concrete wastes, and other waste materials. Impacts related to construction would be less than significant.

With regard to project operation, widely used hazardous materials common at residential uses include paints and other solvents, cleaners, and pesticides. Operation of the proposed project would also involve the use of cleaning solutions for daily operation and paints for routine maintenance and re - coating of structures. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste (HHW) that includes used dead batte ries, electronic wastes, and other wastes that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Through compliance with existing regulations, use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant.

b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is a residential development proposed within an existing residential-zoned area of the City of Downey. The proposed project would Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 67
City of Downey
have limited use of hazardous materials , mainly HHW as part of the operations of the proposed residential use. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed by SCS Engineers (SCS) in 2023 concluded that no known hazards we re present on the project site. Regarding the history of the site, the ESA indicated excess soil from realignment of the nearby Rio Hondo Channel was deposited on the site which raised its elevation by several feet. as described below:

The property was undeveloped or agricultural land between 1896 and 1902. Between the 1920s and the mid-1950s, it was developed with agricultural orchards and a rural farmhouse. The church was developed in stages, beginning in the late -1950s, expanded to its current configuration with a paved asphalt parking lot around it by 1989. The construction of the church coincides with the time when the Rio Hondo was channelized to the southeast, rerouting it from its original course to the west of the Property. Today, the church parking lot sits approximately 4 -6 feet higher in elevation than the adjoining residence to the north. It is likely that virgin fill material originating from the river channelization process was placed on the Property at that time, raising its elevation. In SCS’ opinion, given the likely origin of this fill material, it does not represent an environmental concern. It is also SCS’ opinion that, without specific evidence of pesticide storage or mismanagement on the Property, past use for agricultural purposes does not represent a significant environmental concern and collection and analysis of soil samples for pesticides is unwarranted. Our opinion is further supported by the fact that fill material, likely placed on the Property during the river channelization, and former agricultural orchard soil is now 4 -6 feet below current grade.

The ESA found no indications of aboveground or underground storage tanks or other potential contamination on the site. However, due to past activities on the site and in the surrounding area, it is possible that unanticipated hazardous materials may be found during demolition or grading of the site.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended to monitor grading by qualified personnel to assure there will be no release of or health risks from the unanticipated release of subsurface hazardous materials during grading.

According to the SCAQMD, demolition of older buildings and structures may pose a hazard regarding asbestos containing materials and lead -based paint. It should be noted that Asbestos Containing Materials and lead based paint do not represent a significant public health hazard when they are left undisturbed, however, site development requires demolition of the existing church building prior to grading.

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs). ACMs were used on a widespread basis in building construction prior to and into the 1980s. The ESA indicated that construction on the existing church building began in the late 1950’s and continued through 1989. Typical sources of ACMs include transite (water) pipes, roofing materials and roof penetrating mastic, and vinyl floor tiles. If ACMs are present, site demolition could result in airborne emissions of asbestos resulting in exposure of workers or the environment to a hazardous material. In accordance with Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). If necessary, the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which is the enforcing rule of the Asbestos NESHAP, and sets forth requirement s for asbestos surveying, notification, removal procedures, and storage, and disposal requirements for ACMs. Regulatory compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 would ensure the proposed project does not expose sensitive receptors to ACMs. If present, ACMs would need to be removed by a licensed contractor prior to general onsite demolition and the start of grading.

Lead Based Paint (LBP). According to the California Department of Toxic Substances, exposure of construction workers to LBP during demolition of older structures is of concern, similar to that of exposure to asbestos. Exposure of surrounding land uses to lead from demolition acti vities is Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
generally not a concern because such activities do not result in appreciable emissions of lead. The primary emitters of lead are industrial processes. Improper disposal of lead -based paint could contaminate soil and subsurface groundwater in and under landfills not properly equipped to handle hazardous levels of this material.

Due to the age of the existing onsite building, a survey needs to be conducted prior to any demolition on the site to determine whether or not the church building contains ACMs and/or LBP. In this regard, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 is recommended to be implemented prior to any demolition activities.

Mitigation Measures

HAZ-1 Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on -call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will ha lt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required.

Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable residential standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the C ity or other agencies as appropriate . Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials.

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department.

