Laguna Hills City Council
February 27, 2024

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx d) As a conservative step and as further validation for the application of ULI’s recommended ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF to the Project, applied the ULI Shared Parking methodology to estimate shared parking demand for existing and the four future scenarios (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B), and compared shared demand against future supply to determine any surplus or deficiency.

Briefly, our findings indicate that the existing parking supply of 516 spaces will be revised to 500 spaces with development of Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. This parking study also concludes that there would be adequate parking supply in the future that could fully meet the total parking needs of the Plaza with development of the Project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 presents a Project vicinity map and study area. As illustrated on Figures 2 through 5, the Project consists of the following four development scenarios:
 Major Building Option 1A and Option 1B: Demolish the existing 45,000-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza and construct a new/replacement 49,000-SF Grocery Store, as well as 3,000 SF of in-line shops with outdoor seating.
o Option 1A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to FastFood with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,600-SF “shops building” on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field.

Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary).
o Option 1B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and Fast-Food without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,600-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,100 SF of retail uses and a 1,900-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru.
 Major Building Option 2A and Option 2B: Demolish the existing 45,000-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza, construct a new/replacement 49,000-SF Grocery Store, and expand the existing 25,500- SF ‘BIG Lots’ tenant space by 7,900 SF.

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx o Option 2A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to FastFood with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,600-SF shops building on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field.

Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary).
o Option 2B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and Fast-Food without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,600-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,100 SF of retail uses and a 1,900-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru.

No work is planned for the existing 2,500-SF drive-thru restaurant (‘Carl’s Jr.’) or the in-line shops buildings sited at western edge of the Plaza.

PARKING SUPPLY
The existing on-site parking supply totals 516 spaces. The existing parking lot with diagonal/angled/60-degree parking spaces and one-way drive aisles will be reconfigured to provide 90-degree parking spaces and two-way drive aisles.

Figures 2 through 5 illustrate the Project’s parking supply provisions proposed for each future scenario, including accessible (ADA) spaces, electric vehicle (EV), and standard spaces, as follows:
 Option 1A Supply: 500 spaces on site
 Option 1B Supply: 500 spaces on site
 Option 2A Supply: 500 spaces on site
 Option 2B Supply: 500 spaces on site

CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Tables 1 through 5 present the City Code parking calculations for existing, Option 1A, Option 1B, Option 2A, and Option 2B, respectively. City Code parking ratios from the City’s Municipal Code Section 9-44.050 Required Parking for retail, restaurants, medical office, and health club were applied to the respective Project components to calculate the City Code parking requirements.

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx As indicated on Table 1 for existing conditions, the existing Laguna Hills Plaza shopping center requires a total of 586 spaces based on the direct application of City Code ratios. Compared against the existing on-site supply of 516 spaces, the 586-space Code requirement results in a Code-based deficiency of 70 spaces. It should be noted that City Code does allow for shared parking calculations in mixed-use developments such as the Project.

Table 2 indicates that, presuming development of Option 1A, the Project would require a total of 591 spaces based on the direct application of City Code ratios. Compared against the proposed on-site supply of 500 spaces under Option 1A, the 591-space Code requirement results in a Code-based deficiency of 91 spaces.

As indicated in Table 3, Option 1B would require a total of 595 spaces based on the City Code calculations (slightly greater than Option 1A by 4 spaces). Compared against the proposed on-site supply of 500 spaces under Option 1B, the 595-space Code requirement results in a Code-based deficiency of 95 spaces (slightly more than Option 1A by 4 spaces).

Table 4 indicates that, with the development of Option 2A, the Project would require a total of 607 spaces based on the direct application of City Code ratios. Compared against the proposed on-site supply of 500 spaces under Option 2A, the 607-space Code requirement results in a Code-based deficiency of 107 spaces.

As indicated in Table 5, Option 2B would require a total of 611 spaces based on the City Code calculations (slightly greater than Option 2A by 4 spaces). Compared against the proposed on-site supply of 500 spaces under Option 2B, the 611-space Code requirement results in a Code-based deficiency of 111 spaces (slightly more than Option 2A by 4 spaces).

Notwithstanding the City Code parking requirements for the Project, the actual parking demand of uses located within a mixed-use setting have been found to be less than what City Code would require. The Project is also located near other shopping centers and residential uses. This diversity in land use types creates synergy and results in shared parking needs that are less than standalone Code-based parking requirements, increases non-vehicular internal trips made by walking and bike trips between uses (i.e., visitors and employees of nearby businesses and local residents would be shopping and dining in various destinations/attractions within the Project site), and could reduce overall parking demand for the Project by 30% to 50%.

Furthermore, the City Code parking calculations are conservative because no exemption has been made to reduce the total Gross Floor Area (GFA) to “parkingbased GFA”, as defined in the City’s Municipal Code Section 9-44.050 Required

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx Parking. For the purposes of parking calculations, the City of Laguna Hills exempts areas for vertical shafts, restrooms, utility shafts and excess common area/open patios where no service or seating occurs from the GFA calculation of the building. This calculation essentially uses GFA as the starting point, and after reducing for the abovenamed components, results in the building’s GFA that becomes the basis of the parking calculation. This study presumed that the square footage reported in the development tabulations provided to LLG represents “parking-based GFA”, even though up to 1,950 SF of the Project’s GFA could have been exempted from determining Code-based requirements.

Direct access to the public transit system via nearby bus stops, proposed new pedestrian connections on site and with adjoining uses, provision of 12 short-term (bike racks) and 3 long-term (bike lockers) bicycle spaces, proposed 2 EV charging stations (with the potential for future EV stations in the parking field with stub-out electrical lines), could result in further reducing the Project’s parking needs for both employees and customers of the Project.

ULI SHOPPING CENTER REQUIREMENTS
Based on the ULI publication “Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers”, Second Edition (1999), if restaurant/entertainment/cinema uses are 20% or less of a shopping center’s total square footage, then a ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF should be applied for shopping centers that are less than 400,000 SF without further consideration of the individual land use types or parking ratios. The square footage of the Project’s restaurant component is less than 20% of the total Project size, as indicated in the blue highlighted portion of Tables 1 through 5.

The bottom portion (highlighted in yellow) of Tables 1 through 5 present the application of the ULI-recommended ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF under existing, Option 1A, Option 1B, Option 2A, and Option 2B, respectively, with the findings summarized below:
 Existing: Demand = 425 spaces, Supply = 516 spaces, Surplus = 91 spaces  Option 1A: Demand = 402 spaces, Supply = 500 spaces, Surplus = 98 spaces  Option 1B: Demand = 412 spaces, Supply = 500 spaces, Surplus = 88 spaces  Option 2A: Demand = 416 spaces, Supply = 500 spaces, Surplus = 84 spaces  Option 2B: Demand = 426 spaces, Supply = 500 spaces, Surplus = 74 spaces Based on the above comparisons, there would be adequate parking supply in the future that could fully meet the total parking needs of the Plaza with development of the Project under any of the four development options.

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx The following summary presents a comparison between the application of City Code ratios and the ULI shopping center ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF for each scenario:

Laguna Hills Parking
Requirements
ULI Shopping Center Ratio (4.0
spaces per 1,000 SF)
Table Option
Parking
Supply
(spaces)
City Code
Requirements
(spaces)
CodeBased
Deficiency
(Supply
minus
Code)
Percent
Deficiency
per Code
ULI
Requirements
(spaces)
ULIBased
Surplus
(Supply
minus
ULI)
Percent
Surplus
per ULI
1 Existing 516 586 -70 -12% 425 91 18%
2 1A 500 591 -91 -15% 402 98 20%
3 1B 500 595 -95 -19% 412 88 18%
4 2A 500 607 -107 -18% 416 84 17%
5 2B 500 611 -111 -22% 426 74 15%
As the above comparisons indicate, the most intense development plan is Option 2B, which corresponds to a Code-based deficiency of 111 spaces (22%), but with a surplus of 74 spaces (15%) based on the ULI shopping center requirements. The least intense development plan is Option 1A, which corresponds to a Code-based deficiency of 91 spaces (15%), but with a surplus of 98 spaces (20%) based on the ULI shopping center calculation. It should further be noted that the ULI-based approach to estimating the consolidated parking needs of shopping centers results in surpluses that far exceed the typical/industry threshold of 10% minimum surplus under each of the development scenarios (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B).

PARKING DEMAND SURVEYS
Parking demand surveys were conducted every hour between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM at the site on November 4 (Thursday), 5 (Friday), and 6 (Saturday), 2021. Appendix A contains the raw parking counts collected.

Table 6 presents the results of the parking demand counts. The parking demand observed, corresponding surplus (by comparing demand against supply), and parking occupancy, are reported on Table 6. The peak parking demand observed were increased to account for the 1,549 SF of tenant vacancies at the time the counts were collected (the 8 spaces added were calculated through the application of the City Code ratio for retail of 1 space per 200 SF), and adjusted further to allow for 10%, 50%, and

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx 100% contingencies because the effects of the pandemic on current parking demand cannot be quantified. Using the adjusted demand values with 100% contingency, empirical ratios were derived by using the Plaza’s existing square footage (106,285 SF), and the resulting empirical ratios were compared against the ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF recommended by ULI’s “Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers” (Second Edition) publication.

As presented in Table 6, the empirical ratios derived based on adjusted demand values (more than doubled from raw demand counts) are 21% to 26% less than the 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF recommended by ULI. This demonstrates that the application of the ULI ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF to the Project is a solid and conservative approach in estimating the Project’s parking needs.

SHARED PARKING
Even though ULI’s “Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers” (Second Edition) publication only recommends the application of the Shared Parking methodology to shopping centers with restaurant/entertainment/cinema uses that comprise greater than 20% of the shopping center’s total square footage, this study evaluated the Project from a shared parking standpoint in order to provide further validation for the use of the ULIrecommended ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 SF, taking into consideration the physical setting and reasonableness of shared parking footprints and walking distances between land use and parking facilities.

Parking experience indicates that combining different land uses, whose parking demands peak at different times (of the day, week, and year), generally result in a parking demand that is significantly lower than “stand-alone” or “free-standing” facilities. In other words, a mixed-use development results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak parking requirements for each land use (parking ratios/factors specific to each land use, or city parking code rates are typically applied to these “stand-alone” developments).

The shared parking methodology is based on the analytical procedures that are well documented in ULI’s Shared Parking (Third Edition) publication. The publication defines Shared Parking as “parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment.” Tables 7 through 16 present the Shared Parking summaries for weekday and weekend conditions, under existing, Option 1A, Option 1B, Option 2A, and Option 2B, respectively. These tables provide the shared demand basis for determining adequacy of the proposed supply under each condition.

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx Parking demand values are first calculated based on the application of City Code ratios to each respective land use type regardless of whether they are combined in one column or in its own column heading. For example, the “Retail, Personal Services” category is comprised of retail uses (calculated at 1 space per 200 SF), and beauty/nail salon (calculated at 3 spaces per chair); and the “Vet, Medical/Dental Office” column corresponds to veterinary offices (calculated at 1 space per 200 SF) and medical/dental offices (calculated at 1 space per 150 SF). The resulting gross parking demand totals for each of the retail and restaurant land use categories are then reduced to account for internal capture (15%) and use of alternative modes of travel (5%) totaling a 20% parking reduction to the gross demand estimated based on the application of City Code ratios. As a conservative step, no parking reductions are applied to the retail storage and shipping, gym, spa, health club, martial arts, vet, and medical/dental office components of the Project. Time-of-day profiles from ULI’s Shared Parking (Third Edition) publication were then applied to the adjusted parking demand values to estimate hourly parking needs on a weekday and weekend basis.

The following presents the shared parking findings:

Table Scenario Weekday /
Weekend
Parking
Supply
(spaces)
Peak Shared
Parking Demand
(spaces)
Shared Parking
Surplus (spaces)
Percent
Surplus
7 Existing Weekday 516
422 94 18%
8 Weekend 415 101 20%
9 1A Weekday 500
418 82 16%
10 Weekend 412 88 18%
11 1B Weekday 500
421 79 16%
12 Weekend 416 84 17%
13 2A Weekday 500
435 65 13%
14 Weekend 433 67 13%
15 2B Weekday 500
438 62 12%
16 Weekend 437 63 13%
Based on the above findings, the proposed parking supply in each scenario will be adequate in meeting the estimated shared parking needs of the Project.

As the above comparisons indicate, the most intense development plan is Option 2B, which corresponds to a peak shared parking demand of 438 spaces, and a surplus of 62 spaces (12%) under weekday conditions. It should further be noted that the ULI-based approach to estimating the shared parking needs of mixed-use developments results in

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Mr. Bret B. Bernard
December 20, 2022

N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Parking\4533 Parking Study 12-20-22.docx surpluses that exceed the typical/industry threshold of 10% minimum surplus under each of the development scenarios (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B).

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis. Please call us at 949.825.6175 if you have any questions and/or comments.

Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E.

Senior Transportation Engineer
Attachments

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Suite Tenant
Retail
Storage &
Shipping
Vet
Office
Medical,
Dental
Office
City Code
Parking Ratio
Spaces
Required per
City Code
Existing Major Building
M-A TENANT A RETAIL 45,013 45,013 1 sp/200 SF 225
M-A TENANT A WAREHOUSE 3,792 3,792 1 sp/1500 SF 3
M-B TENANT B RETAIL 21,741 21,741 1 sp/200 SF 109
M-B TENANT B WAREHOUSE 3,791 3,791 1 sp/1500 SF 3
M-C TENANT C VETERINARIAN 1,970 1,970 1 sp/200 SF 10
M-D TENANT D RESTAURANT 4,873 4,873 [a], [b] 47
Existing Major Building Total: 66,754 4,873 0 7,583 1,970 0 0 81,180 -- 397 Existing Shops Building
SH-A Little Caesar 1,505 1,505 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 2
SH-B Squared Spa Massage 1,493 1,493 1 sp/100 SF 15
SH-C Prosperity Thai 1,255 1,255 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 1
SH-D Maw N Paw Kettle Corn 1,262 1,262 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-E UPS Store 1,257 1,257 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-F Z-Nails (6 chairs) 626 626 3 sp/chair 18
SH-G LDC Dental Center 1,893 1,893 1 sp/150 SF 13
SH-I1 Martial Arts 1,263 1,263 1 sp/100 SF 13
SH-I2 KUMON 1,200 1,200 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-J MVP Sportscard 866 866 1 sp/200 SF 4
SH-K Vacant Retail 955 955 1 sp/200 SF 5
SH-L Vacant Retail 595 595 1 sp/200 SF 3
SH-M La Mirage Hair (9 chairs) 998 998 3 sp/chair 27
SH-N Daniels Acupunture 798 798 1 sp/150 SF 5
Existing Shops Building Total: 7,759 0 2,760 0 0 2,691 2,756 15,966 -- 124 Existing Pad A
P-A Carls Jr 2,497 2,497 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30
Existing Pad Bldg. to be Removed
SH-A Diversified Medical Equip. 1,860 1,860 1 sp/200 SF 9 SH-B Verona Kitchen & Bath 3,275 3,275 1 sp/200 SF 16
SH-C AV Medical 1,507 1,507 1 sp/150 SF 10
Existing Pad Bldg. to be Removed Total: 5,135 0 0 0 0 1,507 0 6,642 -- 35 TOTAL EXISTING 79,648 4,873 5,257 7,583 1,970 4,198 2,756 106,285 -- 586 Land Use Percentages: 75.0% 4.6% 4.9% 7.1% 1.9% 3.9% 2.6% 100% -- Retail + Office + Fitness = 90.5%
Restaurant = 9.5%
EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY 516
CODE-BASED DEFICIENCY (70)
Demand per ULI's 4.0 sp/1,000 SF [c] 106,285 425
Existing Parking Supply 516
Parking Surplus (ULI Calculation) 91
Notes:
[a] 40 spaces, plus 1 space per 50 SF above 4,000 SF
[b] For General Retail, if restaurant space occupies more than 10% of total GFA, or if an individual restaurant contains more than 1,000 SF, then additional parking stalls shall be provided for excess restaurant space beyond the 10% or 1,000 SF. The additional parking shall be calculated at the restaurant rate. [c] Per ULI's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers publication, a parking ratio of 4 sp per 1,000 SF is typical for shopping centers that are between 25,000 SF and 400,000 SF in size, and with 20% or less of restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema space.

TABLE 1

EXISTING CITY CODE & ULI PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
City Code Parking
Retail, Requirements
Personal
Services
(Beauty,
Nail
Salon,
Tutoring)
Gym,
Spa,
Health
Club,
Martial
Arts
Studio
Land Use and Size Breakdown in SF GFA
Restaurants
Fine /
Casual
Dine-In
Fast
Casual /
Take-out,
FastFood TOTAL

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Suite Tenant
Retail
Storage &
Shipping
Vet
Office
Medical,
Dental
Office
City Code
Parking Ratio
Spaces
Required per
City Code
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 1
M-A1 TENANT A RETAIL 42,709 42,709 1 sp/200 SF 214
M-A2 RESTAURANT 3,362 3,362 1 sp/100 SF, [b] 24
M-A2 REST. COV. PATIO (< 16 seats) 1,000 1,000 [c] 0
M-B TENANT B RETAIL 21,741 21,741 1 sp/200 SF 109
M-B TENANT B WAREHOUSE 3,791 3,791 1 sp/1500 SF 3
M-C TENANT C VETERINARIAN 1,970 1,970 1 sp/200 SF 10
M-D TENANT D RESTAURANT 4,873 4,873 [a], [b] 47
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 1 Total: 64,450 9,235 0 3,791 1,970 0 0 79,446 -- 407 Existing Shops Building
SH-A Little Caesar 1,505 1,505 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 2
SH-B Squared Spa Massage 1,493 1,493 1 sp/100 SF 15
SH-C Prosperity Thai 1,255 1,255 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 1
SH-D Maw N Paw Kettle Corn 1,262 1,262 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-E UPS Store 1,257 1,257 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-F Z-Nails (6 chairs) 626 626 3 sp/chair 18
SH-G LDC Dental Center 1,893 1,893 1 sp/150 SF 13
SH-I1 Martial Arts 1,263 1,263 1 sp/100 SF 13
SH-I2 KUMON 1,200 1,200 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-J MVP Sportscard 866 866 1 sp/200 SF 4
SH-K Vacant Retail 955 955 1 sp/200 SF 5
SH-L Vacant Retail 595 595 1 sp/200 SF 3
SH-M La Mirage Hair (9 chairs) 998 998 3 sp/chair 27
SH-N Daniels Acupunture 798 798 1 sp/150 SF 5
Existing Shops Building Total: 7,759 0 2,760 0 0 2,691 2,756 15,966 -- 124 Existing Pad A
P-A Carls Jr 2,497 2,497 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30
Proposed Drive Thru
PB-1 Fast Food with Drive Thru 2,500 2,500 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30 FUTURE OPTION 1 w/ DRIVE THRU 72,209 9,235 7,757 3,791 1,970 2,691 2,756 100,409 -- 591 Land Use Percentages: 71.9% 9.2% 7.7% 3.8% 2.0% 2.7% 2.7% 100% -- Retail + Office + Fitness = 83.1%
Restaurant = 16.9%
FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY 500
CODE-BASED DEFICIENCY (91)
Demand per ULI's 4.0 sp/1,000 SF [d] 100,409 402
Future Parking Supply 500
Parking Surplus (ULI Calculation) 98
Notes:
[a] 40 spaces, plus 1 space per 50 SF above 4,000 SF
[b] For General Retail, if restaurant space occupies more than 10% of total GFA, or if an individual restaurant contains more than 1,000 SF, then additional parking stalls shall be provided for excess restaurant space beyond the 10% or 1,000 SF. The additional parking shall be calculated at the restaurant rate. [c] Outdoor seating areas with 16 or less seats need not provide additional parking. [d] Per ULI's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers publication, a parking ratio of 4 sp per 1,000 SF is typical for shopping centers that are between 25,000 SF and 400,000 SF in size, and with 20% or less of restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema space.

TOTAL
TABLE 2
FUTURE OPTION 1A CITY CODE & ULI PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use and Size Breakdown in SF GFA
City Code Parking
Retail, Requirements
Personal
Services
(Beauty,
Nail
Salon,
Tutoring)
Restaurants Gym,
Spa,
Health
Club,
Martial
Arts
Studio
Fine /
Casual
Dine-In
Fast
Casual /
Take-out,
FastFood

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Suite Tenant
Retail
Storage &
Shipping
Vet
Office
Medical,
Dental
Office
City Code
Parking Ratio
Spaces
Required per
City Code
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 1
M-A1 TENANT A RETAIL 42,709 42,709 1 sp/200 SF 214
M-A2 RESTAURANT 3,362 3,362 1 sp/100 SF, [b] 24
M-A2 REST. COV. PATIO (< 16 seats) 1,000 1,000 [c] 0
M-B TENANT B RETAIL 21,741 21,741 1 sp/200 SF 109
M-B TENANT B WAREHOUSE 3,791 3,791 1 sp/1500 SF 3
M-C TENANT C VETERINARIAN 1,970 1,970 1 sp/200 SF 10
M-D TENANT D RESTAURANT 4,873 4,873 [a], [b] 47
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 1 Total: 64,450 9,235 0 3,791 1,970 0 0 79,446 -- 407 Existing Shops Building
SH-A Little Caesar 1,505 1,505 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 2
SH-B Squared Spa Massage 1,493 1,493 1 sp/100 SF 15
SH-C Prosperity Thai 1,255 1,255 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 1
SH-D Maw N Paw Kettle Corn 1,262 1,262 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-E UPS Store 1,257 1,257 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-F Z-Nails (6 chairs) 626 626 3 sp/chair 18
SH-G LDC Dental Center 1,893 1,893 1 sp/150 SF 13
SH-I1 Martial Arts 1,263 1,263 1 sp/100 SF 13
SH-I2 KUMON 1,200 1,200 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-J MVP Sportscard 866 866 1 sp/200 SF 4
SH-K Vacant Retail 955 955 1 sp/200 SF 5
SH-L Vacant Retail 595 595 1 sp/200 SF 3
SH-M La Mirage Hair (9 chairs) 998 998 3 sp/chair 27
SH-N Daniels Acupunture 798 798 1 sp/150 SF 5
Existing Shops Building Total: 7,759 0 2,760 0 0 2,691 2,756 15,966 -- 124 Existing Pad A
P-A Carls Jr 2,497 2,497 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30
Proposed New Pad Building
PB-A Fast Food without Drive Thru 1,875 1,875 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 18 PB-B Retail 1,563 1,563 1 sp/200 SF 8
PB-C Retail 1,563 1,563 1 sp/200 SF 8
3,126 0 1,875 0 0 0 0 5,001 -- 34
FUTURE OPTION 1 w/ NEW PAD 75,335 9,235 7,132 3,791 1,970 2,691 2,756 102,910 -- 595 Land Use Percentages: 73.2% 9.0% 6.9% 3.7% 1.9% 2.6% 2.7% 100% -- Retail + Office + Fitness = 84.1%
Restaurant = 15.9%
FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY 500
CODE-BASED DEFICIENCY (95)
Demand per ULI's 4.0 sp/1,000 SF [d] 102,910 412
Future Parking Supply 500
Parking Surplus (ULI Calculation) 88
Notes:
[a] 40 spaces, plus 1 space per 50 SF above 4,000 SF
[b] For General Retail, if restaurant space occupies more than 10% of total GFA, or if an individual restaurant contains more than 1,000 SF, then additional parking stalls shall be provided for excess restaurant space beyond the 10% or 1,000 SF. The additional parking shall be calculated at the restaurant rate. [c] Outdoor seating areas with 16 or less seats need not provide additional parking. [d] Per ULI's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers publication, a parking ratio of 4 sp per 1,000 SF is typical for shopping centers that are between 25,000 SF and 400,000 SF in size, and with 20% or less of restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema space.

