Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, April 25, 2023 (part 6 of 8)

P1. Other Identifier: Ward & Thrash Oakland and Pontiac Sales DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Cruz County and
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Santa Cruz, Calif. Date 1994 T 11S ; R 1W ; of of Sec 12; MD B.M. c. Address 514-518 Front Street City Santa Cruz Zip 95060 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 586860 mE/ 4092271 mN
e. Other Locational Data:

The property is located on the east side of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Cathcart Street, just west of the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz, within Assessor Parcel Number 005-151-37. *P3a. Description: The 1926 building is a one-story commercial building designed as an “Automobile Showroom” property type (see Continuation Sheet, Page 20 for context). The 1926 building is constructed of reinforced concrete, with an L-shape plan that appears to be defined by a main rectangular building form with a gabled wing near the northern end of the east elevation (rear wing). The building has stepped parapets at all elevations, and aerial photographs suggest that the main building form has a very low pitch font-gable roof, with the rear wing has a moderate pitch front-gable roof. It appears that both roof forms are clad in a modified bitumen roof. The exterior appears to consist of stucco at the front, west elevation, and painted board-formed concrete at the north, east, and south elevations, with painted concrete masonry units at the east elevation of the rear wing. The building’s west elevation (Primary Façade) is defined by three distinct bays facing Front Street, with a parapet that displays a low-pitch gable above the center bay. The stucco exterior displays diamond- and rectangular-shape appliques attached to the west elevation parapet just below the coping, which appear to be constructed of painted wood. (See Continuation Sheet, Page 2)
*P3b. Resource Attributes:

HP6 – 1-3 story commercial building
*P4.Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo: West
elevations, 4/9/2019
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:
 Historic Prehistoric Both
1926; Santa Cruz Sentinel
*P7. Owner and Address:

Withheld by owner

*P8. Recorded by:

Brian Matuk, M.S., Evans & De Shazo,
Inc., 1141 Gravenstein Highway South,
Sebastopol, CA 95472
*P9. Date Recorded:
4/9/2019
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and Brian Matuk, M.S. (2019): Historic Resource Evaluation For The Property Located At 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing

30.455
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 30 ends

(Continued from Primary, Page 1)
The west elevation has four contemporary signs marking each business currently in the building—with one sign centered at each end bay, and two signs at the center bay. Contemporary gooseneck lights attached to the parapet hang down to illuminate the contemporary signage along this west elevation.

The three distinct storefront bays are denoted by changes in the pitch of the parapet along the front, west elevation, and are each denoted with separate addresses—514, 516, and 518 Front Street from south to north. The two end bays (514 and 518 Front Street) appear to be identical in size, and flank the larger center bay (516 Front Street). The southernmost bay consists of a central pair of contemporary glazed wood double doors that are flanked on either side by contemporary woodframe plate-glass storefront windows. Two wood-frame plate-glass transom windows are located above the doors, but within separate frames. Spanning the width of the southernmost bay is a woodframe multilight clerestory window, located above the storefront and transom windows. The center bay currently has two businesses within the bay, and is defined by a deep-recess entrance that is slightly off-center from the otherwise nearly symmetrical composition of the west elevation. All fenestration at this center bay is topped by contemporary, traditional-shape fabric awnings with valances. The recessed entrance appears to have been altered in 1982, and is located within what appears to be an original wood-frame archway that has a transom consisting of a pair of single-light windows within the same frame, with a four-light clerestory window located above the transom.

Within the recess is a set of contemporary glazed wood double-doors facing north, a wood-frame plate-glass storefront window facing west, and another set of contemporary glazed wood doubledoors facing south. The exterior within the recess is clad in contemporary horizontal droplap wood siding, and the floor consists of what appears to be contemporary concrete tile flooring. Flanking either side of the recessed entry are pairs of wood-frame plate-glass windows with six-light woodframe clerestory windows located above. There is an additional pair of wood-frame plate-glass windows and clerestory at the northern end of this center bay. The northernmost bay is located within a slight recess from the remainder of the elevation, and consists of what appears to be a set of contemporary glazed metal doors, with a pair of transom windows located above; however, the transom windows are located within individual wood-frames. Flanking either side of the double doors are wood-frame plate-glass windows. Above both plate-glass windows and the pair of transom windows are three sets of three-light clerestory windows, which appear to all be in individual frames.

The north elevation consists of a painted board-formed concrete exterior, with a parapet that steps downward toward the east. Near the western end of this elevation is a single diamond-shaped applique, and a contemporary sign attached to the exterior with a gooseneck light attached to the parapet that hangs down for illumination. Further east on this north elevation is a circular painted mural, which is located adjacent to a contemporary sign affixed to the exterior from 1993 that states the title of the artwork, “Bioregional mural project of Santa Cruz Mural #2”, as well as a description of the purpose and contributors of the piece. There is a cluster of 75 ribbed glass blocks located near the

30.456
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 30 ends

center of the north elevation that appear to not be original, given the visible repairs to the concrete that surround the cluster. Near the eastern end of this north elevation are what appear to be two metal multi-light windows with operational awning sashes.

The east elevation of the rear wing appears to be constructed of concrete masonry units, and consists of a stepped parapet, and no fenestration. There is a contemporary chain link fence located near the northern end of this east elevation of the rear wing, and appears to serve as a partial enclosure for mechanical equipment. The east elevation of the main building form consists of a rear entry, located within the corner where the rear wing meets the main building form, and consists of two metal-clad slab doors situated in different frames, and sheltered by a wood frame awning. To the south of this rear entry is a contemporary sliding sash window that appears to have been installed in a previous door opening that has been partially infilled with horizontal wood siding. The original wood door frame that bordered this previous opening is still extant. To the south of this window is a contemporary metal roll-up garage door within what appears to be an original wood frame—similar in shape to that which has been partially infilled directly to the north. To the south of this roll-up garage door are two aluminum multilight windows that appear to have operational awning sashes.

The south elevation of the rear wing consists of a large metal roll-up garage door within a wood frame. Directly to the west of the garage door is a contemporary shed-roof addition that is clad in vertical wood siding with asphalt shingle roofing. The east elevation of this addition has a six-panel wood door, while the south elevation has a single-hung vinyl window. Under the awning at the corner where the main building form meets the rear wing, there appears to be a slight bump-pout that is clad in vertical wood siding, and consists of a narrow door—likely providing access to mechanical equipment, given the metal ventilation pipe that extends above the awning at this location. The south elevation of the main building form consists of a board-formed concrete exterior with a set of metalclad double-doors that are nearly centered on the elevation. Toward the western end of this elevation is an area that appears to have been a door opening, which has since been infilled. To the west of this infilled door is utility equipment with conduits attached to the building exterior, leading to the roof.

This utility equipment is protected by nine metal bollards. At the very western edge of this south elevation is a contemporary business sign that is identical to that on the north elevation, which is similarly illuminated by a gooseneck lamp affixed to the parapet, with a diamond-shape applique affixed to the exterior just below the parapet.

30.457
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 30 ends

The west elevation of the 1926 building, facing east.

The west elevation at the southernmost bay, facing northeast.

30.458
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 30 ends

Detail of the contemporary doors and transom windows at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building.

Detail of clerestory at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building, along the west elevation, facing southeast.

30.459
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 30 ends

The center bay at the west elevation, facing east.

Detail of transom windows and clerestory windows above the recessed entrance in center bay on the west elevation.

30.460
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 30 ends

Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the south-facing double doors and plate-glass window, facing northeast.

Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the plate-glass window and north-facing double doors facing southeast.

30.461
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 8 of 30 ends

Detail of the pair of plate-glass windows located to the north of the recessed entry within the center bay of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

30.462
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 9 of 30 ends

Detail of clerestory window above plate-glass storefront window at center bay of the 1926 building.

The northernmost bay at the west elevation of the 1926 building, facing north-northeast.

30.463
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 10 of 30 ends

Detail of the contemporary metal double doors at the northernmost bay of the 1926 building.

The western portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

30.464
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 11 of 30 ends

Detail of the diamond appliques on both the north and west elevations, with the contemporary business sign and gooseneck lamp at the north elevation visible at left.

Detail of the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

30.465
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 12 of 30 ends

Detail of the signage associated with the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

Center portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, showing the contemporary painted mural at right, and the cluster of glass blocks at center, facing southeast.

30.466
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 13 of 30 ends

Detail of the cluster of glass blocks at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

Detail of the two metal multi-light windows near the eastern end of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southwest.

30.467
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 14 of 30 ends

East elevation of the rear wing, facing north-northwest.

East elevation of the main building form, with the south elevation of the rear wing visible at far right, facing northwest.

30.468
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 15 of 30 ends

Detail of rear entry doors at the east elevation of the main building form, facing northwest. The contemporary shed-roof addition at the south elevation of the rear wing is also visible at right.

A portion of the east elevation of the main building form, showing one of the two multilight windows at left, the roll-up garage door at center, the infilled garage door with window at right, facing northwest.

30.469
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 16 of 30 ends

South elevation of the rear wing, facing north, also showing the east elevation of main building form visible at left.

South elevation of the 1926 building, facing northwest.

30.470
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 17 of 30 ends

Western corner of the south elevation of the main building form, facing north.

Contemporary Buildings
There are three contemporary buildings within the Property that were constructed in ca. 2005. While these buildings do not reach the 50-year age criteria for CRHR-eligibility, they are nevertheless documented below for clarification of the extant built-environment at the Project Area. ca. 2007 Shed 1
This rectangular plan shed-roof building is located to the southeast of the 1926 building, with the south elevation directly abutting the neighboring commercial building at 512 Front Street. The building is situated on a poured concrete foundation, with an exterior clad in vertical wood siding, and a roof consisting of corrugated metal. The only fenestration occurs at the north elevation, and consists of a large opening with corrugated metal double doors that provides access to refuse dumpsters stored at the interior.

30.471
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 18 of 30 ends

North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at right, facing southeast.

East and north elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at left and right of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, facing southwest.

30.472
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 19 of 30 ends

ca. 2007 Shed 2
This rectangular plan building is located to the northeast of the 1926 building, and has a metal chainlink fence attached to its south elevation. The building is situated on a poured concrete foundation, with an exterior clad in vertical wood siding. The roof was not visible at the time of the survey, but appears to be nearly flat, with wood fascia that wraps around all elevations. The only fenestration consists of a metal slab door at the north elevation.

North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 2, facing southeast.

Previous Documentation
In 2013, the 1926 building was identified by Archives & Architects as eligible for local designation as part of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (Historic Building Survey). The property was identified with the following description:
“Front Street was a major hub of the evolving automobile sales and services commercial sector for the Santa Cruz area beginning in the 1920s. This vernacular commercial building was constructed in 1927, with its primary tenant being an Oakland and Pontiac auto dealership. Originally Hutchings & Dodson, the dealership quickly changed to Kirby Motor Co. and then Ward & Thrash. By 1935, Sylvan Thrash had taken over as sole proprietor of the dealership at this location, and he remained at this site until building a new showroom across the street at 429 Front Street in 1948. Other mostly auto‐related tenants occupied this building over subsequent

30.473
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 20 of 30 ends

years. In the early 1980s, the building was renovated for pedestrian‐oriented retail uses, as it exists today.”1
The findings of the Historic Building Survey were accepted by the Santa Cruz City Council as part of Resolution NS-28,621, which included a provision allowing specific property owners to “opt-out” of listing in the Historic Building Survey. As part of this Resolution, the property owner of 514-518 Front Street elected to “opt-out” of local listing in the Historic Building Survey, and is currently not considered to be a locally designated resource. As such, while the 1926 building was previously determined to be eligible for local designation, it was not previously determined to qualify as an Historical Resource for the purposes of CEQA.

AUTOMOBILE SHOWROOM PROPERTY TYPE
The following context regarding the Automobile Showroom property type is quoted from the SurveyLA historic context statement related to the theme “Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970”. While this historic context was prepared for the City of Los Angeles, its description of the property type and historic events that led to its popularity apply to automobile showrooms throughout California. For these reasons, this historic context regarding the automobile showroom property type is relevant to the 1926 building, and is used to evaluate the significance of the building for its architecture. Specific excerpts that are local-specific have been removed from this section, as they do not apply to the 1926 building.
“Buying an automobile was first done through a livery stable, carriage dealer, or bicycle shop.

These early car vendors were businessmen who obtained a license to sell a particular brand of auto. Once purpose-built automobile dealerships began to appear, just before the First World War, they fit into the existing pre-automobile streetscape. They were essentially storefronts on a commercial street with a large entrance door and windows to show the product.2 Unlike the service station, the showroom retained throughout the 1920s a central business district location and a traditional relationship to the street. The auto manufacturers chose to remain urban and to adopt the historicist styles that characterized the elite architecture of the city. Most potential customers did not yet own cars and therefore relied on public transportation to reach a dealership; the impressive revivalist architecture assured them of a reputable vendor.

The auto manufacturers first experimented with building what one historian has referred to as ‘object-lesson’ salesrooms in certain cities to show locally-owned dealerships what could be 1 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 52. 2 Chester H. Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 75-76.

30.474
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 21 of 30 ends

done. These corporate-sponsored buildings were designed to resemble banks and first-class office buildings, clad in traditional styles. ‘Exteriors often sported bas-reliefs, grand ornamental cornices, and entrance porticoes, while inside cars were sold in elegant surroundings in large, opulent sales salons.’3
During the early twenties these urban dealerships began combining auto servicing and repair with sales. To fit onto their city sites, they constructed multi-storied buildings complete with ramps and auto-sized elevators for access to the upper levels. The facades sported historicist detailing; generally, the only feature on the street front that identified the building as an autoservice facility was the use of factory sash for the large windows on the upper floors.” “Along with the multi-level downtown dealerships, the car companies built smaller outlets in outlying business districts. These more suburban showrooms continued the traditional pattern of being set hard against the street and of clothing themselves in historicist garb. The common façade composition consisted of an elaborate center entrance and symmetrically flanking show windows. These smaller showrooms were in essence single-story versions of the multistory central business district dealerships, and maintained a footprint much like that of the earlier livery stable.”
“By the mid-1930s, the auto showroom adopted the Streamline Moderne. In an attempt to encourage flagging sales during the Depression, some of the older downtown showrooms replaced their historicist ornament, at least at the showroom level, with abstract lines, curves, and circles. More important, however, was a rethinking of location for those few new dealerships that were built in the 1930s. Most potential customers already owned cars, so there was no need to be close to streetcar lines. Now ease of auto access and adequate parking were needed.4
The auto showroom moved to the strip. Instead of remaining on a tight lot in the central or local business district, it placed itself on an arterial road that allowed it to spread horizontally.

The common arrangement was a showroom in the front, complete with large expanses of glass, service bays to the rear, and adequate parking alongside for used cars and customer circulation. The showroom itself, with its expanses of glass, maintained its position directly on the street, without a setback. It was dressed in Streamline Moderne detailing, with an integral sign featuring the name and emblem of the brand sold within.5 ”
“Though construction of new dealerships ceased during the Second World War, anticipating a surge of new car customers, the auto companies studied the problem of designing attractive 3 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 79.
4 Ibid, 86-88.
5 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 86-88.

30.475
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 22 of 30 ends

facilities. As early as 1944, before the end of the war, there appeared Post-War Housing and Facilities for Studebaker Dealers by that now vanished brand. In 1945 Ford published Plans for New and Modernized Sales and Service Buildings. That same year General Motors held a “Design Competition for Dealer Establishments” and three years later issued Planning Automobile Dealer Properties based on the submissions to the competition.6 These planning manuals carefully considered issues of location and design. Not only should dealerships be placed along arterials on large plots of land, a common practice since the 1930s, manuals decreed, but they should sit on the far side of an intersection on the homeward-bound side of a commuter route. Potential customers could have full view of the showroom while waiting for red lights and then, with free time after work, pull in and inspect the autos on display. There should be a procession of visual delights to greet customers: first the new cars, seen through a glare-free expanse of glass, and then the service wing, providing potential customers with the assurance of care in the future. The final element should be the used car lot, arranged with the best models in front.7
Much of this advice came from studying the few dealerships that were built in the 1930s. But there were a number of subtle and not so subtle changes. A subtle change was the shrinking size of the showroom, with just a few of the best looking models on display, and the growing respectability of the parts and service department, with attractive counters and waiting areas.

A not so subtle change was in the dealership’s primary identifying sign. The sign in the 1930s, while an important design element, tended to be integrated into the architecture. By the 1950s the sign often detached itself from the building and became a free-standing, and increasingly dominant, element.8
”
“During the first years of construction, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, auto showrooms were typically subdued Mid-Century Modern designs, with flat roofs and plain surfaces. The mammoth glass windows showing off the cars provided character.” “Over the next fifteen years the most important design development was the separation of the sign from the structure. The detached sign occasionally took on Googie-like extravagance to attract attention, but generally the need to exhibit the brand emblem and name had precedence. The detached sign, enormous by earlier standards, was generally limited to serving as a giant billboard for the corporate logo.

30.476
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 23 of 30 ends

relatively rare. The point was to call attention to the cars on sale and not to the architecture.

The same was true when New Formalism, with its classicizing proportions and details, began to appear in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Again, the architecture was secondary to the merchandise and thereby kept subdued.

This mode of selling required great amounts of space. Most of the existing dealerships simply were not large enough. The result was the abandoning of locations that, in 1950, seemed quite adequate for vast lots on the outskirts of development. This was accompanied by a massive reduction in the number of dealerships as American-made brands disappeared and those few remaining consolidated facilities. The showroom and the service bay took on a utilitarian form and only the dealer sign, free-standing and standardized for the brand, attracted attention.9 10 CRHR Evaluation
The following section evaluates the 1926 building for eligibility for listing in the CRHR under four applicable CRHR criteria, utilizing significant themes that were found to be potentially associated with the 1926 building. The Project Area was evaluated for site-specific historical significance, as well as under the following themes and associated periods of significance: development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from ca. 1920 to ca. 1945, and architecture as it relates to an Automobile Showroom property type constructed during the Interwar Period, 1918-1939, between the end of World War I and the beginning of the United States’ involvement in World War II, with a period of significance associated with the 1926 date of construction.

The ca. 2007 sheds, 1981 building, and vacant parking lot were not evaluated for historical significance.

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage
The 1926 building is associated with the development of the Front Street “Automobile Row” 9 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 90-93.
10 City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850-1980, Theme:

Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for SurveyLA, August 2016, 35-39.

30.477
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 24 of 30 ends

from ca. 1920 to ca. 1945, where automobile showrooms and repair garages were constructed between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street. The development along this section of Front Street with businesses associated with automobiles was indicative of the rise of the automobile in the culture of America that began in early 1920s with the mass production of automobiles and availability of new affordable cars such as the Ford Model-T. This type of development was widespread through most large and medium sized cities in California, as well as the U.S., and although the rise of the automobile resulted in the create of numerous businesses, including gas stations. Motels, roadside attractions, automobile repair shops, and automobile showrooms, as well as infrastructure such as bridges, and highways, the 1926 building alone within the Project Area does not have the ability to convey this significance them. As such, although the 1926 building reflects these larger development trends in California and in Santa Cruz along Front Street, the 1926 building does not appear to convey significance under this theme to warrant individual eligibility in the CRHR. Additionally, there are very few buildings remaining on Front Street from the development period of ca. 1920 to ca. 1945 that are related to the automobile, and it does not appear that there would be sufficient extant contributors to collectively embody this significant theme as an historic district.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Despite extensive research, it does not appear that the Project Area as a whole, nor the 1926 building, are associated with the lives of individuals or families that are important to local, California, or national history to warrant eligibility under the CRHR. There is no information was found to show that any owners of the building or owners of the businesses associated with the 1926 building made important, identifiable contributions to local, State, or National history in a way that is directly associated with the Project Area.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

3. (Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

30.478
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 25 of 30 ends

as the automobile repair and service functions operating at the rear of the building. While the 1926 building has undergone alterations over time, including converting the automobile showroom to four separate businesses in separate retail bays, the building continues to display the distinctive characteristics of the automobile showroom property type of the 1920s.

However, despite retaining integrity to its date of construction, the 1926 building is not eligible for individual listing in the CRHR, as the building does not appear to be “an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history” and does not demonstrate “an important phase of the architectural development of the area of community in that it had an impact as evidenced by later buildings.”11 Therefore, the 1926 building appears does not appear eligible for individual listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criterion 4 most commonly applies to resources that contain or are likely to contain information bearing on an important archaeological research question. While most often applied to archaeological sites, Criterion 4 can also apply to buildings that contain important information.

For a building to be eligible under Criterion 4, it must be a principal source of important information, such as exhibiting a local variation on a standard design or construction technique can be eligible if a study can yield important information, such as how local availability of materials or construction expertise affected the evolution of local building development.

City of Santa Cruz - Local Evaluation
The 1926 building was considered under local significance categories 1 through 5 (listed below) utilizing the adopted historical context documents (2000 and 2013) written on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz that identify important resources and historical themes.

1. Recognized as a significant example of the cultural, natural, archaeological, or built heritage of the city, state, or nation
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz 11 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1990, revised 1997), 18.

30.479
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 26 of 30 ends

Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),12 within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is a significant example of built heritage that should be recognized by the city, state, or nation.

2. Associated with a significant local, state, or national event The following context was taken from pages 17 and 18 of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013) under “Front Street” sub-heading. “While initial development of the city center was near the Santa Cruz Mission and the plaza, after 1853 Main Street (later Front Street) developed as the main business street. The prominence of Main Street was short lived, and by 1866, with the Foreman & Wright survey, the name was changed to Front Street and it was designated as a secondary street. Front Street did not initially connect to the wharves, but eventually connected to Pacific Avenue at the bottom of Beach Hill in 1932. The Foreman & Wright survey also changed the name of Willow Street to Pacific Avenue and designated it as the primary business street. Businesses began to move to Pacific Avenue and newly vacant buildings along Front Street were occupied for a time by the Chinese ethnic community. The Front Street Chinatown was the largest in the city and lasted until 1894 when it was destroyed by fire. After the 1894 fire, the displaced Chinese community moved closer to the San Lorenzo River. They continued to reside in this area until the December 1955 flood.

The north end of Front Street had served as a municipal center providing the then site for the county jail and the extant Hall of Records in the late nineteenth century, as well as Santa Cruz City Hall, Fire Department, and Bell Tower. Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street.

Prominent local architects such as Lee Dill Esty and C. J. Ryland designed buildings for clients in the automobile business, including auto repair shops (Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street) and auto showrooms (Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street). In 1936 the nineteenth‐century county jail was replaced with a Modern edifice designed by Albert Roller (now the Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center, 725 Front Street). Today, Front Street has lost most of its auto related businesses and continues to serve as a secondary street to Pacific Avenue. However, it retains many structures associated with commercial development during the first half of the twentieth century.
12 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950”.

30.480
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 27 of 30 ends

EDS Local Re-Evaluation
Based on the City of Santa Cruz’ Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),13 and survey and research completed as part of the EDS HRE, it was determined that the 1926 building is associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz. As such, these are the significance themes.

To assess these significance themes, EDS utilized the adopted historical context documents (2000 and 2013) written on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz that identify important resources and historical themes. The section below provides of analysis of the context documents that should support these themes for local listing.

Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013) There is little historical context within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), that supports the following significance themes, development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz.

However, the theme of “Economic Development 1850‐1950” is identified as important to the City of Santa Cruz, which includes a small section entitled “Front Street”, which states it is an area that developed “Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street.”
Unfortunately, this statement is not enough to support the significance theme. Furthermore, within the context written in 2013, there is little mention of the importance of the automobile industry in Santa Cruz or on Front Street
“Historic Context Statement”, City of Santa Cruz (2000) EDS also reviewed the “Historic Context Statement” for the City of Santa Cruz (2000),14 to ascertain any historical context related to the automobile industry or the importance of Front Street as part of an automobile row that would be important to the city. EDS found that the automobile is discussed in relation to tourism in Chapter 3, the “Economic Development of the City of Santa Cruz, City 1850- 1950”. However, this does not support the local significance.

Analysis of Integrity
13 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 14 Susan Lehmann, “Historic Context Statement”, City of Santa Cruz (October 20, 2000), https://www.cityofsantacruz.com, accessed May 10, 2022.

30.481
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 28 of 30 ends

The significance of a local resource must also be supported by integrity, which is often posed by asking a question, such as does the 1926 building retain enough integrity to convey significance associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and/or the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz? EDS Integrity Analysis: Although the building does retain some integrity, alterations to the 1926 building have affected the materials and workmanship of the building and the setting has changed from an automobile row to a commercial area with large swaths of parking lots due to the demolition of buildings, which has affected the overall integrity of setting to support the significance statement.

EDS Local Evaluation Recommendations: The 1926 building does not have the integrity to be considered a “significant local, state, or national event” associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s or the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear to qualify for local listing under this category.

3. Associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation.

4. Associated with an architect, designer, or builder whose work has influenced the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is associated with an architect, designer, or builder whose work has influenced the development of the city, state, or nation.

5. Recognized as possessing special aesthetic merit or value as a building with quality of architecture and that retains sufficient features showing its architectural significance; and/or EDS Analysis and Recommendation: The 1926 building is associated with Automobile Showroom design.

Though it is not a locally recognized architectural type and is miscategorized as “vernacular Mission Revival commercial style”, it does not appear to possess special aesthetic merit or value as a building with quality of architecture, and that retains sufficient features showing its architectural significance. In addition, there is no evidence presented with this document or provided by the city or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building qualifies under this category.

30.482
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 29 of 30 ends

6. Recognized as possessing distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials; and/or EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building has the distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials to be listed under this category.