HAZ-2 ACMs and LBP Survey. Prior to demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite church building and any related structures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe removal and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Community Development Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment . With mitigation, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

c) Less than Significant Impact. One school, Suva Elementary School, is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site. The project is residential in nature and would not emit hazardous Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 69
City of Downey
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste . Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

d) No Impact. The project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses.19 Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project site is not:
▪ listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),20
▪ listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUFT) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),21
▪ listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,22 ▪ currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,23 or
▪ developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.24

Based on available evidence, n o impacts would occur in relation to hazardous material sites.

e) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within two miles of any public or private airport.25 The closest public or private airport facility to the project is the San Gabriel Valley Airport located approximately 10 miles to the northeast of the site in the City of El Monte. No impact would occur with regard to safety hazards or excessive airport noise.

f) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Downey provides an emergency response plan and emergency preplacement plan for residents and businesses in the City. The project site has direct access to two local streets, Foster Bridge Road and Suva Street, although Suva Street provides east - west connection through the northern part of the City and Bell Gardens to the west. The I -5 Freeway (0.8-mile to the east) and the I-710 Freeway (1.8 miles to the west) provide regional access for the project area. The proposed project does not propose or result in any permanent lane closures or reconfiguration of existing streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

g) No Impact. The proposed project is located in a completely urbanized area. The project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).26 In addition, the project is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and would be served by the City of Downey Fire Department, and further supported by the Los Angeles County Fire Department s hould wildfires occur.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased fire threat to the community. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
□ □ □
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
□ □ □
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:

i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ □
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on - or
off-site;
□ □ □
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
□ □ □
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation? □ □ □
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
□ □ □
Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 71
City of Downey
A Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan27 was prepared by Advanced Civil Group, Inc. dated June 6, 2023 (Appendix F). The information in this section is largely taken from the LID Plan.

a) Less than Significant Impact. A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving water body. A significant impact could occur if the p roposed project would discharge water that does not meet th e quality standards of the agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water q uality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce potential water quality impacts during construction activity (Downey Municipal Code Section 6.30.050) and the implementation of post-construction best management practices (BMPs) such as detention basins, infiltration ponds, porous pavement, sand and organic filters, etc. Long-term impacts are addressed by preparation of a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan per the requirements of the County of Los Angeles National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (Order No. R4 -2012-0175-A01) issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) under the NPDES.

Construction Impacts

Three general sources of potential short -term, construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of constr uction equipment; and 3) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. All new development projects equal to one acre or more are subject to Los Angeles County NPDES Permit No. CAS004001. The proposed project would disturb approximately 1.3 gross acres of land and therefore would be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 6.30.050, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and submitted for the proposed project. All construction projects must apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include drainage controls such as detention ponds, dikes, filter berms, and down drains to prevent offsite runoff, and utilizing plastic covering to prevent erosion.

Compliance with City discharge requirements would ensure that construction of the project would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The SWPPP and implementation of BMPs is considered regulatory compliance and not mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, construction -related water quality impacts of the project would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts

In addition, the proposed project would not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the proposed interior plumbing systems of the proposed townhomes would be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant.28 Impacts associated with operation of the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.

The LARWQCB has jurisdiction over this project site which is located in the Los Angeles River watershed and the Rio Hondo sub -watershed (Rio Hondo Reaches 2 and 1) which flow into Los Angeles River Reaches 2 and 1 before draining into the Pacific Ocean. Rio Hondo Reach 2 and Reach 1 are not susceptible to hydromodification or any sediment related issues per latest State 303d list. Therefore, Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
the project is exempt from hydromodification requirements for any sediment related issues per latest State 303d list.

A LID Plan was prepared for the project site using the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual dated February 2014 . The LID Manual complies with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (CAS004001, Order No. R4 - 2012-0175).

Construction of the proposed project would increase impervious areas on the project site from 78% to 87%. The approximately 1.22-net acre site would be redeveloped with 33 condominiums and associated pavement, parking, and landscaping. Runoff from the developed site would result in increased potential water contamination from urban pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters and from atmospheric buildup on rooftops.