TOTAL
TABLE 3
FUTURE OPTION 1B CITY CODE & ULI PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use and Size Breakdown in SF GFA
City Code Parking
Requirements Retail,
Personal
Services
(Beauty,
Nail
Salon,
Tutoring)
Restaurants Gym,
Spa,
Health
Club,
Martial
Arts
Studio
Fine /
Casual
Dine-In
Fast
Casual /
Take-out,
FastFood

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Suite Tenant
Retail
Storage &
Shipping
Vet
Office
Medical,
Dental
Office
City Code
Parking Ratio
Spaces
Required per
City Code
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 2
M-A1 TENANT A RETAIL 42,709 42,709 1 sp/200 SF 214
M-B TENANT B RETAIL 21,741 21,741 1 sp/200 SF 109
M-B TENANT B WAREHOUSE 3,791 3,791 1 sp/1500 SF 3
M-B TENANT EXPANSION 7,908 7,908 1 sp/200 SF 40
M-C TENANT C VETERINARIAN 1,970 1,970 1 sp/200 SF 10
M-D TENANT D RESTAURANT 4,873 4,873 [a], [b] 47
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 2 Total: 72,358 4,873 0 3,791 1,970 0 0 82,992 -- 423 Existing Shops Building
SH-A Little Caesar 1,505 1,505 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 2
SH-B Squared Spa Massage 1,493 1,493 1 sp/100 SF 15
SH-C Prosperity Thai 1,255 1,255 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 1
SH-D Maw N Paw Kettle Corn 1,262 1,262 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-E UPS Store 1,257 1,257 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-F Z-Nails (6 chairs) 626 626 3 sp/chair 18
SH-G LDC Dental Center 1,893 1,893 1 sp/150 SF 13
SH-I1 Martial Arts 1,263 1,263 1 sp/100 SF 13
SH-I2 KUMON 1,200 1,200 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-J MVP Sportscard 866 866 1 sp/200 SF 4
SH-K Vacant Retail 955 955 1 sp/200 SF 5
SH-L Vacant Retail 595 595 1 sp/200 SF 3
SH-M La Mirage Hair (9 chairs) 998 998 3 sp/chair 27
SH-N Daniels Acupunture 798 798 1 sp/150 SF 5
Existing Shops Building Total: 7,759 0 2,760 0 0 2,691 2,756 15,966 -- 124 Existing Pad A
P-A Carls Jr 2,497 2,497 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30
Proposed Drive Thru
PB-1 Fast Food with Drive Thru 2,500 2,500 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30 FUTURE OPTION 2 w/ DRIVE THRU 80,117 4,873 7,757 3,791 1,970 2,691 2,756 103,955 -- 607 Land Use Percentages: 77.1% 4.7% 7.5% 3.6% 1.9% 2.6% 2.7% 100% -- Retail + Office + Fitness = 87.8%
Restaurant = 12.2%
FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY 500
CODE-BASED DEFICIENCY (107)
Demand per ULI's 4.0 sp/1,000 SF [d] 103,955 416
Future Parking Supply 500
Parking Surplus (ULI Calculation) 84
Notes:
[a] 40 spaces, plus 1 space per 50 SF above 4,000 SF
[b] For General Retail, if restaurant space occupies more than 10% of total GFA, or if an individual restaurant contains more than 1,000 SF, then additional parking stalls shall be provided for excess restaurant space beyond the 10% or 1,000 SF. The additional parking shall be calculated at the restaurant rate. [c] Per ULI's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers publication, a parking ratio of 4 sp per 1,000 SF is typical for shopping centers that are between 25,000 SF and 400,000 SF in size, and with 20% or less of restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema space.

TOTAL
TABLE 4
FUTURE OPTION 2A CITY CODE & ULI PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use and Size Breakdown in SF GFA
City Code Parking
Retail, Requirements
Personal
Services
(Beauty,
Nail
Salon,
Tutoring)
Restaurants Gym,
Spa,
Health
Club,
Martial
Arts
Studio
Fine /
Casual
Dine-In
Fast
Casual /
Take-out,
FastFood

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Suite Tenant
Retail
Storage &
Shipping
Vet
Office
Medical,
Dental
Office
City Code
Parking Ratio
Spaces
Required per
City Code
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 2
M-A1 TENANT A RETAIL 42,709 42,709 1 sp/200 SF 214
M-B TENANT B RETAIL 21,741 21,741 1 sp/200 SF 109
M-B TENANT B WAREHOUSE 3,791 3,791 1 sp/1500 SF 3
M-B TENANT EXPANSION 7,908 7,908 1 sp/200 SF 40
M-C TENANT C VETERINARIAN 1,970 1,970 1 sp/200 SF 10
M-D TENANT D RESTAURANT 4,873 4,873 [a], [b] 47
Proposed Major Bldg. Option 1 Total: 72,358 4,873 0 3,791 1,970 0 0 82,992 -- 423 Existing Shops Building
SH-A Little Caesar 1,505 1,505 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 2
SH-B Squared Spa Massage 1,493 1,493 1 sp/100 SF 15
SH-C Prosperity Thai 1,255 1,255 1 sp/250 SF, [b] 1
SH-D Maw N Paw Kettle Corn 1,262 1,262 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-E UPS Store 1,257 1,257 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-F Z-Nails (6 chairs) 626 626 3 sp/chair 18
SH-G LDC Dental Center 1,893 1,893 1 sp/150 SF 13
SH-I1 Martial Arts 1,263 1,263 1 sp/100 SF 13
SH-I2 KUMON 1,200 1,200 1 sp/200 SF 6
SH-J MVP Sportscard 866 866 1 sp/200 SF 4
SH-K Vacant Retail 955 955 1 sp/200 SF 5
SH-L Vacant Retail 595 595 1 sp/200 SF 3
SH-M La Mirage Hair (9 chairs) 998 998 3 sp/chair 27
SH-N Daniels Acupunture 798 798 1 sp/150 SF 5
Existing Shops Building Total: 7,759 0 2,760 0 0 2,691 2,756 15,966 -- 124 Existing Pad A
P-A Carls Jr 2,497 2,497 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 30
Proposed New Pad Building
PB-A Fast Food without Drive Thru 1,875 1,875 1 sp/50 SF, [b] 18 PB-B Retail 1,563 1,563 1 sp/200 SF 8
PB-C Retail 1,563 1,563 1 sp/200 SF 8
3,126 0 1,875 0 0 0 0 5,001 -- 34
FUTURE OPTION 2 w/ NEW PAD 83,243 4,873 7,132 3,791 1,970 2,691 2,756 106,456 -- 611 Land Use Percentages: 78.2% 4.6% 6.7% 3.6% 1.9% 2.5% 2.6% 100% -- Retail + Office + Fitness = 87.7%
Restaurant = 11.3%
FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY 500
CODE-BASED DEFICIENCY (111)
Demand per ULI's 4.0 sp/1,000 SF [d] 106,456 426
Future Parking Supply 500
Parking Surplus (ULI Calculation) 74
Notes:
[a] 40 spaces, plus 1 space per 50 SF above 4,000 SF
[b] For General Retail, if restaurant space occupies more than 10% of total GFA, or if an individual restaurant contains more than 1,000 SF, then additional parking stalls shall be provided for excess restaurant space beyond the 10% or 1,000 SF. The additional parking shall be calculated at the restaurant rate. [c] Per ULI's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers publication, a parking ratio of 4 sp per 1,000 SF is typical for shopping centers that are between 25,000 SF and 400,000 SF in size, and with 20% or less of restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema space.

TOTAL
TABLE 5
FUTURE OPTION 2B CITY CODE & ULI PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use and Size Breakdown in SF GFA
City Code Parking
Requirements Retail,
Personal
Services
(Beauty,
Nail
Salon,
Tutoring)
Restaurants Gym,
Spa,
Health
Club,
Martial
Arts
Studio
Fine /
Casual
Dine-In
Fast
Casual /
Take-out,
FastFood

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Demand Surplus Demand Surplus Demand Surplus
(spaces (516-sp supply % (spaces (516-sp supply % (spaces (516-sp supply % Time of Day occupied) minus demand) Occupied occupied) minus demand) Occupied occupied) minus demand) Occupied 7:00 AM 24 492 5% 30 486 6% - - -
8:00 AM 39 477 8% 27 489 5% - - -
9:00 AM 69 447 13% 78 438 15% 57 459 11%
10:00 AM 100 416 19% 95 421 18% 117 399 23%
11:00 AM 120 396 23% 130 386 25% 122 394 24%
12:00 PM 153 363 30% 133 383 26% 149 367 29%
1:00 PM 152 364 29% 115 401 22% 161 355 31%
2:00 PM 140 376 27% 146 370 28% 152 364 29%
3:00 PM 126 390 24% 150 366 29% 148 368 29%
4:00 PM 133 383 26% 145 371 28% 140 376 27%
5:00 PM 122 394 24% 130 386 25% 95 421 18%
6:00 PM 131 385 25% 96 420 19% 68 448 13%
7:00 PM 87 429 17% 72 444 14% 66 450 13%
8:00 PM 60 456 12% 62 454 12% 62 454 12%
9:00 PM 35 481 7% 39 477 8% 40 476 8%
10:00 PM 29 487 6% 32 484 6% 35 481 7%
Peak Demand Observed 153 363 30% 150 366 29% 161 355 31% Adjust for Current Vacancies
(Suites K & L totaling 1,549 SF of
vacant retail)
161 355 31% 158 358 31% 169 347 33%
Add 10% Contingency 177 339 34% 174 342 34% 186 330 36% Add 50% Contingency 242 275 47% 237 279 46% 254 263 49% Add 100% Contingency 322 194 62% 316 200 61% 338 178 66% Derived Empirical Ratio (100%
contingency, 106,285 SF existing) 3.03 spaces per KSF 2.97 spaces per KSF 3.18 spaces per KSF Empirical Ratio vs. ULI's 4 sp/KSF 24% less than ULI's 4 sp/KSF 26% less than ULI's 4 sp/KSF 21% less than ULI's 4 sp/KSF Apply ULI's 4 sp/KSF to Option 1A
(100,409 SF, 500-sp supply) 402 -space demand 98 surplus spaces (versus 500-space supply) Apply ULI's 4 sp/KSF to Option 1B
(102,910 SF, 500-sp supply) 412 -space demand 88 surplus spaces (versus 500-space supply) Apply ULI's 4 sp/KSF to Option 2A
(103,955 SF, 500-sp supply) 416 -space demand 84 surplus spaces (versus 500-space supply) Apply ULI's 4 sp/KSF to Option 2B
(106,456 SF, 500-sp supply) 426 -space demand 74 surplus spaces (versus 500-space supply) Thursday, 11/4/21 Friday, 11/5/21 Saturday, 11/6/21
TABLE 6

PARKING DEMAND SURVEY RESULTS & PROJECT DEMAND ESTIMATES Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 7

EXISTING
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 79.648 KSF 7.583 KSF 4.873 KSF 5.257 KSF 2.756 KSF 6.168 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.36 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 7.80 /KSF 4.95 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.16 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 347 Spc. 6 Spc. 38 Spc. 26 Spc. 28 Spc. 38 Spc. 483 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 516 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 28 4887:00 AM 46 4708:00 AM 114 4029:00 AM 187 329 10:00 AM 281 23511:00 AM 349 167
12:00 PM 406 110
1:00 PM 422 94
2:00 PM 407 1093:00 PM 367 1494:00 PM 369 1475:00 PM 378 1386:00 PM 391 1257:00 PM 350 1668:00 PM 290 2269:00 PM 207 309 10:00 PM 108 40811:00 PM 57 459
12:00 AM 11 505
Weekday Peak Shared Parking Demand 422
Notes: Parking Supply 516
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 94 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction
15 2113
9 8
25 0000
312312301
50 276287262219151
6326
276276
90 3332
9 1626262315182633
4 05555555555
2354
117197248
3233
26262316
2358
15 013
00 14162222
5 171111171720222422192016171717
830
000003
363638332612
6 382136383836
32 5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 8

EXISTING
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 79.648 KSF 7.583 KSF 4.873 KSF 5.257 KSF 2.756 KSF 6.168 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.36 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 7.80 /KSF 4.95 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.16 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 347 Spc. 6 Spc. 38 Spc. 26 Spc. 28 Spc. 38 Spc. 483 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 516 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 27 4897:00 AM 45 4718:00 AM 166 3509:00 AM 253 263 10:00 AM 323 19311:00 AM 400 11612:00 PM 415 101
1:00 PM 406 1102:00 PM 400 1163:00 PM 379 1374:00 PM 368 1485:00 PM 354 1626:00 PM 345 1717:00 PM 320 1968:00 PM 290 2269:00 PM 230 286 10:00 PM 154 36211:00 PM 75 441
12:00 AM 22 494
Weekend Peak Shared Parking Demand 415
Notes: Parking Supply 516
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 101 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction
55555
10 0 2 15 0 0
36 24 1 3 9 3
111 2 5 7
38 191 3 9 36 9316 9 23254 4 15 7
38 9 219
333 21 26 5
347 22 26 5 6 0347 19 24 5 5 0333 19 16 5 6 0319 19 14 5 11 0 20 019 0
288 25 16 5268 35 23 0250 36 22 0 12 0233 38 13 0 6 0184 35 9 0 20 114 35 5 0 0 0
38 34 3 0 0 0
0 20 2 0 00

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 9
FUTURE OPTION 1A
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 72.209 KSF 3.791 KSF 9.235 KSF 7.757 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.40 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 6.17 /KSF 6.45 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 318 Spc. 3 Spc. 57 Spc. 50 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 484 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 29 4717:00 AM 43 4578:00 AM 104 3969:00 AM 172 328 10:00 AM 267 23311:00 AM 343 157
12:00 PM 406 94
1:00 PM 418 82
2:00 PM 402 983:00 PM 352 1484:00 PM 355 1455:00 PM 370 1306:00 PM 396 1047:00 PM 360 1408:00 PM 300 2009:00 PM 218 282 10:00 PM 125 37511:00 PM 70 430
12:00 AM 16 484
Weekday Peak Shared Parking Demand 418
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 82 0000
262419
85 2815262828
02 262628
20222422192016171717
830
1711111717
4311
4850
49494530
35 111528273042
014
5048122338383422273950
5 3813
2000000022222222
9 2250
107180227286286276253253
0 253263240201138
5824
0 22
15 53
4025
15 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 10
FUTURE OPTION 1A
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 72.209 KSF 3.791 KSF 9.235 KSF 7.757 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.40 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 6.17 /KSF 6.45 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 318 Spc. 3 Spc. 57 Spc. 50 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 484 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 27 4737:00 AM 43 4578:00 AM 150 3509:00 AM 233 267 10:00 AM 304 19611:00 AM 386 11412:00 PM 412 88
1:00 PM 409 912:00 PM 399 1013:00 PM 372 1284:00 PM 362 1385:00 PM 354 1466:00 PM 359 1417:00 PM 336 1648:00 PM 302 1989:00 PM 239 261 10:00 PM 168 33211:00 PM 91 409
12:00 AM 32 468
Weekend Peak Shared Parking Demand 412
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 88 0 29 3 0
0 00
0 35 51 5 0 0
105 52 11 0 0169 52 16 0
0 20
0 213 57 26 0 6229 55 40 0 12245 52 43 0 19 0264 37 31 2 0 20 0
0 293 28 28 2 11
0 305 28 31 2 6
0 318 28 46 2 5
318 33 50 2 6305 31 50 2
28 9 15
290 13 44 9232 6 29 7 28175 5 16 26 9102 2 11 26 7
23 2 5 9 2
9 0 3 15 0 0
22222
w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 11
FUTURE OPTION 1B
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 75.335 KSF 3.791 KSF 9.235 KSF 7.132 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.39 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 6.17 /KSF 5.75 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 331 Spc. 3 Spc. 57 Spc. 41 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 488 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 29 4717:00 AM 43 4578:00 AM 104 3969:00 AM 173 327 10:00 AM 270 23011:00 AM 345 155
12:00 PM 409 91
1:00 PM 421 79
2:00 PM 406 943:00 PM 358 1424:00 PM 362 1385:00 PM 376 1246:00 PM 399 1017:00 PM 362 1388:00 PM 305 1959:00 PM 221 279 10:00 PM 125 37511:00 PM 71 429
12:00 AM 16 484
Weekday Peak Shared Parking Demand 421
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 79 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction
0000
262419
85 2815262828
02 262628
20222422192016171717
830
1711111717
2135
4850
40403725
359
1223232534
014
5048122338383422273950
5 3813
2000000022222222
9 2252
111188237298298288264264
0 264274250210144
6025
0 22
12 953
32 15

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 12
FUTURE OPTION 1B
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 75.335 KSF 3.791 KSF 9.235 KSF 7.132 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.39 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 6.17 /KSF 5.75 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 331 Spc. 3 Spc. 57 Spc. 41 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 488 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 28 4727:00 AM 43 4578:00 AM 152 3489:00 AM 238 262 10:00 AM 309 19111:00 AM 390 11012:00 PM 416 84
1:00 PM 413 872:00 PM 404 963:00 PM 379 1214:00 PM 369 1315:00 PM 359 1416:00 PM 361 1397:00 PM 339 1618:00 PM 307 1939:00 PM 243 257 10:00 PM 171 32911:00 PM 93 407
12:00 AM 32 468
Weekend Peak Shared Parking Demand 416
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 84 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction
0 29 3 0
0 00
0 37 51 5 0 0
110 52 9 0 0176 52 13 0
0 20
0 222 57 22 0 6239 55 33 0 12255 52 35 0 19 0275 37 25 2 0 20 0
0 305 28 23 2 11
0 318 28 25 2 6
0 331 28 38 2 5
331 33 41 2 6318 31 41 2
28 9 15
302 13 36 9242 6 24 7 28183 5 13 26 9106 2 9 26 7
23 2 5 9 210 0 3 15 0 0
22222

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 13
FUTURE OPTION 2A
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 80.117 KSF 3.791 KSF 4.873 KSF 7.757 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.37 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 7.80 /KSF 6.45 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 350 Spc. 3 Spc. 38 Spc. 50 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 497 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 29 4717:00 AM 45 4558:00 AM 108 3929:00 AM 182 318 10:00 AM 282 21811:00 AM 359 141
12:00 PM 423 77
1:00 PM 435 65
2:00 PM 419 813:00 PM 370 1304:00 PM 371 1295:00 PM 382 1186:00 PM 406 947:00 PM 367 1338:00 PM 303 1979:00 PM 216 284 10:00 PM 114 38611:00 PM 59 441
12:00 AM 12 488
Weekday Peak Shared Parking Demand 435
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 65 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction
15 53
402515
0 278289264221153
6326
0 222000000022222222
9 2455
118198250315315304278278
013
3332
9 1626262315182633
4 25
9 3233
49494530
35 1115282730424311
171111171720222422192016171717
830
02 2626282419
85 281526282826
0000
w/ 20% Reduction

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 14
FUTURE OPTION 2A
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 80.117 KSF 3.791 KSF 4.873 KSF 7.757 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.37 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 7.80 /KSF 6.45 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 350 Spc. 3 Spc. 38 Spc. 50 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 497 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 28 4727:00 AM 44 4568:00 AM 160 3409:00 AM 249 251 10:00 AM 326 17411:00 AM 411 8912:00 PM 433 67
1:00 PM 430 702:00 PM 422 783:00 PM 394 1064:00 PM 382 1185:00 PM 369 1316:00 PM 367 1337:00 PM 340 1608:00 PM 305 1959:00 PM 239 261 10:00 PM 162 33811:00 PM 78 422
12:00 AM 23 477
Weekend Peak Shared Parking Demand 433
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 67 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction
22222
10 0 3 15 0 0
26 25 1 5 9 2
112 2 11 7
28 193 3 16 26 9319 9 44256 4 29 7
28 9 159
336 21 50 2
350 22 50 2 6 0350 19 46 2 5 0336 19 31 2 6 0322 19 28 2 11 0 20 019 0
291 25 31 2270 35 43 0252 36 40 0 12 0235 38 26 0 6 0186 35 16 0 20 116 35 11 0 0 0
39 34 5 0 0 0
0 20 3 0 00
w/ 20% Reduction