30.483

Page 30 of 30 ends

*Map Name: Santa Cruz, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1994 DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) * Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

30.484

30.485

30.486

30.487

30.488

30.489

30.490

30.491

30.492

30.493

30.494

30.495

30.496

30.497

30.498

30.499

30.500

30.501

30.502

30.503

30.504

30.505

30.506

30.507

30.508

30.509

30.510

30.511

30.512

30.513

30.514

30.515

30.516

30.517

30.518

30.519

30.520

30.521

30.522

30.523

30.524

30.525

30.526

30.527

30.528

30.529

30.530

30.531

30.532

30.533

30.534

30.535

30.536

30.537

30.538

30.539

30.540

30.541

30.542

30.543

30.544

30.545

30.546

30.547

30.548

30.549

30.550

30.551

30.552

30.553

30.554

30.555

30.556

30.557

30.558
9711
1 July 2021
July 7, 2022 9711
Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department Email: [email protected]
Subject: Peer Review of the Updated Historic Resource Documentation for the 530 Front Street Mixed Use Development Project, Santa Cruz, California
Dear Ms. Stanger:

Dudek has completed a peer review the updated three historic resource documents provided by the city in reference to the 530 Front Street Mixed Use Development Project, Santa Cruz, California:

1. A Historic Resource Evaluation for the Property at 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (De Shazo and Matuk Updated 2022);

2. Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms (DPR forms) for the 514-518 Front Street prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (De Shazo and Matuk Updated 2022); In March of 2021, Dudek’s Principal Architectural Historian Samantha Murray, MA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History prepared a peer review letter suggesting changes to the 2019 version of these reports. The report and DPR forms were reviewed for compliance with national, state, and local designation criteria and integrity requirements as well as all applicable National Park Service (NPS) and California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) guidance, specifically “National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” (1997) and OHP’s “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources” (March 1995).

The peer review provided a bulleted list of comments and recommendations with reference to the associated page number(s), and a final summary paragraph that outlined the most significant issues identified. Reference verification, fact-checking, and review of spelling/grammar errors were not completed as part of the peer review.

In May of 2022 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. prepared an Updated version of the report which addressed comments from Dudek. The city has requested that Dudek review the latest version of the report. The peer review of the Updated report was conducted by Dudek’s Principal Architectural Historian Kathryn Haley, MA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and Architectural History.

First, the peer review provides a summary of Evans & De Shazo’s efforts to address the overarching issues pointed out my Ms. Murray in 2021. Second, the peer review provides a few suggestions for further revisions. The new comments are summarized below and provided in comment bubbles in Attachment A which includes a PDF copy of the report with comment bubbles.

30.559
Ma. Clare Stanger
Subject: Peer Review of Updated Historic Resource Documentation 9711
2 July 2021
Summary of Peer Review Findings (March 2021/May 2022 Update) Dudek’s March 2021 review of the historic resource documentation provided by the city indicated that some revisions and clarifications were needed in the HRE and associated DPR form prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc., as summarized below. Under each bullet point, Dudek provides a summary assessment of adequacy in addressing the comments in the May 2022 version of the report. Dudek’s adequacy assessment summary is presented in italicized text:
• There are multiple locations in the HRE in which the age-threshold for the CRHR is incorrectly described.

The NRHP has a hard 50-year rule, but the CRHR does not (as demonstrated above). o Comment was adequately addressed in several places throughout the Updated report. • It is recommended that basic information about the 1981 building be presented in the report, including the name of the architect and his/her body of work in Santa Cruz, the building’s architectural style, and a brief discussion of the style in Santa Cruz. This need only be a single paragraph. If this information demonstrates that the building has no potential for significance, a significance evaluation can more confidently be skipped, instead of just pointing to the fact that the building is less than 45 years old. o Comment was addressed in the report and the authors explained why this property constructed in 1981 did not rise to the level of requiring consideration as a potential CEQA historical resource. • The significance evaluation for Criterion 1 needs clarification. It seems to alternate between significance/lack of significance with regards to the role of the automobile in Santa Cruz. Perhaps it would be better to acknowledge that the automobile was significant to the development of Santa Cruz and then explain that due to a lack of integrity of setting, the significance of an automobile row on Front Street can no longer be conveyed, and therefore it is not eligible under Criterion 1 for this pattern of development (or something to that effect).
o Comment was adequately addressed in the significance evaluation under CRHR Criterion 1 in the Updated report.
• The significance evaluation for Criterion 3 needs clarification. There are only four extant examples of automobile-related properties remaining on Front Street (418, 428, 429, and 514-518 Front Street). More detail is needed to understand why an automobile showroom with requisite integrity is not considered a significant example, while the others are.
o Comment was adequately addressed in the significance evaluation under CRHR Criterion 3 in the Updated report.
• It is recommended that the HRE include an updated evaluation of the property in consideration of the City’s designation criteria. As-is, the report is silent on this issue, deferring to the 2013 findings. o Comment was adequately addressed in the Updated report and a thorough comparative analysis of the previous findings and evaluation under the City’s designation criteria was prepared. • Resources identified by a Lead Agency as historically significant are considered historical resources under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)(3), regardless of whether or not they are formally designated under the City’s historic preservation ordinance. Typically, when property owners opt-out of designation, the property is still considered historically significant by the City and is still subject to CEQA and local permitting

30.560
Ma. Clare Stanger
Subject: Peer Review of Updated Historic Resource Documentation 9711
3 July 2021
processes, although the owner cannot take part in the incentives associated with designation. There are statements in the Volume III Historic Building Survey that imply the regulations of the ordinance are not applicable to opt-out property owners. This requires clarification by the city. o This issue was adequately addressed in the Updated study. Dudek suggests adding the following statement to the conclusion of the report: The City of Santa Cruz can use this study as substantial evidence to support a determination of ineligibility of the subject property.

May 2022 Update Report Suggestions
Dudek has provided a few suggestions where typos, formatting, or spelling issues were noticed in the review and the authors may want to make revisions. The only substantial comments relate to the Appendices. Dudek suggests adding a DPR 523b form to Appendix A (see notes in the attached PDF) and an Appendix B is mentioned in the table of contents, but it not provided. Upon addressing these comments this report should be considered complete.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this peer review, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at [email protected] or (916) 539-2202.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Haley, MA
Historic Built Environment Lead
Attachment: PDF of May 2022 Updated report with comments from Dudek

30.561

Evans & De Shazo, Inc
1141 Gravenstein Highway South,
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-812-7400
www.evans-deshazo.com

A HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
FOR THE PROPERTY AT 514-518

FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA

CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:

Jessie Bristow
SWENSON Builders
[email protected]
PREPARED BY:

Stacey De Shazo, M.A.

Principal Architectural Historian
and
Brian Matuk, M.S.

Senior Architectural Historian

Updated May 13, 2022

30.562
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page ii
Management Summary
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) completed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of 1926 building located at 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Property) that is part of the proposed Front/Soquel Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project consists of three parcels (Project Area), including one parcel located at 514-516 Front Street, within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 005-15-137, with a 1926 building and two ca. 2007 sheds, and two parcels at 530 Front Street, within APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44, which include a 1981 commercial building (most recently operating as Wells Fargo bank) and paved surface parking lot. The proposed Front/Soquel Mixed-Use Project consists of the demolition of the 1926 building and ca. 2007 sheds (APN 005-15-137) and the 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot (APNs 005-15-144 and 005-15-147) and the redevelopment of the Project Area including the construction of a six-story mixed-use building with multi-family residential and commercial uses (Project).

The 1926 building is not currently locally listed or previously found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is not listed on the Historic Property Data (HPD) file for Santa Cruz County (2012) and does not appear to have been previously evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The 1926 building was previously surveyed in 2013 as part of Volume III of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey and was subsequently identified as locally eligible for listing in the Historic Building Survey; however, the property was not listed in the local Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey due to owner’s decision to “opt out” of the listing.1 The ca. 2007 sheds, and 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot were not included in the 2012 survey by the City of Santa Cruz, likely due to their age, being less than 45 years in age, at the time of the 2012 survey.

Based on California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historical Resources,2 EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. conducted research and a survey to evaluate the built environment that is at least 45 years in age, recommended by the OHP as a threshold, within the Project Area to determine if any of the built environment qualifies for listing on the CRHR. Utilizing CEQA regulations and OHP guidelines, EDS determined that of the built environment resources within the Project Area only the 1926 building warranted recordation and determined that the ca. 2007 sheds,3 1981 commercial building, and vacant parking lot did not warrant recordation.4 As such, the 1981 building, ca. 2007 sheds, and parking lot were not documented or evaluated. In addition, there is no local City of Santa Cruz policies or ordinance that would require EDS to record or evaluate properties within the city that are less than 45 years in age.

The results of the HRE determined that the 1926 building is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria. However, the 1926 building was previously determined to be a historical resource eligible for local listing. But, currently, the 1926 building is not locally designated or listed as the property owners elected 1 City of Santa Cruz, City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013). 2 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March 1995 3 Available aerial photographs from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 suggest that these garbage sheds were constructed in ca. 2007.
4 Both EDS and the City of Santa Cruz did not record or evaluate the ca. 2007 sheds and 1981 commercial building.

30.563
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page iii
to “opt-out”5 of the listing. As such, based on Resolution No. NS-28.621 it does not appear that the 1926 building is subject to the City’s historic preservation regulations.

In April 2022, the City of Santa Cruz requested a re-evaluation of the 1926 building due to issues with the 2013 Archives & Architecture local evaluation of the building,6 which lacked the historical contextsuch as architectural style and the history associated with the signature theme of Commercial Development from 1927 to 1948, and a thorough integrity section, required to support historical significance. As such, the following HRE has been updated to include a local “re-evaluation”, completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. following the guidance of the Santa Cruz Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), specifically related to the local designation of historical resources.

In summary, the 1926 building at 514-518 Front Street is not individually eligible for listing in the CRHR. In addition, the re-evaluation of the 1926 building for local significance recommends the building is not eligible for local listing.

As such, the Proposed Project would not have any impact on historical resources under CEQA. 5 City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013). 6 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development, March 2013, 20.

30.564
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page iv
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION......................................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING...........................................................................................................................................3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT................................................................................................................... 3 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS AS REFERENCED IN CEQA ...................................................................................... 4 OHP INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDING HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 4 What Kinds of Resources Merit Recordation? ................................................................................................... 4 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL REGULATIONS..................................................................................................................... 5 Santa Cruz City Ordinance No. 2003-14, Part 5: Historic Preservation................................................................ 5 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III – March 2013 ........................................................................... 6 City Registry Criteria Section 24.12.440 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey ...................................................... 6 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................................................7 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................8 Spanish Period (1772 - 1821)............................................................................................................................ 8 Mexican Period (1821 - 1848)........................................................................................................................... 9 American Period (1848 - present)................................................................................................................... 10 DEVELOPMENT OF FRONT STREET AS “AUTOMOBILE ROW” (CA. 1920 – CA. 1945).............................................................. 13 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT................................................................................................................................... 15 AUTOMOBILE SHOWROOM PROPERTY TYPE ................................................................................................................. 15 RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW............................................................................................................................. 18 NWIC ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 LOCAL RESEARCH................................................................................................................................................... 19 ONLINE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................. 20 RESULTS OF THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC HISTORY RESEARCH ................................................................................... 20 Property History............................................................................................................................................. 20 Owner and Occupancy History ....................................................................................................................... 21 HISTORIC ARCHITECTUAL SURVEY........................................................................................................................ 27 PROPERTY ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 1926 “Automobile Showroom” Building.......................................................................................................... 28 Contemporary Buildings................................................................................................................................. 42 PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION .................................................................................................................................... 44 EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................................ 46 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 46 CRHR EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................... 47 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................................ 49

30.565
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page v
LOCAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION............................................................................................................................... 50 2013 Archives and Architects - 1926 Building Evaluation (DPR page 4 of 5)..................................................... 50 EDS Review and Recommendations:............................................................................................................... 50 2022 EDS Local Re-Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 53 Summary of Local Re-Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 56 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................... 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX A: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms (updated May 2022) APPENDIX B: Memo amending the

30.566
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 1

INTRODUCTION
Evans & De Shazo, Inc (EDS) completed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the 1926 building located at 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 005-15-137 (Property) that is part of the “Front/Soquel Mixed Use Project” that is currently being developed. The proposed project includes three adjacent parcels including one parcel at 514-516 Front Street, within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 005-151-37, which includes the 1926 building and two ca. 2007 sheds, and two parcels at 530 Front Street, within APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44, which include a 1981 commercial building (most recently operating as Wells Fargo bank) and paved surface parking lot, located within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County (Project Area). The proposed project consists of the demolition of the 1926 building and ca. 2007 sheds at 514-518 Front Street (APN 005-15-137), as well as the demolition of the 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot at 530 Front Street (APNs 005- 15-144 and 005-15-147), and redevelopment of the three parcels that includes the construction of a sixstory mixed use building with multi-family residential and commercial uses (Project). The 1926 building is not currently locally listed or previously found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is not listed on the Historic Property Data (HPD) file for Santa Cruz County (2012), and does not appear to have been previously evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The 1926 building was previously surveyed in 2013 as part of Volume III of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey and was subsequently identified as locally eligible for listing in the Historic Building Survey; however, the property was not listed in the local Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey due to owner’s decision to “opt out” of the listing.7In April 2022, the City of Santa Cruz requested a re-evaluation of the 1926 building due to issues with the Archives & Architecture evaluation of the building in 2009, 1 which lacked the historical context such as architectural style and history of the significance them of Commercial Development from 1927 to 1948, as well as a section that details the status of all seven aspects of integrity need to support significance. As such, the following HRE has been updated to include a local “re-evaluation”, completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. The re-evaluation was included within updated on DPR 523 forms (attached) that will be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS).

Based on the California Office of Historic Preservation instructions for Recording Historical Resources,8 EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A., and Senior Architectural Historian, Brian Matuk, M.S., who both exceed the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Architectural History and History surveyed of the property located at 514-518 Front Street that includes the 1926 building, two contemporary garbage sheds from ca. 2007,
9 and the 1981 commercial building and vacant parking lot at 530 Front Street that are part of the Project Area. It was determined by Ms. De Shazo and Mr. Matuk utilizing the OHP guidelines that the 1981 building did not warrant recordation. As such, the 1981 building was not documented.

The following HRE is based on specific guidelines and evaluation criteria of the California Register of 7 City of Santa Cruz, City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013). 8 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March 1995 9 Available aerial photographs from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 suggest that these garbage sheds were constructed in ca. 2007.

30.567
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 2 Historical Resources (CRHR) (14 CCR §15064.5 and PRC§ 21084.1), as well as local guidelines and ordinances. A Cultural Resource Study (CRS) was also completed by EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA, and EDS Senior Archaeologist, Gilbert Browning M.A., RPA, of which the findings are presented in a separate report.10
The results of the HRE are presented herein.
10 Sally Evans, M.A. RPA, and Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA, Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project at 516 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Evans & De Shazo, Inc., 2019.

30.568
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed “Front/Soquel Mixed Use Project” consists of the demolition of the 1926 building and the two ca. 2007 sheds located at 514-518 Front Street (APN 005-151-37), as well as the demolition of the 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot at 530 Front Street (APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44) and the redevelopment of three adjacent parcels that will include an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage.

PROJECT AREA LOCATION
The Project Area consists of three parcels, which total 1.03 acres fronting the east side of Front Street in Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. These parcels include the 0.42-acre parcel located at 514-518 Front Street within APN 005-15-137, and two parcels located at 530 Front Street (APN 005-15-144, 0.22 acres; and, APN 005-15-147, 0.39 acres) (Figure 1). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings, including a 1926 building and two ca. 2007 sheds at 514-516 Front Street, and a 1981 commercial building at 530 Front Street, as well as adjacent associated paved surface parking lots. .

30.569
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 2 Figure 1. Project Location Map

30.570
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 3

REGULATORY SETTING
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5) give direction and guidance for evaluating properties, and the preparation of Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. Under California State law, the City of Santa Cruz is legally responsible and accountable for determining the environmental impact of any land use proposal it approves. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance under CEQA (14 CCR § 15064.5 and PRC § 21084.1).

There are five classes of cultural resources defined by the State OHP. These are:
• Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A “building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.
• Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter.

Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels.
• Object: Construction is primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed. It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures, and boundary markers.
• Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time.

Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs.
• Historic District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.

According to CCR § 15064.5, cultural resources are historically significant if they are:
(1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements PRC § 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency

30.571
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 4 determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4852), including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k), or identified in a historical resources survey meeting the criteria in PRC § 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC § 5020.1(j) or § 5024.1.

Additional Criteria Considerations as Referenced in CEQA The NRHP considers certain kinds of properties are not usually considered for listing in the National Register: religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties achieving significance within the past fifty years. However, these criteria considerations are not part of the CEQA criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4852). As such, and as noted in the section above, the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) lists the NRHP criteria that would also qualify a resource to be listed in the California Register of Historical Resources include criteria A, B, C, and D.

OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources
The following section providesthe city with an understanding of what kinds of resources merit recordation under CEQA and decisions made by professionals regarding the “45-year criteria” with the OHP guidelines.

The following guidance is taken directly from the OHPs “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources”.11 What Kinds of Resources Merit Recordation?
A broad threshold is set here for the kinds of resources that may be recorded for inclusion in the OHP's filing system. That threshold is designed to encompass resources that have been formally evaluated, as well as those whose importance has not yet been determined. Any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old may be recorded for purposes of inclusion in the OHP's filing system. Documentation of resources less than 45 years old also may be filed if those resources have been formally evaluated, 11 30.572
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 5 regardless of the outcome of the evaluation.

The 45-year criteria recognizes that there is commonly a five-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made. It explicitly encourages the collection of data about resources that may become eligible for the NRHP or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) within that planning period. More restrictive criteria must be met before the resources included in OHP's filing system are listed, found eligible for listing, or otherwise determined to be important in connection with federal, state, and local legal statutes and registration programs.

The OHP recognizes that there are a wide range of reasons for recording historical resources. It is understandable that within the constraints of a survey's objectives it is not always reasonable or appropriate to record all historical resources as defined here. Professional judgement in the field is essential when determining whether or not a resource warrants recordation. The scope of surveys may be defined by specific legal criteria. In such cases, survey methods may be clarified through consultation and agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Professional surveys that do not evaluate resources against specific legal criteria should record all resources that meet the broad threshold set here when those studies are conducted in connection with planned developments. Detailed recordation of all but the most limited resource types is generally required for such project-driven, non- evaluative professional surveys.

Surveys conducted for reasons other than development activities may focus on a narrower range of resources based on the user's need for information. For example, a thematic survey may focus exclusively on the identification of a certain type of resource, or a reconnaissance survey may be conducted to develop a management plan for a large tract of land. The submission of records not produced as the result of surveys is also encouraged.

City of Santa Cruz Local Regulations
Santa Cruz City Ordinance No. 2003-14, Part 5: Historic Preservation

24.12.400 Purpose.

It is hereby found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, districts, lands, and neighborhoods of historic, archaeological, architectural, and engineering significance, located within the City of Santa Cruz, are of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that respecting the heritage of the city will enhance the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City. The purpose of provisions in this title related to historic preservation is to:

1. Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods contributing to cultural and aesthetic benefit of Santa Cruz;

2. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;

3. Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods;

4. Protect and enhance the City’s cultural, archaeological and aesthetic heritage;

5. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and use of such buildings and other structures now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be obtained under such policy;

30.573
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 6

6. Serve as part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for the Coastal Program. (Ord. 94-33 § 60, 1994: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

24.12.410 Historic Preservation Procedures Authorized by this Title.

The following procedures related to historic preservation are authorized by this title:

1. Historic District Designation (Part 2, Chapter 24.06).

2. Historic Landmark Designation (Section 24.12.420).

3. Archaeological Procedures (Section 24.12.430).

4. Procedure for Amending Historic Building Survey (Section 24.12.440).

5. Procedure; New Construction in Historic Districts (Section 24.12.450).

6. Historic Alteration Permit (Part 10, Chapter 24.08).

7. Historic Demolition Permit (Part 11, Chapter 24.08).

8. Historic Overlay District (Part 22, Chapter 24.10). (Ord. 86-13 § 6, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III – March 2013 With regard to the Amendment of the City Historic Building Survey, Section 24.12.440 (2) All properties included in the Volume III Survey meet historic criteria listed in Section 24.12.440 (c) of the City zoning ordinance. The Survey was prepared by Archives and Architecture, a professional historic consulting firm, under contract with the City. Volume III property owners who have chosen to “opt out” of listing on the City Historic Building List have not been included on the list. Public hearings have been held by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council.

City Registry Criteria Section 24.12.440 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey

1. Background – Availability. The Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume I – prepared for the City of Santa Cruz by Charles Hall Page and Associates Inc., and published in 1976, and Volume II – prepared by John Chase, Daryl Allen and Jeanne Gordon, and published is 1989, is hereby adopted, as amended, as the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, and is incorporated herein by reference. Three copies of said building survey are, and shall be, maintained on file in the office of the city clerk, City of Santa Cruz, for the use of, and examination by, the public. See Chapter

24.08 for permits and requirements relating to Historic Building Survey buildings.

2. Procedure for Amending Historic Building Survey.
a. The city council may amend the Historic Building Survey by resolution by adding buildings or property to the survey or deleting buildings or property from the survey. This shall be done following a recommendation by the historic preservation commission. The historic preservation commission shall report to the city council on changes to buildings or property listed on the survey, and the commission shall recommend initiation of a new survey when there is a need to update the Historic Building Survey. b. A public hearing shall be held by both the city historic preservation commission and the city

30.574
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 7 council, allowing time for notice to the owner or owners of the property and to the public pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 24.04.
c. Actions by both bodies shall be based on the following criteria:

The property is either a building, site, or object that is:

1. Recognized as a significant example of the cultural, natural, archaeological, or built heritage of the city, state, or nation; and/or

2. Associated with a significant local, state, or national event; and/or

3. Associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or

4. Associated with an architect, designer, or builder whose work has influenced the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or

5. Recognized as possessing special aesthetic merit or value as a building with quality of architecture and that retains sufficient features showing its architectural significance; and/or

6. Recognized as possessing distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials; and/or

7. Retains sufficient integrity to accurately convey its significance.

The district is:

8. Recognized as a geographically definable area possessing a significant concentration of buildings that are well designed and other structures, sites, and objects which are united by past events or by a plan or physical development; or is

9. Recognized as an established and geographically definable neighborhood united by culture, architectural styles or physical development.
d. Upon the initiation of an amendment to the Historic Building Survey to add a building or buildings, no zoning or building or demolition permit shall be issued for a period of sixty days or until final action by the city council, whichever occurs first. An exception may be made where public health and safety require it. A public hearing shall be held upon any initiation of an amendment to the Historic Building Survey.

In 2013, the 1926 building within the Project Area was approved by the City Council for local listing within the city’s historic resources registry, but this same year, the owner of the building opted-out of the listing.

METHODS
The HRE was completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. Ms. De Shazo served as Project Manager, and Mr. Matuk served as the Architectural Historian on the project. Mr. Matuk completed the local literature search and review that included documentation available at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Assessor and Office of the Recorder, as well as information on file at the EDS office, Online Archive of California, and various other online sources to ensure the document provides a thorough understanding of the history of the

30.575
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 8 property. Mr. Matuk also conducted a site survey to document and assess the current condition of the property and to provide physical characteristics and character-defining features of the associated built environment at the Project Area, including the 1926 building, the two ca. 2007 sheds, and the 1981 commercial building. Updated Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for the 1926 building were prepared for the Project Area (Appendix A).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The following historical setting provides an overview of broader historical themes and specific history associated with the built environment resources within the Project Area.

Spanish Period (1772 - 1821)
The earliest European accounts of the Santa Cruz area include the Spanish expedition of Juan Cabrillo and Sebastian Vizcaino, who in 1542 and 1602 (respectively) entered Monterey Bay while charting the Pacific coast. One-hundred and sixty-seven years later, in October of 1769, Gaspar de Portola and Father Crespi arrived at Monterey Bay, not realizing it was Monterey Bay, as it did not fit Sebastian Vizcaino’s 1602 description of a sheltered harbor. Upon their arrival in the area Father Crespi, the groups’ priest blessed a creek in the name of Santa Cruz (The Holy Cross). However, being unable to verify his arrival at Monterey, the Portola expedition continued north and reached Point San Pedro (on what is now the San Francisco Bay) three weeks later. On November 11, Portolá and his men headed south again. They stopped at Monterey Bay from November 28 to December 11, and although they still did not think it was Monterey Bay, Portolá set up a large wooden cross on a hill near the beach before returning to San Diego in January 1770. Discovering he had reached his desired destination, the expedition quickly returned to Monterey Bay and established a small settlement. On August 28, 1791, the Mission de la Exaltacion de la Santa Cruz (The Mission of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross) was established on the banks of the San Lorenzo River by Padre Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. The twelfth mission in California, the location was also the site of a previous Native American village called Uypi. 12 Six years later in 1797, the secular town of Villa de Branciforte was established on the opposite side of the San Lorenzo River from the mission. It was one of three Spanish cities established by Spain in Alta California13, including San Jose (1777) and Los Angeles (1781), and was named after Don Miguel de la Grua Talamanca Branciforte, aka, the Marques de Branciforte, the 53rd Viceroy of Spain who supervised Spain’s American Colonies from 1794 to 1798. It was intended to be a diverse community of civilians and soldiers. However, when the Spanish government found it difficult to recruit settlers, they offered convicts their freedom in exchange for moving to the Villa. This led to an undesirable element within the population of Branciforte. 14 The intent to assign soldiers to Villa de Branciforte who would eventually settle there was prevented by an outbreak of hostility between Spain and England. 12 Andrew, E. Pulcheon, Timothy Jones, and Michael Konzak, Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, CA. 2006.
13 Alta California was a polity of New Spain founded in 1769 and became a territory of Mexico after the end of the Mexican War of Independence on 1821.
14 Mid-County Post, 27 June 2006.

30.576
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 9 The first occupants of the Villa de Branciforte arrived in November 1797, and consisted of nine men from Guadalajara who had been condemned for petty crimes.15 Amongst them were three tailors, three farmers, a miner, a saddler and a carpenter; and upon their arrival they were provided with two carts, oxen, and tools for farming, carpentry and iron work.16 By December 1797 the population of the Villa had increased to forty people, including four retired soldiers and their families. In 1768, twenty-two convicts from Guadalajara and Guanajuato, Mexico arrived at the Villa de Branciforte. The Villa centered near what is now Branciforte Elementary School and houses lined what is now North Branciforte Street.

The Villa was bounded by what is now Seabright on the south, De Lavega Park on the north, Branciforte Creek on the west, and Morrissey Boulevard on the east.17 In 1802, the Villa’s residents established a civil government with the election of an alcalde (mayor), perhaps the first election held in Alta California.
18 This was also the year the Spanish Crown ceased
providing supplies to the Villa. Within a decade of being established, Spain became concerned with conditions and events at the Villa, and in 1803 Governor Jose de Arrillaga sent José de la Guerra to report on the conditions at the Villa de Branciforte. “De la Guerra found the houses of the town constructed without solidity, arranged without symmetry, and located on a poorly chosen site, namely, a little level spot on the extremity of a small hill. Of the twenty-five houses, only one was built of Adobe.