According to the LID Plan, the site drains to the southwest into existing storm down drains along Suva Street which then drain southeasterly 0.1 mile into the City MS4 storm drainage system via the MTD 956 storm drain line into the Rio Hondo Channel. The Rio Hondo Channel then flows southwest to the confluence with the Los Angeles River about 3 miles downstream. The Los Angeles River then flows southerly 13 miles to the Pacific Ocean.

The proposed project will generally be drained via area drains as well as curb and gutter flows along the drive isle and alleys of the property to drop inlet catch basins located in the southwest and northeast.

Storm water runoff flows will generally drain in a southwesterly direction towards Suva Street . The LID Plan determined that post-development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates would be slightly higher than the existing rate for the site. This slight increase in flow rate is attributed to the proposed increase in impervious surfaces on the site that would occur as a result of the project.

The LID Plan indicates the developed condition of the site would have a Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) of 3,213 cubic feet (cf) which would need to be accommodated by BMPs designed into the project plan. BMPs for the project were evaluated according to the hierarchy recommended in the County LID Manual: from Infiltration; Bioretention; Rainfall Storage and Reuse; then finally to Biofiltration. An infiltration BMP is feasible for the project so the other BMPs were not required. The LID Plan treated runoff from the site as one Drainage Area.

Onsite runoff would be collected by an onsite storm drain system which would direct low flows to a deep infiltration drywell (30 feet or greater in depth) and an underground storage system (USS, either pipes or a chamber) located near the center of the property. The drywell and USS are designed to mitigate discharge of untreated low flow runoff and the USS will help temporarily detain runoff so it can infiltrate over time. According to the LIP Plan, the drywell and USS have been designed to detain and infiltrate the SWQDv (3,213 cf) in accordance with County LID Design Manual requirements. Flows greater than the SWQDv will bypass this system and will discharge directly to Suva Street via an under sidewalk drain. All of the proposed drainage improvements will be installed and managed by the developer until a homeowners association (HOA) can be formed for the condominiums that can take over the maintenance responsibilities.

The project would be able to maintain runoff equal or less than the Los Angeles County allowable flow rates so no adverse effects would occur to the downstream storm drain system. In addition, the proposed BMP’s would satisfy the City’s water quality requirements which would reduce the post - developed flow rates further as well as significantly reduce the pollutants generated from the project.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 73
City of Downey
With this project design and compliance with existing water quality regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b) Less than Significant Impact. If the project removes an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduces runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells would no longer be able to operate, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Project-related grading would not reach the depth of the groundwater table (estimated in the Geotechnical Report as at least 50 feet and more likely 70 -80 feet below the ground surface). Therefore, no direct disturbance of groundwater is anticipated.

The proposed building footprints and pavement areas would increase impervious surface coverage on the site from 78% to 87%, thereby incrementally reducing the total amount of potential infiltration onsite.

However, infiltration of irrigation water through soil would ensure continued groundwater recharge in Downey as impervious surfaces slowly increase over time. The project site is not utilized for groundwater recharge and would consist of approximately 13% of landscaped areas or soft-bottom surfaces that would allow for infiltration. Because this site is not managed for groundwater supplies and would provide landscaped areas for continued infiltration, this change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on groundwater table level. Groundwater impacts related to development of the proposed project would therefore be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

c.i) Less than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the project results in substantial on - or off-site erosion or siltation. The site drains into a storm drain system that drains into the Rio Hondo Channel, then to Rio Hondo that connects into the Los Angeles River Reach 2 and then Reach 1 and then to Pacific Ocean.

Rio Hondo Reach 2 and Reach 1 are currently listed in the federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list due to impairment of cyanide, copper, lead, pH, toxicity, trash, zinc, and coliform bacteria.

The site is already developed with a church, parking lot, and landscaping. Construction of the proposed project would slightly increase impervious areas on the project site (currently 78% to 87% for the project) The approximately 1.3-acre site would be redeveloped with 33-unit townhouses and associated pavement, parking, and landscaping. Runoff from the redeveloped site would result in increased potential water contamination from urban pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters and from atmospheric buildup on rooftops. Section 4.10.a above describes the onsite drainage and water quality system planned for the center of the site. Runoff would then drain into existing storm drains along Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard.