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 15
FUTURE OPTION 2B
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 83.243 KSF 3.791 KSF 4.873 KSF 7.132 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.36 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 7.80 /KSF 5.75 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 363 Spc. 3 Spc. 38 Spc. 41 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 501 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 29 4717:00 AM 46 4548:00 AM 108 3929:00 AM 183 317 10:00 AM 285 21511:00 AM 361 139
12:00 PM 426 74
1:00 PM 438 62
2:00 PM 422 783:00 PM 376 1244:00 PM 378 1225:00 PM 388 1126:00 PM 410 907:00 PM 369 1318:00 PM 308 1929:00 PM 218 282 10:00 PM 116 38411:00 PM 61 439
12:00 AM 12 488
Weekday Peak Shared Parking Demand 438
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 62 w/ 20% Reduction
15 322112
0 289301274230158
6728
0 222000000022222222
9 2557
122206260327327315289289
013
3332
9 1626262315182633
4 25
9 3233
40403725
359
122323253435
9 171111171720222422192016171717
830
000002
2626282419
85 281526282826
53 w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) TABLE 16
FUTURE OPTION 2B
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
Land Use Retail, Personal Services Retail Storage & Shipping Fine/Casual Dine-In Restaurant Fast Casual/Take- out, Fast-Food Restaurant Gym, Spa, Health Club, Martial Arts Vet, Medical/Dental Office Size 83.243 KSF 3.791 KSF 4.873 KSF 7.132 KSF 2.756 KSF 4.661 KSF Total Pkg Rate 4.36 /KSF 1 /1.5 KSF 7.80 /KSF 5.75 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 6.01 /KSF Spaces = Comparison w/ Gross 363 Spc. 3 Spc. 38 Spc. 41 Spc. 28 Spc. 28 Spc. 501 Parking Supply Spaces Shared 500 Spaces
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Parking Surplus or Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 28 4727:00 AM 45 4558:00 AM 162 3389:00 AM 253 247 10:00 AM 330 17011:00 AM 414 8612:00 PM 437 63
1:00 PM 434 662:00 PM 427 733:00 PM 401 994:00 PM 389 1115:00 PM 373 1276:00 PM 369 1317:00 PM 342 1588:00 PM 310 1909:00 PM 242 258 10:00 PM 164 33611:00 PM 79 421
12:00 AM 23 477
Weekend Peak Shared Parking Demand 437
Notes: Parking Supply 500
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020. Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 63 22222
10 0 3 15 0 0
w/ 20% Reduction
26 26 1 5 9 2
116 2 9 7
28 200 3 13 26 9330 9 36265 4 24 7
28 9 159
349 21 41 2
363 22 41 2 6 0363 19 38 2 5 0349 19 25 2 6 0334 19 23 2 11 0 20 019 0
301 25 25 2280 35 35 0261 36 33 0 12 0244 38 22 0 6 0192 35 13 0 20 120 35 9 0 0 0
40 34 5 0 0 0
0 20 3 0 00
w/ 20% Reduction w/ 20% Reduction

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
N:\4500\2224533 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Misc\4533 Dividers.doc

APPENDIX A

RAW PARKING COUNT DATA

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

N:\4400\2214484 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Counts\4484 AimTD Task Order 10-28-2021.doc Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers

TASK ORDER
Traffic Data Collection Services
Date: October 28, 2021
Subcontractor: Edward Polunin
Contact

AIMTD, LLC
Firm
751 S. Weir Canyon Road, Suite #157-158
Address
Anaheim, CA 92808
(951) 249-3226
Phone

Fax
[email protected]
E-mail
Master Agreement #: 02-0703
Upon return of a fully executed Task Order, these Services shall be performed in accordance with the Master Agreement dated May 1, 2010 except as amended herein.

LLG Project Reference: Milan Capital Management
Client
Laguna Hills Plaza
Project Name
Laguna Hills
Location

2.21.4484.1
Project Number
LLG Contact: Justin Tucker, P.E.

Name
(949) 825-6175 ext. 233
Phone
[email protected]
E-mail

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

N:\4400\2214484 - Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills\Counts\4484 AimTD Task Order 10-28-2021.doc Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers

TASK ORDER
Traffic Data Collection Services
Requested Services:

Parking Counts
Please conduct hourly parking counts on Thursday November 4, 2021, Friday November 5, 2021, AND Saturday November 6, 2021 within five (5) parking zones at the Laguna Hills Plaza, located at 24901 Alicia Parkway in the City of Laguna Hills. Please conduct the Thursday and Friday counts between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and the Saturday counts between 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Also, please conduct an inventory of the number of spaces.

Attached for your reference is a vicinity map showing the parking survey zones and tables to record the parking counts. Thank you for your assistance on this project.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Not to Exceed Fee:

$_______________
(based on Master Agreement Unit Prices/Fees)
Other Terms:
(per LLG contract with LLG Client)
APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Subcontractor
By: By: ________________________
Name: Justin Tucker, P.E. Name: ________________________ Title: Transportation Engineer II Title: ________________________ Date: October 28, 2021 Date: ________________________

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Supply = 33 Supply = 84 Supply = 34 Supply = 321 Supply = 75 Supply = 547 Start Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Time Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy 7:00 AM 3 30 9% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 16 305 5% 2 73 3% 24 523 4%8:00 AM 3 30 9% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 27 294 8% 6 69 8% 39 508 7%9:00 AM 4 29 12% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 52 269 16% 11 64 15% 69 478 13% 10:00 AM 6 27 18% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 67 254 21% 25 50 33% 100 447 18%11:00 AM 5 28 15% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 92 229 29% 21 54 28% 120 427 22% 12:00 PM 4 29 12% 1 83 1% 0 34 0% 127 194 40% 21 54 28% 153 394 28% 1:00 PM 8 25 24% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 120 201 37% 21 54 28% 152 395 28%2:00 PM 4 29 12% 1 83 1% 0 34 0% 114 207 36% 21 54 28% 140 407 26%3:00 PM 4 29 12% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 96 225 30% 23 52 31% 126 421 23%4:00 PM 4 29 12% 4 80 5% 0 34 0% 100 221 31% 25 50 33% 133 414 24%5:00 PM 2 31 6% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 98 223 31% 20 55 27% 122 425 22%6:00 PM 6 27 18% 5 79 6% 1 33 3% 102 219 32% 17 58 23% 131 416 24%7:00 PM 1 32 3% 5 79 6% 1 33 3% 69 252 21% 11 64 15% 87 460 16%8:00 PM 1 32 3% 3 81 4% 1 33 3% 49 272 15% 6 69 8% 60 487 11%9:00 PM 2 31 6% 3 81 4% 1 33 3% 25 296 8% 4 71 5% 35 512 6% 10:00 PM 1 32 3% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 22 299 7% 4 71 5% 29 518 5% Note:
[a] Source: Parking counts conducted by AimTD, LLC.

Thursday, November 4, 2021 [a]

TABLE A

THURSDAY PARKING DEMAND

LAGUNA HILLS PLAZA, LAGUNA HILLS
Zone 1 Total Demand (Zones 1 - 5)

NOT A PART
Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Supply = 33 Supply = 84 Supply = 34 Supply = 321 Supply = 75 Supply = 547 Start Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Time Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy 7:00 AM 2 31 6% 4 80 5% 0 34 0% 17 304 5% 7 68 9% 30 517 5%8:00 AM 2 31 6% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 16 305 5% 6 69 8% 27 520 5%9:00 AM 3 30 9% 3 81 4% 1 33 3% 56 265 17% 15 60 20% 78 469 14% 10:00 AM 4 29 12% 3 81 4% 1 33 3% 65 256 20% 22 53 29% 95 452 17%11:00 AM 6 27 18% 4 80 5% 1 33 3% 94 227 29% 25 50 33% 130 417 24% 12:00 PM 6 27 18% 6 78 7% 1 33 3% 96 225 30% 24 51 32% 133 414 24% 1:00 PM 8 25 24% 8 76 10% 1 33 3% 75 246 23% 23 52 31% 115 432 21%2:00 PM 6 27 18% 5 79 6% 1 33 3% 109 212 34% 25 50 33% 146 401 27% 3:00 PM 10 23 30% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 105 216 33% 33 42 44% 150 397 27% 4:00 PM 8 25 24% 2 82 2% 1 33 3% 104 217 32% 30 45 40% 145 402 27%5:00 PM 7 26 21% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 100 221 31% 21 54 28% 130 417 24%6:00 PM 6 27 18% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 72 249 22% 16 59 21% 96 451 18%7:00 PM 3 30 9% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 58 263 18% 9 66 12% 72 475 13%8:00 PM 4 29 12% 0 84 0% 1 33 3% 48 273 15% 9 66 12% 62 485 11%9:00 PM 2 31 6% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 28 293 9% 7 68 9% 39 508 7% 10:00 PM 2 31 6% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 22 299 7% 6 69 8% 32 515 6% Note:
[a] Source: Parking counts conducted by AimTD, LLC.

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Total Demand (Zones 1 - 5)

NOT A PART

TABLE B

FRIDAY PARKING DEMAND

LAGUNA HILLS PLAZA, LAGUNA HILLS
Friday, November 5, 2021 [a]
Zone 1

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) Supply = 33 Supply = 84 Supply = 34 Supply = 321 Supply = 75 Supply = 547 Start Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Spaces Parking Percent Time Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy Occupied Surplus Occupancy 9:00 AM 3 30 9% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 39 282 12% 12 63 16% 57 490 10% 10:00 AM 4 29 12% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 95 226 30% 16 59 21% 117 430 21%11:00 AM 6 27 18% 1 83 1% 0 34 0% 99 222 31% 16 59 21% 122 425 22% 12:00 PM 9 24 27% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 120 201 37% 18 57 24% 149 398 27% 1:00 PM 7 26 21% 3 81 4% 1 33 3% 132 189 41% 18 57 24% 161 386 29% 2:00 PM 6 27 18% 3 81 4% 1 33 3% 122 199 38% 20 55 27% 152 395 28%3:00 PM 2 31 6% 2 82 2% 1 33 3% 123 198 38% 20 55 27% 148 399 27%4:00 PM 2 31 6% 2 82 2% 1 33 3% 117 204 36% 18 57 24% 140 407 26%5:00 PM 2 31 6% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 80 241 25% 11 64 15% 95 452 17%6:00 PM 2 31 6% 2 82 2% 0 34 0% 57 264 18% 7 68 9% 68 479 12%7:00 PM 4 29 12% 1 83 1% 1 33 3% 54 267 17% 6 69 8% 66 481 12%8:00 PM 2 31 6% 3 81 4% 0 34 0% 49 272 15% 8 67 11% 62 485 11%9:00 PM 1 32 3% 0 84 0% 0 34 0% 33 288 10% 6 69 8% 40 507 7% 10:00 PM 1 32 3% 1 83 1% 0 34 0% 28 293 9% 5 70 7% 35 512 6% Note:
[a] Source: Parking counts conducted by AimTD, LLC.

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Total Demand (Zones 1 - 5)

NOT A PART

TABLE C

SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND

LAGUNA HILLS PLAZA, LAGUNA HILLS
Friday, November 5, 2021 [a]
Zone 1

5.5.2.e
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Attachment E - Parking Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

LAGUNA HILLS PLAZA
Laguna Hills, California
December 20, 2022
Prepared for:

MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101
Anaheim, CA 92802

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
24035 El Toro Road
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

2.0 Project Scope ...................................................................................................................1

2.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................1

2.2 Study Scope ..................................................................................................................3

3.0 Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................4

3.1 Existing Street System ..................................................................................................4

3.2 Existing Volumes .........................................................................................................4

3.3 Existing Public Transit .................................................................................................4

3.4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour LOS ..........................................................................5

4.0 Traffic Forecasts .............................................................................................................9

4.1 Project Traffic Generation ............................................................................................9

4.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment .............................................................15

4.2.1 Project-Generated Traffic Volumes ..............................................................15

4.3 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Volumes ...........................................................16

4.4 Year 2024 Cumulative Base .......................................................................................16

4.4.1 Ambient Growth ...........................................................................................16

4.4.2 Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................16

4.4.3 Year 2024 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes ..............................................16

4.5 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................16

5.0 Traffic Impact Analysis ................................................................................................19

5.1 Significant Impact Criteria .........................................................................................19

5.2 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................................19

5.3 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions .............................................19

5.4 Caltrans Queuing Analysis .........................................................................................19

6.0 Internal Circulation and Site Access ...........................................................................28

6.1.1 Internal Circulation .......................................................................................28

6.1.2 Site Access Queuing Analysis ......................................................................41

6.1.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................42

6.1.4 Carl’s Jr. Drive-Through Lane Queuing Evaluation .....................................52

7.0 CEQA Assessment of VMT, Active Transportation, & Public Transit ...................52

7.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis ..................................................52

7.2 Active Transportation and Public Transit Screening Analysis ..................................55

8.0 Summary Of Findings And Conclusions ....................................................................55

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills ii
Appendices

APPENDIX
A. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets (ICU Methodology) B. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets (HCM Methodology) C. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets (Simtraffic) D. Existing Traffic Count Data
E. Queueing Analysis Worksheets
F. Project Driveway Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets G. Carl’s Jr. Drive-Through Queueing Observations
H. City of Laguna Hills VMT Screening Form

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills iii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ............................................................... 6 2 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM 6 Methodology) .................. 7 3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM 6 Methodology) ....................... 8 4 Existing (2022) Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ......................................................... 10 5 Project Trip Generation – Option 1A ........................................................................................... 11 6 Project Trip Generation – Option 1B ........................................................................................... 12 7 Project Trip Generation – Option 2A ........................................................................................... 13 8 Project Trip Generation – Option 2B ........................................................................................... 14 9 Location and Description of Cumulative Projects ...................................................................... 17 10 Cumulative Project Trip Generation Estimates ........................................................................... 18 11 Existing (2022) Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 1A ................ 20 12 Existing (2022) Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 1B ................ 21 13 Existing (2022) Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 2A ................ 22 14 Existing (2022) Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 2B ................ 23 15 Year 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 1A ............................................. 24 16 Year 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 1B .............................................. 25 17 Year 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 2A ............................................. 26 18 Year 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service: Option 2B .............................................. 27 19 Existing (2022) Plus Project Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 1A ........................................ 29 20 Existing (2022) Plus Project Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 1B ........................................ 30 21 Existing (2022) Plus Project Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 2A ........................................ 31 22 Existing (2022) Plus Project Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 2B ........................................ 32 23 Year 2024 Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 1A ..................................................................... 33 24 Year 2024 Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 1B ..................................................................... 34 25 Year 2024 Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 2A ..................................................................... 35 26 Year 2024 Caltrans Queuing Analysis: Option 2B ..................................................................... 36 27 Year 2024 Project Driveway Queueing Analysis: Option 1A .................................................... 37 28 Year 2024 Project Driveway Queueing Analysis: Option 1B .................................................... 38 29 Year 2024 Project Driveway Queueing Analysis: Option 2A .................................................... 39 30 Year 2024 Project Driveway Queueing Analysis: Option 2B .................................................... 40

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills iv

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

TABLE PAGE
31 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 1A .............. 43 32 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 1B .............. 44 33 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 2A .............. 45 34 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 2B .............. 46 35 Year 2024 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 1A ........................................... 47 36 Year 2024 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 1B ........................................... 48 37 Year 2024 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 2A ........................................... 49 38 Year 2024 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary: Option 2B ........................................... 50 39 Proposed Fast-Food with Drive-Thru Queueing Analysis Summary:

Weekday Conditions .................................................................................................................... 52 40 Proposed Fast-Food with Drive-Thru Queueing Analysis Summary:

Saturday Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 53

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills v

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE FOLLOWING PAGE
1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Site Plan – Option 1A (with New Drive-Thru) ................................................................ 1 3 Project Site Plan – Option 1B (with New Pad Building) .............................................................. 1 4 Project Site Plan – Option 2A (with New Drive-Thru) ................................................................ 1 5 Project Site Plan – Option 2B (with New Pad Building) .............................................................. 1 6 Existing Roadway and Intersection Physical Characteristics .................................................... 4 7 Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 4 8 Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 4 9 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern ............................................................................................. 15 10 Project Option 1A Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ................................................................ 15 11 Project Option 1A Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ................................................................. 15 12 Project Option 1B Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ................................................................ 15 13 Project Option 1B Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ................................................................. 15 14 Project Option 2A Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ................................................................ 15 15 Project Option 2A Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ................................................................. 15 16 Project Option 2B Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ................................................................ 15 17 Project Option 2B Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ................................................................. 15 18 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 1A AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... 16 19 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 1A PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 16 20 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 1B AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 16 21 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 1B PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 16 22 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2A AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... 16 23 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2A PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 16 24 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2B AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 16 25 Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2B PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 16 26 Location of Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................. 16 27 Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes ............................................... 16 28 Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes ................................................ 16 29 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 1A AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 16 30 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 1A PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 16

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills vi

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

FIGURE FOLLOWING PAGE
31 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 1B AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 16 32 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 1B PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 16 33 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 2A AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 16 34 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 2A PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 16 35 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 2B AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 16 36 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Option 2B PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 16 37 Alicia Parkway Conceptual Improvement Plan ........................................................................ 41

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

LAGUNA HILLS PLAZA

LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 20, 2022
A. Project Description – The existing Laguna Hills Plaza is located at 24901 Alicia Parkway in the City of Laguna Hills, and totals 106,285 square feet (SF) of gross floor area consisting of 87,231 SF of retail, 10,130 SF of restaurants, 6,168 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. The Project proposes to increase the retail and restaurant square footage (the existing offices, health club/martial arts studio, Carl’s Jr., and the western shops building will be maintained) with the following four development scenarios ranging in total size for the shopping center between 100,409 SF (Option 1A) and 106,456 SF (Option 2B):
 Major Building Option 1A and Option 1B: Demolish the existing 45,013-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza and construct a new/replacement 42,709-SF Grocery Store, as well as 3,362 SF of in-line restaurants with 1,000 SF of outdoor seating.
o Option 1A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Fast-Food with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF “shops building” on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary). Option 1A will result in a total of 100,409 SF consisting of 76,000 SF of retail, 16,992 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. o Option 1B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and FastFood without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,126 SF of retail uses and a 1,875-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru. Option 1B will result in a total of 102,910 SF consisting of 79,126 SF of retail, 16,367 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.
 Major Building Option 2A and Option 2B: Demolish the existing 45,013-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza, construct a

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills viii
new/replacement 42,709-SF Grocery Store, and expand the existing 25,532-SF ‘BIG Lots’ tenant space by 7,908 SF.
o Option 2A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Fast-Food with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary). Option 2A will result in a total of 103,955 SF consisting of 83,908 SF of retail, 12,630 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. o Option 2B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and FastFood without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,126 SF of retail uses and a 1,875-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru. Option 2B will result in a total of 106,456 SF consisting of 87,034 SF of retail, 12,005 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.

B. Project Trip Generation – Option 1A net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,683 weekday trips, 196 AM peak hour trips, and 231 PM peak hour trips. Table 6 indicates that Option 1B net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,719 weekday daily trips, 221 AM peak hour trips, and 243 PM peak hour trips (greater than Option 1A during each time period). Option 2A netgenerated trips are estimated to be 2,986 weekday trips, 207 AM peak hour trips, and 250 PM peak hour trips. Table 8 indicates that Option 2B net-generated trips are estimated to be 3,022 weekday daily trips, 232 AM peak hour trips, and 262 PM peak hour trips (greater than Option 2A during each time period).

C. Project LOS Traffic Impacts - Based on the application of the City’s impact criteria for LOS analysis described previously, the Project is not expected to cause LOS traffic impacts at any of the 12 key intersections under Existing (2022) and Year 2024 conditions.

D. Caltrans Queuing Analysis - The results of the queuing analysis conducted at each Caltrans intersection indicates that there are adequate queue storage lengths provided to accommodate the 95th percentile queues. Based on this, it is concluded that development of the Project would not result in adverse queuing conditions at Caltrans intersections.

E. Site Access Queuing Analysis – The results of the site access queuing analysis indicate that there would be adequate storage for the eastbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Hon Avenue/paseo de Alicia, and the westbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Cousteau Street, and the

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills ix
inbound/outbound movements at each of the site access points under Year 2024 conditions, with a few exceptions described below during the peak hour noted.  The queuing results for the eastbound left-turn movement at Project Driveway #2 (from eastbound Alicia Parkway entering the Project site), and the outbound movements at Project Driveways #3 and #4 (exiting the Project site onto Hon Avenue), indicate that the 95th percentile queues would exceed existing queue storage lengths.
 To address the queue storage deficiency at the Project Driveway #2 and Alicia Parkway intersection (left-turns from eastbound Alicia Parkway entering the Project site) during the PM peak hour, eastbound left-turn pocket and median improvements along Alicia Parkway are proposed. The existing eastbound left-turn pocket on Alicia Parkway will be extended to provide a queue storage length of 135 feet in order to fully accommodate 95th percentile queues entering the Project site that range between 123 feet (under Option 2B) and 135 feet (under Option 2A).  Related to the queue storage deficiencies reported for the outbound/exiting movements from the Project site onto Hon Avenue at Project Driveway #3 (during the PM peak hour) and at Project Driveway #4 (during the AM and PM peak hours), it should be noted that the 95th percentile queues occur on site, not on Hon Avenue, so Project-related queues do not impact traffic flows on any public street. The outbound queue storage lengths provided at each of these two driveways are constrained by the presence of the easternmost drive aisle for the Plaza (a site plan design necessity for adequate internal circulation and parking accessibility) and the existing driveway for the bank building pad (that is not a part of the Project) on the northwest corner of the Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway intersection. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers often familiar with and able to anticipate typical peak queues occurring on site, and are able to self-regulate until queues dissipate at the exits (and exiting traffic flows from shopping centers tend to dissipate quickly because vehicle departures are more random and less directional/focused compared to outbound traffic from office buildings during the PM peak hour, for example). Based on these considerations, it is concluded that the outbound 95th percentile queues at Project Driveways #3 and #4 may be measurably adverse, but not considered significant to warrant any physical improvements.