The rest were made of palisades covered with mud and were roofed with tule.” 19 In 1803, the town
consisted of 101 individuals. By 1811, the population had dwindled to thirty-seven individuals, and in 1815 there were fifty-three people living at the Villa. The decline and eventual demise of the Villa de Branciforte is believed to be due to the lack of arable land.20 In 1818, following report of attacks on other Spanish settlements in Alta California carried out by the Argentinian pirate Hippolyte Bouchard, residents of the Villa who were left to protect the Santa Cruz Mission, looted it instead, taking most of the assets and garnering further mistrust from Mission officials.

Mexican Period (1821 - 1848)
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain with the signing of the Treaty of Córdoba and took possession of "Alta California". Dramatic changes occurred in Alta California during the Mexican Period due to the lack of strong oversight and strict military rule imposed by the Spanish who had previously ruled over Alta California. In addition to secularization in 1834 that saw mission land and property dissolved, new opportunities arose for trade because foreign ships that had previously been held off by Spanish guarded military ports were allowed to dock and so a variety of provisions were made available to local settlers. As a result, tea, coffee, sugars, spices, spirits of all kinds, as well as a variety of 15 Daniel Garr, “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier,” The Americas 35(1), 1978, 105. 16 Florian Guest, “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962, 36-37.
17 Phil Reader, “Branciforte History Chronology,” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3 (Santa Cruz, Calif.:

Museum of Art and History, 1997.
18 Villa de Branciforte Preservation Society, “Recognize, preserve and appreciate historical landmarks” [Electronic document], 2004. http://www.villadebranciforte.org/. Accessed April 17, 2019. 19 Florian Guest, “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962, 45.
20 Florian Guest, “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962, 45-46.

30.577
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 10 manufactured goods made their way into the region; and the taxes on these imported goods became the main source of revenue for the Mexican government in Alta California. Likewise, products produced in Alta California were exported, which bolstered the hide and tallow trade that became the primary business activity in California during this time.

The Mexican colonial authorities also encouraged settlement of Alta California by permitting foreigners to settle and issuing politically prominent Mexican citizens and military leaders large land grants called ranchos. Because of this, the 20 or so ranchos that had been granted during the Spanish period increased to roughly 800 ranchos that varied in size between 10,000 and 50,000 acres. Since the income of the rancho was dependent on the amount of hide and tallow produced, a family's wealth was determined by the size of their rancho, number of cattle they owned, and the availability of a labor force, which consisted mostly of Indians and poor Mexicans who depended on the rancho owners for their basic needs during this time.

After secularization in 1834 the Santa Cruz Mission and the Villa were joined together in a separate parish known as the Pueblo de Figueroa. By 1845, the name Pueblo de Figueroa had been replaced by the name Santa Cruz.21 Title to the former Villa de Branciforte land began to be settled in 1864 when the county judge, Augustine W. Blair, ordered the county surveyor to make a full survey of the village, including the lots and parcels and owners or occupants of those lots.22 Claimants of those lots needed to file their claim with the County of Santa Cruz to retain them.

During the 1840s, the lumber industry in Santa Cruz County initiated commerce in the area, beginning with Francisco Lajeunesse, a French Canadian, Joseph L. Majors, a Mexican citizen, Isaac Graham and Henry Neale, both Americans.23 All four were granted Rancho Zayatane in 1841, and that same year, Majors and a syndicate that included Graham had constructed a sawmill near Mount Herman—the first lumber mill in the County. The Lumber industry accelerated rapidly by statehood and became Santa Cruz County’s major industry in the mid-nineteenth century.

American Period (1848 - present)
In 1850, when California received its statehood, Santa Cruz County was formed as one of the original 27 counties in the state. Although the lumber industry had got its start during the Mexican Era, the vast stands of old-growth redwood forests in the nearby Santa Cruz mountains also provided an economic opportunity for the newly formed town of Santa Cruz during the beginning of the American Period. In 1851, a wharf (name unknown) was built to facilitate the growing lumber industry, and a small business district soon developed around the wharf. The wharf was located south of Water Street, between Front Street and the San Lorenzo River—approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Area.24 By 1864 approximately 28 lumber mills were in operation within Santa Cruz County. In addition to mills, tanneries and lime quarries operated on the edges of the town and soon brought a number of workers, 21 Daniel Garr, “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier,” The Americas 35(1), 1978, 108. 22 Edward Martin, Illustrated Complete in One Volume, Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California. 1911 23 Susan Lehmann, Fully Developed Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Development Department, 20 October 2000, 5. 24 Lehmann, Context Statement, 19.; This area of Front Street was located north of Bridge Street (now, Soquel Avenue), and the section of Front Street that is currently south of Soquel Avenue did not exist until around ca. 1895.

30.578
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 11 and entrepreneurs who further expanded the growing town. In 1866, the Town of Santa Cruz was incorporated, which later became a City in 1876. A large population influx in the 1870s spurred greater development in Santa Cruz, with the center for city commerce focusing on Pacific Street, located to the west of Front Street (Figure 2).
25 During this transition, Front Street was designated a “secondary street” and saw the development of the City’s Chinatown in this area. 26 Figure 2: ca. 1900 photograph of Pacific Street in Santa Cruz (courtesy of California State Library).

In 1876, the Santa Cruz Railroad launched its first train along a narrow-gauge track that was constructed using local financing to connect the Southern Pacific rail line between Watsonville, Gilroy, and Salinas.

By the 1880s, the rail line led to the decline of the wharf’s importance, as maritime shipping was no longer the only means of interregional commerce. The rail line was bought by the Southern Pacific in 1888, and the latter two decades of the nineteenth century saw a dramatic increase in Santa Cruz’s beachfront tourism industry, as tourists were able to reach Santa Cruz by train. During this time the birth of the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk (today California’s oldest amusement park), along with the construction of casinos and hotels added to the city’s growing tourism industry. By the 1890s, commerce was centered around Pacific Street and Soquel Avenue; however, on April 14, 1894, a devastating fire swept through downtown, and destroyed the Chinatown area that was focused on Front Street.27
25 Lehmann, Context Statement, 19.
26 Ibid, 22.
27 Lehmann, Context Statement, 20.

30.579
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 12 Tourism continued became a major player in the local economy, as Santa Cruz became a destination for its seaside recreation, with additional resorts, grand hotels, and associated facilities constructed to accommodate and entertain the visitors (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Santa Cruz was envisioned by local developers as the West Coast version of New York’s Coney Island, and tourism thrived in the city until the Great Depression. Around this time, the automobile took over as the preferable way to travel, and accommodations in Santa Cruz shifted to meet these needs. With the construction of auto courts and motels came the decline of the grand hotels and casinos that were so closely tied to railroad tourism.

Figure 3: Undated postcard (likely ca. 1900) of “The Auditorium” casino along the beach at Santa Cruz (courtesy of Santa Cruz Public Library).

30.580
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 13 Figure 4: 1900 photograph of the pier at Santa Cruz (courtesy of California State Library).

Development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” (ca. 1920 – ca. 1945) During the 1920s, automobile travel in U.S. and California had increased significantly as cars became more affordable. This was the result of automobile manufacturers mass producing automobiles and the innovation of the Model T Ford, which made car ownership available to the average American. During this time, roads throughout the U.S. and California were improved as part of the “good roads” movement, which also helped improve access to the City of Santa Cruz(Figure 5). 28 At this time, the City
of Santa Cruz and real estate developers, and automotive businesses sought to capitalize on the new automobile culture, and the City of Santa Cruz, like many other cities through the U.S., saw the construction of auto courts and auto camps, which replaced the grand hotels that once served tourists, who had previously arrived by railroad.29
28 Lehmann, Context Statement, 26.
29 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development, March 2013, 20.

30.581
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 14 Figure 5: ca. 1935 automobile routes map published by the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA) (courtesy Santa Cruz Trains).

The rise of the affordable automobile also signaled the rise of automobile showrooms and repair garages in Santa Cruz. The automobile showrooms that focused on the sale of cars were primarily located on the section of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street where the Project Area is located. A 1932 Santa Cruz Sentinel article about Front Street’s emergence as the city’s “Automobile Row” cited the Palomar Garage as the first automobile centric building that spurred further such development along Front Street—mostly constructed of reinforced concrete.30 Headlines in the Santa Cruz Sentinel such as “Modern Cement Buildings Grace Front Street, Now a Regular Automobile Row,” and “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’” chronicled the development of Front Street during the late 1920s through the early 1940s.31 The development along this section of Front Street is noted within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013):
30 “Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 20 February 1932. 31 “Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 20 February 1932.; “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 20 February 1932.

30.582
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 15 “Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street. Prominent local architects such as Lee Dill Etsy and C. J. Ryland designed buildings for clients in the automobile business, including auto repair shops (Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street) and auto showrooms (Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street). In 1936 the nineteenth-century county jail was replaced with a Modern edifice designed by Albert Roller (now the Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center, 725 Front Street).”32
While there are several automobile-centric buildings along Front Street that remain from the ca. 1920s to ca. 1945, including auto repair shop Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street, and auto showroom, Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street) that are listed within the Santa Cruz Historic Buildings Survey, Volume III – March 2013,
33 many have been demolished or repurposed for various
commercial businesses. Currently, Front Street is not within or part of any listed or eligible national, state, or local historic district associated with the history of automobiles or the event of “Economic Development 1850‐1950”, which is one of three themes detailed within the Santa Cruz Historic Buildings Survey, Volume III – March 2013.

ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
The following section provides a brief understanding of the Automobile Showroom property type as it relates to the 1926 building. While the source for this context includes that attained from an historic context statement for the City of Los Angeles, the applicable information regarding the Automobile Showroom Property Type can be accurately applied to the 1926 building, as the property type was prevalent in many urban areas of both northern and southern California in the 1920s and 1930s.

Automobile Showroom Property Type
The following context regarding the Automobile Showroom property type is quoted from the SurveyLA historic context statement related to the theme “Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910- 1970”. While this historic context was prepared for the City of Los Angeles, its description of the property type and historic events that led to its popularity apply to automobile showrooms throughout California. For these reasons, this historic context regarding the automobile showroom property type is relevant to the 1926 building and is used to evaluate the significance of the building for its architecture.

Specific excerpts that are local-specific have been removed from this section, as they do not apply to the 1926 building.
“Buying an automobile was first done through a livery stable, carriage dealer, or bicycle shop. These early car vendors were businessmen who obtained a license to sell a particular brand of auto. Once purpose-built automobile dealerships began to appear, just before the First World War, they fit into the existing pre-automobile streetscape. They were 32 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 18. 33 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 18.

30.583
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 16 essentially storefronts on a commercial street with a large entrance door and windows to show the product.34
Unlike the service station, the showroom retained throughout the 1920s a central business district location and a traditional relationship to the street. The auto manufacturers chose to remain urban and to adopt the historicist styles that characterized the elite architecture of the city. Most potential customers did not yet own cars and therefore relied on public transportation to reach a dealership; the impressive revivalist architecture assured them of a reputable vendor.

The auto manufacturers first experimented with building what one historian has referred to as ‘object-lesson’ salesrooms in certain cities to show locally-owned dealerships what could be done. These corporate-sponsored buildings were designed to resemble banks and first-class office buildings, clad in traditional styles. ‘Exteriors often sported bas-reliefs, grand ornamental cornices, and entrance porticoes, while inside cars were sold in elegant surroundings in large, opulent sales salons.’35
During the early twenties these urban dealerships began combining auto servicing and repair with sales. To fit onto their city sites, they constructed multi-storied buildings complete with ramps and auto-sized elevators for access to the upper levels. The facades sported historicist detailing; generally, the only feature on the street front that identified the building as an auto-service facility was the use of factory sash for the large windows on the upper floors.”
“Along with the multi-level downtown dealerships, the car companies built smaller outlets in outlying business districts. These more suburban showrooms continued the traditional pattern of being set hard against the street and of clothing themselves in historicist garb.

The common façade composition consisted of an elaborate center entrance and symmetrically flanking show windows. These smaller showrooms were in essence singlestory versions of the multi-story central business district dealerships, and maintained a footprint much like that of the earlier livery stable.” “By the mid-1930s, the auto showroom adopted the Streamline Moderne. In an attempt to encourage flagging sales during the Depression, some of the older downtown showrooms replaced their historicist ornament, at least at the showroom level, with abstract lines, curves, and circles. More important, however, was a rethinking of location for those few new dealerships that were built in the 1930s. Most potential customers already owned cars, so there was no need to be close to streetcar lines. Now ease of auto access and adequate parking were needed.36
The auto showroom moved to the strip. Instead of remaining on a tight lot in the central or local business district, it placed itself on an arterial road that allowed it to spread horizontally. The common arrangement was a showroom in the front, complete with large 34 Chester H. Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 75-76.
35 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 79.
36 Ibid, 86-88.

30.584
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 17 expanses of glass, service bays to the rear, and adequate parking alongside for used cars and customer circulation. The showroom itself, with its expanses of glass, maintained its position directly on the street, without a setback. It was dressed in Streamline Moderne detailing, with an integral sign featuring the name and emblem of the brand sold within.37”
“Though construction of new dealerships ceased during the Second World War, anticipating a surge of new car customers, the auto companies studied the problem of designing attractive facilities. As early as 1944, before the end of the war, there appeared Post-War Housing and Facilities for Studebaker Dealers by that now vanished brand. In 1945 Ford published Plans for New and Modernized Sales and Service Buildings. That same year General Motors held a “Design Competition for Dealer Establishments” and three years later issued Planning Automobile Dealer Properties based on the submissions to the competition.38
These planning manuals carefully considered issues of location and design. Not only should dealerships be placed along arterials on large plots of land, a common practice since the 1930s, manuals decreed, but they should sit on the far side of an intersection on the homeward-bound side of a commuter route. Potential customers could have full view of the showroom while waiting for red lights and then, with free time after work, pull in and inspect the autos on display. There should be a procession of visual delights to greet customers: first the new cars, seen through a glare-free expanse of glass, and then the service wing, providing potential customers with the assurance of care in the future. The final element should be the used car lot, arranged with the best models in front.39 Much of this advice came from studying the few dealerships that were built in the 1930s.

But there were a number of subtle and not so subtle changes. A subtle change was the shrinking size of the showroom, with just a few of the best looking models on display, and the growing respectability of the parts and service department, with attractive counters and waiting areas. A not so subtle change was in the dealership’s primary identifying sign.

The sign in the 1930s, while an important design element, tended to be integrated into the architecture. By the 1950s the sign often detached itself from the building and became a free-standing, and increasingly dominant, element.40” “During the first years of construction, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, auto showrooms were typically subdued Mid-Century Modern designs, with flat roofs and plain surfaces.

The mammoth glass windows showing off the cars provided character.” “Over the next fifteen years the most important design development was the separation of the sign from the structure. The detached sign occasionally took on Googie-like extravagance to attract attention, but generally the need to exhibit the brand emblem 37 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 86-88.
38 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 88.
39 Ibid, 88-89.
40 Ibid, 88-90

30.585
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 18 and name had precedence. The detached sign, enormous by earlier standards, was generally limited to serving as a giant billboard for the corporate logo.

This reticence extended to the showroom structure itself. The Googie style could occasionally be seen in an exaggerated roof line or a canopy extended over the service drive but this was relatively rare. The point was to call attention to the cars on sale and not to the architecture. The same was true when New Formalism, with its classicizing proportions and details, began to appear in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Again, the architecture was secondary to the merchandise and thereby kept subdued.

From the mid-1950s onward the most common architectural approach was to treat the showroom as a minimalist Mid-Century Modern container.” “As with other auto-related building types, the auto showroom underwent a change after the mid-1960s in response to both growing conservatism and, more importantly, the changing nature of the automobile industry. To be sure, the showroom remained the place to purchase and service a car but increasingly as a structure showroom retreated from the road, behind parking lots, and became less visible. Instead, motorists were greeted by row upon row of new cars parked outside, displayed like cans of soft drinks on a supermarket shelf. This mode of selling required great amounts of space. Most of the existing dealerships simply were not large enough. The result was the abandoning of locations that, in 1950, seemed quite adequate for vast lots on the outskirts of development. This was accompanied by a massive reduction in the number of dealerships as American-made brands disappeared and those few remaining consolidated facilities. The showroom and the service bay took on a utilitarian form and only the dealer sign, free-standing and standardized for the brand, attracted attention.”41 42

RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW
As part of the HRE, research was completed at the NWIC, local repositories, as well as online resources to review published local histories, maps, photographs, and other available information that revealed the property history associated with the built environment at the Project Area to provide additional context for the evaluation. The results of the record search and review are within the section below.

NWIC
EDS Principal Archaeologist Sally Evans, M.A. conducted a record search at the NWIC on March 15, 2019 (NWIC File #18-1952).
43 According to information on file at the NWIC, there are no records at the NWIC that indicate the Project Area has been previously evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. However, there have been sixteen cultural resources studies, and there are five built environment resources within ¼ mile of the Project Area including three built environment resources that are either listed or eligible for 41 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 90-93.
42 City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850- 1980, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for SurveyLA, August 2016, 35-39.
43 Additional details related to this record search are provided in the CRS by EDS.

30.586
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 19 the NRHP, and two built environment resource documented on DPR523 forms.

The five built environment resources are detailed in the following table:

Table 1: NRHP and CRHR listed resources and Historic Districts, and other surveyed properties, within approximately 1/4- mile radius of the Project Area, on records on-file at the NWIC Name/Primary
Record Number/
Status
Address NRHP CRHR Historic District Local Historic
Building Survey List
Hotel Metropole
(P-44-000227)
(NR-79000553)
(not extant)
44 1111 Pacific
Avenue
X X Contributor to
the Pacific
Avenue
Historic District
N/A
Early 1940s
Commercial
Building
- CA-2073A
(P-44-000554)
709 Center Street N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pacific Avenue
Historic District
(P-44-000853)
(NR-87000004,
delisted in 1991)
45 Various addresses
on Pacific Avenue
and Cooper and
Front Streets
X
(delisted)

X X N/A
Santa Cruz
Downtown
Historic District
(P-44-000939)
(NR-89001005)
Rincon and
Chestnut Streets &
Cedar, Laurel,
Myrtle

X X X N/A
San Lorenzo River
Bridge – Bridge
36C0102
(P-44-001128)
Laurel Street across
San Lorenzo River

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Local Research
Local research was conducted on April 9, 2019, by Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. and again in May 2022, to review primary source documents available at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder, as well as at the City of Santa Cruz Public Library to review documents such as the Polk's City Directories for City of Santa Cruz, historic maps, and photographs, and additional documentation provided by the City related to the history of the Project Area and its vicinity. In addition, EDS reviewed documents such as books, maps, and digital files available at the EDS office to assist in developing a context associated with the history of the property and surrounding area, as well as the built environment resources within the property.

The results of the local research revealed details regarding land ownership within the Project Area and assisted in the development of history of the area along Front Street. 44 Demolished after it was severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. 45 The Pacific Avenue Historic District was de-listed from the National Register of Historic Places in 1991 due to the loss of several contributors because of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.

30.587
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 20 Online Research
In addition to local research, online research was conducted in 2019, and again in 2022, which included the following sources:
• www.newspapers.com
• www.ancestry.com
• www.calisphere.com (University of California)
• http://www.library.gov/ (California State Library)
• http:// history.santacruzpl.org/ (Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History) • http://www.library.ca.gov/ (California State Library) • https://www.cityofsantacruz.com (City of Santa Cruz)
Online research conducted by EDS provided additional context to assess the resources within the Project Area, including the history and development of the area, the City of Santa Cruz, and the subject property.

RESULTS OF THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC HISTORY RESEARCH
As part of the literature search, EDS reviewed historic maps, newspapers, city directories, and documents available online to obtain information regarding ownership and occupancy history associated with the subject property and the 1926 building within the Project Area, as well as Front Street. The results are detailed in the section below.

Property History
During the 1880s and 1890s, Front Street initially terminated at Soquel Avenue until ca. 1895 when it was extended southward along the San Lorenzo River. The 1926 building originally had the address of 227 Front Street and appeared to have been constructed immediately adjacent to the Armory of the 4th Division Naval Militia N.G.C, before the Armory was demolished due to a fire in 1920. Based on a photograph from ca. 1900, the 1926 building replaced an existing commercial building along Front Street that we constructed in ca. 1895 when this section of Front Street was constructed (Figure 6).

Although the exact businesses in these previous buildings could not be determined, it is likely there was a mix of commercial storefront businesses.

30.588
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 21 Figure 6: ca. 1900 photograph of the buildings that existed on the subject parcel prior to the construction of the 1926 building—situated between the Armory building at left and the Sun Fat Laundry at right. (Photo from Santa Cruz County: Parade of the Past by Margaret Koch) Owner and Occupancy History
The first business located in the 1926 building, then located at 227 Front Street, was shown in a June 23, 1926, issue of the Santa Cruz Evening News, which describes the following: “Harvey Bryan has opened an auto repair shop at 227 Front Street and would like to meet all his old friends and patrons there. Expert repairing.”46 Soon afterward, on July 10, 1926, the Santa Cruz Evening News published an advertisement for “The Whippet”, described as being “America’s First European-Type Light Car,” along with the address of the showroom “227 Front St.”. However, the advertisement lacked any particular business name associated.47 By August 6, 1926, the 1926 building was associated with Santa Cruz Auto Sales. An advertisement displayed the Overland Six automobile and associated the business with “R. W.

Plyer,” referring to Ralph W. Plyer.48 Plyer’s Santa Cruz Auto Sales business was previously located at 14 Soquel Avenue (today, between Pacific Avenue and Front Street), as shown in the 1925 Polk’s City Directory of Santa Cruz.
49 By April 30, 1927, the 1926 building was occupied by the “Hutchings & Dodson”, a dealership that sold Pontiac Six automobiles produced by General Motors, as shown in the Santa Cruz Evening News advertisement (Figure 8).
50 The “Hutchings & Dodson” automobile dealership was owned by A. J.

Hutchings and Dr. C. Dodson, who previously operated an automotive business in Santa Cruz from 46 “Announcement,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 23 June 1926. 47 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 10 July 1926. 48 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 6 August 1926. 49 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1925 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1925).
50 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 30 April 1927.

30.589
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 22 within the Sisson Building on Pacific Avenue.
51 Around this time, a non-extant building to the east of the 1926 building was used as the offices for Hart Bros., a business selling and delivering washed sand and gravel, which is also shown on the 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (Figure 8). 52 In July 1927, Dr. C.

Dodson and son R. C. Dodson sold their interest in the Hutchings & Dodson company to W. W. Kirby of Los Banos, who owned Kirby Motor Company.53 This change in ownership interest also led to the change in business name to reflect Kirby’s existing business—Kirby Motor Company—which shows in an advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News on August 1, 1927.54 However, during the late 1920s, the area adjacent and near the 1926 building within the Project Area consisted of Chinese Laundry (no longer extant), a gasoline station (no longer extant), an automotive repair shop (no longer extant), automotive sales and services building (no longer extant), several commercial storefront buildings (mostly no longer extant), and a “dwelling” (no longer extant) (see Figure 8) and had not yet developed into an area where automobile related business were located.

Figure 7: Advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News from April 30, 1927 for the Hutchings & Dodson automobile dealership at the 1926 building.
51 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 29 September 1926.; “New Dealers Will Achieve Success,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 2 October 1926.
52 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 2 May 1927. 53 “Oakland-Pontiac Agency Bought By Kirby Motor Co.” Santa Cruz Evening News, 2 July 1927. 54 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 1 August 1927.

30.590
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 23 Figure 8: 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, showing the 1926 building with a red arrow. The gravel business operated out of the rear, with the “gravel bunners” visible to the east of the 1926 building. At this time, the area had not fully developed into an area centered around the automobile.

30.591
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 24 By 1928, Kirby Motor Company is listed in the Polk’s City Directory associated with the 1926 building, along with Bryan & Churchill, an auto repair company likely operating out of the rear of the building.55 By 1929, however, Kirby Motor Company was no longer operating out 227 Front Street, as the Polk’s City Directory from that year showed Bate Motor Company operating out of the front portion of the 1926 building within the Project Area. An April 26, 1930 article in the Santa Cruz Evening News announces the building permit for a reinforced concrete garage on the west side of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Cathcart to house the Kirby Motor Company.56 The Bate Motor Company’s tenancy in the 1926 building was short-lived, and are shown operating at 227 Front Street through at least June of 1931 (Figure 9).
57 Figure 9: Advertisement within the “Business Guide” section of the 1931 Polk’s City Directory, showing Bate Motor Company operating at the 1926 building.

By September 1931, the front of the 1926 building housed Ward & Thrash, an Oakland-Pontiac dealer that took over the appointment as the Oakland-Pontiac dealer for Santa Cruz from the Bate Motor Company.58“Ward & Thrash” referred to owners Maurice Ward and Sylvan Thrash (Figure 10). At this time, the rear of the building also appears to have been occupied by Ward & Thrash, who according to a post in the Santa Cruz Evening News, spent over $700 “in making their shop one of the most modern and up-to-date in Santa Cruz” with new machinery for servicing, though it appears this may have been the continuation of the business operations of Dunn & Ward. Dunn & Ward was an established auto repair shop that was previously operating at 267 Front Street, and owned by D. “Skinny” Dunn and Maurice Ward.59 By 1933, Thrash bought out Ward’s interest in the business, and the dealership was renamed S. L. Thrash, with Ward & Dunn continuing to operate their auto repair business in the building. 60 an “automotive specialist” business out of the same building. 61 However, while an advertisement for Dunn & Ward shows the business at the same 1926 building alongside S. L. Thrash, 55 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1928 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1928).
56 “Building Permits Exceed $20,000 in Program of Week,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 26 April 1930. 57 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1930 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1930).; “Notice,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 18 June 1931. 58 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 12 September 1931.; “Ward and Thrash Shop is Equipped For All Repairs,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 3 October 1931.
59 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 24 June 1930.; “New Equipment Is Installed By Ward and Thrash,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 26 September 1931.
60 “General Notices,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 21 November 1934. 61 “New Today,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 9 March 1933.