The post-developed drainage pattern of the project site would generally maintain the existing drainage patterns, with runoff ultimately discharging to the Rio Hondo Channel, the Los Angeles River, then finally to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the drainage pattern would not be substantially altered in a manner that could cause increases in erosion on - or off-site. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be implemented during construction through implementation of a SWPPP (see Section 4.10.a above).

At the completion of construction, the site would consist of impervious surfaces or improved landscaped areas so it would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. No streams cross the project site so the project would not alter any stream course. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.10.c.i above, a river or stream does not lie within the proposed project site. Additionally, the project would not lead to a substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns in the area. The project site is located in Flood Zone X which is “an area Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Review Draft November 2023
determined to be outside the 100 -year flood hazard area” according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Number 06037C1810F dated September 26, 2008. Therefore, the project site has less than significant impacts related to flooding and no mitigation is required.

c.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase the net area of impervious surfaces on the site so incremental increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system would likely occur. However, an onsite storm drain catch basin system would direct runoff to a drywell and underground storage system in the center of the site (see Section 4.10.a above). Storm water from the site that is not captured would then drain south and east into storm drains along Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard, respectively.

The post-developed drainage pattern of the project site would generally maintain the existing drainage patterns, with runoff ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system would be obtained prior to co nstruction. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval, and these requirements would apply to the proposed project. Therefore, project runoff is not expected to impact local storm drain capacity. The proposed residential use does not have t he potential to generate significant amounts of polluted runoff and therefore would not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Post-construction Infiltration BMP’s would also ensure the project would not result in substantial pollutant loading. Therefore, impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

c.iv) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.10.c.i above, the flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency show the project site is located in Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 100 -year flood hazard area.29 Therefore, the project is not located within a 100-year flood floodplain and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.10.c.iv above, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood floodplain so no direct flooding impacts would occur. The project site is also not subject to tsunami due to its elevation (minimum 133 feet above mean sea level) and distance from the ocean (17.1 miles to the southwest and 14.5 miles to the south).

As noted in Section 4.7.iv, the project site has not been identified in an area susceptible to landslides, thus the potential for mudflow is relatively low because the project does not lie in a landslide hazard zone.

The Safety Element of the City’s 2005 General Plan (“Downey Vision 2025”) does not identify any specific upstream reservoirs or water impoundments whose failure could result in inundation of the site.

GP Goal 5.6 is to “minimize potential adverse impacts from flooding” and GP Policy is to “protect life and property from flooding hazards”. To that end, GP Program 5.6.1.3 encourages the City to “Mitigate hazards from possible dam or levee failure, including the raising of bridges and levees along rivers, including in areas outside the City”.

A major earthquake could create a seiche, or a standing seismic wave, in bodies of water, and the violent movement of water could cause a dam or levee to fail catastrophically. The only large upstream body of water is the Santa Fe Dam basin in the City of Montebello. The project is located approximately 14 miles southwest and downstream of the Santa Fe Dam along the Rio Hondo Channel.

Exhibit E (Attachment C)

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 75
City of Downey
According to the California Dam Breach Inundation Map website30, even if the Santa Fe basin were full at the time of a large earthquake or other event that caused a dam failure, flood waters down the Rio Hondo Channel would not be expected to reach the City of Downey or the project site.

The Los Angeles County Public Works Department operates and maintains a state -of-the-art ALERT computer system to monitor meteorological conditions in the County and Southern California in real time, i.e., as they occur. The system includes a network of fi eld sensors that monitor and receive precipitation amounts including rainfall data from the Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles Telemetry System. These systems allow for system level real time checks that provide for emergency management planning. The City of Downey likewise operates an Emergency Management system in the event of dam failures. The proposed project does not include modifications to a dam system or levees that would alter the hazard planning completed by the City of Downey. With adherence to existing policies, regulations, and ord inances, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to dam or levee failures and no mitigation is required.

e) Less than Significant Impact. The LARWQCB’s Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance surface and groundwater quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan: (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describe s implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. Development of the project would be required to adhere to requirements of the water quality control plan, including all existing regulation and permitting requirements. This would include the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. Development of the project would also be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing General Plan policies related to water quality would also be applicable to the project. Impleme ntation of these policies, in conjunction with compliance with existing regulatory programs, would ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts related to the project would be less than significant.

Downey City CouncilMay 14, 2024

Downey City Council
May 14, 2024