F. Traffic Signal Warrants - The results indicate that the intersection of Project Driveway #2 with Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #3) will exceed the thresholds of Warrant #3, Part B (peak hour volumes) under Existing (2022) and Year 2024 conditions with development of any scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2C). The installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended due to the intersection being in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #1), which is a distance of only 415 feet,

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills x
and the signalized intersection of Costeau Street and Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #6), which is a distance of only 350 feet. Alicia Parkway is a primary arterial, and therefore requires a minimum of a ¼-mile spacing between signalized intersections. Additionally, it is not uncommon for minor streets at unsignalized intersections to experience longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major street, especially during commute peak periods on weekdays and weekends.

G. CEQA VMT Assessment - Based on the application of the City’s screening criteria, and using the City’s spreadsheet tool developed for project screening purposes, it was determined that the Project is a local serving land use and located in a low VMT area, and is therefore screened out from further VMT Project-level assessment because it can be presumed to have less-thansignificant impact on VMT. The City’s VMT screening form for the Project is included in Appendix H.

H. CEQA Active Transportation and Public Transit Assessment - The proposed Project would not have an impact on the existing multimodal network; specifically, it would not: (1) conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy related to bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit; (2) substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature; and (3) result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed site plan for the Project will maintain existing sidewalks and access to public transit, construct new pedestrian connections on site and with adjoining uses, provide 12 short-term (bike racks) and 3 long-term (bike lockers) bicycle spaces, provide 2 EV charging stations, provide for future EV stations in the parking field (with stub-out electrical lines), and meet City design standards regarding site access, multimodal connectivity within the internal site circulation system, emergency access, and on-site parking.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
1 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

LAGUNA HILLS PLAZA

LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 20, 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to evaluate potential traffic impacts resulting from the renovation of the existing and currently operating “Laguna Hills Plaza” commercial shopping center, located at 24901 Alicia Parkway in the City of Laguna Hills (herein referred to as the “Project”).

Based on study scope consultation with City staff, and consistent with the City of Laguna Hills Traffic Study Guidelines (August 31, 2010) and the City of Laguna Hills Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act (July 9, 2020), this report presents a Level of Service (LOS) analysis and VMT screening assessment for the Project, including an inventory of existing characteristics and traffic volumes at key locations within the study area, forecasts of vehicular traffic anticipated to be generated by the Project, evaluation of potential LOS impacts of these Project-generated trips on the surrounding street system, site access and internal circulation analysis (including drive-thru queuing), and Project screening related to VMT, active transportation, and public transit.

2.0 PROJECT SCOPE

2.1 Project Description
Figure 1 presents a Project vicinity map and study area. Applying the City’s (and Caltrans) convention of expressing the north-south orientation based on the I-5 Freeway, the Project site is bound by Hon Avenue on the east, Alicia Parkway on the south, and the Property Limits on the west and north.

The existing Laguna Hills Plaza is located at 24901 Alicia Parkway in the City of Laguna Hills, and totals 106,285 square feet (SF) of gross floor area consisting of 87,231 SF of retail, 10,130 SF of restaurants, 6,168 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. As illustrated on Figures 2 through 5, the Project proposes to increase the retail and restaurant square footage (the existing offices, health club/martial arts studio, Carl’s Jr., and the western shops building will be maintained) with the following four development scenarios ranging in total size for the shopping center between 100,409 SF (Option 1A) and 106,456 SF (Option 2B):
 Major Building Option 1A and Option 1B: Demolish the existing 45,013-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza and construct a new/replacement 42,709-SF Grocery Store, as well as 3,362 SF of in-line restaurants with 1,000 SF of outdoor seating.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
2 o Option 1A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Fast-Food with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF “shops building” on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary). Option 1A will result in a total of 100,409 SF consisting of 76,000 SF of retail, 16,992 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.
o Option 1B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and Fast-Food without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,126 SF of retail uses and a 1,875-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru. Option 1B will result in a total of 102,910 SF consisting of 79,126 SF of retail, 16,367 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.
 Major Building Option 2A and Option 2B: Demolish the existing 45,013-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza, construct a new/replacement 42,709-SF Grocery Store, and expand the existing 25,532-SF ‘BIG Lots’ tenant space by 7,908 SF.
o Option 2A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Fast-Food with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary). Option 2A will result in a total of 103,955 SF consisting of 83,908 SF of retail, 12,630 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. o Option 2B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and Fast-Food without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,126 SF of retail uses and a 1,875-SF fast-food

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
3 restaurant without a drive-thru. Option 2B will result in a total of 106,456 SF consisting of 87,034 SF of retail, 12,005 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.

No work is planned for the existing 2,497-SF drive-thru restaurant (‘Carl’s Jr.’) or the in-line shops buildings sited at western edge of the Plaza.

The existing parking lot with diagonal/angled/60-degree parking spaces and one-way drive aisles will be reconfigured to provide 90-degree parking spaces and two-way drive aisles. A parking study was prepared by LLG under separate cover, which indicates that the existing parking supply of 516 spaces will be revised to 500 spaces with development of Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. The parking study also concludes that there would be adequate parking supply in the future that could fully meet the total parking needs of the Plaza with development of the Project.

2.2 Study Scope
The work scope for this traffic impact study, including the base assumptions, technical methodologies, and geographic coverage, were developed in conjunction with City staff, and are in accordance with the City’s and Caltrans traffic study guidelines.

All intersections identified by the City of Laguna Hills and the City of Mission Viejo considered to be within the Project’s influence area were included in this study, in addition to the I-5 Freeway northbound and southbound ramp intersections along Alicia Parkway. As illustrated on Figure 1, a total of 12 key intersections were selected for detailed peak hour traffic impact/level of service analysis during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours under each of the four traffic scenarios described below.

The following four traffic scenarios were evaluated in this study:
 Existing (2022) - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide a base of analysis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an assessment of the streets in the area, current traffic volumes, and operating conditions.  Existing (2022) plus Project - This is an analysis of existing traffic conditions with the addition of Project-generated traffic.
 Year 2024 Cumulative Base - This phase of analysis projects future traffic growth and operating conditions in the Year 2024 (completion year for the Project) which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects without the addition of Project traffic.
 Year 2024 Cumulative plus Project - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2024 (completion year for the Project) with the addition of Project-generated traffic.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Existing Street System
A comprehensive inventory of the street system within the study area was undertaken to develop a detailed description of existing traffic characteristics. Figure 6 illustrates the existing physical characteristics of the key intersections and streets, including intersection geometry and traffic control, number of travel lanes, median type, parking designations, and posted speed limits.

3.2 Existing Volumes
Traffic counts were conducted at the 12 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak period while school was in session (7:00 to 9:00 AM, 4:00 to 6:00 PM) in March 2022. In addition, drive-thru queue observations were conducted at the existing Carl’s Jr. on a typical weekday and Saturday between the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

The bank parcel on the northwest corner of the Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway intersection (this former Chase Bank parcel is not a part of the Project nor is it owned by Project ownership) was not occupied on the dates that traffic counts were conducted. To address this, trip generation for the vacant bank parcel was estimated based on the application of ITE rates, and resulting trips were then assigned to the street system and added to the raw traffic counts collected at the 12 key intersections.

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the 12 key intersections, respectively.

3.3 Existing Public Transit
Public transit bus service is provided in the Project area by OCTA. Two OCTA bus routes serve the Project site via Alicia Parkway and Paseo de Valencia. The bus routes are described below:

1. OCTA Route 87: provides service from Rancho Santa Margarita to Laguna Niguel; via Alicia Parkway.

2. OCTA Route 91: provides service from Laguna Hills to San Clemente; via Paseo de Valencia to Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street.

The bus stop nearest the Project site is located on the north side of Alicia Parkway, just east of Project Driveway 1. The second nearest bus stop is located on the southeast corner of the Costeau Street and Alicia Parkway intersection.

OCTA also operates the OC Go Senior Mobility Program (SMP) for residents over the age of 60 that provides local taxi transportation services for shopping, errands, or non-emergency medical transportation. In addition, OCTA offers a Youth Ride Free Program which allows youth ages 6 to 18 to ride OC Bus for free relating to school, sports, work, and other activities.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
5 3.4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour LOS
Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and how drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. Level of service ranges from LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized as the minimum satisfactory service level in urban areas. According to Caltrans traffic impact analysis guidelines, LOS D is also the minimum acceptable service level at Caltrans intersections.

Based upon the Cities of Laguna Hills and Mission Viejo traffic study guidelines for LOS analysis, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to determine the volume-to-capacity relationship for signalized intersections (based upon the individual volumeto-capacity ratios for key conflicting traffic movements), and corresponding level of service. By assuming 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) as the practical capacity for through lanes, left-turn, and right-turn lanes, the ICU method directly relates traffic demand to the available capacity. The resulting ICU numerical value represents the greatest green time requirements plus a 5% allowance (additional ICU value of 0.05) for clearance intervals for the entire intersection. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Level of service definitions for signalized intersections are summarized in Table 1.

Based upon the Cities of Laguna Hills and Mission Viejo traffic impact study guidelines, the methodology in Chapters 20 and 21 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition [Transportation Research Board, 2016] was applied in the analysis of the unsignalized key intersections. The HCM stop-control methodology determines the delay and level of service of each approach separately. Whereas the ICU methodology for signalized intersections uses capacity to describe total intersection operation, the HCM method for unsignalized intersections yields a delay value for each intersection approach. The vehicle total delay on any approach is primarily a function of the volume on the subject approach, and secondarily a function of the volume on the opposing and conflicting approaches. Level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections are described in Table 2.

In addition, the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) Operations methodology was applied in the analysis of all freeway ramp intersections (to address Caltrans traffic impact study requirements). In Chapter 18 of the HCM 6, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle, as indicated in Table 3.

The HCM 6 methodology was also applied in Project site access evaluation of this report, for the purposes of evaluating vehicular access and queuing conditions at Project driveway intersections.

Based upon the level of service methodologies described, the existing peak hour traffic volumes presented were used in conjunction with existing lane configurations to determine the current traffic operating conditions at the 12 key intersections.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
6 TABLE 1

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
(LOS)
Intersection Capacity
Utilization Value (ICU) Level of Service Description
A  0.600
EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer
than one red light, and no approach phase is
fully used.

B 0.601 – 0.700
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach
phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin
to feel somewhat restricted within groups
of vehicles.

C 0.701 – 0.800
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to
wait through more than one red light;
backups may develop behind turning
vehicles.

D 0.801 – 0.900
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during
portions of the rush hours, but enough
lower volume periods occur to permit
clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.

E 0.901 – 1.000
POOR. Represents the most vehicles
intersection approaches can accommodate;
may be long lines of waiting vehicles
through several signal cycles.

F > 1.000
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations
or on cross streets may restrict or prevent
movement of vehicles out of the
intersection approaches. Potentially very
long delays with continuously increasing
queue lengths.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
7 TABLE 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 6 METHODOLOGY) 1,2 Level of Service
(LOS)
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A  10.0 Little or no delay
B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays
C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays
D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays
E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays
F > 50.0 Severe congestion
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 20: Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. 2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 21: All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined solely by control delay.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
8 TABLE 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 6 METHODOLOGY)3 Level of Service
(LOS)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description
A < 10.0
This level of service occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B > 10.0 and < 20.0
This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

C > 20.0 and < 35.0
Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result
from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level.

The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this
level, though many still pass through the intersection
without stopping.

D > 35.0 and < 55.0
Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.

Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E > 55.0 and < 80.0
Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long
cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F  80.0
Severe congestion This level, considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over
saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contributing factors to such delay levels.
3 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 19: Signalized Intersections.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
9 Appendix A,B, and C contain the detailed level of service worksheets. Appendix D contains the raw traffic count data collected as well as the supplemental data for the existing vacant Chase Bank parcel
Table 4 summarizes the existing levels of service for the 12 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. As Table 4 indicates, all 12 key intersections currently operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours of a typical weekday.

4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS
In order to determine potential traffic impacts of the Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is estimated by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the Project development tabulation with applicable trip adjustments/credits to account for the existing land uses on site, internal capture, and/or alternative modes of transportation.

The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area.

The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area.

With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed Project is isolated by comparing levels of service at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without Project-generated traffic. The significance of the Project’s impacts, and the need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements, can then be determined.

4.1 Project Traffic Generation
Tables 5 through 8 present the estimation of Project-generated trips presuming the development of Option 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B, respectively.

Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 11th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2021].

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
10 TABLE 4
EXISTING (2022) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.483 -- A No
Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.580 -- A No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.0 C No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 23.3 C No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.5 C No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.0 C No
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.5 B No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.0 B No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 15.6 C No
6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.583 -- A No
Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.504 -- A No
7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.560 -- A No
Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.459 -- A No
8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.571 -- A No
Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.572 -- A No
9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.920 -- E Yes
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.958 -- E Yes
HCM: AM -- 34.2 C No
PM -- 44.7 D No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.602 -- B No
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.737 -- C No
HCM: AM -- 13.3 B No
PM -- 22.7 C No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.605 -- B No
Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.640 -- B No
12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.763 -- C No
Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.789 -- C No
Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) ICU
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Poor
LOS LOS?
Delay
(s/v)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
11 TABLE 5
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION – OPTION 1A
LAND USE Daily In Out Total In Out Total
ITE TRIP RATES [a]
ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) with Supermarket 94.49 62% 38% 3.53 48% 52% 9.03 ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) without Supermarket 67.52 62% 38% 1.73 49% 51% 5.19 ITE LU 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 467.48 51% 49% 44.61 52% 48% 33.03

PROPOSED PROJECT
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket 95,412 SF 9,015 209 128 337 414 448 862 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (902) (21) (13) (34) (166) (179) (345) Shopping Plaza with Supermarket Total 8,113 188 115 303 248 269 517 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
New Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 2,500 SF 1,169 57 55 112 43 40 83 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (28) (57) (24) (22) (46) New Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window Total 877 28 27 55 19 18 37 Project Trip Generation: 9,865 244 169 413 286 305 591

EXISTING SITE
Shopping Plaza without Supermarket 103,788 SF 7,008 112 68 180 264 275 539 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (701) (11) (7) (18) (106) (110) (216) Shopping Plaza without Supermarket Total 6,307 101 61 162 158 165 323 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
Existing Trip Generation: 7,182 129 88 217 177 183 360
NET PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 2,683 115 81 196 109 122 231 Proposed Project (blue) Minus Existing Site (green)
Notes:
[a] Source: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. [b]
[c]
Consistent with Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. Pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) consist of the following: 10% weekday daily (estimated), 10% weekday AM (estimated), 40% weekday PM.

Consistent with Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. Pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window consist of the following: 25% weekday daily (estimated), 50% weekday AM, 55% weekday PM. (trips/KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Unit / Size
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
12 TABLE 6
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION – OPTION 1B
LAND USE Daily In Out Total In Out Total
ITE TRIP RATES [a]
ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) with Supermarket 94.49 62% 38% 3.53 48% 52% 9.03 ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) without Supermarket 67.52 62% 38% 1.73 49% 51% 5.19 ITE LU 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 54.45 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59 ITE LU 933: Fast-Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru Window 450.49 58% 42% 43.18 50% 50% 33.21 ITE LU 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 467.48 51% 49% 44.61 52% 48% 33.03

PROPOSED PROJECT
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket 95,412 SF 9,015 209 128 337 414 448 862 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (902) (21) (13) (34) (166) (179) (345) Shopping Plaza with Supermarket Total 8,113 188 115 303 248 269 517 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
New Pad Building - Retail 3,126 SF 170 4 3 7 11 10 21
Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (17) 000 (4) (4) (8)
New Pad Building - Retail Total 153 4 3 7 7 6 13
New Pad Building - Fast-Food Restaurant w/o Drive-Thru 1,875 SF 845 47 34 81 31 31 62 Pass-By Trip Reduction [d] (85) (5) (3) (8) (13) (13) (26) New Pad Building - Fast-Food Restaurant w/o Drive-Thru Total 760 42 31 73 18 18 36 Project Trip Generation: 9,901 262 176 438 292 311 603

EXISTING SITE
Shopping Plaza without Supermarket 103,788 SF 7,008 112 68 180 264 275 539 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (701) (11) (7) (18) (106) (110) (216) Shopping Plaza without Supermarket Total 6,307 101 61 162 158 165 323 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
Existing Trip Generation: 7,182 129 88 217 177 183 360
NET PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 2,719 133 88 221 115 128 243 Proposed Project (blue) Minus Existing Site (green)
Notes:
[a] Source: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. [b]
[c]
[d] Given that the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not provide pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 933: Fast-Food Restauant without Drive-Thru Window, pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant were utilized, which has a weekday PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 43%. The weekday daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages were estimated to be 10%. (trips/KSF)
Consistent with Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. Pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) consist of the following: 10% weekday daily (estimated), 10% weekday AM (estimated), 40% weekday PM.

Given that the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not provide pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k), pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) were utilized, which has a weekday PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 40%. The weekday daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages were estimated to be 10%.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Unit / Size
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
13 TABLE 7
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION – OPTION 2A
LAND USE Daily In Out Total In Out Total
ITE TRIP RATES [a]
ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) with Supermarket 94.49 62% 38% 3.53 48% 52% 9.03 ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) without Supermarket 67.52 62% 38% 1.73 49% 51% 5.19 ITE LU 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 467.48 51% 49% 44.61 52% 48% 33.03

PROPOSED PROJECT
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket 98,958 SF 9,351 216 133 349 429 465 894 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (935) (22) (13) (35) (172) (186) (358) Shopping Plaza with Supermarket Total 8,416 194 120 314 257 279 536 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
New Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 2,500 SF 1,169 57 55 112 43 40 83 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (28) (57) (24) (22) (46) New Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window Total 877 28 27 55 19 18 37 Project Trip Generation: 10,168 250 174 424 295 315 610

EXISTING SITE
Shopping Plaza without Supermarket 103,788 SF 7,008 112 68 180 264 275 539 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (701) (11) (7) (18) (106) (110) (216) Shopping Plaza without Supermarket Total 6,307 101 61 162 158 165 323 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
Existing Trip Generation: 7,182 129 88 217 177 183 360
NET PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 2,986 121 86 207 118 132 250 Proposed Project (blue) Minus Existing Site (green)
Notes:
[a] Source: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. [b]
[c] Consistent with Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. Pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window consist of the following: 25% weekday daily (estimated), 50% weekday AM, 55% weekday PM.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Unit / Size
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
Consistent with Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. Pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) consist of the following: 10% weekday daily (estimated), 10% weekday AM (estimated), 40% weekday PM.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
14 TABLE 8
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION – OPTION 2B
LAND USE Daily In Out Total In Out Total
ITE TRIP RATES [a]
ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) with Supermarket 94.49 62% 38% 3.53 48% 52% 9.03 ITE LU 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) without Supermarket 67.52 62% 38% 1.73 49% 51% 5.19 ITE LU 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 54.45 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59 ITE LU 933: Fast-Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru Window 450.49 58% 42% 43.18 50% 50% 33.21 ITE LU 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 467.48 51% 49% 44.61 52% 48% 33.03

PROPOSED PROJECT
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket 98,958 SF 9,351 216 133 349 429 465 894 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (935) (22) (13) (35) (172) (186) (358) Shopping Plaza with Supermarket Total 8,416 194 120 314 257 279 536 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
New Pad Building - Retail 3,126 SF 170 4 3 7 11 10 21
Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (17) 000 (4) (4) (8)
New Pad Building - Retail Total 153 4 3 7 7 6 13
New Pad Building - Fast-Food Restaurant w/o Drive-Thru 1,875 SF 845 47 34 81 31 31 62 Pass-By Trip Reduction [d] (85) (5) (3) (8) (13) (13) (26) New Pad Building - Fast-Food Restaurant w/o Drive-Thru Total 760 42 31 73 18 18 36 Project Trip Generation: 10,204 268 181 449 301 321 622

EXISTING SITE
Shopping Plaza without Supermarket 103,788 SF 7,008 112 68 180 264 275 539 Pass-By Trip Reduction [b] (701) (11) (7) (18) (106) (110) (216) Shopping Plaza without Supermarket Total 6,307 101 61 162 158 165 323 Carl's Jr. Restaurant 2,497 SF 1,167 57 54 111 43 39 82 Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (292) (29) (27) (56) (24) (21) (45) Carl's Jr. Restaurant Total 875 28 27 55 19 18 37
Existing Trip Generation: 7,182 129 88 217 177 183 360
NET PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 3,022 139 93 232 124 138 262 Proposed Project (blue) Minus Existing Site (green)
Notes:
[a] Source: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. [b]
[c]
[d]
Unit / Size
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Consistent with Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. Pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) consist of the following: 10% weekday daily (estimated), 10% weekday AM (estimated), 40% weekday PM.

Given that the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not provide pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k), pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 821: Shopping Plaza (40-150k) were utilized, which has a weekday PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 40%. The weekday daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages were estimated to be 10%.

Given that the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not provide pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 933: Fast-Food Restauant without Drive-Thru Window, pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant were utilized, which has a weekday PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 43%. The weekday daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages were estimated to be 10%. (trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)
(trips/KSF)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
15 Because of the retail and fast-food restaurant components of the Project, “pass-by” reductions were applied to retail and fast-food-generated trips. This is typically done to account for conditions when the total number of trips generated by a retail or fast-food-oriented development is not entirely new to the external street system. Shopping centers and restaurants, which are located along major/busy roadways, attract a portion of their trips from traffic already on the street system for a different purpose (i.e., the retail or fast-food site is not the primary or ultimate destination). These trips do not add new traffic to the surrounding street system. The methodology used in estimating pass-by trips is also contained in ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook.