30.592
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 25 the business of Dunn & Ward is not listed in any Polk City Directories associated with the building. It appears that S. L. Thrash is selling Pontiac and Packard automobiles by 1936 and continues to operate in the 1926 building until 1939.62 From 1933-1935 it appears the rear of the building is operated by Derrel T. Lake’s auto repair business. In 1938, an $1100 permit was issued by an individual named Isaac Gold “for reroofing the public garage at 227 Front Street,” likely referring to the rear portion of the building.63 By 1939, the auto repair business at the rear changes to Hemingway & Bryant, with E. R. Rice, Jr. also occupying part of the 1926 building with a welding business.64 Figure 10: Advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News dated September 12, 1931, for Ward & Thrash automobile dealership operating in the 1926 building.
62 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1935 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1935).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1937 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1937.; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1939 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1939).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1940 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1940). 63 “Huxtable Will Remodel Unit,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 7 April 1938. 64 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1939 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1939).

30.593
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 26 By 1940, the 1926 building is occupied by Russ Samuels, Inc., which was an automobile dealership owned by Russell R. Samuels selling the Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln makes. Samuels had also purchased the building in 1940,65 and applied for a sign permit that same year (Figure 11). 66 Russ Samuels, Inc.
remained in the building until sometime in the mid-1940s.

Figure 11: Advertisement within the “Business Guide” section of the 1941 Polk’s City Directory, showing Russ Samuels, Inc. operating at the 1926 building.

By 1946, it appears that Russ Samuels may have sold his business to George H. Scofield, as the Polk City Directory from that year shows G. H. Scofield Motor Company—a dealership selling Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln automobiles—occupying the 1926 building.
67 From the listing in the 1946 Polk City Directory, it appears that Scofield’s business also operated a service garage out of the rear of the building. It was this same year that the building was sold by four individuals—Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L.

Weymouth and Lois A. Weymouth—to Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley.68 It is likely that the G. H.

Scofield Motor Company remained in the building until at least 1958.69 By 1959, it appears that the building’s owner Benjamin F. Kelley opened an auto parts and service business in the building named Kelley’s Auto Parts Service, also sometimes referred to as Kelley’s Service Inc.70 The Kelley’ssold the 1926 building to Robert P. Chandler in 1972, but continued to operate 65 Deed of Trust between Russell R. Samuels and Kathleen T. Samuels (Trustor) and K. D. Daubenbis and Bruce L.

Sharpe (Trustee), dated March 23, 1940. On-file at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder. 66 “Building Permits,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 27 May 1940. 67 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1946 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1946). 68 Joint Tenancy Deed between Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L. Weymouth, and Lois A. Weymouth (Grantor) and Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley (Grantee; Joint Tenants), dated May 24, 1946. On-file at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder.
69 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1953 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1953).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1954 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1954).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1956-57 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1956).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1958 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1958).
70 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1959 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1959).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1964 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1964).

30.594
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 27 the auto parts and service business until at least 1977.71 Beginning in 1976, it appears that a business named Best Auto Parts was operating out of the 518 Front Street address, while Kelley’s Service Inc. was operating out of the 516 Front Street address.72
By 1978, the 1926 building was occupied solely by Best Auto Parts, as there is no mention of Kelley’s Service in the Polk City Directory from that year, nor is there a listing for any business at the 516 Front Street address—suggesting that 516 Front Street had become vacant. 73 It appears that Best Auto Parts
continued to operate in the 1926 building until at least 1981, and by 1982 the building was listed in the Polk City Directory as being vacant.

Around 1982, the building was reconfigured to accommodate three individual storefronts, as the city directory shows three separate businesses by 1985—each with a respective address of 514, 516, and 518.74

HISTORIC ARCHITECTUAL SURVEY
On April 9, 2019, EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S., completed a survey of the property located at 514-518 Front Street that includes the 1926 building, and two contemporary garbage sheds from ca. 2007.
75 There is also a 1981 commercial building and vacant parking lot at 530 Front Street that are within the Project Area but these built environment resources are not over 45 years in age, which is a recognized age within the OHP guidelines, providing a five-year gap to the NRHP’ 50 years age rule under the NRHP. It was determined by the Principal Architectural Historian that, based on the California OHP instructions for recording historic resources, the 1981 building, nor the ca. 2007 sheds, or parking lot warranted recordation based on age, and do not appear to exhibit any potential for consideration for exceptional significance for consideration under any criterion. 76 As such, the 1981 building, ca. 2007 sheds, and parking lot were not documented.

The following section documents the results of the architectural survey of the Property.

Property
The Property consists of a 1926 building, and a contemporary garbage shed to the northeast of the 1926 building (Shed 1), a contemporary garbage shed to the southeast of the 1926 building (Shed 2). The current neighborhood that surrounds the Property is generally characterized as a low-rise commercial, generally developed in the 1920s through 1940s, with many areas that consist of paved surface parking lots.
71 Deed between B. F. Kelley Trust (Grantor) and Robert P. Chandler (Grantee) dated October 25, 1972. On-file at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder.; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1977 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L.

Polk & Co., 1977).
72 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1976 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1976). 73 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1978 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1978). 74 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1982-83 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1982). 75 Available aerial photographs from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 suggest that these garbage sheds were constructed in ca. 2007.
76 Please note that CEQA does not include the NRHP Criterion G, or any of the additional criterion for “exceptional” consideration.

30.595
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 28 1926 “Automobile Showroom” Building
The 1926 building is a one-story commercial building designed as an Automobile Showroom property type. The 1926 building is constructed of reinforced concrete, with an L-shape plan that appears to be defined by a main rectangular building form with a gabled wing near the northern end of the east elevation (rear wing). The building has stepped parapets at all elevations, and aerial photographs suggest that the main building form has a very low pitch font-gable roof, with the rear wing has a moderate pitch front-gable roof. It appears that both roof forms are clad in a modified bitumen roof.

The exterior appears to consist of stucco at the front, west elevation, and painted board-formed concrete at the north, east, and south elevations, with painted concrete masonry units at the east elevation of the rear wing.

The building’s west elevation (Primary Façade) is defined by three distinct bays facing Front Street, with a parapet that displays a low-pitch gable above the center bay (Figure 12). The stucco exterior displays diamond- and rectangular-shape appliques attached to the west elevation parapet just below the coping, which appear to be constructed of painted wood. The west elevation has four contemporary signs marking each business currently in the building—with one sign centered at each end bay, and two signs at the center bay. Contemporary gooseneck lights attached to the parapet hang down to illuminate the contemporary signage along this west elevation. The three distinct storefront bays are denoted by changes in the pitch of the parapet along the front, west elevation, and are each denoted with separate addresses—514, 516, and 518 Front Street from south to north. The two end bays (514 and 518 Front Street) appear to be identical in size, and flank the larger center bay (516 Front Street).

The southernmost bay consists of a central pair of contemporary glazed wood double doors that are flanked on either side by contemporary wood-frame plate-glass storefront windows (Figure 13 and Figure 14). Two wood-frame plate-glass transom windows are located above the doors, but within separate frames. Spanning the width of the southernmost bay is a wood-frame multilight clerestory window, located above the storefront and transom windows (Figure 15). The center bay currently has two businesses within the bay, and is defined by a deep-recess entrance that is slightly off-center from the otherwise nearly symmetrical composition of the west elevation (Figure 16). All fenestration at this center bay is topped by contemporary, traditional-shape fabric awnings with valances. The recessed entrance appears to have been altered in 1982, and is located within what appears to be an original wood-frame archway that has a transom consisting of a pair of single-light windows within the same frame, with a four-light clerestory window located above the transom (Figure 17). Within the recess is a set of contemporary glazed wood double-doors facing north, a wood-frame plate-glass storefront window facing west, and another set of contemporary glazed wood double-doors facing south (Figure 18 and Figure 19). The exterior within the recess is clad in contemporary horizontal droplap wood siding, and the floor consists of what appears to be contemporary concrete tile flooring. Flanking either side of the recessed entry are pairs of wood-frame plate-glass windows with six-light wood-frame clerestory windows located above (Figure 20 and Figure 21). There is an additional pair of wood-frame plate-glass windows and clerestory at the northern end of this center bay. The northernmost bay is located within a slight recess from the remainder of the elevation, and consists of what appears to be a set of contemporary glazed metal doors, with a pair of transom windows located above; however, the transom windows are located within individual wood-frames (Figure 22 and Figure 23). Flanking either side of the double doors are wood-frame plate-glass windows. Above both plate-glass windows and the

30.596
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 29 pair of transom windows are three sets of three-light clerestory windows, which appear to all be in individual frames.

The north elevation consists of a painted board-formed concrete exterior, with a parapet that steps downward toward the east (Figure 24). Near the western end of this elevation is a single diamondshaped applique, and a contemporary sign attached to the exterior with a gooseneck light attached to the parapet that hangs down for illumination (Figure 25). Further east on this north elevation is a circular painted mural, which is located adjacent to a contemporary sign affixed to the exterior from 1993 that states the title of the artwork, “Bioregional mural project of Santa Cruz Mural #2”, as well as a description of the purpose and contributors of the piece (Figure 26 and Figure 27). 77 There is a cluster
of 75 ribbed glass blocks located near the center of the north elevation that appear to not be original, given the visible repairs to the concrete that surround the cluster (Figure 28 and Figure 29). Near the eastern end of this north elevation are what appear to be two metal multi-light windows with operational awning sashes (Figure 30).

The east elevation of the rear wing appears to be constructed of concrete masonry units, and consists of a stepped parapet, and no fenestration (Figure 31). There is a contemporary chain link fence located near the northern end of this east elevation of the rear wing and appears to serve as a partial enclosure for mechanical equipment. The east elevation of the main building form (Figure 32) consists of a rear entry, located within the corner where the rear wing meets the main building form, and consists of two metal-clad slab doors situated in different frames, and sheltered by a wood frame awning (Figure 33).

To the south of this rear entry is a contemporary sliding sash window that appears to have been installed in a previous door opening that has been partially infilled with horizontal wood siding (Figure 34). The original wood door frame that bordered this previous opening is still extant. To the south of this window is a contemporary metal roll-up garage door within what appears to be an original wood frame—similar in shape to that which has been partially infilled directly to the north. To the south of this roll-up garage door are two aluminum multilight windows that appear to have operational awning sashes.

The south elevation of the rear wing consists of a large metal roll-up garage door within a wood frame (Figure 35). Directly to the west of the garage door is a contemporary shed-roof addition that is clad in vertical wood siding with asphalt shingle roofing. The east elevation of this addition has a six-panel wood door, while the south elevation has a single-hung vinyl window. Under the awning at the corner where the main building form meets the rear wing, there appears to be a slight bump-pout that is clad in vertical wood siding, and consists of a narrow door—likely providing access to mechanical equipment, given the metal ventilation pipe that extends above the awning at this location. The south elevation of the main building form consists of a board-formed concrete exterior with a set of metal-clad doubledoors that are nearly centered on the elevation (Figure 36). Toward the western end of this elevation is an area that appears to have been a door opening, which has since been infilled. To the west of this infilled door is utility equipment with conduits attached to the building exterior, leading to the roof.

30.597
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 30 Figure 12: The west elevation of the 1926 building, facing east.

Figure 13: The west elevation at the southernmost bay, facing northeast.

30.598
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 31 Figure 14: Detail of the contemporary doors and transom windows at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building.

Figure 15: Detail of clerestory at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building, along the west elevation, facing southeast.

30.599
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 32 Figure 16: The center bay at the west elevation, facing east.

Figure 17: Detail of transom windows and clerestory windows above the recessed entrance in center bay on the west elevation.

30.600
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 33 Figure 18: Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the south-facing double doors and plateglass window, facing northeast.

Figure 19: Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the plate-glass window and north-facing double doors facing southeast.

30.601
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 34 Figure 20: Detail of the pair of plate-glass windows located to the north of the recessed entry within the center bay of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

Figure 21: Detail of clerestory window above plate-glass storefront window at center bay of the 1926 building.

30.602
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 35 Figure 22: The northernmost bay at the west elevation of the 1926 building, facing north-northeast.

Figure 23: Detail of the contemporary metal double doors at the northernmost bay of the 1926 building.

30.603
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 36 Figure 24: The western portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

Figure 25: Detail of the diamond appliques on both the north and west elevations, with the contemporary business sign and gooseneck lamp at the north elevation visible at left.

30.604
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 37 Figure 26: Detail of the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

Figure 27: Detail of the signage associated with the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

30.605
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 38 Figure 28: Center portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, showing the contemporary painted mural at right, and the cluster of glass blocks at center, facing southeast.

Figure 29: Detail of the cluster of glass blocks at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

30.606
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 39 Figure 30: Detail of the two metal multi-light windows near the eastern end of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southwest.

Figure 31: East elevation of the rear wing, facing north-northwest.

30.607
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 40 Figure 32: East elevation of the main building form, with the south elevation of the rear wing visible at far right, facing northwest.

Figure 33: Detail of rear entry doors at the east elevation of the main building form, facing northwest. The contemporary shed-roof addition at the south elevation of the rear wing is also visible at right.

30.608
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 41 Figure 34: A portion of the east elevation of the main building form, showing one of the two multilight windows at left, the roll-up garage door at center, the infilled garage door with window at right, facing northwest.

Figure 35: South elevation of the rear wing, facing north, also showing the east elevation of main building form visible at left.

30.609
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 42 Figure 36: South elevation of the 1926 building, facing northwest.

Figure 37: Western corner of the south elevation of the main building form, facing north.

Contemporary Buildings
There are three contemporary buildings within the Property that were constructed in ca. 2007. While these buildings do not reach the 50-year age criteria for CRHR-eligibility, they are nevertheless documented below for clarification of the extant built-environment at the Project Area. ca. 2007 Shed 1
This rectangular plan shed-roof building is located to the southeast of the 1926 building, with the south elevation directly abutting the neighboring commercial building at 512 Front Street (Figure 38 and

30.610
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 43 Figure 39). The building is situated on a poured concrete foundation, with an exterior clad in vertical wood siding, and a roof consisting of corrugated metal. The only fenestration occurs at the north elevation, and consists of a large opening with corrugated metal double doors that provides access to refuse dumpsters stored at the interior.

Figure 38: North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at right, facing southeast.

Figure 39: East and north elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at left and right of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, facing southwest.

30.611
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 44 ca. 2007 Shed 2
This rectangular plan building is located to the northeast of the 1926 building, and has a metal chainlink fence attached to its south elevation (Figure 40). The building is situated on a poured concrete foundation, with an exterior clad in vertical wood siding. The roof was not visible at the time of the survey, but appears to be nearly flat, with wood fascia that wraps around all elevations. The only fenestration consists of a metal slab door at the north elevation.

Figure 40: North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 2, facing southeast.

Previous Documentation (2013 Archives and Architects)
In 2013, the 1926 building was identified by Archives & Architects as eligible for local designation as part of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013). The property was identified with the following description:
“Front Street was a major hub of the evolving automobile sales and services commercial sector for the Santa Cruz area beginning in the 1920s. This vernacular commercial building was constructed in 1927, with its primary tenant being an Oakland and Pontiac auto dealership. Originally Hutchings & Dodson, the dealership quickly changed to Kirby Motor Co. and then Ward & Thrash. By 1935, Sylvan Thrash had taken over as sole proprietor of the dealership at this location, and he remained at this site until building a new showroom across the street at 429 Front Street in 1948. Other mostly auto‐related tenants occupied this building over subsequent years. In the early 1980s, the building was renovated for pedestrian‐oriented retail uses, as it exists today.”78
78 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 52.

30.612
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 45 2013 Resource Details:

Resource Name: Ward & Thrash Oakland Pontiac
Architect: Unknown
Builder: Unknown
Significance Theme: Commercial Development
Period of Significance: 1927-1948
Applicable Criterion: None
2013 Signifiance and Recommendation for Local Listing:

Although the 2013 DPR records completed by Archives and Architects state there is no “Applicable Criterion” and the Significance Theme of “Commercial Development” is not a fully developed theme within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), 79 the findings of the Historic Building Survey were accepted by the Santa Cruz City Council as part of Resolution NS-28,621, which included a provision allowing specific property owners to “opt-out” of listing in the Historic Building Survey. As part of this Resolution, the property owner of 514-518 Front Street elected to “opt-out” of local listing in the Historic Building Survey and is currently not considered to be a locally designated resource.

As such, while the 1926 building was previously determined to be eligible for local designation, it does not appear that based on the descrepcenies within the 2013 evaluation, it would qualify as a Historical Resource under CEQA. In addition, EDS suggests that based on the clause in resolution NS-28,621 that allows for owners to “opt-out” of a local listing, and disqualify the Property from being “subject to the City historic preservation regulations” (Resolution No. NS-28.621).

However, the City of Santa Cruz can still consider the to 1926 building a historical resource according to CCR § 15064.5 if the following applies,
“A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements PRC § 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.”
As such, the 1926 building may still qualify as a historical resource under CCR § 15064.5, though local historic preservation regulations would not apply. EDS also recognizes the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified in a historical resources survey meeting the criteria in PRC § 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC § 5020.1(j) or § 5024.1.

As such, for the City of Santa Cruz (as the lead agency) to conclude that the 1926 building is a locally significant resource would have to be based on substantial evidence, which has not been provided by the 79 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and

30.613
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 46 city.

In April 2022, the city requested that EDS provide a “local” re-evalation of the 1926 building, which is included in the evaluation section of this report.

EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Project Area as a whole, which includes the 1926 building and the two ca. 2007 sheds, and the 1981 commercial building were surveyed, and the 1926 building and the two ca. 2007 sheds were documented and evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The 1926 building is the only building within the Project Area that meets the age requirement for CRHR-eligibility and was determined to warrant evaluation. The ca. 1926 building is evaluated for individual eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The following section provides an overview of historic significance of the built environment resources within the Project Area.

An Archaeological Study was also completed by EDS that encompasses the entire Project Area.80 California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the CRHR through several methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the CRHR. Properties can also be nominated to the CRHR by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.

To qualify for listing in the CRHR, a property must possess significance under one of the four criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity consists of evaluating seven variables or aspects that include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. According to the OHP, the criteria for evaluation for eligibility for listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria and include seven characteristics are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property.
• Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).
• Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.
• Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
80 Sally Evans, M.A. and Gilbert Browning, M.A., Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project at 516 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc. 2019.

30.614
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 47 The following section examines properties eligibility for listing on the CRHR.

CRHR Evaluation
The following section evaluates the 1926 building for eligibility for listing in the CRHR under four applicable CRHR criteria, utilizing significant themes that were found to be potentially associated with the 1926 building. The Project Area was evaluated for site-specific historical significance, as well as under the following themes and associated periods of significance: development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from ca. 1920 to ca. 1945, and architecture as it relates to an Automobile Showroom property type constructed during the Interwar Period, 1918-1939, between the end of World War I and the beginning of the United States’ involvement in World War II, with a period of significance associated with the 1926 date of construction.

The ca. 2007 sheds, 1981 building, and vacant parking lot were not evaluated for historical significance.

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage
The 1926 building is associated with the development of the Front Street “Automobile Row” from ca. 1920 to ca. 1945, where automobile showrooms and repair garages were constructed between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street. The development along this section of Front Street with businesses associated with automobiles was indicative of the rise of the automobile in the culture of America that began in early 1920s with the mass production of automobiles and availability of new affordable cars such as the Ford Model-T. This type of development was widespread through most large and medium sized cities in California, as well as the U.S., and although the rise of the automobile resulted in the create of numerous businesses, including gas stations. Motels, roadside attractions, automobile repair shops, and automobile showrooms, as well as infrastructure such as bridges, and highways, the 1926 building alone within the Project Area does not have the ability to convey this significance them. As such, although the 1926 building reflects these larger development trends in California and in Santa Cruz along Front Street, the 1926 building does not appear to convey significance under this theme to warrant individual eligibility in the CRHR. Additionally, there are very few buildings remaining on Front Street from the development period of ca. 1920 to ca. 1945 that are related to the automobile, and it does not appear that there would be sufficient extant contributors to collectively embody this significant theme as an historic district.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

30.615
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 48

3. (Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

The 1926 building is a fairly good example of an Automobile Showroom property type designed in the Interwar Period between 1918-1939, with a period of significance tied to its date of construction of 1926. The 1926 building exhibits the typical one-story, three-bay plan of the automobile showrooms of the 1920s, which were sometimes indistinguishable from repair garages of the same period and took on the plan and general design of livery stables. The 1926 building was designed as a typical automobile showroom of the 1920s, with the typical large central opening flanked by display windows to showcase the automobiles located inside, as well as the automobile repair and service functions operating at the rear of the building. While the 1926 building has undergone alterations over time, including converting the automobile showroom to four separate businesses in separate retail bays, the building continues to display the distinctive characteristics of the automobile showroom property type of the 1920s. However, despite retaining integrity to its date of construction, the 1926 building is not eligible for individual listing in the CRHR, as the building does not appear to be “an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history” and does not demonstrate “an important phase of the architectural development of the area of community in that it had an impact as evidenced by later buildings.”81
Therefore, the 1926 building appears does not appear eligible for individual listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The 1926 building does not have the ability to convey information that is unique or unknown in regard to an architectural style, as such, it does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 4. In addition, the property was evaluated for archaeology, and the associated report82 provides details related to information potential associated with archaeological resources. 81 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1990, revised 1997), 18.
82 Sally Evans, M.A. and Gilbert Browning, M.A., Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project at 516 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc. 2019.

30.616
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 49 Integrity
The following section provides details that specifically address the integrity of the 1926 building. While the 1926 building was found ineligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria, it appears to be most associated with the automobile showroom property type, with a period of significance reflective of its date of construction and was previously locally listed but removed from listing. To ensure due diligence, the integrity of the 1926 building is assessed to provide an understanding of changes to the property since its 1926 construction.
• Location. The 1926 building has not been moved since its original construction.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of location. • Design. The 1926 building was designed as a three-bay plan automobile showroom, with a large central entrance flanked by large display windows and parapets typical of California architecture of the 1920s. While the design of the 1926 building was altered during changes in the 1980s to convert the building to four separate retail uses, most of the design elements remain from the date of construction, including the three-bay plan, parapets, clerestory windows, and large central opening.

While other elements have been altered, including the retail doors at the end bays and adjacent windows and transoms, the 1926 building retains its general design to represent an automobile showroom property type constructed in the 1920s.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of design. • Setting (Setting refers to the physical environment of a historic property) The setting along this block of Front Street has changed over time, with the construction of several buildings and the demolition of other buildings since 1926. While the area retains some of the buildings that were extant in 1926 and continues to retain the general low-rise commercial and industrial nature of the area, the setting appears to remain sufficiently intact from the 1926 building’s date of construction though the area has changed.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains some integrity of setting, but not to its date of construction. • Materials. The 1926 building experienced several alterations when converted in the 1980s to accommodate four retail storefronts, which necessitated the replacement of several original materials and the introduction of contemporary materials, including new retail doors, new transom windows, and exterior cladding within the recessed main entrance. Despite these changes, the 1926 building appears to retain the general material palette from its date of construction, including the board-formed concrete at the side elevations, the stucco cladding at the front and west elevation, and wood-frame windows that face the front street.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of materials. • Workmanship. The 1926 building shows workmanship in various design elements, including the board-formed concrete at the side elevations, stucco-clad exterior at the west elevation, and the wood-frame clerestory windows. Despite the changes over time, the 1926 building retains these elements that represent the general craftsmanship of the period.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of workmanship. • Feeling. Feeling is the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of

30.617
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 50 a past period. The 1926 building retains the general design elements and materials that evoke an automobile showroom property type constructed in the 1920s, despite alterations in the 1980s that converted the building for four retail uses.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of feeling. • Association. The 1926 building was constructed as an automobile showroom during a period of development of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street where businesses were increasingly associated with automobile sales and service. As the 1926 building continues to evoke the characteristics of the automobile showroom property type from the 1920s, the 1926 building appears to retain the association with this property type.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of association.

Although the 1926 building was not found to be eligible under any CRHR criteria, however, its integrity was nevertheless assessed to the building’s date of construction to present an understanding of the impact that alterations to the Property and surrounding environment have had over time. As such, the 1926 building appears to retain some aspects of integrity.

Local Review and Evaluation
The following section provides a review of the 2013 documentation and evaluation for local listing completed by Archives and Architects and the re-evaluation by EDS for local listing. 2013 Archives and Architects - 1926 Building Evaluation (DPR page 4 of 5) In 2013, Archives and Architects documented and evaluated the 1926 building on DPR 523 forms for local significance. According to Archives and Architects, “When considered for listing within the Historic Building Survey of the City of Santa Cruz, the property [sic 1926 building] meets the following criteria:

1. The building is a significant example of the built environment heritage of the city as a representative of late 1920s buildings constructed to serve the emerging auto service industry; and

7. The building retains sufficient integrity to accurately convey its significance.

EDS Analysis and Recommendations:

1. The local significance theme appears to be – “emerging auto service industry” – though this is not a significance theme defined within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013). In addition, the BSO DPR form completed in 2013 states the signifance theme is “Commercial Development”.

7. The 2013 CRHR and Local integrity “analysis” conflict significantly with what each states within the DPR forms.
2013 CRHR Signifiances Evaluation (DPR page 4 of 5)
“The building is not individually significant to the development of the downtown area, and although it was one of a number of auto-oriented uses along Front Street, the important pattern of development of this portion of the downtown has lost much of its historic setting, thus would not appear to be eligible under Criterion (1). The personages

30.618
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 51 associated with the original auto body shop on this property are not known to be historically significant, therefore the property would not appear to be eligible under Criterion (2). The building is not a distinctive representative of its time, as a vernacular commercial building of Mission Revival design and has also been altered throughout the years, and does not appear eligible under Criterion 3.” EDS Review and Recommendations:

EDS suggests that Archives and Architects should have considered the significance findings and integrity for the CRHR, as the local significance findings and integrity vary considerably, as detailed in the following section. In addition, the 2013 DPR 523 records completed by Archives and Architects state there is no “Applicable Criterion” for significance for the CRHR under the theme of “Commercial Development from 1927 to 1948”. Also, the theme " Commercial Development” is not a fully developed theme within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), 83 which is the context from which
significance is derived. However, the theme of “Economic Development” is detailed in the context report.

As such, a sub-theme under Economic Development should have been included – such as the “early automobile industry” or “commercial development related to the automotive industry”.

Unfortunately currently the 2013 DPR evaluation of significance theme does not connect to a theme within the context from the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013).84 In addition, EDS suggests there is an “Applicable Criterion”, which is Criteria 1. 2013 Integrity Analysis by Archives & Architects (DPR page 5 of 5) “The property maintains most, but not all, of its historical integrity as per the National Register's seven aspects of integrity. It maintains its original location on Front Street, in downtown Santa Cruz at the edge of the San Lorenzo River; it is still surrounded by much, but not all of its apparent historic setting, including surrounding commercial buildings of similar age, scale and design and parcels with similar setbacks, parking, and streetscape.

It retains its Interwar era commercial scale and feeling and continues, through its form, massing and materials, to illustrate its associations with minor patterns of commercial design in the twentieth century. Although altered, the front fa ade retains its integrity with the vernacular Mission Revival commercial style, including the shaped parapet and symmetrical design. The storefronts include what appear to be original character-defining doors, and although it has been altered, the basic integrity of the subject property appears to have been preserved.”85
83 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 84 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 85 Archives and Architects, “Ward & Thrash Oakland Pontiact” (DPR 523 records), 2013.

30.619
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 52 EDS Review and Recommendations:

The integrity analysis completed within the 2013 DPRs was completed to support the local listing significance theme; however, it is not supported by the context within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), or the historical context within the 2013 DPR 523 forms. In addition, the significance findings associated with setting and design (assuming materials and workmanship though not called out) and for local listing, the 1926 building 2013 integrity analysis conflicts with the CRHR integrity analysis, as detailed below.
2013 Archives and Architect CRHR and Local Evaluation - Conflicting Details • CRHR (2013 DPR page 4 of 5) - “although it was one of a number of auto-oriented uses along Front Street, the important pattern of development of this portion of the downtown has lost much of its historic setting, thus would not appear to be eligible under Criterion (1).” • Local (2013 DPR page 5 of 5) - “it is still surrounded by much, but not all of its apparent historic setting, including surrounding commercial buildings of similar age, scale and design and parcels with similar setbacks, parking, and streetscape.”
• CRHR (2013 DPR page 4 of 5) – “The building is not a distinctive representative of its time, as a vernacular commercial building of Mission Revival design and has also been altered throughout the years, and does not appear eligible under Criterion (3).” • Local (2013 DPR page 5 of 5) – “Although altered, the front facade retains its integrity with the vernacular Mission Revival commercial style, including the shaped parapet and symmetrical design. The storefronts include what appear to be original character-defining doors, and although it has been altered, the basic integrity of the subject property appears to have been preserved.”
EDS suggests that integrity should not change based on its evaluation ‘level”, either federal,state, or local.

Also, EDS could not find anywhere within the City of Santa Cruz ordinances that would state there was something other than the NRHP guidelines is utilized to complete a local integrity analysis in support of local significance findings.

EDS Additional Review and Recommendations
The architecture noted within the 2013 DPR 523 form (page 5 of 5) states the 1926 building is a “Vernacular Mission Revival commercial style”, but this “style” does not coincide with the local Santa Cruz design called out in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),86 which states the 1926 buiding is a “Commercial Vernacular”
First, “Vernacular Mission Revival commercial style” is not a known architectural style and is not a known local vernacular in Santa Cruz or the Region, and is not defined within any city context or within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013). 87 Although Archives and Architects may be implying the design is a vernacular form (i.e., commercial building) with Mission Revival elements, the 86 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 87 EDS also recommends that the use of the term vernacular within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013) has been mis-used or over-used and suggests a review of the Vernacular Architectural Forum and in the future, update this document accordingly.

30.620
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 53 term vernacular is not correctly understood or utilized within the 2013 DPRs.

Therefore, due to discrepancies and conflicting statements within the 2013 DPRs as detailed within this section, EDS completed a re-evaluation of the 1926 building for local signifiances to provide recommendations to the city on its current eligibility for listing on the City of Santa Cruz Registry. The reevaluation was completed based on current City of Santa Cruz historic preservation guidelines and requirements for a local listing, as detailed in the section below. 2022 EDS Local Re-Evaluation
The 1926 building was considered under local significance categories 1 through 5 (listed below) utilizing the adopted historical context documents (2000 and 2013) written on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz that identify important resources and historical themes.

1. Recognized as a significant example of the cultural, natural, archaeological, or built heritage of the city, state, or nation
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),88 within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is a significant example of built heritage that should be recognized by the city, state, or nation.

The prominence of Main Street was short lived, and by 1866, with the Foreman & Wright survey, the name was changed to Front Street and it was designated as a secondary street. Front Street did not initially connect to the wharves, but eventually connected to Pacific Avenue at the bottom of Beach Hill in 1932. The Foreman & Wright survey also changed the name of Willow Street to Pacific Avenue and designated it as the primary business street. Businesses began to move to Pacific Avenue and newly vacant buildings along Front Street were occupied for a time by the Chinese ethnic community. The Front Street Chinatown was the largest in the city and lasted until 1894 when it was destroyed by fire. After the 1894 fire, the displaced Chinese community moved closer to the San Lorenzo River. They continued to reside in this area until the December 1955 flood.

Prominent local architects such as Lee Dill Esty and C. J. Ryland designed buildings for 88 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and

30.621
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 54 clients in the automobile business, including auto repair shops (Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street) and auto showrooms (Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street). In 1936 the nineteenth‐century county jail was replaced with a Modern edifice designed by Albert Roller (now the Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center, 725 Front Street). Today, Front Street has lost most of its auto related businesses and continues to serve as a secondary street to Pacific Avenue. However, it retains many structures associated with commercial development during the first half of the twentieth century.

EDS Local Re-Evaluation
Based on the City of Santa Cruz’ Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),89 and survey and research completed as part of the EDS HRE, it was determined that the 1926 building is associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz. As such, these are the significance themes.

The section below provides of analysis of the context documents that should support these themes for local listing.

However, the theme of “Economic Development 1850‐1950” is identified as important to the City of Santa Cruz, which includes a small section entitled “Front Street”, which states it is an area that developed “Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street.” Unfortunately, this statement is not enough to support the significance theme. Furthermore, within the context written in 2013, there is little mention of the importance of the automobile industry in Santa Cruz or on Front Street
“Historic Context Statement”, City of Santa Cruz (2000) EDS also reviewed the “Historic Context Statement” for the City of Santa Cruz (2000),90to ascertain any historical context related to the automobile industry or the importance of Front Street as part of an automobile row that would be important to the city. EDS found that the automobile is discussed in 89 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 90 Susan Lehmann, “Historic Context Statement”, City of Santa Cruz (October 20, 2000), https://www.cityofsantacruz.com, accessed May 10, 2022.

30.622
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 55 relation to tourism in Chapter 3, the “Economic Development of the City of Santa Cruz, City 1850-1950”.

However, this does not support the local significance.

Analysis of Integrity
The significance of a local resource must also be supported by integrity, which is often posed by asking a question, such as does the 1926 building retain enough integrity to convey significance associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and/or the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz? EDS Integrity Analysis: Although the building does retain some integrity, alterations to the 1926 building have affected the materials and workmanship of the building and the setting has changed from an automobile row to a commercial area with large swaths of parking lots due to the demolition of buildings, which has affected the overall integrity of setting to support the significance statement.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear to qualify for local listing under this category.

30.623
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 56 Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building has the distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials to be listed under this category.

Summary of Local Re-Evaluation
Based on the local evaluation completed by Archives and Architects in 2013, the City of Santa Cruz had previously recommended that the 1926 building is eligible for local listing for on a local level for its association with development of Front Street from the 1920s through the 1940s as automobile row.

However, based on the lack of local context to support this previous recommendation for local listing and discrepancies in the integrity analysis, EDS completed a re-evaluation of the 1926 building for local eligilbility. Based on the current context adopted by the City of Santa Cruz in 2013, and context within the HRE completed by EDS, it does not appear 1926 building is eligible for local listing.

However, this determination is a decision by the City of Santa Cruz and as such, to consider the 1926 building as a historical resource would require the lead agency to find the building historically significant “if supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record,” even if the resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR (PRC 5024.1), or in a local register of historical resources (PRC 5020.1(k).

CONCLUSIONS
In compliance with CEQA regulations and guidelines, and the City of Santa Cruz’s historic preservation policies and ordinances, EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. conducted research and a survey to evaluate the built environment that is at least 45 years in age, recommended by the OHP as a threshold, within the Project Area to determine if any of the built environment qualifies for listing on the CRHR.

The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850).

The Project Area consists of three adjacent parcels, including one parcel at 514-516 Front Street, within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 005-151-37, which includes the 1926 building, and two parcels at 530 Front Street, within APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44, which include a 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot, located within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County; however, only the Property that includes the 1926 building was evaluated as part of this HRE, as it is the only building within the Project Area that is at least 45 years of age, and in accordance with the OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, it was determined by EDS not to warrant evaluation.

The results of the HRE determined that the 1926 building is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria. In 2013, the 1926 building was determined to be a historical resource eligible for local listing. But, currently, the 1926 building is not locally designated or listed as the property owners elected to “opt

30.624
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 57 out”91 of local listing. Furthermore, due to discrepancies within the 2013 evaluation, the city requested EDS complete an updated local evaluation. Based on city guidelines, OHP guidelines, and NRHP guidelines for evaluating cultural resources, EDS recommends that the 1926 building is not eligible for local listing.

In summary, the 1926 building at 514-518 Front Street is not individually eligible for listing in the CRHR and is recommended not eligible for local listing. As such, neither the 1926 building nor any other built environment resources located within the Project Area qualify as historical resources under CEQA. 91 City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013).

30.625
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archives & Architecture. Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development. March 2013.

City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850-1980, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for SurveyLA. August 2016.

City of Santa Cruz. City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621. Passed and adopted March 2013.

Garr, Daniel. “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier.” The Americas, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1978.

GoogleEarth Aerial Photographs
2005 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2006 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2007 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2008 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2009 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.

Guest, Florian. “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte.” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962.

Heron, David W. “Bancirforte: The Viceroy From Sicily.” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum of Art and History, 1997.

Lehmann, Susan. Fully Developed Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department. October 20, 2000.

Liebs, Chester H. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Mid-County Post. 27 June 2006.

Pulcheon, Andrew, E., Timothy Jones, and Michael Konzak. Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, CA. 2006.

R. L. Polk & Co.

Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1925. San Francisco, Calif.: R.

L. Polk & Co., 1925.

Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1928. San Francisco, Calif.: R.

L. Polk & Co., 1928.

Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1930. San Francisco, Calif.: R.

L. Polk & Co., 1930.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1935. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1935.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1937. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1937.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1939. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1939.

30.626
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 59 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1940. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1940.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1946. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1946.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1953. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1953.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1954. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1954.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1956-57. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1956.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1958. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1958.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1959. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1959.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1964. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1964.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1976. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1976.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1977. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1977.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1978. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1978.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1982-83. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1982.

Reader, Phil. “Branciforte History Chronology.” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3. Santa Cruz, CA:

Museum of Art and History, 1997.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. July 1886. 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. May 1888. 1892 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. July 1892. 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1905.
1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1928.
1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1928, updated August 1950.

Santa Cruz County Office of the Recorder
Deed between B. F. Kelley Trust (Grantor) and Robert P. Chandler (Grantee), dated October 25, 1972.

Deed of Trust between Russell R. Samuels and Kathleen T. Samuels (Trustor) and K. D. Daubenbis and Bruce L. Sharpe (Trustee), dated March 23, 1940.

Joint Tenancy Deed between Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L. Weymouth, and Lois A.

Weymouth (Grantor) and Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley (Grantee; Joint Tenants), dated May 24, 1946.

Santa Cruz Evening News
[Advertisement]. 10 July 1926.
[Advertisement]. 6 August 1926.
[Advertisement]. 29 September 1926.
[Advertisement]. 30 April 1927.

30.627
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 60 [Advertisement]. 2 May 1927.
[Advertisement]. 1 August 1927.
[Advertisement]. 12 September 1931.
“Announcement.” 23 June 1926.
“Building Permits.” 27 May 1940.
“Building Permits Exceed $20,000 in Program of Week.” 26 April 1930. “General Notices.” 21 November 1934.
“Huxtable Will Remodel Unit.” 7 April 1938.
“New Dealers Will Achieve Success.” 2 October 1926.
“New Equipment Is Installed By Ward and Thrash.” 26 September 1931. “New Today.” 9 March 1933.
“Notice.” 18 June 1931.
“Oakland-Pontiac Agency Bought By Kirby Motor Co.” 2 July 1927. “Ward and Thrash Shop is Equipped For All Repairs.” 3 October 1931.

Santa Cruz Sentinel
“Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street.” 20 February 1932. “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’.” 20 February 1932. “Santa Cruz Yesterdays.” 3 September 1950.
“Santa Cruz Yesterdays.” 17 March 1957.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.:

United States Department of the Interior, 1990, revised 1997.

Villa de Branciforte Preservation Society, “Recognize, preserve and appreciate historical landmarks” [Electronic document], 2004. http://www.villadebranciforte.org/. Accessed April 17, 2019.

30.628
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 61 Appendix A:

DPR Forms

30.629

Page 1 of 30 ends

Withheld by owner

*P8. Recorded by:

P5a. Photograph or Drawing

30.630
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 30 ends

30.631
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 30 ends

30.632
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 30 ends

The west elevation of the 1926 building, facing east.

The west elevation at the southernmost bay, facing northeast.

30.633
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 30 ends

Detail of the contemporary doors and transom windows at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building.

Detail of clerestory at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building, along the west elevation, facing southeast.

30.634
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 30 ends

The center bay at the west elevation, facing east.

Detail of transom windows and clerestory windows above the recessed entrance in center bay on the west elevation.

30.635
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 30 ends

Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the south-facing double doors and plate-glass window, facing northeast.

Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the plate-glass window and north-facing double doors facing southeast.

30.636
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 8 of 30 ends

Detail of the pair of plate-glass windows located to the north of the recessed entry within the center bay of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

30.637
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 9 of 30 ends

Detail of clerestory window above plate-glass storefront window at center bay of the 1926 building.

The northernmost bay at the west elevation of the 1926 building, facing north-northeast.

30.638
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 10 of 30 ends

Detail of the contemporary metal double doors at the northernmost bay of the 1926 building.

The western portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

30.639
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 11 of 30 ends

Detail of the diamond appliques on both the north and west elevations, with the contemporary business sign and gooseneck lamp at the north elevation visible at left.

Detail of the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

30.640
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 12 of 30 ends

Detail of the signage associated with the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

Center portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, showing the contemporary painted mural at right, and the cluster of glass blocks at center, facing southeast.

30.641
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 13 of 30 ends

Detail of the cluster of glass blocks at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

Detail of the two metal multi-light windows near the eastern end of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southwest.

30.642
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 14 of 30 ends

East elevation of the rear wing, facing north-northwest.

East elevation of the main building form, with the south elevation of the rear wing visible at far right, facing northwest.

30.643
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 15 of 30 ends

Detail of rear entry doors at the east elevation of the main building form, facing northwest. The contemporary shed-roof addition at the south elevation of the rear wing is also visible at right.

30.644
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 16 of 30 ends

South elevation of the rear wing, facing north, also showing the east elevation of main building form visible at left.

South elevation of the 1926 building, facing northwest.

30.645
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 17 of 30 ends

Western corner of the south elevation of the main building form, facing north.

30.646
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 18 of 30 ends

North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at right, facing southeast.

East and north elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at left and right of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, facing southwest.

30.647
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 19 of 30 ends

North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 2, facing southeast.

30.648
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 20 of 30 ends

The auto manufacturers first experimented with building what one historian has referred to as ‘object-lesson’ salesrooms in certain cities to show locally-owned dealerships what could be 1 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 52. 2 Chester H. Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 75-76.

30.649
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 21 of 30 ends

30.650
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 22 of 30 ends

30.651
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 23 of 30 ends

relatively rare. The point was to call attention to the cars on sale and not to the architecture.

The ca. 2007 sheds, 1981 building, and vacant parking lot were not evaluated for historical significance.

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage
The 1926 building is associated with the development of the Front Street “Automobile Row” 9 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 90-93.
10 City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850-1980, Theme:

Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for SurveyLA, August 2016, 35-39.

30.652
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 24 of 30 ends

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

3. (Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

30.653
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 25 of 30 ends

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

30.654
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 26 of 30 ends

30.655
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 27 of 30 ends

30.656
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 28 of 30 ends

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear to qualify for local listing under this category.

30.657
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:_514-518 Front Street___________________________________________________________________

Page 29 of 30 ends

30.658

Page 30 of 30 ends

30.659

ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS August 24, 2021
Project No. 51-023-1
Mr. Jessie Bristow
Barry Swenson Builder
740 Front Street
Suite 315
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Revised Noise Assessment Study for the Planned Mixed-Use Development, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz
Dear Mr. Bristow:

This report presents the results of a revised noise assessment study for the planned mixeduse development at 530 FrontStreet in Santa Cruz, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (a).

The purpose of this revision is to include the addition of two floors of residential living spaces to the original project design analyzed in 2019. This revision is of the original Noise Assessment Study from 2019, Ref. (b). The noise exposures presented herein were evaluated against the standards of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element, Ref. (c), the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Ref. (d) and the CalGreen NonResidential Mandatory Measures of Title 24, Ref. (e). The analysis of the on-site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily to vehicular traffic sources on Front Street and Soquel Avenue. The results of the study indicate that the exterior noise exposures will be within the limits of the standards at the Outdoor Lounge and at the Roof Garden/Deck. The interior noise exposures in project living spaces will exceed the limits of the standards. Noise mitigation measures will be required for the noise impacted interior areas. The interior noise levels in the commercial units will be within the limits of the CalGreen standards. Noise mitigation measures for the commercial spaces will not be required.

EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195 SUITE 26 FAX: 408-371-1196
SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com

30.660
- 2 -
Sections I and II of this report contains a summary of our findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent sections contain the site, traffic and project descriptions, analyses and evaluations. Attached hereto are Appendices A, B and C, which include the list of references, descriptions of the applicable standards, definitions of the terminology, descriptions of the acoustical instrumentation used for the field survey, ventilation requirements, general building shell controls and the on-site noise measurement data and calculation tables.

I. Summary of Findings
A. Noise Standards
City of Santa Cruz Noise Element
The noise assessment results presented in the findings were evaluated against the standards of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element, which utilize the Day-Night Level (DNL) descriptor. The Noise Element standards specify an exterior limit of 65 decibels (dB) DNL for multi-family exterior spaces. The noise standards are typically not applied to small, limited use areas such as balconies. The exterior noise standard will be applied to the Outdoor Lounge, Public Terrace and the Roof Garden/Deck areas of this project.

The interior noise exposures are limited to 45 dB DNL or lower.

State of California Title 24
The Title 24 standards also use the DNL descriptor and are applicable to all new multi-family developments. Title 24 specifies an interior noise exposure limit of 45 dB DNL from exterior noise sources.

30.661
- 3 -
The Title 24 standards also specify minimum noise insulation ratings for common partitions separating different dwelling units and dwelling units from interior common spaces. The standards specify that common walls and floor/ceiling assemblies must have a design Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 50 or higher. In addition, common floor/ceiling assemblies must have a design Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating of 50 or higher. As design details for the interior partitions of the project were not available at the time of this study, an evaluation of the interior partitions has not been made.

CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures
The CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures, which are part of Title 24, are applied to the commercial units of the project. Section 5.507 “Environmental Comfort” contains two methods for determining the interior noise levels. These methods impose different interior noise level requirements. When on-site noise level data are available, the “Performance Method” is used. The standards are outlined below.

5.507.4 Acoustical control. Employ building assemblies and components with Sound Transmission Class (STC) values determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413 or Outdoor-Indoor Sound Transmission Class (OITC) determined in accordance with ASTM E1332, using either the prescriptive or performance method in Section

5.507.4.1 or 5.507.4.2.

5.507.4 Exterior noise transmission. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall meet a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 in the following locations:

Within the 65 CNEL noise contour of an airport
Exceptions:

1. Ldn or CNEL for military airports shall be determined by the facility Air Installation Compatible Land Use Zone (AICUZ) plan.

30.662
- 4 -

2. Ldn or CNEL for other airports and heliports for which a land use plan that has not been developed shall be determined by the local general plan noise element.

3. Within the 65 CNEL or Ldn noise contour of a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway notice source as determined by the Noise Element of the General Plan.

5.507.4.1.1 Noise exposure where noise contours are not readily available.

Buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq-1-hr during any hour of operation shall have building, addition or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 (or OITC 30).

5.507.4.2 Performance method. For buildings located as defined in Section 5.507.4.1 or 5.507.4.1.1, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq-1Hr) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hours of operations

5.507.4.2.1 Site features. Exterior features such as sound walls or earth berms may be utilized as appropriate to the building, addition or alteration project to mitigate sound migration to the interior.

5.507.4.2.2 Documentation of compliance. An acoustical analysis documenting complying interior sound levels shall be prepared by personnel approved by the architect or engineer of record.

5.507.4.3 Interior sound transmission. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating tenant spaces and tenant spaces and public places shall have an STC of at least 40.

As noise level data for the site are available, the Performance Method of the CalGreen standards is used in this study. The interior noise level limit for nonresidential spaces is an hourly average noise level (Leq(h)) of 50 dBA.

30.663
- 5 -
The noise exposures shown below include the effects of solid railings at the Outdoor Lounge and solid railings/parapet at the Roof Garden/Deck areas and represent the noise environment for existing and project site conditions.

A. Exterior Noise Exposures
 The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted residential building setback from Front Street (34 ft. from the centerline) is 68 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 70 dB DNL.
 The existing exterior noise exposures in the most impacted planned building setback from Soquel Avenue (74 ft. from the centerline) is 67 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 69 dB DNL.
 The existing exterior noise exposure in the most impacted second floor Outdoor Lounge and Public Terrace will be up to 62 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 64 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 65 dB DNL limit of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element standards.
 The existing exterior noise exposure in the most impacted eighth floor Roof Garden/Deck will be up to 54 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 56 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 65 dB DNL limit of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element standards.

The exterior noise exposures in the outdoor living areas will be within the limits of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element standards. Noise mitigation measures will not be required.

30.664
- 6 -
B. Exterior Noise Levels (CalGreen)
 The existing hourly average exterior noise levels at the most impacted commercial unit setback from Front Street (34 ft. from the centerline) range from 53 to 68 dBA Leq(h). Under future traffic conditions, the noise levels are expected to increase to 55 to 70 dBA Leq(h).
 The existing hourly average exterior noise levels at the most impacted commercial/restaurant setback from Soquel Avenue (55 ft. from the centerline) range from 53 to 70 dBA Leq(h). Under future traffic conditions, the noise levels are expected to increase to 55 to 72 dBA Leq(h).

C. Interior Noise Exposures
 The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Front Street will be up to 53 and 55 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 10 dB in excess of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24 standards.
 The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Soquel Avenue will be up to 52 and 54 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 9 dB in excess of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24 standards.

30.665
- 7 -
D. Interior Noise Levels (CalGreen)
 The interior noise levels in the most impacted commercial spaces closest to Front Street will range from 28 to 43 dBA Leq(h) under existing traffic conditions. Under future traffic conditions, the noise levels are expected to increase to 30 to 45 dBA Leq(h). Thus, the noise levels will be within the 50 dBA Leq(h) limit of the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures.
 The interior noise levels in the most impacted commercial spaces closest to Soquel Avenue will range from 28 to 45 dBA Leq(h) under existing traffic conditions. Under future traffic conditions, the noise levels are expected to increase to 30 to 47 dBA Leq(h).

Thus, the noise levels will be within the 50 dBA Leq(h) limit of the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures.

As shown above, the interior noise exposures in project living spaces will exceed the limits of the standards and noise mitigation measures will be required. The interior noise levels in the commercial (non-residential) spaces will be within the limits of the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures. Noise mitigation measures will not be required for the commercial spaces. The recommended measures are provided in Section II of this report.

30.666
- 8 -
II. Recommendations
A. Interior Noise Controls
To achieve compliance with the 45 dB DNL limits of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24 standards, the following window controls will be required.  Maintain closed at all times all windows and glass doors of living spaces of the project within 130 ft. of the centerline of FrontStreet and with a direct or side view of the road or within 220 ft. of the centerline of Soquel Avenue and with a direct or side view of the roadway.
 Install windows and glass doors rated minimum Sound
Transmission Class (STC) 31 at living spaces within 70 ft. of the centerline of Front Street. Install windows and glass doors rating minimum STC 29 at the remaining living spaces where the windows and glass doors are specified to be maintained closed.  Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for all living spaces with a closed window or glass door condition.
 Please see Figure 1 for the locations of the noise impacted facades and the window and glass door STC ratings.

All other windows and glass doors of the project and all bathroom windows may have any type of glazing and may be kept opened as desired unless the bathroom is an integral part of a living space without a closeable door such as in a master bedroom suite.

When windows and glass doors are maintained closed for noise control, some type of mechanical ventilation to assure a habitable environment must be provided. The windows specified to be maintained closed are to be operable, as the requirement does not imply a “fixed” condition.

30.667
- 9 -

30.668
- 10 -
The windows and doors shall be installed in an acoustically-effective manner. To achieve an acoustically-effective construction, the operable panels must form an air-tight seal when in the closed position and the window and door frames must be caulked to the wall opening around their entire perimeter with a non-hardening caulking compound to prevent sound infiltration. Exterior doors must seal air-tight around the full perimeter when in the closed position. Spray-in or expandable foams are not acceptable acoustical sealants.

Please be aware that many dual-pane window and glass door assemblies have inherent noise reduction problems in the traffic noise frequency spectrum due to resonance that occurs within the air space between the window lites, and the noise reduction capabilities vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, the acoustical test report of all sound rated windows and doors should be reviewed be a qualified acoustician to ensure that the chosen windows and doors will adequately reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels.

The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce excess noise exposures to achieve compliance with the interior standards of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24.

III. Site, Traffic and Project Descriptions
The planned development site is a 1.06 acre parcel located on the southeast quadrant of the Front Street and Soquel Avenue intersection. The site slopes up slightly from the southwest to the northeast and is at-grade with Front Street. Soquel Avenue slopes up slightly to the east. Surrounding land uses include a CVS Pharmacy across Soquel Avenue to the north, the San Lorenzo River and trail adjacent to the east, More Music adjacent to the south and a public parking lot across Front Street to the west.

The on-site noise environment is controlled primarily by vehicle traffic sources on Front Street and Soquel Avenue. Front Street carries and existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 7,580 vehicles. Soquel Avenue carries an existing ADT of 4,340 vehicles, Ref. (f).