As shown in Table 5, Option 1A net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,683 weekday trips, 196 AM peak hour trips, and 231 PM peak hour trips. Table 6 indicates that Option 1B net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,719 weekday daily trips, 221 AM peak hour trips, and 243 PM peak hour trips (greater than Option 1A during each time period).

As shown in Table 7, Option 2A net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,986 weekday trips, 207 AM peak hour trips, and 250 PM peak hour trips. Table 8 indicates that Option 2B net-generated trips are estimated to be 3,022 weekday daily trips, 232 AM peak hour trips, and 262 PM peak hour trips (greater than Option 2A during each time period).

4.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment
The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as the Project is dependent upon the following factors:
 the Project’s market/service area
 location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system  location of parking areas, and ingress/egress availability at the parking areas  the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes  physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns  presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity Based on these considerations, a Project trip distribution pattern was developed and presented on Figure 9. The incremental traffic expected to be generated by the Project was assigned to the local street network using Project distribution pattern illustrated in Figure 9.

4.2.1 Project-Generated Traffic Volumes
Figures 10 through 17 present the Project-generated traffic volumes at the 12 key intersections under Option 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The volumes presented in Figures 10 through 17 represent the net project trips.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
16 4.3 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Figures 18 through 25 present the Existing (2022) Plus Project traffic volumes at the 12 key intersections under Option 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

4.4 Year 2024 Cumulative Base
The Cumulative Base or “background” traffic projections account for existing traffic volumes, and include two growth elements over existing traffic volumes: (1) increase in the existing traffic volumes due to overall regional growth; and, (2) traffic generated by specific developments expected to be constructed by Year 2024 in the vicinity of the Project study area. The following sections describe these two growth elements in existing traffic volumes.

No physical, capacity-enhancing improvements to intersection geometry or roadway segments have been assumed under Year 2024 Cumulative Base conditions because no transportation system projects within the study area are expected to be fully developed/completed by Year 2024.

4.4.1 Ambient Growth
The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future related projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The Year 2024 background traffic volumes were estimated based on a 1% annual growth rate (based on other traffic studies completed in the City), corresponding to a total adjustment of 2% from 2022 conditions.

4.4.2 Cumulative Projects
The traffic expected to be generated by future projects that are either under construction or proposed within the study area accounts for the second element of the Year 2024 Cumulative Base scenario. Tables 9 and 10 present the list of three cumulative projects, and their trip generation potential, respectively. Figure 26 shows the locations of these related projects. The list of cumulative projects was developed in conjunction with City staff, and verified with City staff that there are no other development projects identified in the foreseeable future that would affect traffic forecasts in this study.

4.4.3 Year 2024 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes
Figures 27 and 28 present the Year 2024 Cumulative Base traffic volumes at the 12 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

4.5 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Figures 29 through 36 illustrate the Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes at the 12 key intersections under Option 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
17 TABLE 9
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS4
No. Description Location/Address Size
City of Laguna Hills

1. Circle K 25491 Alicia Parkway
Demolish Existing:
2,100 SF Auto Repair Shop with 8 VFP Gas Station
Construct:
5,200 SF Convenience Store with 10 VFP Gas Station

2. MemorialCare Saddleback
Women’s Health Pavilion 24401 Calle de Louisa 41,805 SF Medical Office Building

3. 24888 Alicia Parkway
Commercial Project 24888 Alicia Parkway
2,500 Taco Bell Restaurant with Drive-Thru
2,175 SF Starbucks with Drive-Thru
2,503 SF Plant Power Restaurant with Drive-Thru

4. ActivCare 24888 Alicia parkway 72 Bed Elderly Care Housing 4 Source: Cities of Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, and Aliso Viejo Planning Departments.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 18
TABLE 10
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST5
Cumulative Project Description
Daily
2-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total

1. Circle K 896 39 39 78 26 26 52

2. MemorialCare Saddleback Women’s Health Pavilion 1,505 103 27 130 49 115 164

3. 24888 Alicia Parkway Commercial Project6 3,105 102 98 200 77 75 152

4. ActivCare7 187 9 5 14 7 12 19
Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Forecast 5,693 253 169 422 159 228 387 5 Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington D.C. (2021), unless otherwise noted. 6 Source: 24888 Alicia Parkway Commercial Project Revised TIA, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 2020. 7 Source: ActivCare Laguna Hills Trip Generation Evaluation, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated January 2019.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 19

5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The potential impact of the Project’s incremental trips under each development scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the 12 key intersections, without, then with, the Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the delay/volume-tocapacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the significant traffic impact criteria described below.

5.1 Significant Impact Criteria
Based on the Cities of Laguna Hills and Mission Viejo traffic study guidelines, a project is considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the Project causes an intersection at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F, and the ICU increase attributable to the Project is 0.01 or greater (or any delay increase per HCM 6).

For Caltrans freeway ramp intersections, a project is considered to have a significant impact if the Project causes an intersection at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F, or, if an intersection is operating at LOS E or F without the project, and the project causes any delay increase.

5.2 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Tables 11 through 14 summarize the Existing (2022) Plus Project levels of service at the 12 study intersections under each development scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on the application of the performance criteria described previously, the Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the 12 key intersections under Existing (2022) Plus Project conditions.

5.3 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Tables 15 through 18 present the Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project levels of service at the 12 study intersections under each development scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on the application of the performance criteria described previously, the Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the 12 key intersections under Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

5.4 Caltrans Queuing Analysis
The Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, dated July 2020, provides direction on a simplified safety analysis approach that reduces the risk to all road users and that focuses on multi-modal conflict analysis as well as access management issues. District traffic safety staff are encouraged to consider the proposed Project’s potential influence on safety on state roadways, including the following factors:
 Increased presence of pedestrians and bicyclists
 Degradation of the walking and bicycling environment and experience

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 20
TABLE 11
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 1A ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.483 -- A No 0.505 -- A No 0.022 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.580 -- A No 0.630 -- B No 0.050 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.0 C No -- 21.1 C No 2.1 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 23.3 C No -- 30.6 D No 7.3 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.5 C No -- 21.5 C No 2.0 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.0 C No -- 29.5 D No 3.5 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.4 B No 0.7 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.5 B No -- 11.7 B No 1.2 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.0 B No -- 14.1 B No 2.1 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 15.6 C No -- 20.7 C No 5.1 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.583 -- A No 0.597 -- A No 0.014 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.504 -- A No 0.518 -- A No 0.014 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.560 -- A No 0.568 -- A No 0.008 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.459 -- A No 0.472 -- A No 0.013 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.571 -- A No 0.578 -- A No 0.007 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.572 -- A No 0.578 -- A No 0.006 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.920 -- E Yes 0.925 -- E Yes 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.958 -- E Yes 0.966 -- E Yes 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 34.2 C No -- 36.0 D No 1.8 No
PM -- 44.7 D No -- 46.2 D No 1.5 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.602 -- B No 0.606 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.737 -- C No 0.744 -- C No 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 13.3 B No -- 13.8 B No 0.5 No
PM -- 22.7 C No -- 22.9 C No 0.2 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.605 -- B No 0.610 -- B No 0.005 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.640 -- B No 0.645 -- B No 0.005 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.763 -- C No 0.771 -- C No 0.008 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.789 -- C No 0.796 -- C No 0.007 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

Poor
LOS
? ICU
Poor
LOS
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) ?
Peak
Hour LOS LOS
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
ICU
Project
Impact?
Plus Project Option 1A
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 21
TABLE 12
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 1B ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.483 -- A No 0.508 -- A No 0.025 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.580 -- A No 0.632 -- B No 0.052 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.0 C No -- 20.8 C No 1.9 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 23.3 C No -- 30.3 D No 7.1 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.5 C No -- 23.5 C No 4.0 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.0 C No -- 27.3 D No 1.3 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.4 B No 0.7 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.5 B No -- 11.7 B No 1.2 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.0 B No -- 14.1 B No 2.1 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 15.6 C No -- 20.8 C No 5.2 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.583 -- A No 0.599 -- A No 0.016 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.504 -- A No 0.519 -- A No 0.015 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.560 -- A No 0.569 -- A No 0.009 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.459 -- A No 0.473 -- A No 0.014 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.571 -- A No 0.579 -- A No 0.008 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.572 -- A No 0.579 -- A No 0.007 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.920 -- E Yes 0.925 -- E Yes 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.958 -- E Yes 0.966 -- E Yes 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 34.2 C No -- 36.2 D No 2.0 No
PM -- 44.7 D No -- 46.4 D No 1.7 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.602 -- B No 0.606 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.737 -- C No 0.744 -- C No 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 13.3 B No -- 13.8 B No 0.5 No
PM -- 22.7 C No -- 23.3 C No 0.6 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.605 -- B No 0.611 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.640 -- B No 0.646 -- B No 0.006 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.763 -- C No 0.772 -- C No 0.009 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.789 -- C No 0.797 -- C No 0.008 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

LOS
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 1B

ICU LOS
Poor
LOS
? ICU

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 22
TABLE 13
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 2A ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.483 -- A No 0.507 -- A No 0.024 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.580 -- A No 0.634 -- B No 0.054 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.0 C No -- 21.2 C No 2.2 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 23.3 C No -- 31.4 D No 8.1 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.5 C No -- 22.7 C No 3.2 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.0 C No -- 28.1 D No 2.1 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.4 B No 0.7 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.5 B No -- 11.8 B No 1.3 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.0 B No -- 14.2 B No 2.2 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 15.6 C No -- 21.3 C No 5.7 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.583 -- A No 0.597 -- A No 0.014 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.504 -- A No 0.520 -- A No 0.016 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.560 -- A No 0.568 -- A No 0.008 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.459 -- A No 0.474 -- A No 0.015 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.571 -- A No 0.578 -- A No 0.007 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.572 -- A No 0.579 -- A No 0.007 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.920 -- E Yes 0.925 -- E Yes 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.958 -- E Yes 0.966 -- E Yes 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 34.2 C No -- 36.1 D No 1.9 No
PM -- 44.7 D No -- 46.5 D No 1.8 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.602 -- B No 0.606 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.737 -- C No 0.744 -- C No 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 13.3 B No -- 13.8 B No 0.5 No
PM -- 22.7 C No -- 23.4 C No 0.7 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.605 -- B No 0.611 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.640 -- B No 0.646 -- B No 0.006 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.763 -- C No 0.771 -- C No 0.008 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.789 -- C No 0.797 -- C No 0.008 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

LOS
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2A

ICU LOS
Poor
LOS
? ICU

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 23
TABLE 14
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 2B ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.483 -- A No 0.510 -- A No 0.027 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.580 -- A No 0.636 -- B No 0.056 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.0 C No -- 20.9 C No 2.0 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 23.3 C No -- 31.2 D No 7.9 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 19.5 C No -- 21.4 C No 1.9 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.0 C No -- 30.0 D No 4.0 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.4 B No 0.7 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.5 B No -- 11.8 B No 1.3 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.0 B No -- 14.2 B No 2.2 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 15.6 C No -- 21.2 C No 5.6 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.583 -- A No 0.600 -- B No 0.017 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.504 -- A No 0.520 -- A No 0.016 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.560 -- A No 0.570 -- A No 0.010 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.459 -- A No 0.475 -- A No 0.016 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.571 -- A No 0.579 -- A No 0.008 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.572 -- A No 0.579 -- A No 0.007 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.920 -- E Yes 0.926 -- E Yes 0.006 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.958 -- E Yes 0.967 -- E Yes 0.009 No HCM: AM -- 34.2 C No -- 36.3 D No 2.1 No
PM -- 44.7 D No -- 46.6 D No 1.9 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.602 -- B No 0.606 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.737 -- C No 0.745 -- C No 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 13.3 B No -- 13.8 B No 0.5 No
PM -- 22.7 C No -- 23.4 C No 0.7 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.605 -- B No 0.611 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.640 -- B No 0.646 -- B No 0.006 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.763 -- C No 0.772 -- C No 0.009 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.789 -- C No 0.797 -- C No 0.008 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

LOS
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2B

ICU LOS
Poor
LOS
? ICU

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 24
TABLE 15
YEAR 2024 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 1A ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.592 -- A No 0.607 -- B No 0.015 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.608 -- B No 0.658 -- B No 0.050 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 20.1 C No -- 22.5 C No 2.5 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 24.8 C No -- 33.5 D No 8.7 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 18.7 C No -- 22.4 C No 3.7 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.5 C No -- 30.3 D No 3.8 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.4 B No 0.7 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.6 B No -- 11.7 B No 1.1 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.2 B No -- 14.5 B No 2.3 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 16.0 C No -- 21.4 C No 5.4 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.614 -- B No 0.628 -- B No 0.014 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.529 -- A No 0.544 -- A No 0.015 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.585 -- A No 0.593 -- A No 0.008 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.481 -- A No 0.494 -- A No 0.013 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.612 -- B No 0.620 -- B No 0.008 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.603 -- B No 0.610 -- B No 0.007 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.945 -- E Yes 0.950 -- E Yes 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.983 -- E Yes 0.990 -- E Yes 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 40.8 D No -- 42.1 D No 1.3 No
PM -- 48.5 D No -- 51.3 D No 2.8 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.621 -- B No 0.625 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.758 -- C No 0.764 -- C No 0.006 No HCM: AM -- 14.9 B No -- 15.0 B No 0.1 No
PM -- 23.3 C No -- 24.2 C No 0.9 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.630 -- B No 0.636 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.660 -- B No 0.667 -- B No 0.007 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.786 -- C No 0.794 -- C No 0.008 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.811 -- D No 0.818 -- D No 0.007 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

ICU
Poor
LOS
LOS LOS ?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 1A
ICU
Poor
LOS
?
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 25
TABLE 16
YEAR 2024 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 1B ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.592 -- A No 0.606 -- B No 0.014 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.608 -- B No 0.660 -- B No 0.052 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 20.1 C No -- 22.2 C No 2.2 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 24.8 C No -- 33.2 D No 8.4 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 18.7 C No -- 23.4 C No 4.7 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.5 C No -- 32.4 D No 5.9 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.5 B No 0.8 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.6 B No -- 11.8 B No 1.2 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.2 B No -- 14.4 B No 2.2 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 16.0 C No -- 21.5 C No 5.5 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.614 -- B No 0.630 -- B No 0.016 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.529 -- A No 0.545 -- A No 0.016 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.585 -- A No 0.594 -- A No 0.009 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.481 -- A No 0.495 -- A No 0.014 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.612 -- B No 0.621 -- B No 0.009 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.603 -- B No 0.611 -- B No 0.008 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.945 -- E Yes 0.950 -- E Yes 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.983 -- E Yes 0.991 -- E Yes 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 40.8 D No -- 42.2 D No 1.4 No
PM -- 48.5 D No -- 51.5 D No 3.0 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.621 -- B No 0.625 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.758 -- C No 0.765 -- C No 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 14.9 B No -- 15.0 B No 0.1 No
PM -- 23.3 C No -- 24.2 C No 0.9 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.630 -- B No 0.636 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.660 -- B No 0.668 -- B No 0.008 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.786 -- C No 0.795 -- C No 0.009 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.811 -- D No 0.820 -- D No 0.009 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

LOS
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 1B

ICU LOS
Poor
LOS
? ICU

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 26
TABLE 17
YEAR 2024 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 2A ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.592 -- A No 0.608 -- B No 0.016 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.608 -- B No 0.662 -- B No 0.054 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 20.1 C No -- 22.7 C No 2.6 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 24.8 C No -- 34.5 D No 9.7 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 18.7 C No -- 23.9 C No 5.2 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.5 C No -- 33.4 D No 6.9 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.5 B No 0.8 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.6 B No -- 11.8 B No 1.2 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.2 B No -- 14.5 B No 2.3 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 16.0 C No -- 22.0 C No 6.0 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.614 -- B No 0.628 -- B No 0.014 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.529 -- A No 0.546 -- A No 0.017 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.585 -- A No 0.593 -- A No 0.008 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.481 -- A No 0.496 -- A No 0.015 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.612 -- B No 0.620 -- B No 0.008 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.603 -- B No 0.612 -- B No 0.009 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.945 -- E Yes 0.950 -- E Yes 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.983 -- E Yes 0.991 -- E Yes 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 40.8 D No -- 42.1 D No 1.3 No
PM -- 48.5 D No -- 51.6 D No 3.1 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.621 -- B No 0.625 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.758 -- C No 0.765 -- C No 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 14.9 B No -- 15.0 B No 0.1 No
PM -- 23.3 C No -- 24.2 C No 0.9 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.630 -- B No 0.636 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.660 -- B No 0.668 -- B No 0.008 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.786 -- C No 0.794 -- C No 0.008 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.811 -- D No 0.819 -- D No 0.008 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

LOS
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 2A

ICU LOS
Poor
LOS
? ICU

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 27
TABLE 18
YEAR 2024 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE: OPTION 2B ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.592 -- A No 0.607 -- B No 0.015 No Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.608 -- B No 0.664 -- B No 0.056 No 2) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 20.1 C No -- 22.4 C No 2.3 No Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM -- 24.8 C No -- 34.2 D No 9.4 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM -- 18.7 C No -- 25.0 C No 6.3 No Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)[a] PM -- 26.5 C No -- 31.3 D No 4.8 No 4) Project Driveway #3 at AM -- 9.7 A No -- 10.5 B No 0.8 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 10.6 B No -- 11.9 B No 1.3 No 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM -- 12.2 B No -- 14.5 B No 2.3 No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM -- 16.0 C No -- 22.0 C No 6.0 No 6) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.614 -- B No 0.631 -- B No 0.017 No Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) PM 0.529 -- A No 0.546 -- A No 0.017 No 7) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.585 -- A No 0.594 -- A No 0.009 No Wilkes Place (Laguna Hills) PM 0.481 -- A No 0.497 -- A No 0.016 No 8) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.612 -- B No 0.621 -- B No 0.009 No Paseo de Valencia (Laguna Hills) PM 0.603 -- B No 0.612 -- B No 0.009 No 9) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.945 -- E Yes 0.951 -- E Yes 0.006 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.983 -- E Yes 0.991 -- E Yes 0.008 No HCM: AM -- 40.8 D No -- 42.3 D No 1.5 No
PM -- 48.5 D No -- 51.8 D No 3.3 No
10) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.621 -- B No 0.625 -- B No 0.004 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo) PM 0.758 -- C No 0.765 -- C No 0.007 No HCM: AM -- 14.9 B No -- 15.0 B No 0.1 No
PM -- 23.3 C No -- 24.3 C No 1.0 No
11) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.630 -- B No 0.636 -- B No 0.006 No Charlinda Drive (Mission Viejo) PM 0.660 -- B No 0.668 -- B No 0.008 No 12) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.786 -- C No 0.795 -- C No 0.009 No Muirlands Boulevard (Mission Viejo) PM 0.811 -- D No 0.819 -- D No 0.008 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] The delay reported is based on Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic analysis.

LOS
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
?
Project
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) Impact?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 2B

ICU LOS
Poor
LOS
? ICU

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 28
 New pedestrian and bicyclist connection desires
 Multimodal conflict points, especially at intersections and project access locations  Change in traffic mix such as an increase in bicyclists or pedestrians where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design (sidewalks, bike and multi-user paths, multimodal roadways, etc.)
 Increased vehicular speeds
 Transition between free flow and metered flow
 Increased traffic volumes
 Queuing at off-ramps resulting in slow or stopped traffic on the mainline or speed differentials between adjacent lanes
 Queuing exceeding turn pocket length that impedes through-traffic The proposed Project does not take direct access from a State facility; however, an evaluation of the Project’s potential impacts on queuing at Caltrans intersections was prepared in order to determine if the Project would cause, or contribute towards, slowing or stopped traffic on freeway mainline travel lanes, off-ramps, and State highway lanes that could result in unsafe speed differentials between adjacent lanes.

Caltrans queueing analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational method for signalized intersections. The corresponding HCM worksheets for purposes of determining the 95th percentile vehicle queues are contained in Appendix B.

Tables 19 through 26 present the results of the Caltrans queuing analysis prepared for Existing plus Project and Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions under each development scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Each queuing table reports the 95th percentile queues, which represent the maximum back of vehicle queues with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The corresponding maximum vehicle queue lengths were then compared to the queue storage lengths. As Tables 19 through 26 indicate, adequate queue storage lengths are provided to accommodate the 95th percentile queues for movements affected by the Project. Based on this, it is concluded that development of the Project under any scenario would not result in adverse queuing conditions at Caltrans intersections.