30.669
- 11 -
The planned project includes the construction of 276 apartments in 7 levels of residential living on a podium that covers three commercial spaces, the leasing office, parking and storage. There will also be three commercial spaces and a restaurant on the second floor. An outdoor lounge and a public terrace will be located adjacent to the restaurant on the second floor. A roof garden and deck will be on the eighth floor (roof of the 7th floor). Ingress and egress to the project will be by way of a garage entrance off of Front Street. The Site Plan is shown on Figure 2 on page 12.

IV. Analysis of the Noise Levels
A. Existing Noise Levels
To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made on a Friday through Saturday on May 3-4, 2019 at two locations on the site. Location 1 was 41 ft. from the centerline of Front Street and at elevation of 13 ft. above the ground. Location 2 was 54 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue, also at an elevation of 13 ft. above the ground. These locations were chosen for security of the sound measuring instruments. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 3 on page 13.

30.670
- 12 -
FIGURE 2 – Site Plan

30.671
- 13 -
FIGURE 3 – Noise Measurement Locations
The sound levels were recorded and processed using Larson-Davis Model 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. The meters yield, by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, as described in Appendix B. The measured descriptors include the L1, L10, L50, and L90, i.e., those levels exceeded for 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and minimum levels and the continuous equivalent-energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNL. The exterior measurements were made for a continuous period of 48 hours and included representative hours of the daytime and nighttime periods of the DNL index. The results of the measurements are shown in the data tables in Appendix C.

As shown in the data tables, the Leq’s on Friday at measurement Location 1, 41 ft. from the centerline of Front Street, ranged from 63.0 to 67.2 dBA during the daytime and from 52.0 to 63.0 dBA at night. On Saturday, the Leq’s ranged from 62.6 to 66.5 dBA during the daytime and from 52.0 to 62.1 dBA at night.

30.672
- 14 -
At measurement Location 2, 54 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue, the Leq’s ranged from 63.4 to 67.0 dBA during the daytime and from 51.9 to 69.2 dBA at night.

On Saturday, the Leq’s ranged from 60.2 to 68.3 dBA during the daytime and from 49.3 to

69.3 dBA at night.

Vehicular traffic noise dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source and contains a wide spectrum of frequency components (from 100 to 10,000 Hz), which are associated with engine, tire, drive-train, exhaust and other sources. These frequency components are centered primarily in the 250 and 500 Hz octave bands. Additional acoustical shielding will be provided by interposed portions of the building.

B. Future Noise Levels
Future traffic volume projections for Front Street and Soquel Avenue were provided by the project traffic consultant, Ref. (f). The future General Plan buildout + project traffic volume for Front Street is expected to increase from the existing 7,580 vehicles ADT to 12,500 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume yields a 2 dB increase in the traffic noise levels. The future traffic volume for Soquel Avenue is expected to increase from the existing 4,340 vehicles ADT to 7,150 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume also yields a 2 dB increase in the traffic noise levels.

30.673
- 15 -
V. Evaluations of the Noise Exposures
A. Exterior Noise Exposures
To evaluate the on-site noise exposures against the City of Santa Cruz standards, the DNL for the survey location was calculated by decibel averaging of the Leq's as they apply to the daily time periods of the DNL index. The DNL is a 24-hour noise descriptor that uses the measured Leq values to calculate a 24-hour time-weighted average noise exposure. Adjustments were made to the measured noise levels to account for variations in setback distances from the measurement locations using methods established by the Highway Research Board, Ref. (g). The formula used to calculate the DNL is described in Appendix B. The on-site noise measurement data and calculation tables are provided in Appendix C.

The results of the calculations indicate that the exterior noise exposures at measurement Location 1, 41 ft. from the centerline of Front Street, were 67 dB DNL on Friday (weekday) and 66 dB DNL on Saturday.

At the planned minimum setback of the building from Front Street, 34 ft. from the centerline of the road, the noise exposures were calculated to be 68 dB DNL on Friday and 67 dB DNL on Saturday. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase to 70 dB DNL on Friday (weekdays) and to 69 dB DNL on Saturdays.

The exterior noise exposures at measurement Location 2, 54 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue, were calculated to be 69 dB DNL on both Friday (weekdays) and Saturday.

30.674
- 16 -
At the planned Outdoor Lounge and Public Terrace, 49 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue, the existing noise exposures were calculated to be 62 dB DNL on both Fridays (weekdays) and Saturdays. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase to 64 dB DNL on Fridays (weekdays) and Saturdays. These noise exposures include a 7 dB reduction factor due to the acoustical shielding provided by 42” high solid railings at the edges of the lounge and terrace areas. Thus, the noise exposures in the Outdoor Lounge area will be within the 65 dB DNL limit of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element standard.

The existing noise exposures in the most noise impacted areas of the planned Roof Garden/Deck, 88 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue, were calculated to be up to 54 dB DNL on Friday (weekdays) and on Saturdays. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase up to 56 dB DNL on both Fridays (weekdays) and Saturdays. These noise exposures include a 13 dB reduction factor for the 4 ft. high parapet wall along the northerly edge of the roof. The Roof Garden will be setback approximately 12 ft. from the parapet wall. Thus, the noise exposures on the Roof Garden and Deck will be within the 65 dB DNL limit of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element standard.

As the noise exposures in the exterior common areas will be within the 65 dB DNL limit of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element standards, noise mitigation measures for the exterior areas will not be required.

30.675
- 17 -
B. Interior Noise Exposures
To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces against the standards of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24, a 15 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposures at the building setbacks to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under an annual-average condition. The annual-average condition assumes that windows have standard dual-pane thermal insulating glass that are kept open up to 50% of the time for natural ventilation.

The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Front Street will be up to 53 and 55 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 10 dB in excess of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24 standards.

The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Soquel Avenue will be up to 52 and 54 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 9 dB in excess of the City of Santa Cruz Noise Element and Title 24 standards.

The interior noise exposures will exceed the limits of the standards. Therefore, noise mitigation measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section II of this report.

C. Exterior and Interior Noise Levels
To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces against the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures, a 25 dB reduction was applied to the exterior hourly average noise levels at the commercial unit setbacks to represent the attenuation provided by a standard commercial building shell.

30.676
- 18 -
Table I on page 18 provides the exterior hourly average noise levels at the measurement locations 41 ft. from the centerline of Front Street and at 54 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue, the future hourly average noise levels at the setbacks of the commercial units 34 ft. from the centerline of Front Street and 55 ft. from the centerline of Soquel Avenue and the interior hourly average noise levels in the commercial spaces under future traffic conditions. As shown, the interior hourly average noise levels shown in the third column will be within the 50 dBA Leq(h) limit of the CalGreen NonResidential Mandatory Measures. Noise mitigation measures for the commercial units will not be required.

30.677
- 19 -
Dist. To Source 41 34 34
Front Street Exterior @ Meas. Loc. Exterior @ SB Interior @ SB TIME Measured (Exist) Calculated (Fut) Calculated (Fut) 7:00 AM 67.2 70.4 45.4
8:00 AM 64.8 68.0 43.0
9:00 AM 66.5 69.7 44.7
10:00 AM 65.5 68.7 43.7
11:00 AM 65.6 68.8 43.8
12:00 PM 66.0 69.2 44.2
1:00 PM 64.8 68.0 43.0
2:00 PM 64.8 68.0 43.0
3:00 PM 66.4 69.6 44.6
4:00 PM 66.5 69.7 44.7
5:00 PM 64.5 67.7 42.7
6:00 PM 64.5 67.7 42.7
7:00 PM 64.4 67.6 42.6
8:00 PM 63.0 66.2 41.2
9:00 PM 63.0 66.2 41.2
10:00 PM 63.0 66.2 41.2
11:00 PM 62.2 65.4 40.4
12:00 AM 59.0 62.2 37.2
1:00 AM 56.2 59.4 34.4
2:00 AM 52.1 55.3 30.3
3:00 AM 52.0 55.2 30.2
4:00 AM 53.1 56.3 31.3
5:00 AM 60.8 64.0 39.0
6:00 AM 62.4 65.6 40.6
Dist. To Source 54 55 55
Soquel Ave. Exterior @ Meas. Loc. Exterior @ SB Interior @ SB TIME Measured (Exist) Calculated (Fut) Calculated (Fut) 7:00 AM 65.6 68.8 43.8
8:00 AM 64.2 67.4 42.4
9:00 AM 64.5 67.7 42.7
10:00 AM 64.7 67.9 42.9
11:00 AM 65.8 69.0 44.0
12:00 PM 65.3 68.5 43.5
1:00 PM 66.6 69.8 44.8
2:00 PM 64.8 68.0 43.0
3:00 PM 65.4 68.6 43.6
4:00 PM 64.5 67.7 42.7
5:00 PM 65.7 68.9 43.9
6:00 PM 65.1 68.3 43.3
7:00 PM 64.1 67.3 42.3
8:00 PM 63.4 66.6 41.6
9:00 PM 67.0 70.2 45.2
10:00 PM 69.2 72.4 47.4
11:00 PM 63.7 66.9 41.9
12:00 AM 58.2 61.4 36.4
1:00 AM 58.5 61.7 36.7
2:00 AM 56.0 59.2 34.2
3:00 AM 51.9 55.1 30.1
4:00 AM 52.9 56.1 31.1
5:00 AM 58.4 61.6 36.6
6:00 AM 62.2 65.4 40.4
CalGreen Noise Levels, dBA Leq(h)

TABLE I

30.678
- 20 -
This report presents the results of a revised noise assessment study for the planned mixeduse development at 530 Front Street in Santa Cruz. The study findings for present conditions are based on field measurements and other data and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise level predictions and the recommendations were based on information provided by the consulting traffic engineer. However, significant changes in the future traffic volumes, speed limits, motor vehicle technology, noise regulations, or other changes beyond our control may produce long range noise results different from our estimates. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me.

Sincerely,
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC.

Jeffrey K. Pack
President
Attachment: Appendices A, B and C

30.679

APPENDIX A
References
(a) Site Plan, Front/Soquel Mixed Use Project, by Barry Swenson Builder, August 10, 2021
(b) “Noise Assessment Study for the Planned Mixed-Use Development, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz”, by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Project No. 51-023, June 4, 2019
(c) City of Santa General Plan 2030, Chapter 8, “Hazards, Safety and Noise”, Adopted, June 26, 2012
(d) California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Section 1206 “Sound Transmission”, Subsection 1206.4 (Allowable Interior Noise Levels), Revised 2019
(e) California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 5, Section 5.507 “Environmental Comfort”, Subsection 5.507.4.2 (Exterior Noise Transmission, Performance Method), Revised 2013
(f) Information on Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Provided by Mr. Jonathan Wong, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, by email to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., May 31, 2019
(g) Highway Research Board, “Highway Noise – A Design Guide for Highway Engineers”, Report 117, 1971

30.680
B-1

APPENDIX B
Noise Standards, Terminology, Instrumentation,
and Building Shell Controls

1. Noise Standards
A. City of Santa Cruz Noise Element Standards
The City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030, adopted June 26, 2012, references the Land Use Compatibility chart of the State of California General Plan Guidelines. The Noise Element provides a series of noise goals for various occupancies and uses. The noise exposures are in terms of dB Day-Night Level (DNL or Ldn).

30.681
B-2
Goal HZ3 Noise levels compatible with occupancy and use HZ3.1 Maintain or reduce existing noise levels and control excessive noise.

HZ3.1.1 Require land uses to operate at noise levels that do not significantly increase surrounding ambient noise.

HZ3.1.2 Use site planning and design approaches to minimize noise impacts from new development on surrounding land uses.

HZ3.1.3 Ensure that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses.

HZ3.1.4 Minimize the impacts of intermittent urban noise on residents.

HZ3.1.5 Develop a system to monitor construction noise impacts on surrounding land uses.

HZ3.1.6 Require evaluation of noise mitigation measures for projects that would substantially increase noise.

HZ3.1.7 Protect residential areas from excessive noise from traffic and from road projects.

HZ3.1.8 Require environmental review and mitigation of roadway projects that may significantly increase the average day/night noise levels.

HZ3.1.9 Limit truck traffic in residential and commercial areas to designated truck routes.

HZ3.1.10 Where noise reduction would be beneficial, consider installing quiet pavement surfaces as part of repaving projects.

HZ3.1.11 Require soundwalls, earth berms, setbacks, and other noise reduction techniques for new development when appropriate and necessary as conditions of approval.

HZ3.2 Ensure that noise standards are met in the siting of noise-sensitive uses.

HZ3.2.1 Apply noise and land use compatibility table and standards to all new residential, commercial, and mixed-use proposals, including condominium conversions, in accordance with standards set forth in the Land Use-Noise Compatibility Standards Figure 2.

HZ3.2.2 Establish DNL noise level targets of 65 dB for outdoor activity areas in new multifamily residential developments.

HZ3.2.3 Require that interior noise in all new multifamily housing not exceed a DNL of 45 dB with the windows and doors closed (State of California Noise Insulation Standards) and extend the requirement to single-family homes.

30.682
B-3
B. Title 24 Noise Standards
2019 California Building Code, Volume 1, Part 2
SECTION 1206 – SOUND TRANSMISSION
1206.1 Scope. This section shall apply to common interior walls, partitions and floor/ceiling assemblies between adjacent dwelling units and sleeping units or between dwelling units and sleeping units and adjacent public areas such as halls, corridors, stairways or service areas. 1206.2 Air-borne sound. Walls, partitions and floor/ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units and sleeping units from each other or from public or service areas shall have a sound transmission class of not less than 50, or not less than 45 if field tested, for air-borne noise when tested in accordance to ASTM E-90. Alternatively, the sound transmission class of walls, partitions and floor-ceiling assemblies shall be established by engineering analysis based on a comparison of walls, partitions and floor-ceiling assemblies having sound transmission class ratings as determined by the test procedures in ASTM E90. Penetrations or openings in construction assemblies for piping; electrical devices; recessed cabinets; bathtubs; soffits; or heating, ventilating or exhaust ducts shall be sealed lined, insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings. The requirement shall not apply to entrance doors; however, such doors shall be tight fitting to the frame and sill.
1206.3 Structure-borne sound. Floor/ceiling assemblies between dwelling units and sleeping units or between a dwelling unit or sleeping unit and a public or service area with the structure shall have an impact insulation class rating of not less than 50, or not less than 45 if field tested, when tested in accordance with ASTM E-492. Alternatively, the impact insulation class of floorceiling assemblies shall be established by engineering analysis based on a comparison of floorceiling assemblies having impact insulation class ratings as determined by the test procedures in ASTM E492.

Exception: Impact sound insulation is not required for floor/ceiling assemblies over nonhabitable rooms or spaces not designed to be occupied, such as garages, mechanical rooms or storage areas.

30.683
B-4
1206.4 Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.
1206.5 Acoustical control. [BSC-CG] See California Green Building Standards code, Chapter 5, Division 5.5 for additional sound transmission requirements.

30.684
B-5

2. Terminology
A. Statistical Noise Levels
Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the sound measuring instruments. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows:

L1 - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time.

L10 - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level.

L50 - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level.

L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level.

Leq - The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady noise having the same sound energy as a given time-varying noise.

The Leq represents the decibel level of the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is the descriptor used to calculate the DNL and CNEL.

30.685
B-6
B. Day-Night Level (DNL)
Noise levels utilized in the standards are described in terms of the Day-Night Level (DNL). The DNL rating is determined by the cumulative noise exposures occurring over a 24- hour day in terms of A-Weighted sound energy. The 24-hour day is divided into two subperiods for the DNL index, i.e., the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A weighting factor of 10 dBA is applied (added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the measured Leq in accordance with the following mathematical formula:

DNL = [[(10log10(10ΣLeq(7-10))) x 15] +[((10log10(10ΣLeq(10-7)))+10) x 9]]/24 C. A-Weighted Sound Level
The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear.

30.686
B-7

3. Instrumentation
The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one of the instruments specified below, which provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level (Leq). Input to the instrument was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground on using a tripod or mast. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the instruments were used in conformance with the applicable standards. The instruments conform to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard S1.4 for Type I and IEC 61672-1:2002 for Class 1 instruments, respectively. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy.

Instruments used for field surveys:

Larson-Davis Model 812 Integrating Sound Level Meter
Larson-Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer
Bruel & Kjaer Model 2231 Precision Sound Level Meter
Larson-Davis Model 831 Integrating Sound Level Meter

4. Mechanical Ventilation Requirements
California Mechanical Code Chapter 4- Ventilation Air
402.3 Mechanical Ventilation
Where natural ventilation is not permitted by this section or the building code, mechanical ventilation systems shall be designed, constructed, and installed to provide a method of supply air and exhaust air. Mechanical ventilation systems shall include controls, manual or automatic, that enable the fan system to operate wherever the spaces served are occupied. The system shall be designed to maintain minimum outdoor airflow as required by Section 403.0 under any load conditions.

30.687
B-8

5. Building Shell Controls
The following additional precautionary measures are required to assure the greatest potential for exterior-to-interior noise attenuation by the recommended mitigation measures.

These measures apply at those units where closed windows are required:
 Unshielded entry doors having a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise source must be 1-5/8" or 1-3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid-core wood construction with effective weather seals around the full perimeter. Mail slots should not be used in these doors or in the wall of a living space, as a significant noise leakage can occur through them.  If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non-hardening caulking compound.
 Ventilation openings shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the building shell.
 Spray-in or expandable foams are not acceptable as acoustical sealant or as sound absorptive material in walls and ceilings.

30.688

APPENDIX C
On-Site Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables

30.689
C-2 DNL CALCULATIONS
CLIENT: BARRY SWENSON BUILDER
FILE: 51-023
PROJECT: FRONT/SOQUEL APARTMENTS
DATE: 5/3-5/2019
SOURCE: FRONT ST., SOQUEL AVE.

LOCATION 1 Front St. LOCATION 1 Front St.

Dist. To Source 41 ft. Dist. To Source 41 ft.

Friday Saturday
TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 TIME Leq 10^Leq/10
7:00 AM 67.2 5248074.6 7:00 AM 60.8 1202264.4
8:00 AM 64.8 3019951.7 8:00 AM 64.5 2818382.9
9:00 AM 66.5 4466835.9 9:00 AM 64.9 3090295.4
10:00 AM 65.5 3548133.9 10:00 AM 64.5 2818382.9
11:00 AM 65.6 3630780.5 11:00 AM 65.4 3467368.5
12:00 PM 66.0 3981071.7 12:00 PM 64.3 2691534.8
1:00 PM 64.8 3019951.7 1:00 PM 64.3 2691534.8
2:00 PM 64.8 3019951.7 2:00 PM 66.5 4466835.9
3:00 PM 66.4 4365158.3 3:00 PM 64.8 3019951.7
4:00 PM 66.5 4466835.9 4:00 PM 64.1 2570395.8
5:00 PM 64.5 2818382.9 5:00 PM 64.0 2511886.4
6:00 PM 64.5 2818382.9 6:00 PM 64.2 2630268.0
7:00 PM 64.4 2754228.7 7:00 PM 63.8 2398832.9
8:00 PM 63.0 1995262.3 8:00 PM 62.8 1905460.7
9:00 PM 63.0 1995262.3 SUM= 51148265.3 9:00 PM 62.6 1819700.9 SUM= 40103096.2 10:00 PM 63.0 1995262.3 Ld= 77.1 10:00 PM 62.1 1621810.1 Ld= 76.0 11:00 PM 62.2 1659586.9 11:00 PM 61.5 1412537.5
12:00 AM 59.0 794328.2 12:00 AM 59.6 912010.8
1:00 AM 56.2 416869.4 1:00 AM 58.2 660693.4
2:00 AM 52.1 162181.0 2:00 AM 55.5 354813.4
3:00 AM 52.0 158489.3 3:00 AM 53.6 229086.8
4:00 AM 53.1 204173.8 4:00 AM 52.0 158489.3
5:00 AM 60.8 1202264.4 5:00 AM 54.9 309029.5
6:00 AM 62.4 1737800.8 SUM= 8330956.2 6:00 AM 58.8 758577.6 SUM= 6417048.5 Ln= 69.2 Ln= 68.1
Daytime Level= 77.1 Daytime Level= 76.0
Nighttime Level= 79.2 Nighttime Level= 78.1
DNL= 67 DNL= 66
24-Hour Leq= 63.9 24-Hour Leq= 62.9

30.690
C-3 DNL CALCULATIONS
CLIENT: BARRY SWENSON BUILDER
FILE: 51-023
PROJECT: FRONT/SOQUEL APARTMENTS
DATE: 5/3-5/2019
SOURCE: FRONT ST., SOQUEL AVE.

LOCATION 2 Soquel Ave. LOCATION 2 Soquel Ave.

Dist. To Source 54 ft. Dist. To Source 54 ft.

Friday Saturday
TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 TIME Leq 10^Leq/10
7:00 AM 65.6 3630780.5 7:00 AM 60.2 1047128.5
8:00 AM 64.2 2630268.0 8:00 AM 63.9 2454708.9
9:00 AM 64.5 2818382.9 9:00 AM 64.2 2630268.0
10:00 AM 64.7 2951209.2 10:00 AM 64.8 3019951.7
11:00 AM 65.8 3801894.0 11:00 AM 64.7 2951209.2
12:00 PM 65.3 3388441.6 12:00 PM 64.8 3019951.7
1:00 PM 66.6 4570881.9 1:00 PM 65.1 3235936.6
2:00 PM 64.8 3019951.7 2:00 PM 66.3 4265795.2
3:00 PM 65.4 3467368.5 3:00 PM 65.7 3715352.3
4:00 PM 64.5 2818382.9 4:00 PM 68.0 6309573.4
5:00 PM 65.7 3715352.3 5:00 PM 65.4 3467368.5
6:00 PM 65.1 3235936.6 6:00 PM 65.0 3162277.7
7:00 PM 64.1 2570395.8 7:00 PM 64.9 3090295.4
8:00 PM 63.4 2187761.6 8:00 PM 63.7 2344228.8
9:00 PM 67.0 5011872.3 SUM= 49818879.9 9:00 PM 68.3 6760829.8 SUM= 51474875.8 10:00 PM 69.2 8317637.7 Ld= 77.0 10:00 PM 69.3 8511380.4 Ld= 77.1 11:00 PM 63.7 2344228.8 11:00 PM 61.7 1479108.4
12:00 AM 58.2 660693.4 12:00 AM 59.8 954992.6
1:00 AM 58.5 707945.8 1:00 AM 61.6 1445439.8
2:00 AM 56.0 398107.2 2:00 AM 55.5 354813.4
3:00 AM 51.9 154881.7 3:00 AM 51.0 125892.5
4:00 AM 52.9 194984.5 4:00 AM 49.3 85113.8
5:00 AM 58.4 691831.0 5:00 AM 54.1 257039.6
6:00 AM 62.2 1659586.9 SUM= 15129896.9 6:00 AM 58.1 645654.2 SUM= 13859434.7 Ln= 71.8 Ln= 71.4
Daytime Level= 77.0 Daytime Level= 77.1
Nighttime Level= 81.8 Nighttime Level= 81.4
DNL= 69 DNL= 69
24-Hour Leq= 64.3 24-Hour Leq= 64.3

30.691

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mixed-Use Development
530 Front Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
City of Santa Cruz
Department of Public Works
809 Center Street, Room 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Prepared By: CEA, INC
August 2022

30.692

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Project Information ................................................................................................................... 3 Project Site Assessment Summary .............................................................................................4 A. Site Description
B. Site Topography
C. Geology and Soil Types
D. Ground water
Project Stormwater Performance Criteria and Drainage Management ...................................... 5 A. Development Area and BMP Requirement Tiers
B. Project Stormwater Tier Exemptions
C. Drainage Management Areas
Site DESIGN and Stormwater Control Measures ........................................................................ 9 A. Site Design and Runoff Reduction Measures (Tier 1)
B. Water Quality treatment Measures (Tier 2)
C. Runoff Retention Measures (Tier 3)
D. Peak Management Measures (Tier 4)
BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan .................................................................................... 14 A. MaIntenance Objectives
B. Scheduling of Monitoring and Maintenance
C. Routine Maintenance of Bio-Filtration Areas
D. Routine Maintenance of Mechanical Filtration Systems E. Fiscal Resources
F. Certification
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendix A – Storm Water and Low-Impact Development BMP Requirement Worksheet Appendix B – Storm Water Control Plan and Details
Appendix C – Maintenance Agreement
Appendix D – Post Construction BMP Maintenance and Source Control Activities Table Appendix E – Sample BMP Inspection & Maintenance Form
Appendix F – Employee Training Program Table

30.693
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 3

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Front/Soquel Mixed Used Project
Application Submittal Date 11/3/2021
Project Location 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 APN 005-151-037, 044, 045 & 046
Name of Developer Barry Swenson Builder
Project Type & Description Mixed Use – Approximately 170 Residential Units & 8 Commercial Units
Project Watershed San Lorenzo Watershed
Stormwater Tier 1 Runoff Reduction Required
Stormwater Tier 2 Water Quality Required
Stormwater Tier 3 Runoff Retention Required for DMA B
Tier 3 Volume Required for DMA B 1363
Tier 3 Volume Provided for DMA B 1363
Stormwater Tier 4 Peak Management Exempt
Total Project Site Area 64,126 SF
Total Area of Land Disturbed 64,126 SF
Total New Impervious Surface Area 3,973 SF
Total Replaced Impervious Surface Area 41,608 SF
Total Pre-Project Impervious Surface Area 41,608 SF
Total Post-Project Impervious Surface Area 45,581 SF
Percent LID & Non-LID Treatment 32% LID & 68% Non-LID
HMP Compliance Hydro-Modification is not required
This Storm Water Management Plan is governed by the Requirements for the Preparation of Hydrology Reports for Projects Creating or Replacing Equal or More than 10,000 Square Feet of Impervious Area.

The purpose of this stormwater management plan is to address the water quality impacts from the proposed site improvements. Best Management Practices (BMP’s), as recommended by the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA), and outlined in the NPDES Permit, will be used to improve storm water quality onsite during construction. Low impact development facilities will be designed and constructed per the Santa Cruz County Stormwater C.3 Guidelines to treat post-construction runoff from impervious surfaces. This stormwater management plan is subject to revisions as needed by the project engineer.

30.694
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 4

PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

PROJECT SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at Front Street and Soquel Avenue in Santa Cruz, California. The site is currently occupied by two commercial buildings and parking lots. The site is bounded by Soquel Avenue to the north, Front Street to the west, San Lorenzo River levee to the east, and an existing commercial property to the south.

B. SITE TOPOGRAPHY
The proposed site consists of four existing parcels. The project site is relatively level with elevations of approximately 16 to 21 feet above sea level. The surface pavement generally consists of 2 to 3½ inches of asphalt over 2 to 4 inches of aggregate base. The existing pavements are in fair to poor conditions with areas of significant alligator cracking.

C. GEOLOGY AND SOIL TYPES
According to the Geotechnical Investigation Report by Cornerstone Earth Group dated November 6, 2017, the site consists of approximately 6½ to 9 feet of undocumented fills consisting of loose poorly graded sands, medium dense clayey sands with gravel, and medium stiff to hard sandy lean clay with varying amounts of sands. Beneath the undocumented fills, Cornerstone Earth Group encountered loose to medium dense sands with varying amounts of silts and clays.

D. GROUND WATER
Ground water was estimated at depths of 12 to 16 feet below current grades based on tests performed by Cornerstone Earth Group. Ground water was not available for exploration due to the rotary wash method used.

Ground water data available on Geotracker in the project vicinity is recorded at depths of approximately 7 to 11 feet below existing grades.

30.695
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 5

PROJECT STORMWATER PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT

PROJECT STORMWATER PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND DRAINAGE

MANAGEMENT
A. DEVELOPMENT AREA AND BMP REQUIREMENT TIERS
The site is approximately 1.47 acres and is located in Downtown Santa Cruz as shown on the City of Santa Cruz urban Sustainability Areas Map.

The Best Management Practice Manual for the City’s Storm Water Management Program, employs 4 tier system with specific requirements for managing storm water runoff for private and public development/redevelopment project. The table below summarizes the post-construction BMP requirements for each Tier:

30.696
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 6

PROJECT STORMWATER PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
Tier 1 Requirements: Site Design and Runoff Reduction

1. Maximize rainfall infiltration

2. Reduce downstream runoff volume and speed

3. Reduce pollutant loading and development impacts to receiving streams

4. Reduced size of downstream storm water treatment Control Measures Tier 2 Requirements: Water Quality Treatment

1. Bio-retention basins, mechanical media filters and self-treating areas shall be used to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharging offsite into the municipal storm drain system

2. The minimum area of each storm water control measure shall be four percent of the tributary impervious area that drains to the treatment facility.

Tier 3 Requirements: Runoff Retention

1. Prevent offsite discharge from events to the 95th percentile 24-hout rainfall event

30.697
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 7

PROJECT STORMWATER PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT

2. Optimize infiltration

3. Compliance must be achieved via storage, rainwater harvesting and/or evapotranspiration Note: This project qualifies for Tier 3 Special Circumstances Retention Reduction since it is located within the Downtown Urban Sustainability Area, is between 1-2 acres in size, and meets the following City of Santa Cruz Chapter 6B Development BMP Requirements.  Includes no surface parking
 Includes at least 85% coverage of the entire site
 Is within 0.25 miles of the local transit stop
 Includes a residential density of at least 30 dwelling units/acre B. PROJECT STORMWATER TIER EXEMPTIONS
Tier 4 Requirements: Peak Management
Stormwater runoff from the project is proposed to outfall into the existing 42” storm main at the eastern side of the site then outfall into the San Lorenzo River. Per section 4.4 (Special Projects), the project is exempt from the Peak Management Requirements since runoff discharges to a continuous underground storm drain system that discharges to the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz.

C. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS
The site will be divided into Drainage Management Areas (DMA). 8% of the site’s storm water runoff will be directed to bio-treatment basins, 68% of the site’s runoff will be directed to a mechanical media filter treatment device, 16% of the site’s runoff will be self-treating, and 8% of the project site will be an expansion of the adjacent pathway or roadway designated as “Roadway Project”.

30.698
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 8

PROJECT STORMWATER PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
DMA DMA Size (sf) Impervious Area (sf) Pervious Area (sf) Proposed Treatment A 43,530 37,410 6,120 Mechanical Media Filter
B 5,356 4,337 1,019 Bio-Retention Basin
C 393 393 0 N/A
D 4,897 3,020 1,877 N/A
ST-1 782 35 747 Self-Treating
ST-2 9,168 386 8,782 Self-Treating
Total 64,126 45,581 18,545
DMA Tier 2 Bio-Retention
Area Required (sf)
Tier 2 Bio-Retention
Area Provided (sf)
Tier 3 Bio-Retention
Volume Required (cf)
Tier 2 Bio-Retention
Volume Provided (cf)
B 173 391 1363 1363

30.699
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 9

SITE DESIGN AND STORMWATER CONTROL

MEASURES

SITE DESIGN AND STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES
A. SITE DESIGN AND RUNOFF REDUCTION MEASURES (TIER 1)
To meet the tier 1 stormwater requirements, site design measures will be implemented to reduce the amount of runoff and stormwater pollutants by limiting impervious surfaces on the site and therefore reduce the size of stormwater treatment measures that will be required. Any existing sensitive natural resources on the site shall be identified, protected and preserved from development to satisfy local, state and federal laws as applicable. Reuse of existing impervious areas and preserving existing pervious areas can minimize land disturbance. Clustering structures and paved surfaces can also be a useful site design measure.
 Minimize land disturbed
 Minimize impervious surfaces
 Micro-detention in landscape areas
 Self-treating areas
 Preserve open space
The existing site is currently developed and land disturbance will be minimized to the extent feasible.

No sensitive natural resources have been identified for the site. The proposed site layout incorporates landscaped areas which will provide incidental treatment.

B. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT MEASURES (TIER 2)
There is one bio-retention basin located on the east side of the site. The bio-retention basin is approximately 391 square feet and will treat approximately 8% of the site. The runoff will percolate through 24 inches of bio-filtration soil media, removing suspended soils, metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons and other pollutants. The leachate will drain into a minimum of 12 inches of class II permeable rock. Once the class II permeable rock is completely saturated, a perforated underdrain will convey the water to the onsite storm drain system.

There is one media filter treatment device located at the south-east corner of the site. Runoff from the building roof area and podium will be collected and hard piped to the mechanical filtration system. The mechanical filtration system will treat approximately 68% of the site and will be sized based on the manufacturers design criteria.

To reduce the runoff from the building portion of this site directed to this media filter treatment device, we are providing over 6,000 SF of vegetated surface within the building envelope including 1,038 SF of Green Roof and 3,398 SF of rooftop garden as an L.I.D. measure. Additional L.I.D. measures (Biotreatment planters, etc.) couldn’t be added to the building portion of the site because of site design constraints including the “Zero” lot line building design, conflicts with structural components of the building, various Utility conflicts and limited surface area within the courtyards with concerns of

30.700
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 10

SITE DESIGN AND STORMWATER CONTROL

MEASURES
encroaching into Emergency Services access pathways and potential flooding & water intrusion into surrounding units.

Drainage Management Area ST-1, and ST-2 will be self-treating. These areas are considered self-treating because infiltration and natural processes that occur in these areas prevent stormwater and pollutants from being discharged. Here is a list of several requirements for an area to be considered self-treating:
 Landscaped areas must be gently sloped at a maximum slope of 4%  Pervious pavement must have a minimum 12” of drain rock storage  Pervious pavement must have a slope at the surface of 5% maximum and a slope at the subgrade below the drain rock of 2% maximum
 Over 6,300 SF of pervious pavement has been included in these areas to enhance the LID type treatment and improve infiltration capacity.

C. RUNOFF RETENTION MEASURES (TIER 3)
This project qualifies for Tier 3 Special Circumstances Retention Reduction and there is no increase in replaced onsite impervious area; however, there is new impervious area in the offsite DMA’s and thus retention, per Tier 3, is being provided.

SCM-B, the bio-retention basin located on the east side of the site, was sized using the simple method of chapter 6B of the Best Management Practices Manual for the City’s Storm Water Management Program. See the calculations below. The bio-retention basin will have 24” of treatment soil that allows storm water infiltration at a rate of 5 in/hr. and will be planted appropriately. The soil selection will be underlain by a 3.49’ drain rock section to capture and store the storm water. The basin will be equipped with a raised inlet structure and under-drain.

A 3.49’ drain rock section will be provided to meet the Tier 3 Runoff Retention Requirements. The site is in Watershed Management Zone 1 (WMZ 1) and is required to prevent offsite discharge from events up to the 95th percentile 24-hour rainfall event. See the table below for the SCM-B Tier 3 calculations.

30.701
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 11

SITE DESIGN AND STORMWATER CONTROL

MEASURES
TIER 3 SIMPLE METHOD CALCULATION FOR SCM-B
i 0.810 =(total impervious area)/(total site area)
Runoff Coefficient, C 0.611 =(0.858*i^3)-(0.78*i^2)+(0.774*i)+0.04 Rainfall depth, d (ft) 0.167 =2" Santa Cruz 95th Percentile - WMZ 1, 4 & 10 Tributary Area, A (sf) 5356 =(total site area)
Retention Volume (cf) 545 =C*d*A
Retention Volume - Void
Ratio Included (cf) 1363 =Volume/0.4
Area of Basin Required (sf)
For Tier 2 Purposes Only 173 =4%(total impervious area) Area of Basin Provided (sf) 391 ≥Area of Required Basin Depth of Rock (ft) 3.49 =(retention volume)/(area of basin provided) New Impervious Area= 4337
Replaced Impervious Area= 0
Total Impervious Area= 4337
Total Pervious Area= 1019
Total Site Area= 5356

30.702
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 12

SITE DESIGN AND STORMWATER CONTROL

MEASURES
`

30.703
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 13

SITE DESIGN AND STORMWATER CONTROL

MEASURES
D. PEAK MANAGEMENT MEASURES (TIER 4)
As stated in Section 4.B of this report, the Stormwater runoff from the project is proposed to outfall into the existing 42” storm main at the eastern side of the site then outfall into the San Lorenzo River. Per Section 4.4 (Special Circumstances), this project is exempt from Tier 4 requirements for Peak Management since runoff discharges into a continuous underground storm drain system that discharges to the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz. .

30.704
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 14

BMP OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

BMP OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
A. MAINTENANCE OBJECTIVES
A comprehensive monitoring and maintenance program is an essential element of a long-term storm water management plan. The proposed storm water system for the subject project will operate in an automatic reliable manner. However, as with all physical infrastructure, the storm water system will need adequate routine maintenance to function as designed.

B. SCHEDULING OF MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE
Routine maintenance for the BMPs should be carried out on a schedule similar to the rest of the storm water system. This will typically require a thorough inspection and maintenance visit in late summer or early fall prior to the rainy season. Remedial maintenance will be performed immediately or scheduled to take place within a reasonable time frame.

C. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF BIO-FILTRATION AREAS
Routine maintenance is required to ensure that flow is unobstructed, that erosion is prevented, and that soils are held together by plant roots and are biologically active. Typical maintenance consists of the following:
 Inspect inlets for channels, exposure of soils, or other evidence of erosion. Clear any obstructions and remove and accumulation of sediment. Examine rock or other material used as a splash pad and replenish if necessary.
 Inspect outlets for erosion or plugging. Inspect side slopes for evidence of instability or erosion and correct as necessary
 Observe soil at the bottom of the swale or filter for uniform percolation throughout. If portions of the swale or filter do not drain within 48 hours after the end of a storm, the soil should be tilled and replanted. Remove any debris or accumulations of sediment.  Examine the vegetation to ensure that it is healthy and dense enough to provide filtering and to protect soils from erosions. Replenish mulch as necessary, remove fallen leaves and debris, prune large shrubs or tress, and mow turf area. When mowing, remove no more than 1/3 height of grasses. Confirm the irrigation is adequate and not excessive. Replace dead plants and remove noxious and invasive vegetation.

D. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF MECHANICAL FILTRATION SYSTEMS Mechanical filtration systems shall be maintained per the manufacturer’s recommendations outlined in Appendix D. It is required for all stormwater management systems to be inspected on a periodic basis and maintained as necessary to ensure performance and protect downstream receiving waters. The PerkFilter proposed on this project must be inspected typically twice per year, and maintained as

30.705
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 15

BMP OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
required. The maintenance frequency will be driven by the amount of runoff and pollutant loading encountered by a given system. Typical maintenance consists of the following:
 Remove floating trash, debris and oils from the water surface in the inlet chamber using the extension nozzle on the end of the boom hose of the vacuum truck. Continue using the vacuum truck to completely dewater the inlet chamber and evacuate all accumulated sediment from the inlet chamber. Some jetting may be required to fully remove sediment. The inlet chamber does not need to be refilled with water after maintenance is complete. The system will fill with water when the next storm event occurs.
 Remove the hold-down strut from each row of filter cartridges and then remove the top of each cartridge (the top is held on by four 9/16” bolts) and use the vacuum truck to evacuate the spent media. When empty, the spent cartridges may be easily lifted off their slip couplers and removed from the vault. The couplers may be left inserted into couplings cast into the false floor to prevent sediment and debris from being washed into the outlet chamber during washdown.  Once all the spent cartridges have been removed from the structure, the vacuum truck may be used to evacuate all accumulated sediment from the treatment chamber. Some jetting may be required to fully remove sediment. Take care not to wash sediment and debris through the openings in the false floor and into the outlet chamber. All material removed from the PerkFilter during maintenance including the spent media must be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and/or federal regulations. In most cases, the material may be handled in the same manner as disposal of material removed from sumped catch basins or manholes.  Place a fresh cartridge in each cartridge position using the existing slip couplers and urethane bottom caps. If the vault is equipped with stacked cartridges, the existing outer and inner interconnector couplers must be used between the stacked cartridges to provide hydraulic connection. Transfer the existing vent tubes from the spent cartridges to the fresh cartridges.

Finally, refit the struts to hold the fresh cartridges in place.  Securely replace access covers, as appropriate.
 Make arrangements to return the empty spent cartridges to Oldcastle Infrastructure.

E. FISCAL RESOURCES
The funding and execution of LID maintenance for the project will be the responsibility of the owner.

The owner will be responsible for maintenance activities as follows: properly disposing of waste material within the project site, maintaining landscaping in a manner that will prevent soil erosion and minimize sediment transport, maintaining drainage facilities in a clean manner and in a flood repair, and properly maintaining all post-construction LIDS (both structural and non-structural) that exist within the project.

30.706
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 16

BMP OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
It should be noted that maintenance for any of the above mentioned post-construction LID’s may be performed through third-party agreements; however, the ultimate responsibility of each facility rests on the owner.

F. CERTIFICATION
The selection, sizing, and preliminary design of stormwater treatment and other control measures in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board.

30.707
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 17

APPENDICES

30.708
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 18

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – STORM WATER AND LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMP REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET

30.709

APPENDIX A

STORM WATER AND LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMP REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET How to Use This Worksheet
2 - Fill out the Worksheet to determine what stormwater BMP requirements apply to a proposed project. 4 - Please contact the Public Works Environmental Project Analyst at 420-5160 if you have any questions on completing the worksheet.

Project Address: Bldg Permit #:

A - Project Type
Check project type that applies:

Single Family Home Multi-family, Commercial, Industrial, Public facilities Check development type that applies:

New Development Redevelopment / Remodel
B - Proposed Development Area and Impervious Area:

Pre-project impervious surface area: sq ft
Post-project impervious surface area: sq ft
Amount of impervious surface area that will be replaced: sq ft Amount of new impervious surface area that will be created: sq ft Reduced Impervious Area Credit: sq ft
New and Replaced Impervious Area = sq ft
Net Impervious Area = sq ft
(Net Impervious Area = Impervious Area created + Impervious Area replaced - Reduced Impervious Area Credit) C - Post-Construction BMP Tier requirement:

Check Project Type and Impervious Area (from calculations above) that applies.

BMP requirements are cumulative (e.g. a project subject to BMP Tier 3 is also subject to Tiers 1 and 2), permit review fees are not cumulative.

Projects requiring a Stormwater Control Plan will need to involve a civil engineer.

MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES 47358
Yes
Stormwater Control
Plan Required?
No
$550
$550
Net Impervious Area ≥ 15,000 sf; New and replaced impervious area < 22,500 sf 3

BMP TIER
New and replaced impervious area ≥ 22,500 sf 4 $550
3 - Attach Worksheet and additional documentation required as listed in the City Storm Water Best Management Practices for Private and Public Development Projects to plans for review by the Department of Public Works 1 - Download this fillable form online at www.cityofsantacruz.com/LID 5750
530 Front Street

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
$0
$330
Permit Review
Fee
$0
Yes
Yes
New and Replaced Impervious Area ≥ 15,000 sf but <
22,500 sf
$330
New and replaced impervious area ≥ 22,500 sf
1 The City's Storm Water BMP requirements are based on project type, proposed impervious area, and location within the watershed. This worksheet was developed to help permit applicants determine and meet storm water BMP requirements applicable to a proposed development or redevelopment Single-family Home with Net Impervious Area < 15,000 sf, please consult Chapter 6A, BMPs for Single-Family Homes on Small Lots
BMP TIER Permit Review
Fee
47358
0 47358
N/A
41608
41608
Stormwater Control
Plan required?
No
Yes
2 3
New and Replaced Impervious Area ≥ 2,500 sf; Net
Impervious Area < 5,000 sf
Net Impervious Area ≥ 5,000 sf; New and Replaced
Impervious Area < 15,000 sf
Yes
4 Single Family Home Multi-family, Commercial, Industrial, Public facilities New Development Redevelopment / R
Single-family Home with Net Impervious Area < 15,000 s
Chapter 6A, BMPs for Single-Family Homes on Small Lot
Net Impervious Area ≥ 15,000 sf; New a
< 22,500 sf
New and replaced impervious area ≥ 22,500 sf
New and Replaced Impervious Area ≥ 2,
Impervious Area < 5 000 sf
Net Impervious Area ≥ 5,000 sf; New an
Impervious Area < 15 000 sf
New and Replaced Impervious Area ≥ 15
22 500 sf
New and replaced impervious area ≥ 22
- 1 - 30.710
If the proposed project is only subject to BMP Tiers 1 or 2, skip to Step F.

D - Watershed Management Zones - For projects subject to Tiers 3 Post-Construction BMP requirements only.

Watershed Management Zones are viewable online on the City of Santa Cruz GIS website at: http://gis.cityofsantacruz.com/gis/index.html Watershed Management Zones and associated Tier 3 (Runoff Retention) Post-Construction BMP requirements If Tier 3 BMP requirements are applicable to the project, check the watershed management zone area where the project is located.

WMZ 3, 4 and 10
WMZ 5 and 8
WMZ 1, and portions of 4, and 10 overlying
groundwater basin WMZ 2
WMZ 6 and 9
WMZ 1, and portions of 4, and 10 overly
groundwater basin WMZ 2
WMZ 5 and 8 WMZ 6 and 9
WMZ 3, 4 and 10
- 2 - 30.711
E - Special Circumstances - For projects subject to Tiers 3 and 4 Post-Construction BMP requirements only.

Check if special circumstance applies to the project
F - Additional Stormwater BMP Requirements for Multi-family, Commercial and Industrial projects Check if additional BMP requirements apply to the project a) State Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit Construction activity resulting in land disturbance of one acre or more, or part of a larger common plan of development b) Additional Source Control BMP requirements for specific facilities Commercial or industrial facility Parking areas
Material Storage Areas Pools, spas and other water features Trash Storage Areas
Equipment and accessory wash areas
Interior and parking garage floor drains Miscellaneous drain or wash water G - Complete if your project is only subject to Tier 1 Requirements - Site planning and LID design measures.

LID design measures shall be clearly marked on site plans Check applicable boxes and provide short description of measure and location Conserve natural areas, riparian areas and wetlands
Description:

Concentrate improvements on the least-sensitive portions of the site and minimize grading Description:

Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels
Description:

Direct roof downspouts to landscaped areas or rain gardens Description:

Use pervious pavement (pervious concrete or asphalt, turf block, crushed aggregate, etc.) Description:

Disperse runoff from paved areas to adjacent pervious areas Description:

Vehicle fueling, maintenance and wash areas
Highly Altered Channel and Intermediate Flow Control
Facility Urban Sustainability Area
Restaurants and food processing or
manufacturing facilities
Highly Altered Channel and Intermediate
Facility
Construction activity resulting in land disturbance of one acre or more, or p Commercial or industrial facility
Material Storage Areas
Equipment and accessory wa
Pools, spas and other water features
Trash Storage Areas
Urban Sustainability Area
Parking areas
Vehicle fueling, maintenance and wash areas
Restaurants and food processing o
manufacturing facilities
Interior and parking garage fl Miscellaneous drain or w Conserve natural areas, riparian areas and wetla
Concentrate improvements on the least-sensitive portions Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels
Direct roof downspouts to landscaped areas or
Use pervious pavement (pervious concrete or asphalt, turf block Disperse runoff from paved areas to adjacent pe
- 3 - 30.712
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 19

APPENDICES
APPENDIX B – STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS

30.713

30.714

30.715
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 20

APPENDICES
APPENDIX C – MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

30.716
Appendix
Maintenance Agreement Regarding Maintenance of
Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for: Address _____________________________________________ APN# ________________________ I, ___________________________________________, being the owner of the real property, APN No. _____________, which is located at ____________________________________, Santa Cruz, California, consent and agree to inspect and maintain any and all structural or treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) a minimum of once per year prior to October 1 on the subject property. The structural or treatment control BMPs on the subject property include(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________.

I agree to send a letter that provides proof of inspection and maintenance to the City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works prior to December 1 of each year. Proof of inspection and maintenance shall include a log of inspection and maintenance dates for the past year, and receipts if conducted by a hired service. The log should also indicate any significant observations or repairs made. The proof of inspection and maintenance should be sent to: Environmental Projects Analyst, Department of Public Works, City of Santa Cruz, 809 Center Street, Room 201, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

In the event that the property is sold, transferred, or leased, the obligations hereby imposed on the property owner shall be assumed by subsequent property owners and lessees. To this end, property owner, in any deed transferring an ownership interest in the property or in any lease agreement for the property, shall include a term by which the subsequent property owner or lessee acknowledges his or her understanding of the obligations imposed by this agreement and expressly agrees to accept and assume responsibility for complying with all said obligations imposed by this agreement.

In addition, I will provide printed information to the new property owner or lessee regarding proper BMP inspection and maintenance frequency and methods. The information shall accompany the first deed transfer. This information shall include the following:
(1) a description of any and all storm water structural or treatment control BMPs; (2) a map of the property indicating the BMP locations; and (3) a description of how inspections and necessary maintenance can be performed.

The transfer of this information shall also be required with any subsequent sale of the property.

Failure to comply with the provisions of this Maintenance Agreement may result in enforcement actions including assessment of civil penalties as allowed by the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 16.19.190 Administrative Remedies.

I have read the above agreement and understand it.

Owner Name: ___________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: ___________________________
Owner Address: ________________________________________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ Email: ____________________________

30.717
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 21

APPENDICES
APPENDIX D – POST CONSTRUCTION BMP MAINTENANCE AND SOURCE CONTROL ACTIVITIES TABLE

30.718
Storm Water Treatment Measure Operation
and Maintenance Inspection Report
This report and attached Inspection and Maintenance Checklists is conducted for the identified storm water treatment measure(s) subject to the Maintenance Agreement between the City and the property owner during the annual reporting period indicated below.

I. Property Information:

Property Address or APN: 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Property Owner: ________________________
II. Contact Information:

Name of person to contact regarding this report: ______________ Phone number of contact person: ______________ Email: ______________ III. Reporting Period:

This report with the attached completed inspection checklists documents the inspections and maintenance of the identified treatment measures during the time period from ______________ to ______________.

IV. Stormwater Treatment Measure Information:

The following stormwater treatment measures are located on the property identified above and are subject to the Maintenance Agreement:

Treatment Measure Type of Treatment Measure Location of Treatment Measure on the Property
TCM A Media Filter Southeast corner of site
TCM B Bio-Treatment Basin Northeast corner of site
V. Summary of Inspections and Maintenance:

Summarize the following information using the attached Inspection and Maintenance Checklists:

Treatment
Measure
Date of
Inspection
Operation and Maintenance
Activities Performed
Additional Comments
TCM A
TCM B

30.719
VI. Sediment Removal:

Total amount of accumulated sediment removed from the stormwater treatment measure(s) during the reporting period: ______ cubic yards.

How was sediment disposed?
□ landfill
□ other location on-site as described in and allowed by the maintenance plan □ other, explain ________________________________________________ VII. Inspector Information:

The inspections documented in the attached Inspection and Maintenance Checklists were conducted by the following inspector(s):

Inspector Name and Title Inspector’s Employer and Address VIII. Certification:

I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information presented in this report and attachments us true and complete:
______________________________________________ _________________ Signature of Property Owner or Other Responsible Party Date ______________________________________________
Type or Print Name
______________________________________________
Company Name
______________________________________________
Address
______________________ ______________________
Phone Number Email

30.720
Inspection and Maintenance Guide

PERKFILTERTM

30.721
2 PerkFilter™ Media Filtration System
Description
The PerkFilter is a stormwater treatment device used to remove pollutants from urban runoff. Impervious surfaces and other urban and suburban landscapes generate a variety of contaminants that can enter stormwater ERHTSPPYXIHS[RWXVIEQ VIGIMZMRK[EXIVW8LI4IVO*MPXIVMWEQIHMEƤPPIHGEVXVMHKIƤPXVEXMSRHIZMGIHIWMKRIH to capture and retain sediment, gross solids, metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons, and trash and debris. As with any stormwater treatment system, the PerkFilter requires periodic maintenance to sustain optimum system performance.