6.0 INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND SITE ACCESS

6.1.1 Internal Circulation
On-site circulation aspects of the Project (i.e., driveway and internal roadway orientation, residential building layout, parking configuration, parking accessibility, pedestrian and bicycle connections on site and with surrounding uses, bus stop locations and accessibility to public transit, passenger loading/unloading locations, delivery/service operations and expected drop-off/pick-up travel routes) were reviewed and concluded to be adequate.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 29
TABLE 19
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 1A 9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 762 Yes 1,065 Yes 812 Yes 1,100 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 567 Yes 631 Yes 632 Yes 674 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 106 Yes 195 Yes 130 Yes 209 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 375 Yes 591 Yes 392 Yes 591 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections Plus Project Option 1A
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (Yes/No)
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 30
TABLE 20
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 1B 9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 762 Yes 1,065 Yes 817 Yes 1,100 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 567 Yes 631 Yes 641 Yes 676 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 106 Yes 195 Yes 133 Yes 211 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 375 Yes 591 Yes 392 Yes 609 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Plus Project Option 1B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 31
TABLE 21
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 2A 9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 762 Yes 1,065 Yes 812 Yes 1,100 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 567 Yes 631 Yes 634 Yes 678 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 106 Yes 195 Yes 131 Yes 211 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 375 Yes 591 Yes 392 Yes 609 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Plus Project Option 2A
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 32
TABLE 22
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 2B 9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 762 Yes 1,065 Yes 817 Yes 1,100 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 567 Yes 631 Yes 642 Yes 680 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 106 Yes 195 Yes 134 Yes 212 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 375 Yes 591 Yes 392 Yes 609 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Plus Project Option 2B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 33
TABLE 23
YEAR 2024 CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 1A
9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 945 Yes 1,149 Yes 966 Yes 1,204 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 712 Yes 666 Yes 765 Yes 736 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 138 Yes 196 Yes 158 Yes 218 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 433 Yes 589 Yes 432 Yes 619 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 1A
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 34
TABLE 24
YEAR 2024 CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 1B
9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 945 Yes 1,149 Yes 973 Yes 1,204 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 712 Yes 666 Yes 777 Yes 738 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 138 Yes 196 Yes 161 Yes 219 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 433 Yes 589 Yes 432 Yes 619 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 1B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 35
TABLE 25
YEAR 2024 CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 2A
9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 945 Yes 1,149 Yes 973 Yes 1,204 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 712 Yes 666 Yes 772 Yes 740 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 138 Yes 196 Yes 159 Yes 220 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 433 Yes 589 Yes 432 Yes 619 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 2A
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 36
TABLE 26
YEAR 2024 CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 2B
9) Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)
Southbound Left-Turn 1,490 945 Yes 1,149 Yes 972 Yes 1,204 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 1,490 712 Yes 666 Yes 779 Yes 743 Yes 10)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 350 138 Yes 196 Yes 162 Yes 221 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 1,390 433 Yes 589 Yes 432 Yes 619 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 2B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 37
TABLE 27
YEAR 2024 PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 1A 1) Alicia Parkway at
Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) [d]
Eastbound Left-Turn 135 68 Yes 103 Yes 98 Yes 132 Yes
2) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 170 26 Yes 44 Yes 55 Yes 63 Yes
Westbound Through/Right-Turn 195 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 3) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 115 38 Yes 76 Yes 48 Yes 87 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 105 45 Yes 93 Yes 83 Yes 132 No [b] Westbound Right-Turn 115 6 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 65 25 Yes 29 Yes 28 Yes 46 Yes
Southbound Through/Right-Turn 180 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 52 39 Yes 54 No [c] 48 Yes 75 No [c] 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 135 25 Yes 25 Yes 36 Yes 46 Yes Southbound Through/Right-Turn 210 25 Yes 66 Yes 32 Yes 148 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 25 41 No [c] 56 No [c] 48 No [c] 95 No [c] 6) Alicia Parkway at
Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) [d]
Westbound Left-Turn 120 94 Yes 95 Yes 93 Yes 101 Yes
Notes:[a] Unless otherwise reported, queue is based on Synchro 11.0 SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane[b] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, Figure 37 illustrates proposed improvements that would provide additional storage length to fully accommodate the queue.
[c] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, it occurs on site and not on a public street. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers familiar with this worst-case condition. Based on this, peak queue operations may be adverse but would not need to be addressed. [d] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections.

Study Intersections (Jurisdiction)
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 1A
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 38
TABLE 28
YEAR 2024 PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 1B 1) Alicia Parkway at
Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) [d]
Eastbound Left-Turn 135 68 Yes 103 Yes 102 Yes 133 Yes
2) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 170 26 Yes 44 Yes 48 Yes 56 Yes
Westbound Through/Right-Turn 195 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 3) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 115 38 Yes 76 Yes 45 Yes 91 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 105 45 Yes 93 Yes 88 Yes 132 No [b] Westbound Right-Turn 115 6 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 65 25 Yes 29 Yes 24 Yes 50 Yes
Southbound Through/Right-Turn 180 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 52 39 Yes 54 No [c] 48 Yes 80 No [c] 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 135 25 Yes 25 Yes 39 Yes 54 Yes Southbound Through/Right-Turn 210 25 Yes 66 Yes 35 Yes 154 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 25 41 No [c] 56 No [c] 50 No [c] 114 No [c] 6) Alicia Parkway at
Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) [d]
Westbound Left-Turn 120 94 Yes 95 Yes 93 Yes 101 Yes
Notes:[a] Unless otherwise reported, queue is based on Synchro 11.0 SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane[b] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, Figure 37 illustrates proposed improvements that would provide additional storage length to fully accommodate the queue.
[c] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, it occurs on site and not on a public street. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers familiar with this worst-case condition. Based on this, peak queue operations may be adverse but would not need to be addressed. [d] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 1B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 39
TABLE 29
YEAR 2024 PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 2A 1) Alicia Parkway at
Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) [d]
Eastbound Left-Turn 135 68 Yes 103 Yes 104 Yes 135 Yes
2) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 170 26 Yes 44 Yes 51 Yes 58 Yes
Westbound Through/Right-Turn 195 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 3) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 115 38 Yes 76 Yes 51 Yes 97 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 105 45 Yes 93 Yes 95 Yes 135 No [b] Westbound Right-Turn 115 6 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 65 25 Yes 29 Yes 30 Yes 53 Yes
Southbound Through/Right-Turn 180 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 52 39 Yes 54 No [c] 51 Yes 73 No [c] 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 135 25 Yes 25 Yes 32 Yes 49 Yes Southbound Through/Right-Turn 210 25 Yes 66 Yes 30 Yes 157 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 25 41 No [c] 56 No [c] 49 No [c] 119 No [c] 6) Alicia Parkway at
Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) [d]
Westbound Left-Turn 120 94 Yes 95 Yes 104 Yes 102 Yes
Notes:[a] Unless otherwise reported, queue is based on Synchro 11.0 SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane[b] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, Figure 37 illustrates proposed improvements that would provide additional storage length to fully accommodate the queue.
[c] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, it occurs on site and not on a public street. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers familiar with this worst-case condition. Based on this, peak queue operations may be adverse but would not need to be addressed. [d] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 2A
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 40
TABLE 30
YEAR 2024 PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUEING ANALYSIS: OPTION 2B 1) Alicia Parkway at
Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia (Laguna Hills) [d]
Eastbound Left-Turn 135 68 Yes 103 Yes 103 Yes 135 Yes
2) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 170 26 Yes 44 Yes 49 Yes 65 Yes
Westbound Through/Right-Turn 195 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 3) Alicia Parkway at
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills)
Southbound Right-Turn 115 38 Yes 76 Yes 47 Yes 94 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 105 45 Yes 93 Yes 73 Yes 123 No [b] Westbound Right-Turn 115 6 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 65 25 Yes 29 Yes 33 Yes 58 Yes
Southbound Through/Right-Turn 180 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 52 39 Yes 54 No [c] 44 Yes 70 No [c] 5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills)
Northbound Left/Through 135 25 Yes 25 Yes 41 Yes 42 Yes Southbound Through/Right-Turn 210 25 Yes 66 Yes 43 Yes 131 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 25 41 No [c] 56 No [c] 51 No [c] 81 No [c] 6) Alicia Parkway at
Costeau Street (Laguna Hills) [d]
Westbound Left-Turn 120 94 Yes 95 Yes 94 Yes 102 Yes
Notes:[a] Unless otherwise reported, queue is based on Synchro 11.0 SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane[b] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, Figure 37 illustrates proposed improvements that would provide additional storage length to fully accommodate the queue.
[c] Although the reported queue exceeds the storage length provided, it occurs on site and not on a public street. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers familiar with this worst-case condition. Based on this, peak queue operations may be adverse but would not need to be addressed. [d] Queue is based on the 95th Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project Option 2B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 41

6.1.2 Site Access Queuing Analysis
Detailed traffic operational queuing analysis at all of the Project driveway intersections, Alicia Parkway at Hon Avenue/paseo de Alicia, and Alicia Parkway at Cousteau Street, was conducted.

Tables 27 through 30 present the site access queuing results under Year 2024 Cumulative Base and Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions and presuming each development scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Excessive left-turn or right-turn vehicle queuing which extends into and/or blocks adjacent through travel lanes may have detrimental effects on intersection operations and the public roadway network as a whole in ways not otherwise accounted for by the ICU methodology; therefore, vehicle queuing assessment was performed for all Project driveway intersections, the eastbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia, and the westbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Cousteau Street.

The queuing analysis was prepared utilizing the Synchro 11.0 Simtraffic and/or the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 95th Percentile methodology, which considers traffic volume data, lane configurations, and traffic control/stop signs in order to calculate the 95th percentile queues for the respective traffic movements. The 95th percentile queue represents the maximum back of vehicle queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes (i.e., actual traffic volumes will exceed the 95th percentile volumes 5 percent of the time), which is a very conservative standard. A minimum vehicle length of 25 feet is assumed for purposes of this analysis. Appendix E contains the corresponding queueing worksheets.

Tables 27 through 30 indicate that there would be adequate storage for the eastbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Hon Avenue/Paseo de Alicia, and the westbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Cousteau Street, and the inbound/outbound movements at each of these site access points under Year 2024 conditions, with a few exceptions described below during the peak hour noted. In other words, the existing storage lengths and/or driveway “throat” lengths would be adequate in fully accommodating the 95th percentile queues forecasted during the AM and PM peak hours.

The queuing results for the eastbound left-turn movement at Project Driveway #2 (from eastbound Alicia Parkway entering the Project site), and the outbound movements at Project Driveways #3 and #4 (exiting the Project site onto Hon Avenue), indicate that the 95th percentile queues would exceed existing queue storage lengths.

To address the queue storage deficiency at the Project Driveway #2 and Alicia Parkway intersection (left-turns from eastbound Alicia Parkway entering the Project site) during the PM peak hour, eastbound left-turn pocket and median improvements along Alicia Parkway are proposed, as illustrated on the Figure 37 conceptual plan. As shown, the existing eastbound left-turn pocket on Alicia Parkway will be extended to provide a queue storage length of 135 feet in order to fully accommodate 95th percentile queues entering the Project site that range between 123 feet (under Option 2B) and 135 feet (under Option 2A).

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee))

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 42
Related to the queue storage deficiencies reported in Tables 27 through 30 for the outbound/exiting movements from the Project site onto Hon Avenue at Project Driveway #3 (during the PM peak hour) and at Project Driveway #4 (during the AM and PM peak hours), it should be noted that the 95th percentile queues occur on site, not on Hon Avenue, so Project-related queues do not impact traffic flows on any public street. The outbound queue storage lengths provided at each of these two driveways are constrained by the presence of the easternmost drive aisle for the Plaza (a site plan design necessity for adequate internal circulation and parking accessibility) and the existing driveway for the bank building pad (that is not a part of the Project) on the northwest corner of the Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway intersection. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers often familiar with and able to anticipate typical peak queues occurring on site, and are able to self-regulate until queues dissipate at the exits (and exiting traffic flows from shopping centers tend to dissipate quickly because vehicle departures are more random and less directional/focused compared to outbound traffic from office buildings during the PM peak hour, for example). Based on these considerations, it is concluded that the outbound 95th percentile queues at Project Driveways #3 and #4 may be measurably adverse, but not considered significant to warrant any physical improvements.

6.1.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at each of the four unsignalized Project driveway intersections. This assessment is made on the basis of signal warrant criteria adopted by Caltrans.

For this study, the need for signalization is assessed on the basis of a peak hour traffic signal warrant. Warrant #3 is described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and has two parts: 1) Part A evaluates peak hour vehicle delay for traffic on the minor street approach with the highest delay and 2) Part B evaluates peak hour traffic volumes on the major and minor streets. This method provides an indication of whether peak hour traffic conditions or peak hour traffic volume levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal.

Other traffic signal warrants are available; however, they cannot be checked under future conditions (without and with Project) because they rely on data for which forecasts are not available (such as accidents and four- or eight-hour vehicle volumes).

The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the installation of a signal should be considered, but with further analysis and study performed (i.e., progression analysis, minimum distances between intersections, safety/stopping sight distance/line of sight assessment, corridor operations, etc.) when one or more of the warrants are satisfied.

Additionally, engineering judgment is exercised on a case-by-case basis to evaluate what effect a traffic signal will have on certain types of accidents and traffic conditions at the subject intersection, as well as at adjacent intersections. Appendix F contains the traffic signal warrant worksheets.

The results of the peak hour traffic signal warrant analysis are summarized in Tables 31 through 38 for all traffic scenarios and peak hours evaluated, respectively. The results indicate that the intersection of Project Driveway #2 with Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #3) will exceed the thresholds of Warrant #3, Part B (peak hour volumes) under Existing (2022) and Year 2024

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills 43
conditions with development of any scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2C). The installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended due to the intersection being in close proximity to

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 44 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 31
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 1A [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Plus Project Option 1A
Existing (2022)

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 45 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 32
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 1B [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 1B
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 46 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 33
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 2A [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2A
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 47 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 34
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 2B [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022) Plus Project Option 2B
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 48 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 35
YEAR 2024 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 1A [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 1A
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 49 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 36
YEAR 2024 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 1B [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 1B
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 50 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 37
YEAR 2024 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 2A [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 2A
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 51 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 38
YEAR 2024 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY: OPTION 2B [A] 2) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #1 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM No No No No
Project Driveway #2 (Laguna Hills) PM No No No Yes
4) Project Driveway #3 at AM No No No No
Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
5) Project Driveway #4/Chevron Driveway at AM No No No No Hon Avenue (Laguna Hills) PM No No No No
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Year 2024 Year 2024
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project Option 2B
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 52 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
the signalized intersection of Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #1), which is a distance of only 415 feet, and the signalized intersection of Costeau Street and Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #6), which is a distance of only 350 feet. Alicia Parkway is a primary arterial, and therefore requires a minimum of a ¼-mile spacing between signalized intersections. Additionally, it is not uncommon for minor streets at unsignalized intersections to experience longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major street, especially during commute peak periods on weekdays and weekends.

6.1.4 Carl’s Jr. Drive-Through Lane Queuing Evaluation
A drive-through queuing evaluation was conducted for the existing Car’s Jr. fast-food restaurant component of the Project in order to determine if adequate queue storage length is provided at the existing drive-thru lane. Drive-thru queue observations were conducted in March 2022 on a typical weekday and Saturday between the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Appendix G contains the data from the queue observations.

Tables 39 and 40 summarize the Queue Frequency that was observed during weekday and Saturday peak periods, respectively. Table 39 indicates that on a typical weekday, an 85th and 95th percentile queue of approximately 2 vehicles, and a max queue of approximately 3 vehicles, were observed.

Table 40 indicates that on a Saturday, an 85th and 95th percentile queue of approximately 2 vehicles, and a max queue of approximately 4 vehicles, were observed. The existing drive-thru lane could accommodate approximately 6 vehicles; therefore, the observed queues were fully served by the existing queue storage length.

It should be noted that the fast-food restaurant with drive-thru proposed under Options 1A and 2A will provide a drive-thru lane queue storage length that could accommodate 15 vehicles, and would therefore be more than adequate in meeting drive-thru demand for the future fast-food restaurant.

Pursuant to City development requirements for the Project, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application will need to be prepared if either Option 1A or 2A is selected for implementation, which will include detailed evaluation of the proposed drive-thru facility.

7.0 CEQA ASSESSMENT OF VMT, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, & PUBLIC TRANSIT

7.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis
The purpose of this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is to evaluate the Project based on Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requirements consistent with the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), December 2018, prepared by the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The OPR Technical Advisory provides project screening criteria and guidance for analysis of VMT assessments under SB 743. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies are allowed to continue using their current impact criteria, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. However, the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020, as required in CEQA section 15064.3.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 53 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 39
PROPOSED FAST-FOOD WITH DRIVE-THRU QUEUEING ANALYSIS SUMMARY: WEEKDAY CONDITIONS 0 44 44 58.7%
1 18 62 82.7%
29 71 94.7%
34 75 100.0%
Total 75 -- --
Average 1 -- --
85th Percentile 2 -- --
95th Percentile 2 -- --
Max 3 -- --
Frequency Percentage
Queue Length
(Vehicles)
Queue Frequency of
Vehicles Observed

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 54 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
TABLE 40
PROPOSED FAST-FOOD WITH DRIVE-THRU QUEUEING ANALYSIS SUMMARY: SATURDAY CONDITIONS 0 52 52 69.3%
1 11 63 84.0%
28 71 94.7%
33 74 98.7%
41 75 100.0%
Total 75 -- --
Average 1 -- --
85th Percentile 2 -- --
95th Percentile 2 -- --
Max 4 -- --
Queue Length
(Vehicles)
Queue Frequency of
Vehicles Observed Frequency Percentage

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 55 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
The City of Laguna Hills has adopted criteria for evaluating VMT impacts under CEQA, and they are presented in the City of Laguna Hills Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act (July 9, 2020).

Based on the application of the City’s screening criteria, and using the City’s spreadsheet tool developed for project screening purposes, it was determined that the Project is a local serving land use and located in a low VMT area, and is therefore screened out from further VMT Project-level assessment because it can be presumed to have less-than-significant impact on VMT. The City’s VMT screening form for the Project is included in Appendix H.

7.2 Active Transportation and Public Transit Screening Analysis As detailed in the City’s VMT analysis guidelines, potential impacts to active transportation (pedestrian and bicycle) and public transit facilities and circulation can be evaluated by determining whether a project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities.

The proposed Project would not have an impact on the existing multimodal network; specifically, it would not: (1) conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy related to bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit; (2) substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature; and (3) result in inadequate emergency access.

The proposed site plan for the Project will maintain existing sidewalks and access to public transit, construct new pedestrian connections on site and with adjoining uses, provide 12 short-term (bike racks) and 3 long-term (bike lockers) bicycle spaces, provide 2 EV charging stations, provide for future EV stations in the parking field (with stub-out electrical lines), and meet City design standards regarding site access, multimodal connectivity within the internal site circulation system, emergency access, and on-site parking.

8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Project Description – The existing Laguna Hills Plaza is located at 24901 Alicia Parkway in the City of Laguna Hills, and totals 106,285 square feet (SF) of gross floor area consisting of 87,231 SF of retail, 10,130 SF of restaurants, 6,168 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. The Project proposes to increase the retail and restaurant square footage (the existing offices, health club/martial arts studio, Carl’s Jr., and the western shops building will be maintained) with the following four development scenarios ranging in total size for the shopping center between 100,409 SF (Option 1A) and 106,456 SF (Option 2B):
 Major Building Option 1A and Option 1B: Demolish the existing 45,013-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza and construct a new/replacement 42,709-SF Grocery Store, as well as 3,362 SF of in-line restaurants with 1,000 SF of outdoor seating.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 56 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
o Option 1A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Fast-Food with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF “shops building” on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary). Option 1A will result in a total of 100,409 SF consisting of 76,000 SF of retail, 16,992 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. o Option 1B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and FastFood without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,126 SF of retail uses and a 1,875-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru. Option 1B will result in a total of 102,910 SF consisting of 79,126 SF of retail, 16,367 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.
 Major Building Option 2A and Option 2B: Demolish the existing 45,013-SF ‘Dick’s Sporting Goods’ building at the northeast corner of the Plaza, construct a new/replacement 42,709-SF Grocery Store, and expand the existing 25,532-SF ‘BIG Lots’ tenant space by 7,908 SF.
o Option 2A with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Fast-Food with Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the eastern edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with a new 2,500-SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru located between the existing driveways along Alicia Parkway (on the property’s southern boundary). Option 2A will result in a total of 103,955 SF consisting of 83,908 SF of retail, 12,630 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses. o Option 2B with Shops Building Demolition and Conversion to Retail and FastFood without Drive-Thru: Demolish the existing 6,642-SF shops building on the east edge of the property (adjacent to Hon Avenue) that presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses and, after some minor remedial grading, turn this area into a parking field. Move/replace the shops building with approximately 3,126 SF of retail uses and a 1,875-SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru. Option 2B will result in a total of 106,456 SF consisting of 87,034 SF of

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 57 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
retail, 12,005 SF of restaurants, 4,661 SF of offices, and 2,756 SF of health club/martial arts studio uses.

B. Project Trip Generation – Option 1A net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,683 weekday trips, 196 AM peak hour trips, and 231 PM peak hour trips. Table 6 indicates that Option 1B net-generated trips are estimated to be 2,719 weekday daily trips, 221 AM peak hour trips, and 243 PM peak hour trips (greater than Option 1A during each time period). Option 2A netgenerated trips are estimated to be 2,986 weekday trips, 207 AM peak hour trips, and 250 PM peak hour trips. Table 8 indicates that Option 2B net-generated trips are estimated to be 3,022 weekday daily trips, 232 AM peak hour trips, and 262 PM peak hour trips (greater than Option 2A during each time period).

C. Project LOS Traffic Impacts - Based on the application of the City’s impact criteria for LOS analysis described previously, the Project is not expected to cause LOS traffic impacts at any of the 12 key intersections under Existing (2022) and Year 2024 conditions.

D. Caltrans Queuing Analysis - The results of the queuing analysis conducted at each Caltrans intersection indicates that there are adequate queue storage lengths provided to accommodate the 95th percentile queues. Based on this, it is concluded that development of the Project would not result in adverse queuing conditions at Caltrans intersections.

E. Site Access Queuing Analysis – The results of the site access queuing analysis indicate that there would be adequate storage for the eastbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Hon Avenue/paseo de Alicia, and the westbound left-turn at Alicia Parkway at Cousteau Street, and the inbound/outbound movements at each of the site access points under Year 2024 conditions, with a few exceptions described below during the peak hour noted.  The queuing results for the eastbound left-turn movement at Project Driveway #2 (from eastbound Alicia Parkway entering the Project site), and the outbound movements at Project Driveways #3 and #4 (exiting the Project site onto Hon Avenue), indicate that the 95th percentile queues would exceed existing queue storage lengths.  To address the queue storage deficiency at the Project Driveway #2 and Alicia Parkway intersection (left-turns from eastbound Alicia Parkway entering the Project site) during the PM peak hour, eastbound left-turn pocket and median improvements along Alicia Parkway are proposed. The existing eastbound left-turn pocket on Alicia Parkway will be extended to provide a queue storage length of 135 feet in order to fully accommodate 95th percentile queues entering the Project site that range between 123 feet (under Option 2B) and 135 feet (under Option 2A).
 Related to the queue storage deficiencies reported for the outbound/exiting movements from the Project site onto Hon Avenue at Project Driveway #3 (during the PM peak hour) and at Project Driveway #4 (during the AM and PM peak hours), it should be noted that the 95th percentile queues occur on site, not on Hon Avenue, so Project-related queues do

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 58 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
not impact traffic flows on any public street. The outbound queue storage lengths provided at each of these two driveways are constrained by the presence of the easternmost drive aisle for the Plaza (a site plan design necessity for adequate internal circulation and parking accessibility) and the existing driveway for the bank building pad (that is not a part of the Project) on the northwest corner of the Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway intersection. It is not uncommon for shopping centers to experience internal queues during busy periods, with customers often familiar with and able to anticipate typical peak queues occurring on site, and are able to self-regulate until queues dissipate at the exits (and exiting traffic flows from shopping centers tend to dissipate quickly because vehicle departures are more random and less directional/focused compared to outbound traffic from office buildings during the PM peak hour, for example). Based on these considerations, it is concluded that the outbound 95th percentile queues at Project Driveways #3 and #4 may be measurably adverse, but not considered significant to warrant any physical improvements.

F. Traffic Signal Warrants - The results indicate that the intersection of Project Driveway #2 with Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #3) will exceed the thresholds of Warrant #3, Part B (peak hour volumes) under Existing (2022) and Year 2024 conditions with development of any scenario (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2C). The installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended due to the intersection being in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Hon Avenue and Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #1), which is a distance of only 415 feet, and the signalized intersection of Costeau Street and Alicia Parkway (i.e., Key Intersection #6), which is a distance of only 350 feet. Alicia Parkway is a primary arterial, and therefore requires a minimum of a ¼-mile spacing between signalized intersections. Additionally, it is not uncommon for minor streets at unsignalized intersections to experience longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major street, especially during commute peak periods on weekdays and weekends.

G. CEQA VMT Assessment - Based on the application of the City’s screening criteria, and using the City’s spreadsheet tool developed for project screening purposes, it was determined that the Project is a local serving land use and located in a low VMT area, and is therefore screened out from further VMT Project-level assessment because it can be presumed to have less-thansignificant impact on VMT. The City’s VMT screening form for the Project is included in Appendix H.

H. CEQA Active Transportation and Public Transit Assessment - The proposed Project would not have an impact on the existing multimodal network; specifically, it would not: (1) conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy related to bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit; (2) substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature; and (3) result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed site plan for the Project will maintain existing sidewalks and access to public transit, construct new pedestrian connections on site and with adjoining uses, provide 12 short-term (bike racks) and 3 long-term (bike lockers) bicycle spaces, provide 2 EV charging stations, provide for future EV stations in the parking field (with stub-out electrical lines), and meet City design

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4533.1 59 Laguna Hills Plaza, Laguna Hills
standards regarding site access, multimodal connectivity within the internal site circulation system, emergency access, and on-site parking.

5.5.2.f
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment F - Traffic Study (3440 : USE-0151-2023 (Dutch Bros Coffee)) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 27, 2024
TO: President and Directors
FROM: Jennifer Lee
City Clerk
ISSUE: Election of Public Improvement Corporation Officers RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a Resolution entitled: “A

RESOLUTION OF THE LAGUNA HILLS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ELECTING OFFICERS FOR 2024.”
SUMMARY:

The Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) is a non-profit, public benefit corporation for the purpose of assisting the City in its issuance of Certificates of Participation related to the financing of the building of the Laguna Hills Community Center and Sports Complex and the Civic Center. Per the bylaws, the PIC is required to hold an annual meeting and the City Council sits as the Board of Directors. At this meeting, the Board will elect officers for 2024, and approve the minutes of the previous meeting of February 28, 2023. As the current President of the Public Improvement Corporation, President Heft will call the meeting to order. After the roll call, President Heft will entertain a motion to adopt the Resolution electing the Officers for 2024.

President Wheeler will then take the gavel and chair the remainder of the PIC meeting.

BACKGROUND:

In September 1998, the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors for the Laguna Hills PIC, took several actions including the adoption of bylaws, election of officers, and adoption of a Resolution appointing the time and place of meetings. The PIC is a nonprofit, public benefit corporation whose primary purpose is to assist the City in issuing Certificates of Participation. In 2010, the PIC was involved in the City’s refinancing 1 Packet Pg. 305
Election of Public Improvement Corporation Officers
February 27, 2024

project and the subsequent lease payments (debt service) related thereto.

Pursuant to the bylaws, the Annual Meeting is to be held in February each year, and the Board of Directors is to elect officers at the Annual Meeting. A Resolution has been prepared that will elect the Mayor as President, the City Manager as Vice President, the Finance Director as Treasurer, and the City Clerk as Secretary.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed Resolution No. 2024-1
1 Packet Pg. 306
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-1

A RESOLUTION OF THE LAGUNA HILLS PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, LAGUNA HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, ELECTING OFFICERS FOR 2024
RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, that the following persons are elected to the offices set forth opposite their names below, as officers of the Corporation, to serve until the election and qualification of their successors, as provided in Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws of the Corporation.

Name Office
Dave Wheeler President
Jarad L. Hildenbrand Vice President
Eric Hendrickson Treasurer
Jennifer Lee Secretary

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS )
I, Jennifer Lee, Secretary of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February 2024, by the following vote of the Directors thereof:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________

JENNIFER LEE, SECRETARY

1.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Proposed Resolution No. 2024-1 (3414 : Election of Public Improvement Corporation Officers) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 27, 2024
TO: President and Directors
FROM: Jennifer Lee
City Clerk
ISSUE: Approval of the Public Improvement Corporation Minutes for the February 28, 2023, Annual Meeting
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the minutes of the February 28, 2023, Annual Meeting.

ATTACHMENTS:
• February 28, 2023 PIC Annual Meeting Minutes
2 Packet Pg. 308

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION

ANNUAL MEETING

MINUTES
Tuesday, February 28, 2023

CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Public Improvement Corporation of the City of Laguna Hills, California, was called to order by Director Heft at 10:12 p.m. in the Laguna Hills City Council Chamber, 24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, California.

BOARD ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dave Wheeler President Present
Janine Heft Director Present
Don Caskey Director Present
Erica Pezold Director Present
Joshua Sweeney Director Present

PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.

ELECTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION OFFICERS
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 2023-1: “A Resolution of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, Laguna Hills, California, Electing Officers for 2023.”
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dave Wheeler, President
SECONDER: Erica Pezold, Director
AYES: Dave Wheeler, President; Janine Heft, Director; Don Caskey, Director; Erica Pezold, Director; Joshua Sweeney, Director

2.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: February 28, 2023 PIC Annual Meeting Minutes (3415 : Approval of Minutes for February 28, 2023, Annual Meeting) City of Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation Tuesday, February 28, 2023 Annual Meeting Minutes
2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2022, ANNUAL MEETING Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the Minutes of the February 8, 2022, Annual Meeting.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Erica Pezold, Director
SECONDER: Dave Wheeler, Director
AYES: Janine Heft, President; Don Caskey, Director; Erica Pezold, Director; Joshua Sweeney, Director; Dave Wheeler, Director

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Public Improvement Corporation at this session, President Heft declared the meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m.

Jennifer Lee, Secretary
Approved at meeting of February 27, 2024.

2.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: February 28, 2023 PIC Annual Meeting Minutes (3415 : Approval of Minutes for February 28, 2023, Annual Meeting) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 27, 2024
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: David Reynolds
Deputy City Manager/Community Services Director
ISSUE: Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Rate Adjustments for Residential and Commercial Collection Services and Proposed One-Year Extension to Franchise Agreement with CR&R, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1) Receive and file staff report; and
2) Direct staff to proceed with a Proposition 218 notification and public hearing process to establish the requisite new rate schedule for all residential and commercial customers due to inflationary factors and to extend the term of the current Franchise Agreement with CR&R, Inc. for one year, setting a public hearing for City Council consideration on April 23, 2024; and
3) Review proposed Amendment No. 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement.

SUMMARY:

The current contract for the Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste and for the Collection and Transportation of Recyclable Materials to Processors for Diversion between the City of Laguna Hills and CR&R, Inc. (“Franchise Agreement”) is set to expire on June 30, 2024. The City of Laguna Hills recently partnered with the City of Lake Forest to procure municipal solid waste services through a joint procurement process for a new solid waste and recycling franchise agreement that would commence on July 1, 2025. The City of Lake Forest issued a joint Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and draft franchise agreement (“RFP Documents”) on December 14, 2023. In consideration

7.2.1 Packet Pg. 311
Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement
February 27, 2024

of the time required to prepare such a complex RFP and to conduct a competitive procurement process, staff recommends approving a one-year term extension of the current CR&R Franchise Agreement to June 30, 2025 in order to allow for continued and uninterrupted solid waste and recycling services pending completion of the joint procurement process, which would also provide approximately one year for a prospective waste hauler to purchase new equipment under the new solid waste franchise agreement, with services commencing on July 1, 2025. Staff anticipates the selection of a hauler for the next franchise agreement term to occur in June 2024. The proposed Amendment No. 3 to the current CR&R Franchise Agreement (“Amendment No. 3”) revises the term of current CR&R Franchise Agreement and extends it from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025.

Senate Bill 1383 (“SB 1383”) organic recycling mandates and post-pandemic economic conditions, including equipment supply chain interruptions and labor shortages, continue to significantly impact operations in the solid waste industry. These challenges have also impacted CR&R’s operations, as well as the operations of all haulers statewide. Consequently, the cost of CR&R providing services under the Franchise Agreement has increased. Consequently, the proposed Amendment No. 3 includes rate increases for both residential and commercial customers.

A Proposition 218 notification and public hearing process is required because the rates for service required to be approved by the City Council under the CR&R Franchise Agreement will increase. After a 45-day notice period, the City Council will hold a public hearing and, thereafter, will consider approval of Amendment No. 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement, unless a majority of property owners protest the proposed new rates. In accordance with Proposition 218, it is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on April 23, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council approved the current Franchise Agreement with CR&R, Inc., in September 2005, with collection services beginning on July 1, 2006. The original 10-year term of the Franchise Agreement was extended for an additional eight years with Council’s approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Franchise Agreement on August 26, 2014. On June 22, 2022, the Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the Franchise Agreement to implement the State organic waste recycling regulations mandated by SB 1383.

7.2.1 Packet Pg. 312
Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement
February 27, 2024

The City of Lake Forest holds a franchise agreement for similar solid waste services that also expires on June 30, 2024. The cities of Laguna Hills and Lake Forest partnered to procure municipal solid waste services through a joint procurement. Since 2021, each cities’ respective Solid Waste Procurement Ad Hoc Committee, staff from each City, and the solid waste consulting firm, EcoNomics, Inc., have been working together to develop the RFP Documents. On November 7, 2023, the Lake Forest City Council approved the RFP Documents and authorized its staff to initiate the joint procurement process. The issuance of the RFP Documents was also approved by the Laguna Hills City Council on December 12, 2023, and was posted publicly for the solicitation of proposals on December 14, 2023. Proposals were due by February 23, 2024. Staff anticipates recommending the award of a new franchise agreement to the City Council in June 2024 following the completion of the joint procurement process, with services commencing July 1, 2025.

Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement Since the 1990’s, Legislation regarding solid waste and recycling in the State of California has become increasingly stringent and complex. In 2016, the State of California enacted SB 1383, the most extensive waste reduction mandate in the past 30 years. The Solid Waste Procurement Ad Hoc Committees, EcoNomics, Inc., and staff from both cities worked cooperatively to ensure the RFP Documents for the next solid waste franchise agreement are comprehensive and meet all of the requirements mandated by the State.

This required a substantial amount of time and work, which delayed the issuance of the RFP Documents and caused a new franchise agreement term commencement date of July 1, 2024 to be unattainable. It should be noted that once a new franchise agreement is awarded, following completion of the joint procurement process, the selected hauler will need approximately one year to implement the terms of the new franchise agreement, including developing collection routes, ensuring proper staffing, and purchasing new bins, carts, and trucks. To facilitate the time needed to fairly and properly procure the next franchise agreement through the use of a joint competitive procurement process, both cities negotiated a proposed one-year term extension to their respective current franchise agreements with CR&R.

SB 1383 and post-pandemic economic conditions continue to affect operations in the solid waste industry. These challenges, including equipment supply chain interruptions and labor shortages, have significantly impacted the solid waste industry, including the City’s current hauler, CR&R. During negotiations, EcoNomics, Inc. analyzed financial

7.2.1 Packet Pg. 313
Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement
February 27, 2024

documents provided by CR&R and discussed the specific industry impacts on the cost of services in the City. As a result, the proposed Amendment No. 3 also includes reasonable rate increases for both residential and commercial customers, effective July 1, 2024. The terms of the proposed Amendment No. 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement are summarized as follows:

1. The current CR&R Franchise Agreement term is extended by one year. The termination date is revised from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025.

2. The annual inflationary rate adjustment scheduled for October 2024 in accordance with the Franchise Agreement will not occur. Rates will increase only in July 2024 during the one-year extension.

3. Rates for residential and commercial services will increase on July 1, 2024, as reflected in “Exhibit 1” of Amendment No. 3 (see Attachment 1). Customers with residential cart service would see a $2.02 monthly increase in their CR&R billing as illustrated in Table 1. Rates for all commercial services, including multi-family services, would increase by 15%. Some of the commercial and multi-family rates are provided in Table 2. EcoNomics, Inc. believes the proposed rates are reasonable for the market. In comparison to all 34 Orange County cities, the new 2024 rates would rank the City as the 10th lowest for residential rates and 9 th
lowest for commercial rates.

Table 1: Residential 3-Cart Service Rate Increase
Current Rate
(per month)
Amendment No. 3
Increase
New Rate
Effective July 1, 2024
$20.98 $2.02 $23.00
Table 2: Commercial/Multi-family Service Rate Increase (3 cu. yd bin @ 1 pickup per month) Service Current Rate
(per month)
Amendment No. 3
Increase
New Rate
Effective July 1, 2024
Trash $133.91 $20.09 $154.00
Recycling $56.07 $8.41 $64.48
Organic * $47.42 $7.11 $54.53
* Organic recycling service with 2 cu. yd. bin @ 1 pickup per month

7.2.1 Packet Pg. 314
Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement
February 27, 2024

Proposition 218 Notice and Public Hearing
To implement the new residential and commercial rate increases and rate structure as discussed herein, the City Council must conduct a notification and public hearing process in compliance with Proposition 218. This process involves mailing a notice to all affected property owners describing the proposed rate adjustments and justification for the rate adjustments. After a 45-day notice period, a public hearing is held and the City Council will consider approval of Amendment No. 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement, including the new rates, unless a majority of property owners timely protest the proposed new rates. Staff recommends that the public hearing be set for April 23, 2024.

Property owners who wish to object to the proposed rate adjustments will be instructed to file a written protest with the City Clerk at or before the time set for the public hearing. Original written protests are required to be mailed or personally delivered to the City Clerk. Each valid written protest must include the name of the record owner or owners of the property, identification of the property by either assessor’s parcel number or street address, a statement of protest (“I/we protest” suffices), and the original signature of the protesting owner or owners (photocopies, electronic mail, electronic copies, e-comments, or facsimiles are not valid).

Each property is counted as a single vote, regardless of the number of owners. If there are two record owners, both are required to sign the written protest. If there are more than two owners, the protest must be signed by a majority of the owners. Notices will be mailed by March 7, 2024, to meet the 45-day notice period. If Amendment No. 3 and its respective rates for service are approved, the new rates would go into effect on July 1, 2024. The Proposition 218 notice is attached to this report as Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is sufficient funding in the 2023-2025 Operating Budget for printing and mailing the required Proposition 218 notices. By comparison, mailing costs for the 2022 Proposition 218 process and Amendment No. 2 to the Franchise Agreement were $5,414.

The residential rates for the 3-cart collection service are proposed to increase on July 1, 2024, from $20.98/mo. to $23.00/mo. This is a 9.6% increase. All commercial and multi-family rates for service will increase by 15% on July 1, 2024, and some of the rate increases are provided in Table 2 of this staff report.

7.2.1 Packet Pg. 315
Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement
February 27, 2024

All proposed rate increases for all services can be found in “Exhibit 1” to proposed Amendment No. 3 to the CR&R Franchise Agreement (see Attachment 1).

ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement • Attachment 2 - Proposition 218 Notice

7.2.1 Packet Pg. 316
Attachment 1

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate 1 1817226.3
AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO CONTRACT FOR THE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND FOR THE COLLECTION, AND

TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL TO PROCESSORS FOR

DIVERSION
(CR&R Incorporated)
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the September 28, 2005 Contract for the Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste and for the Collection, and Transportation of Recyclable Materials to Processors for Diversion (the "Amendment") is hereby made and entered into to be effective this 23rd day of April, 2024, by and between the CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS, a California municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and CR&R Incorporated, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor") (collectively, the Parties).

RECITALS
A. City and Contractor previously entered into that certain Contract for the Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste and for the Collection, and Transportation of Recyclable Materials to Processors for Diversion (the "Contract"), which was made and entered into on September 28, 2005, for the collection and processing of solid waste and recyclable materials, which services are to be provided for a term of ten years, commencing on July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2016.

B. City and Contractor entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Contract, which was made and entered into on October 1, 2014 (“Amendment No. 1”), to reduce base rates, expand services, establish a permanent commercial food waste recycling program, and extend the Contract term for an additional eight-years through June 30, 2024.

C. City and Contractor entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Contract, which was made and entered into on June 14, 2022 (“Amendment No. 2”), to implement the SB 1383 Regulations which required implementation of additional collection and recycling programs, particularly pertaining to organic materials and food waste, and which further required adjustments to the rates charged by Contractor.

D. Amendment No. 2 extended the term of the Contract through June 30, 2024.

E. The City worked cooperatively with the City of Lake Forest to prepare joint procurement documents to solicit and evaluate proposals for solid waste collection, recycling and handling services from potential contractors, which procurement process has commenced.

F. Section 15.10 (Amendment) of the Contract provides that the Contract may amended by a writing signed by the Parties.

L. The Parties have negotiated certain revised terms and conditions of the Contract and wish to extend the term of the Contract for one-year to provide for continued and uninterrupted services pending the procurement of a new contract for solid waste collection, recycling and handling services by the City.

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate 2 1817226.3
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Term. Section 3.02 (“Term”) of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3.02 Term. The Term of this Contract shall commence on the Effective Date and shall end at midnight on June 30, 2025, unless earlier terminated. Contractor’s obligation to collect Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials shall begin on July 1, 2006 at 12:01 a.m.”

2. Revised Base Rates. Attachment D of the Contract pertaining to Contractor's rates for services shall be replaced with the rates identified in Exhibit 1 (revised Attachment D to the Contract) attached to this Amendment and made a part hereof by reference, said rates to become effective July 1, 2024. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the cost of adjusting Customers' bills to implement the rates and other adjustments stipulated in this Amendment and the Contract.

3. Annual Rate Adjustment. Section 12.03 (“Annual Rate Adjustments”) of the Contract is hereby deleted and of no further force or effect upon execution of this Amendment.

4. Full Force and Effect. This modifying Amendment is supplemental to the Contract as amended by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and is by reference made a part of the Contract. All of the terms, conditions, and provisions thereof, unless specifically modified herein, shall continue in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Amendment and the Contract as previously amended, the provision of this Amendment shall in all respects govern and control.

5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

6. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Amendment on behalf of the Parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment, and (iv) the entering into this Amendment does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said party is bound.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate 3 1817226.3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Amendment to the Contract as of the date first written above.
"CITY"

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
By:

Dave Wheeler, Mayor
ATTEST:

By:

Jennifer Lee,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Gregory E. Simonian,
City Attorney
“CONTRACTOR”

CR&R INCORPORATED
Date: By : ______________________________
Clifford R. Ronnenberg
Chairman and CEO
Date: By : ______________________________
David Ronnenberg
Division President and COO

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate 4 1817226.3
EXHIBIT “1”

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
Residential Service
1a. Residential Basic Level Recyclable Materials 35, 60, 90 gallon (1st Cart) per month 4.44 $4.441a. Residential Basic Level Recyclable Materials Additional Cart* per month 4.44 $4.441b. Residential Basic Level Organic Waste 35, 60, 90 gallon (1st Cart) per month 6.79 $6.791b. Residential Basic Level Organic Waste Additional Cart* per month 6.79 $6.791c. Residential Basic Level MSW 35, 60, 90 gallon (1st Cart) per month 9.75 $11.771c. Residential Basic Level MSW Additional Cart per month 9.75 $11.77 * (This charge applies only after a resident has received 2 additional Carts free of charge (i.e. upon the request for a 4th Cart).** (Organic Waste Carts shall be used for Stable Bedding and Manure at the rates provided in 1b above). 2a. Residential Stable Bedding and Manure 3 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 116.16 $133.58 2a. Residential Stable Bedding and Manure 3 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 189.86 $218.342a. Residential Stable Bedding and Manure 3 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 249.40 $286.812a. Residential Stable Bedding and Manure 3 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 320.74 $368.852a. Residential Stable Bedding and Manure 3 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 368.32 $423.572a. Residential Stable Bedding and Manure 3 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 415.88 $478.26 HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling Service
3a. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 23.67 $27.223a. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 47.22 $54.303a. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 70.88 $81.513a. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 94.50 $108.683a. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 118.12 $135.843a. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 141.74 $163.003b. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 88.71 $102.023b. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 177.61 $204.253b. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 225.28 $259.073b. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 296.50 $340.983b. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 343.98 $395.583b. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 391.45 $450.173c. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 116.16 $133.583c. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 189.86 $218.343c. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 249.40 $286.813c. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 320.74 $368.85

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
3c. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 368.32 $423.573c. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 415.88 $478.263d. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 10 Cubic Yard Roll-off per pull per pull 267.35 $307.453e. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 20 Cu. Yard Roll-Off per pull per pull 267.35 $307.453f. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 30 Cu. Yard Roll-Off per pull per pull 267.35 $307.453g. HOA Stable Bedding and Manure Recycling 40 Cubic Yard Roll-off per pull per pull 267.35 $307.45 Commercial and Multi-family Recyclable Materials Service 4a. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 35 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 19.85 $22.834a. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 35 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 39.74 $45.704a. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 35 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 59.60 $68.544a. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 35 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 79.50 $91.434a. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 35 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 99.33 $114.234a. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 35 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 119.22 $137.104b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 60 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 21.44 $24.664b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 60 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 42.93 $49.374b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 60 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 64.38 $74.044b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 60 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 85.85 $98.734b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 60 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 107.31 $123.414b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 60 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 128.78 $148.104c. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 90 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 23.02 $26.474c. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 90 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 46.02 $52.924c. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 90 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 69.11 $79.484c. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 90 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 92.17 $106.004c. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 90 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 115.18 $132.464c. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 90 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 138.21 $158.944d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 47.42 $54.534d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 80.92 $93.064d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 125.79 $144.664d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 159.10 $182.974d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 192.46 $221.334d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 225.79 $259.664e. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 3 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 56.07 $64.48

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
4e. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 3 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 90.25 $103.794e. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 3 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 128.52 $147.804e. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 3 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 181.73 $208.994e. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 3 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 220.09 $253.104e. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 3 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 268.49 $308.764f. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 4 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 68.97 $79.324f. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 4 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 115.83 $133.204f. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 4 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 168.52 $193.804f. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 4 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 218.26 $251.004f. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 4 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 267.95 $308.144f. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 4 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 317.71 $365.374g. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 6 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 82.70 $95.114g. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 6 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 153.51 $176.544g. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 6 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 219.19 $252.074g. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 6 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 266.91 $306.954g. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 6 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 320.65 $368.754g. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 6 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 392.22 $451.05 Commercial and Multi-Family MSW Service
5a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 35 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 32.21 $37.045a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 35 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 64.33 $73.985a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 35 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 96.52 $111.005a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 35 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 128.66 $147.965a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 35 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 160.83 $184.955a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 35 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 193.02 $221.975b. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 60 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 36.22 $41.655b. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 60 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 72.36 $83.215b. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 60 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 108.59 $124.885b. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 60 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 144.79 $166.515b. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 60 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 180.96 $208.105b. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 60 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 217.11 $249.685c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 90 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 40.19 $46.225c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 90 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 80.39 $92.455c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 90 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 120.62 $138.71

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
5c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 90 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 160.85 $184.985c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 90 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 201.03 $231.185c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 90 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 240.79 $276.915d. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 119.09 $136.955d. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 197.11 $226.685d. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 257.36 $295.965d. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 329.36 $378.765d. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 401.42 $461.635d. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 473.42 $544.435e. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 3 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 133.91 $154.005e. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 3 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 221.91 $255.205e. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 3 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 294.65 $338.855e. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 3 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 379.06 $435.925e. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 3 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 463.50 $533.035e. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 3 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 559.93 $643.925f. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 4 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 173.39 $199.405f. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 4 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 258.57 $297.365f. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 4 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 367.06 $422.125f. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 4 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 463.95 $533.545f. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 4 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 560.81 $644.935f. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 4 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 657.68 $756.335g. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 6 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 192.54 $221.425g. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 6 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 320.21 $368.245g. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 6 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 442.27 $508.615g. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 6 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 563.90 $648.495g. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 6 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 685.54 $788.375g. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 6 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 831.48 $956.20 Commercial/Multi-family Split Bin Service
6a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 1 pick-up per week per month 98.42 $113.186a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 2 pick-ups per week per month 154.04 $177.156a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 3 pick-ups per week per month 192.61 $221.506a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 4 pick-ups per week per month 243.13 $279.606a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 5 pick-ups per week per month 293.68 $337.73

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
6a. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 6 pick-ups per week per month 343.80 $395.376b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 1 pick-up per week per month 41.59 $47.836b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 2 pick-ups per week per month 68.05 $78.266b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 3 pick-ups per week per month 105.77 $121.646b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 4 pick-ups per week per month 133.80 $153.876b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 5 pick-ups per week per month 161.82 $186.096b. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 1.5 Yard (3-yard split) 6 pick-ups per week per month 189.87 $218.356c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Yard (4-yard split) 1 pick-up per week per month 119.09 $136.956c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Yard (4-yard split) 2 pick-ups per week per month 197.11 $226.686c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Yard (4-yard split) 3 pick-ups per week per month 257.36 $295.966c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Yard (4-yard split) 4 pick-ups per week per month 329.36 $378.766c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Yard (4-yard split) 5 pick-ups per week per month 401.42 $461.636c. Commercial/Multi-family MSW 2 Yard (4-yard split) 6 pick-ups per week per month 473.42 $544.436d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Yard (4-yard split) 1 pick-up per week per month 47.42 $54.536d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Yard (4-yard split) 2 pick-ups per week per month 80.92 $93.066d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Yard (4-yard split) 3 pick-ups per week per month 125.79 $144.666d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Yard (4-yard split) 4 pick-ups per week per month 159.10 $182.976d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Yard (4-yard split) 5 pick-ups per week per month 192.46 $221.336d. Commercial/Multi-family Recyclable Materials 2 Yard (4-yard split) 6 pick-ups per week per month 225.79 $259.66 Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste Service
7a. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 35 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week 19.85 $22.837a. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 35 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week 39.74 $45.707a. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 35 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week 59.60 $68.547a. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 35 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week 79.50 $91.437a. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 35 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week 99.33 $114.237a. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 35 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week 119.22 $137.10 $0.00
7b. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 60 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week 21.44 $24.667b. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 60 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week 42.93 $49.377b. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 60 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week 64.38 $74.047b. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 60 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week 85.85 $98.737b. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 60 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week 107.31 $123.417b. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 60 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week 128.78 $148.10

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
7c. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 2 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week 47.42 $54.537c. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 2 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week 80.92 $93.067c. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 2 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week 125.79 $144.667c. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 2 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week 159.10 $182.977c. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 2 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week 192.46 $221.337c. Commercial/Multi-family Organic Waste 2 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week 225.79 $259.66 Source-Separated (Type-Separated) Recycling Service
8c. Source-Separated Recycling 35 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 15.48 $17.808c. Source-Separated Recycling 35 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 30.91 $35.558c. Source-Separated Recycling 35 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 46.38 $53.348c. Source-Separated Recycling 35 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 61.82 $71.098c. Source-Separated Recycling 35 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 77.28 $88.878c. Source-Separated Recycling 35 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 92.75 $106.66 $0.00
8b. Source-Separated Recycling 60 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 17.33 $19.938b. Source-Separated Recycling 60 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 34.67 $39.878b. Source-Separated Recycling 60 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 51.99 $59.798b. Source-Separated Recycling 60 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 69.33 $79.738b. Source-Separated Recycling 60 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 86.62 $99.618b. Source-Separated Recycling 60 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 103.98 $119.588c. Source-Separated Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 1 pick-up per week per month 19.16 $22.038c. Source-Separated Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 2 pick-ups per week per month 38.26 $44.008c. Source-Separated Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 3 pick-ups per week per month 57.41 $66.028c. Source-Separated Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 4 pick-ups per week per month 76.55 $88.038c. Source-Separated Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 5 pick-ups per week per month 95.67 $110.028c. Source-Separated Recycling 90 Gallon Cart 6 pick-ups per week per month 114.83 $132.058d. Source-Separated Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 36.72 $42.238d. Source-Separated Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 60.21 $69.248d. Source-Separated Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 87.32 $100.428d. Source-Separated Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 109.39 $125.808d. Source-Separated Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 131.48 $151.208d. Source-Separated Recycling 2 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 153.15 $176.128e. Source-Separated Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 46.48 $53.458e. Source-Separated Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 69.74 $80.20

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
8e. Source-Separated Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 116.21 $133.648e. Source-Separated Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 141.40 $162.618e. Source-Separated Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 147.10 $169.178e. Source-Separated Recycling 3 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 176.73 $203.248f. Source-Separated Recycling 4 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 51.39 $59.108f. Source-Separated Recycling 4 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 102.77 $118.198f. Source-Separated Recycling 4 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 154.17 $177.308f. Source-Separated Recycling 4 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 205.56 $236.398f. Source-Separated Recycling 4 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 256.94 $295.488f. Source-Separated Recycling 4 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 306.36 $352.318g. Source-Separated Recycling 6 Cubic Yard Bin 1 pick-up per week per month 69.51 $79.948g. Source-Separated Recycling 6 Cubic Yard Bin 2 pick-ups per week per month 147.28 $169.378g. Source-Separated Recycling 6 Cubic Yard Bin 3 pick-ups per week per month 217.97 $250.678g. Source-Separated Recycling 6 Cubic Yard Bin 4 pick-ups per week per month 241.56 $277.798g. Source-Separated Recycling 6 Cubic Yard Bin 5 pick-ups per week per month 288.65 $331.958g. Source-Separated Recycling 6 Cubic Yard Bin 6 pick-ups per week per month 371.16 $426.838h. Source-Separated Recycling 10 Cubic Yard Roll-Off 1 pick-up per week per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton*8i. Source-Separated Recycling 40 Cubic Yard Roll-Off 1 pick-up per week per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton* Permanent Container Service
9a. Permanent Compactor and Roll Off Box 10 Cu. Yd. Compactor On-call or Scheduled Service per pull 251.6 + 52.81/Ton* $289.34+$60.73/Ton*9b. Permanent Compactor and Roll Off Box 40 Cu. Yd. Compactor On-call or Scheduled Service per pull 251.6 + 52.81/Ton* $289.34+$60.73/Ton*9c. Permanent Compactor and Roll Off Box 10 Cu. Yd. Roll Off Box On-call or Scheduled Service per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton*9d. Permanent Compactor and Roll Off Box 40 Cu. Yd. Roll Off Box On-call or Scheduled Service per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton* Temporary Container Service
10a. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 2 Cubic Yard Bin per pull 123.71 $142.2710b. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 3 Cu. Yard Cub per pull 132.01 $151.8110c. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 6 Cubic Yard Bin per pull 157.01 $180.5610d. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 10 Cu. Yd. Roll Off per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton*10e. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 20 Cubic Yard Roll-Off per pull 224.96 + 26.33/Ton* $258.74+30.28/Ton*10f. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 30 Cubic Yard Roll-Off per pull 224.96 + 39.48/Ton* $258.74+45.40/Ton*10g. Temporary Bin and Roll-Off Box 40 Cu. Yd. Roll Off per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton*

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
COD Service
11a. COD Roll-Off - up to 6 tons (over 6 tons billed @$38/ton) 40 cubic yard bin per pull 547.19 $629.2711b. COD Roll-Off - up to 8 tons (over 8 tons billed @$38/ton) 10 cubic yard bin per pull 640.38 $736.44 Special Event Service
12a. Special Event per container 14.82 $17.0412b. Special Event per container 16.13 $18.5512c. Special Event per container 13.01 $14.9612d. Special Event per container 14.61 $16.8012e. Special Event per container 140.41 $161.47 12f. Special Event per container 70.02 $80.5212g. Special Event MSW 10 Cu.Yd. Roll-off per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton* 12h. Special Event Recycling 10 Cu.Yd. Roll-off per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton*12i. Special Event MSW 40 Cu.Yd. Roll-off per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton*12j. Special Event Recycling 40 Cu.Yd. Roll-off per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton* Emergency Services
13a. 90 Gallon Cart per container 46.36 $53.3113b. 3 Cu. Yard Bin per container 159.86 $183.84 13c. 10 Cu. Yard Roll-off per pull 269.99 + 52.81/Ton* $310.49+61.73/Ton* 13d. 40 Cu. Yard Roll-off per pull 269.99 + 52.81/Ton* $310.49+61.73/Ton* Other Services & Special Services
14a. Residential Bulky Goods Collection Service (4 items per pick-up: 2 free bulky Goods pick-ups/yr) per pick-up 34.36 $39.5114b. Commercial Bulky Goods Collection Service (4 items per pick-up) per pick-up 61.83 $71.1014c. Residential Bulky Goods Collection for items containing Freon. per item - $0.0014d. Commercial Bulky Good Collection for items containing Freon. per item 61.83 $71.1014e. Residential Electronic Waste Collection per item - $0.0014f. Commercial Electronic Waste Collection per item 34.36 $39.5114g. Repair and Maintenance of Compactor per hour 101.6 + per hour 116.84 per hour14h. Cart Exchange per cart - $0.0014i. Bin Locking Lids per month 20.61 $23.7014j. Commercial Bin Wheel-out Service (25' - 50') per month 34.36 $39.5114k. Commercial Bin Wheel-out Service (51' - 75') per month 68.71 $79.0214l. Additional Bin pick-up Request (For Bin services listed under numbers: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) per bin 53.58 $61.62 MSW Cart (60 gallon) MSW Cart (90 gallon)Recyclable Materials or Organic Waste Cart (60 gallon)Recyclable Materials or Organic Waste Cart (90 gallon)MSW 3 Cu. Yard BinRecycling 3 Cu. Yard Bin

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid EXHIBIT 1
City of Laguna HillsRevised Attachment D - Effective July 1, 2024 2023 2024 Rate Rate
14m. per cart 20.61 $23.7014n. Residential Backyard Wheel-Out Service for customers providing a physician's note. - - 14o. Commercial Glass Recycling (35,60,90 gallon Carts) - - 14p. Commercial Bin Wheel-Out Service for a distance less than 25 feet. - - 14q. Residential HHW Door Side Collection Service (2 pick-ups/yr) - - 14r. Residential UW Door Side Collection Service (2 pick-ups/yr) - - Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) Service
15a. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 3 Cu.Yard Compactor 1 pick-up per week per month 218.07 $250.7815a. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 3 Cu.Yard Compactor 2 pick-ups per week per month 370.57 $426.1615a. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 3 Cu.Yard Compactor 3 pick-ups per week per month 509.66 $586.1115a. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 3 Cu.Yard Compactor 4 pick-ups per week per month 662.19 $761.5215a. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 3 Cu.Yard Compactor 5 pick-ups per week per month 814.71 $936.9215a. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 3 Cu.Yard Compactor 6 pick-ups per week per month 967.22 $1,112.3015b. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 4 Cu.Yard Compactor 1 pick-up per week per month 250.69 $288.2915b. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 4 Cu.Yard Compactor 2 pick-ups per week per month 435.73 $501.0915b. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 4 Cu.Yard Compactor 3 pick-ups per week per month 607.48 $698.6015b. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 4 Cu.Yard Compactor 4 pick-ups per week per month 792.51 $911.3915b. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 4 Cu.Yard Compactor 5 pick-ups per week per month 977.64 $1,124.2915b. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 4 Cu.Yard Compactor 6 pick-ups per week per month 1,162.76 $1,337.1715c. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 10 Cu. Yard Compactor per pull 224.99 + 26.41/Ton* $258.74+30.37/Ton*15d. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 20 Cu. Yard Compactor per pull 224.99 + 33/Ton* $258.74+37.95/Ton*15e. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 30 Cu. Yard Compactor per pull 224.99 + 39.59/Ton* $258.74+45.53/Ton*15f. Compactor (Clean MRF Processing Recyclables) 40 Cu. Yard Compactor per pull 224.99 + 52.81/Ton* $258.74+60.73/Ton* Additional Cart pick-up Request (For Cart services listed under numbers: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 3 to CR&R Franchise Agreement (3432 : Solid Attachment 2

7.2.1.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposition 218 Notice (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R

1817227.2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, April 23, 2024, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be held at the City of Laguna Hills City Council Chambers located at 24035 El Toro Rd., Laguna Hills, CA 92653 to consider proposed adjustments to the City’s solid waste rates and charges. If approved by the City Council, the proposed rate adjustments will go into effect on July 1, 2024.

WHY RATE ADJUSTMENTS ARE NECESSARY
All cities in the State, including Laguna Hills, face the most stringent solid waste legislation in California history under State Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383). SB 1383 organic recycling mandates and post-pandemic economic conditions, including equipment supply chain interruptions and labor shortages, are significantly impacting the solid waste industry. These impacts, in addition to other inflationary forces have increased the costs of operations for the City’s franchised waste hauler, CR&R Incorporated (“CR&R”). The City is considering an amendment to the franchise agreement with CR&R (“Agreement”) that includes an adjustment to the rates charged by CR&R for solid waste and recyclables collection services provided to residential and commercial customers. The proposed increases for a typical residential and commercial customer are shown in Table 1 on page 2. The City with its consultant have reviewed the proposed rate increases and have determined them to be reasonable. The City is fortunate to have very competitive rates among solid waste and recyclables collection services in the County.

PROPOSED SOLID WASTE RATES
The proposed rates for solid waste and recyclables collection services will be considered by the City as part of an amendment to the Agreement that will also extend the term of the Agreement for one year while the City completes the procurement of a new franchise. The Agreement amendment will ensure that the City continues to be in compliance with the State’s SB 1383 and other mandates, and will provide for an additional year of uninterrupted solid waste and recyclable collection services. The one-year extension of the Agreement will further provide adequate time for a hauler under the new franchise to transition to servicing the City of Laguna Hills on July 1, 2025.

The proposed rates include charges for automated curbside, bin collection, and roll-off box service. The rates represent the amount CR&R may charge customers as compensation for all labor, equipment, materials and supplies, taxes, insurance, bonds, letters of credit, overhead, disposal, transfer, processing, profit, and all other earnings necessary to perform all the services required by the Agreement.

Single-Family dwellings with cart service will be charged a base rate, which includes a trash cart, a recycling cart, and an organics recycling cart that includes green waste. Commercial and Multi-Family customers with container (cart and/or bin) service are charged a monthly rate based on the number and size of containers, and the number of weekly pickups.

If approved, the rates for the one-year extension will go into effect July 1, 2024.

Table 1 below compares the current rates for typical residential and commercial services with those proposed for July 1, 2024. The entire rate schedule for the one-year extension can be viewed on the City’s website at https://www.ci.laguna-hills.ca.us/206/Trash-Recycling-Services. For more information regarding the State’s SB 1383 unfunded mandate please visit CalRecycle’s website at https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp.

NOTICE CONCERNING PROPOSED SOLID WASTE &

RECYCLING RATE ADJUSTMENTS

AND PUBLIC HEARING

7.2.1.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposition 218 Notice (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R

1817227.2

PUBLIC HEARING AND PROTEST PROCEEDINGS
Property owners, as defined under Proposition 218, may protest the proposed rate adjustment in writing prior to or during the public hearing. Consistent with the provisions of Proposition 218 and Government Code Section 53755, this notice has been mailed to all record owners of the affected properties at the addresses as they appear on the latest equalized assessment roll.

If you are a property owner as defined under Proposition 218 and object to the proposed rates as described in this Notice, you may file a written protest with the City at or before the time set for the public hearing. Original written protests can be mailed or personally delivered to the City Clerk as follows:

City Clerk
City of Laguna Hills
24035 El Toro Rd.

Laguna Hills, CA 92653
A valid written protest must include:

1. The name of the record owner or owners of the property; and

2. Identification of the property by either assessor’s parcel number or street address; and

3. A statement of protest (“I/we protest” will suffice); and

4. The original signature of the protesting owner or owners (photocopies, electronic mail, electronic copies, e-comments, or facsimiles will not be accepted).

Please note that each property owner will be counted as a single vote, regardless of the number of owners. If there are two record owners, both must sign the written protest. If there are more than two owners, the protest must be signed by a majority of the owners. Multiple protests returned for a single property will be disallowed and the City Clerk will only accept one protest per property.

The City Clerk will determine the validity of all protests submitted and exclude any invalid protests from the final tabulation. The City Clerk may confer with the City Attorney in determining the validity of written protests. As part of this process, the City Attorney may view contested or suspect protest forms. The City Clerk’s decision shall be final and binding.

If you have any questions regarding this Notice or the proposed rate adjustments, or would like even more detailed information, please contact David Reynolds at (949) 707-2685.

Table 1. Proposed Solid Waste & Recycling Rates (per month)

Residential:

Cart
Commercial:

Trash Bin *
Commercial:

Recycling Bin *
Commercial:

Food Waste
Bin **
Current Rate $20.98 $133.91 $56.07 $47.42

July 1, 2024 $23.00 $154.00 $64.48 $54.53

* Commercial and Multi-Family 3 Cubic Yard Bin serviced with 1 pickup per week. ** Commercial and Multi-Family 2 Cubic Yard Bin serviced with 1 pickup per week.

7.2.1.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposition 218 Notice (3432 : Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Rate Adjustments Amendment No 3 to the CR&R City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 27, 2024
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Erica Pezold
Council Member
ISSUE: Facility Reservation Information Display System
RECOMMENDATION: Council Member Pezold and Mayor Wheeler recommend that the City Council direct staff to explore options for implementing a facility reservation information display system.

SUMMARY:

At the February 13, 2024, City Council regular meeting, Council Member Pezold requested a discussion on electronic signage in our parks be agendized for the February 27, 2024, regular meeting and received a second from Mayor Wheeler.

8.1 Packet Pg. 334
City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 27, 2024
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Lee
City Clerk
ISSUE: Committee Assignment Reports
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive reports from City Council Members on the City Council Committee Assignments listed in the staff report.

SUMMARY:

The following are recent meetings and events attended by the City Council for their City Council Committee Assignments. It is order to receive a report from the Council Members listed below on their Committee Assignment(s).
1 Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District (OCMVCD) Board of Trustees
Council Member Pezold
February 15 Regular Meeting
2 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
Board of Directors
Mayor Pro Tempore Sweeney
February 22 Regular Meeting
3 Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Legislative & Regulatory Committee
Mayor Wheeler
February 22 Regular Meeting

9.1 Packet Pg. 335
Committee Assignment Reports
February 27, 2024

4 Orange County Older Adults Advisory Commission (OCOAAC) Mayor Wheeler
February 9 General Meeting
February 23 Executive Committee Meeting

9.1 Packet Pg. 336