Function
8LI 4IVO*MPXIV MW E [EXIV UYEPMX] XVIEXQIRX W]WXIQ GSRWMWXMRK SJ XLVII GLEQFIVW ER MRPIX GLEQFIV E ƤPXIV
cartridge treatment chamber, and an outlet chamber (Figure 1). Stormwater runoff enters the inlet chamber XLVSYKLERMRPIXTMTIGYVFSTIRMRKSVKVEXIHMRPIX+VSWWWSPMHWEVIWIXXPIHSYXERHƥSEXMRKXVEWLERHHIFVMWEVI XVETTIHMRXLIMRPIXGLEQFIV4VIXVIEXIHƥS[MWXLIRHMVIGXIHXSXLIXVIEXQIRXGLEQFIVXLVSYKLERSTIRMRKMR XLIFEJƥI[EPPFIX[IIRXLIMRPIXGLEQFIVERHXVIEXQIRXGLEQFIV8LIXVIEXQIRXGLEQFIVGSRXEMRWQIHMEƤPPIH ƤPXIVGEVXVMHKIW
*MKYVI
XLEXYWITL]WMGEPERHGLIQMGEPTVSGIWWIWXS VIQSZITSPPYXERXW(YVMRKEWXSVQIZIRX runoff pools in the treatment chamber before passing radially through the cylindrical cartridges from the outside surface, through the media for treatment, and into the center of the cartridge. At the center of the cartridge is a GIRXIVXYFIEWWIQFP]HIWMKRIHXSHMWXVMFYXIXLIL]HVEYPMGPSEHIZIRP]EGVSWWXLIWYVJEGISJXLIƤPXIVGEVXVMHKI ERHGSRXVSPXLIXVIEXQIRXƥS[VEXI8LIGIRXIVXYFIEWWIQFP]HMWGLEVKIWXVIEXIHƥS[XLVSYKLXLIJEPWIƥSSV and into the outlet chamber. A draindown feature built into each cartridge allows the treatment chamber to dewater between storm events.

Figure 1. Schematic of the PerkFilter system.

Access covers
Precast concrete vault Filter cartridge treatment chamber Inlet chamber
Inlet pipe
Bypass assembly 'SRGVIXIJEPWIƥSSV Outlet chamber
Outlet hood
Outlet pipe

30.722
3 %PP 4IVO*MPXIV W]WXIQW MRGPYHI E LMKLƥS[ F]TEWW EWWIQFP]XS HMZIVX ƥS[ I\GIIHMRK XLI XVIEXQIRX GETEGMX] SJXLI ƤPXIV GEVXVMHKIW EVSYRH XLI XVIEXQIRX GLEQFIV8LI F]TEWW EWWIQFP]VSYXIW TIEO ƥS[ JVSQXLIMRPIX chamber directly to the outlet chamber, bypassing the treatment chamber to prevent sediment and other captured TSPPYXERXWJVSQFIMRKWGSYVIHERHVIIRXVEMRIHF]LMKLƥS[8VIEXIHƥS[ERHF]TEWWƥS[QIVKIMRXLISYXPIX chamber for discharge by a single outlet pipe.

Figure 2. Schematic of PerkFilter cartridge.
'SRƤKYVEXMSR
8LI4IVO*MPXIVWXVYGXYVIQE]GSRWMWXSJE ZEYPXQERLSPISVGEXGLFEWMRGSRƤKYVEXMSR'EXGLFEWMRYRMXWQE] be fabricated from concrete or steel. Internal components including the PerkFilter cartridges are manufactured from durable plastic and stainless steel components and hardware. All cartridges are 18 inches in diameter and EVIEZEMPEFPIMRX[SLIMKLXW
MRGLERH
MRGL'EVXVMHKIWQE]FIYWIHEPSRISVQE]FIWXEGOIH
*MKYVI
XS
TVSZMHIMRGLERHMRGLGSQFMREXMSRW8LIGETEGMX]SJIEGLGEVXVMHKISVGEVXVMHKIGSQFMREXMSRMWHMGXEXIH by the allowable operating rate of the media and the outer surface area of the cartridge. Thus, taller cartridges have greater treatment capacity than shorter cartridges, but they also require more hydraulic drop across the W]WXIQ'EVXVMHKIWQE]FIƤPPIH[MXLE[MHIZEVMIX]SJQIHMEFYXXLIWXERHEVHQM\MWGSQTSWIHSJ^ISPMXITIVPMXI ERHGEVFSR
>4'

Access to an installed PerkFilter system is typically provided by ductile iron castings or hatch covers. The location ERHRYQFIVSJEGGIWWETTYVXIRERGIWMWHITIRHIRXSRXLIWM^IERHGSRƤKYVEXMSRSJXLIW]WXIQ

30.723
4 Single or bottom stacked cartridge
Inner interconnector coupling (2“ dia.)
Top stacked cartridge
Vent tube (4“ dia.)
Outer interconnector coupling (4“ dia.)
Urethane bottom cap
Slip coupler (2“ dia.)
Figure 3. Schematic of stacked cartridges and connector components.

30.724
5 1EMRXIRERGI3ZIVZMI[
State and local regulations require all stormwater management systems to be inspected on a periodic basis and maintained as necessary to ensure performance and protect downstream receiving waters. Maintenance TVIZIRXWI\GIWWMZITSPPYXERXFYMPHYTXLEXGERPMQMXW]WXIQTIVJSVQERGIF]VIHYGMRKXLISTIVEXMRKGETEGMX]ERH MRGVIEWMRKXLITSXIRXMEPJSVWGSYVMRKSJTSPPYXERXWHYVMRKTIVMSHWSJLMKLƥS[ -RWTIGXMSRERH1EMRXIRERGI*VIUYIRG]
The PerkFilter should be inspected on a periodic basis, typically twice per year, and maintained as required.

Initially, inspections of a new system should be conducted more frequently to help establish an appropriate siteWTIGMƤGMRWTIGXMSRJVIUYIRG]8LIQEMRXIRERGIJVIUYIRG][MPPFIHVMZIRF]XLIEQSYRXSJVYRSJJERHTSPPYXERX loading encountered by a given system. In most cases, the optimum maintenance interval will be one to three years. Inspection and maintenance activities should be performed only during dry weather periods. -RWTIGXMSR)UYMTQIRX
The following equipment is helpful when conducting PerkFilter inspections:
• Recording device (pen and paper form, voice recorder, iPad, etc.) • Suitable clothing (appropriate footwear, gloves, hardhat, safety glasses, etc.) • 8VEJƤGGSRXVSPIUYMTQIRX
GSRIWFEVVMGEHIWWMKREKIƥEKKMRKIXG

• Socket and wrench for bolt-down access covers
• Manhole hook or pry bar
• Flashlight
• Tape measure
• Measuring stick or sludge sampler
• Long-handled net (optional)
-RWTIGXMSR4VSGIHYVIW
PerkFilter inspections are visual and may be conducted from the ground surface without entering the unit. To GSQTPIXIERMRWTIGXMSRWEJIX]QIEWYVIWMRGPYHMRKXVEJƤGGSRXVSPWLSYPHFIHITPS]IHFIJSVIXLIEGGIWWGSZIVW are removed. Once the covers have been removed, the following items should be checked and recorded (see form provided at the end of this document) to determine whether maintenance is required:
• Inspect the internal components and note whether there are any broken or missing parts. In the unlikely IZIRX XLEXMRXIVREP TEVXW EVI FVSOIR SVQMWWMRK GSRXEGX3PHGEWXPI-RJVEWXVYGXYVI EX

XS
determine appropriate corrective action.
• Note whether the inlet pipe is blocked or obstructed. The outlet pipe is covered by a removable outlet hood and cannot be observed without entering the unit.
• 3FWIVZI UYERXMJ] ERH VIGSVH XLI EGGYQYPEXMSR SJ ƥSEXMRK XVEWLERH HIFVMW MR XLI MRPIX GLEQFIV8LI WMKRMƤGERGISJEGGYQYPEXIHƥSEXMRKXVEWLERHHIFVMWMWEQEXXIVSJNYHKQIRX%PSRKLERHPIHRIXQE] be used to retrieve the bulk of trash and debris at the time of inspection if full maintenance due to EGGYQYPEXMSRSJƥSEXMRKSMPWSVWIXXPIHWIHMQIRXMWRSX]IX[EVVERXIH

30.725
6 • 3FWIVZI UYERXMJ] ERH VIGSVH XLI EGGYQYPEXMSR SJ SMPW MR XLI MRPIX GLEQFIV 8LI WMKRMƤGERGI SJ EGGYQYPEXIHƥSEXMRKSMPWMWEQEXXIVSJNYHKQIRX,S[IZIV MJXLIVIMWIZMHIRGISJERSMPSVJYIPWTMPP MQQIHMEXIQEMRXIRERGIF]ETTVSTVMEXIGIVXMƤIHTIVWSRRIPMW[EVVERXIH • Observe, quantify and record the average accumulation of sediment in the inlet chamber and treatment chamber. A calibrated dipstick, tape measure, or sludge sampler may be used to determine the amount of accumulated sediment in each chamber. The depth of sediment may be determined by calculating the difference between the measurement from the rim of the PerkFilter to the top of the accumulated sediment, and the measurement from the rim of the PerkFilter to the bottom of the PerkFilter structure.

Finding the top of the accumulated sediment below standing water takes some practice and a light touch, but increased resistance as the measuring device is lowered toward the bottom of the unit indicates the top of the accumulated sediment.
• Finally, observe, quantify and record the amount of standing water in the treatment chamber around the cartridges. If standing water is present, do not include the depth of sediment that may have settled out below the standing water in the measurement.
1EMRXIRERGI8VMKKIVW
1EMRXIRERGIWLSYPHFIWGLIHYPIHMJER]SJXLIJSPPS[MRKGSRHMXMSRWEVIMHIRXMƤIHHYVMRKXLIMRWTIGXMSR

• Internal components are broken or missing.
• Inlet piping is obstructed.
• 8LIEGGYQYPEXMSRSJƥSEXMRKXVEWLERHHIFVMWXLEXGERRSXFIVIXVMIZIH[MXLERIXERHSVSMPMRXLIMRPIX GLEQFIVMWWMKRMƤGERX
• There is more than 6” of accumulated sediment in the inlet chamber. • 8LIVIMWQSVIXLERűSJEGGYQYPEXIHWIHMQIRXMRXLIXVIEXQIRXGLEQFIV • 8LIVIMWQSVIXLERűSJWXERHMRK[EXIVMRXLIXVIEXQIRXGLEQFIVQSVI XLERLSYVWEJXIVIRHSJVEMR event.
• %LE^EVHSYWQEXIVMEPVIPIEWI
IKEYXSQSXMZIƥYMHW
MWSFWIVZIHSVVITSVXIH
• 8LIW]WXIQLEWRSXFIIRQEMRXEMRIHJSV]IEVW
[IXGPMQEXIW
XS]IEVW
HV]GPMQEXIW

1EMRXIRERGI)UYMTQIRX
The following equipment is helpful when conducting PerkFilter maintenance:
• Suitable clothing (appropriate footwear, gloves, hardhat, safety glasses, etc.) • 8VEJƤGGSRXVSPIUYMTQIRX
GSRIWFEVVMGEHIWWMKREKIƥEKKMRKIXG

• Socket and wrench for bolt-down access covers
• Manhole hook or pry bar
• 'SRƤRIHWTEGIIRXV]IUYMTQIRXMJRIIHIH
• Flashlight
• Tape measure
•
űWSGOIXERH[VIRGLXSVIQSZILSPHHS[RWXVYXWERHƤPXIVGEVXVMHKIXSTW • 6ITPEGIQIRXƤPXIVGEVXVMHKIW
• :EGYYQXVYGO[MXL[EXIVWYTTP]ERH[EXIVNIX
'SRXEGX3PHGEWXPI-RJVEWXVYGXYVIEX

JSVVITPEGIQIRXƤPXIVGEVXVMHKIW% PIEHXMQISJJSYV[IIOW is recommended.

30.726
7 1EMRXIRERGI4VSGIHYVIW
1EMRXIRERGIWLSYPHFIGSRHYGXIHHYVMRKHV][IEXLIV[LIRRSƥS[MWIRXIVMRKXLIW]WXIQ'SRƤRIHWTEGIIRXV] MWRIGIWWEV]XSQEMRXEMRZEYPXERHQERLSPI4IVO*MPXIVGSRƤKYVEXMSRW3RP]TIVWSRRIPXLEXEVI37,%'SRƤRIH 7TEGI)RXV] XVEMRIHERHGIVXMƤIHQE]IRXIVYRHIVKVSYRHWXVYGXYVIW'SRƤRIHWTEGIIRXV]MWRSX VIUYMVIH JSV GEXGLFEWMR4IVO*MPXIVGSRƤKYVEXMSRW3RGIWEJIX]QIEWYVIWWYGLEW XVEJƤGGSRXVSPEVIHITPS]IH XLIEGGIWW covers may be removed and the following activities may be conducted to complete maintenance:
• 6IQSZIƥSEXMRKXVEWLHIFVMWERHSMPWJVSQXLI[EXIVWYVJEGIMRXLIMRPIXGLEQFIVYWMRKXLII\XIRWMSR RS^^PISRXLIIRHSJXLIFSSQLSWISJXLIZEGYYQXVYGO'SRXMRYIYWMRKXLIZEGYYQXVYGOXSGSQTPIXIP] HI[EXIVXLIMRPIXGLEQFIVERHIZEGYEXIEPPEGGYQYPEXIHWIHMQIRXJVSQXLIMRPIXGLEQFIV7SQINIXXMRK QE]FIVIUYMVIHXS JYPP]VIQSZIWIHMQIRX8LIMRPIXGLEQFIVHSIWRSXRIIHXSFIVIƤPPIH[MXL[EXIVEJXIV QEMRXIRERGIMWGSQTPIXI8LIW]WXIQ[MPPƤPP[MXL[EXIV[LIRXLIRI\XWXSVQIZIRXSGGYVW • 6IQSZI XLILSPHHS[RWXVYXJVSQIEGLVS[SJƤPXIVGEVXVMHKIWERHXLIRVIQSZI XLIXSTSJIEGLGEVXVMHKI

XLIXSTMWLIPHSRF]JSYV
űFSPXW
ERHYWIXLIZEGYYQXVYGOXSIZEGYEXIXLIWTIRXQIHME;LIR empty, the spent cartridges may be easily lifted off their slip couplers and removed from the vault. The GSYTPIVWQE]FIPIJXMRWIVXIHMRXSGSYTPMRKWGEWXMRXS XLIJEPWIƥSSVXSTVIZIRXWIHMQIRXERHHIFVMWJVSQ being washed into the outlet chamber during washdown.
• Once all the spent cartridges have been removed from the structure, the vacuum truck may be used to IZEGYEXIEPPEGGYQYPEXIHWIHMQIRXJVSQXLIXVIEXQIRXGLEQFIV7SQINIXXMRKQE]FIVIUYMVIHXS JYPP] VIQSZIWIHMQIRX8EOIGEVIRSXXS[EWLWIHMQIRXERHHIFVMWXLVSYKLXLISTIRMRKWMRXLIJEPWIƥSSVERH into the outlet chamber. All material removed from the PerkFilter during maintenance including the spent QIHMEQYWXFIHMWTSWIHSJMREGGSVHERGI[MXLPSGEPWXEXIERHSVJIHIVEPVIKYPEXMSRW-RQSWXGEWIW the material may be handled in the same manner as disposal of material removed from sumped catch basins or manholes.
• 4PEGIEJVIWLGEVXVMHKIMRIEGLGEVXVMHKITSWMXMSRYWMRKXLII\MWXMRKWPMTGSYTPIVWERHYVIXLERIFSXXSQ GETW-JXLIZEYPXMWIUYMTTIH[MXLWXEGOIHGEVXVMHKIWXLII\MWXMRKSYXIVERHMRRIVMRXIVGSRRIGXSVGSYTPIVW QYWXFIYWIHFIX[IIRXLIWXEGOIHGEVXVMHKIWXSTVSZMHIL]HVEYPMGGSRRIGXMSR8VERWJIVXLII\MWXMRKZIRX XYFIWJVSQXLIWTIRXGEVXVMHKIWXS XLIJVIWLGEVXVMHKIW*MREPP] VIƤXXLIWXVYXWXSLSPHXLIJVIWLGEVXVMHKIW in place.
• Securely replace access covers, as appropriate.
• Make arrangements to return the empty spent cartridges to Oldcastle Infrastructure.

30.727
Inlet or Outlet Blockage or Obstruction Notes:

Yes No
8 PerkFilter
Inspection and Maintenance Log
Location
7XVYGXYVI'SRƤKYVEXMSRERH7M^I
-RWTIGXMSR(EXI
Vault _____JIIX\_____feet
Manhole _____feet diameter
'EXGL&EWMR _____JIIX\_____feet
2YQFIVERH,IMKLXSJ'EVXVMHKI7XEGOW
1IHME8]TI

'SYRXCCCCCIEGLű
űűű >4'4IVPMXI3XLIVCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Condition of Internal Components Notes:

Good (EQEKIH Missing
Floating Trash and Debris Notes:
7MKRMƤGERX 2SX7MKRMƤGERX
Floating Oils Notes:
7MKRMƤGERX 2SX7MKRMƤGERX Spill
Sediment Depth in Inlet Chamber Notes:

Inches of Sediment:___________
Maintenance Required
=IW7GLIHYPI1EMRXIRERGI 2S-RWTIGX%KEMRMR _______ 1SRXLW Sediment Depth in Treatment Chamber Notes:

Inches of Sediment:___________
Standing Water in Treatment Chamber Notes:

Inches of Standing Water:___________

30.728

BUILDING

STRUCTURES

OUR MARKETS

TRANSPORTATION
WATER

COMMUNICATIONS ENERGY
February 2019 v.1
www.oldcastleinfrastructure.com

PERKFILTERTM

30.729
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 22

APPENDICES
APPENDIX E – SAMPLE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE FORM

30.730

SAMPLE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE FORM
Date:

Responsible Inspector:

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Location Date
Observations
Maintenance or Repair
Needed? Debris? Erosion
Problems?
Action Taken Date
Completed

STORM DRAINAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Location Date
Observations
Debris or Sediment?
Silt Accumulation?
Action Taken
Date
Complete
d

STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Location Date
Observations
Flow Obstructions?
Overflow Drain Obstructions?
Debris or Sediment? Erosion
Problems?
Action Taken
Date
Complete
d

SAMPLE FORM ONLY

INSPECTOR/OWNER TO EXPAND AND MODIFY AS NECESSARY

30.731
CEA | Civil Engineers  Planners  Surveyors Page | 23

APPENDICES
APPENDIX F – EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAM TABLE

30.732
Employee Training Program Table
Employee Training Program
Name of Responsible Part responsible for training: __________________________ Provide the following information:

Address
Phone________ Fax_______ E-mail:

Description of Items for Training (e.g.
maintenance, inspection, pesticide use,
others as applicable to site)
Training Schedule Employees To Be Trained (Job Category or Title)
Maintenance Yearly Property Management
Inspection Yearly Property Management
__________________________
__________________________

30.733
530 Front Street Mixed-Use
Development
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

Swenson
July 29, 2022
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Hexagon Job Number: 19GB26
Phone: 408.971.6100
Document Name: 530 Front Street_2022-07-29.docx

30.734
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. iii

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 7

3. Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 15

4. Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................................. 22

5. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................................................................... 28

6. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ................................................................................................... 36

7. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 38 Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Counts
Appendix B Level of Service Calculations
Appendix C Volume Spreadsheet
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................................................... vii Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay .................................... 5 Table 2 Existing Transit Services ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................ 14 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................... 16 Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................ 21 Table 6 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................... 25 Table 7 Mitigated Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... 26 Table 8 Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................. 30 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services ..................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution Pattern ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 8 Net Project Trip Assignment ................................................................................................ 19 Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 20 Figure 10 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 23 Figure 11 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 24 Figure 12 Proposed Front Street Striping Plans ............................................................................... 33

30.735
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | iii
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the proposed mixed-use development at 530 Front Street in Santa Cruz, California (see Figure 1). The project proposes to replace the existing office, restaurant, and retail buildings with an eight-story mixed-use development comprised of 4,787 square feet of retail use and 2,078 square feet of restaurant use on the ground and second floor.

The second floor through eighth floor would have 276 residential units, which consists of 116 micro apartments, 53 studio apartments, 102 1-bedroom apartments, and 5 2-bedroom apartments. Parking would be provided via an on-site garage.

The study includes an evaluation of intersection levels of service and also includes an evaluation of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking demand.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) were used for this analysis. The rates published for Multifamily Housing – Mid-Rise (Land Use 221), Office Building (Land Use 710), Shopping Center (Land Use 820), and Quality Restaurant (Land Use 931) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed mixed-use project. Based on these rates, the proposed project would generate 1,857 daily trips with 103 trips during the AM peak hour and 155 trips during the PM peak hour.

The existing office, restaurant, and retail uses can be credited against the proposed mixed-use development. The existing buildings’ trip generation estimates are based on the average rates published by ITE. Based on the ITE rates, it is estimated that the existing buildings generate 888 daily trips with 10 trips during the AM peak hour and 85 trips during the PM peak hour.

The City of Santa Cruz allows a 40 percent trip reduction for mixed-use development in Downtown Santa Cruz to account for internal capture, walkability, bike-ability, and the existing Metro Transit Center as part of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Amendment (DPA), July 2017. Thus, a 40 percent reduction was applied to the proposed trip generation estimates.

After accounting for the trips generated by the existing businesses, the proposed mixed-use project is estimated to generate 581 new daily trips with a net increase of 56 trips in the AM peak hour and a net increase of 42 trips in the PM peak hour.

30.736
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | iv
Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions.

It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project conditions is shown to be better than under no-project conditions. This occurs because the project would result in a reduction in traffic for several of the intersection movements.

Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that the following intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour, both with and without the project:
 Front Street & Soquel Avenue
 Front Street & Laurel Street
The project would contribute traffic to these deficient intersections.

Mitigation Measures
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR has identified several roadway improvements for which the costs would be covered by anticipated future development projects. Estimated engineering costs for these improvements were estimated, and the 530 Front Street’s fair share payment was calculated based on its cumulative impacts caused at the study intersections.

The project’s fair share is estimated to be 12.54%. This is based on the 42 PM peak hour project trips divided by the Downtown Plan Amendments’ 293 PM peak hour net new trips plus the project’s PM peak hour net new trips (42/335 = 12.54%).

Front Street and Soquel Avenue
Mitigation: The significant cumulative impact at this intersection could be mitigated by adding a second westbound left-turn lane. The centerline median would be shifted south, and the east leg would be reduced to one through lane between Front Street and River Street.

The westbound shared through-left lane would be converted into a through-lane. The signal timing and phasing would be optimized.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street and Laurel Street
Mitigation: The significant cumulative impact at this intersection could be mitigated by converting the westbound right-turn lane into a shared through-right lane. The west leg would be widened to provide a receiving lane between Pacific Avenue and Front Street, relocating sidewalk, utilities, and landscaping. A right-turn overlap phase would be provided for the northbound and southbound approaches.

30.737
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | v
Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street
Impact: Although this intersection was not included in this study, the addition of project traffic to this intersection would continue to operate at LOS E during Cumulative Plus Project conditions based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. This constitutes a significant impact according to the thresholds established by the City of Santa Cruz.

Mitigation: The significant cumulative impact at this intersection could be mitigated by the construction of a southbound left-turn lane and removing the existing landscape median.

The estimated engineering cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be approximately $313,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street Improvements
Under the direction of the City of Santa Cruz, a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Front Street would be implemented that could be used by inbound and outbound traffic from all driveways.

The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated.

Continuous Class bike lanes and Class II buffered bike lanes would be provided with the restriping of Front Street.

The cost to construct these improvements is estimated to be $169,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study.

The vehicle queuing analysis for the southbound left-turn movement into the project driveway was also conducted. The estimated 95th percentile queue for the vehicles turning left from southbound Soquel Avenue into the project driveway is approximately 75 feet (3 vehicles) in the AM peak hour and 100 feet (4 vehicles) in the PM peak hour. The total storage provided between the project driveway and Soquel Avenue at the inner most southbound lane is approximately 300 feet (12 vehicles). Thus, the southbound left-turn traffic into the project driveway should not impact the two through lanes of traffic along southbound Soquel Avenue.

A pedestrian warning device is recommended at the driveway exit to alert pedestrians of outgoing vehicles.

The project proposes to provide trees along the project frontage on Front Street. There are two trees that would be located close to a traffic signal at the Front Street/Soquel Avenue intersection. It is recommended that these trees be trimmed and maintained to prevent the traffic signals from being obstructed.

30.738
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | vi
Parking
The proposed project would provide affordable and lower-income units. In addition, the development is located is located within one-mile of a major transit stop and has unobstructed access to the major transit stop. Thus, the State Density Law’s reduced parking ratios apply to the project, if so requested by the project applicant.

Under the State Density Bonus Law, the project would need to provide 138 parking spaces.

The project also proposes restaurant and retail uses on the site. The project proposes to construct 2,078 square feet of restaurant use and 4,787 square feet of retail use. Since the project is located in Parking District #1, the vehicle requirement for restaurant use is 1 parking space per 120 square feet, and retail uses is 1 parking space per 400 square feet. Therefore, the project is required to provide a minimum of 29 parking spaces for restaurant and retail uses. Thus, the total required parking is 167 spaces.

The project is proposing 181 spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirement. It is assumed that some vehicles traveling to this location for the restaurant and commercial uses would utilize the public lots and garages within the area, with the nearest public parking garage located at the northwest corner of Front Street and Soquel Avenue.

According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, bicycle parking facilities are required for new buildings, additions or enlargements of an existing building, or for any change in the occupancy, except when the project property is located within Parking District #1. Since the project is located within Parking District #1, bicycle parking facilities are not required. However, the project provides bicycle parking and follows the bicycle parking requirements from the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The bicycle parking requirement for a multifamily residential use is 1 space per unit with all of the bicycle spaces being long-term bicycle spaces. The project proposes 271 units, with 5 2-bedroom units. Therefore, the project would need to provide 276 long-term bicycle spaces. The bicycle requirement for the restaurant and retail uses is 2 spaces plus 15% of the auto parking vehicle requirement. The project requires 29 vehicle parking spaces for restaurant and retail uses. Therefore, the project would need to provide 6 bicycle spaces. In total, the project would need to provide 282 bicycle parking spaces. According to the site plan, the project proposes to provide 372 bicycle parking spaces.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Based on the California T Travel Model, the City daily VMT per capita is 11.04, and the County VMT per capita is 15.41. The City daily VMT per employee is 20.06, and the County VMT per employee is

22.09. Since the City daily VMT per capita (11.04) is less than 85% of the County daily VMT per capita, it can be assumed that the residential portion of the project will have a less-than significant VMT impact.

For the purpose of VMT evaluation, the trip estimates for the retail portion of the project site were treated as local-serving retail land use. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory Guidelines, retail development less than 50,000 square feet can be considered local-serving retail. The project proposes a 2,113 square feet of retail use on the ground floor, 2,078 square feet of restaurant use and 1,847 square feet of retail use on the second floor, which totals to 6,038 square feet. Therefore, it is assumed that local-serving retail projects will have a lessthan significant VMT impact.

30.739
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | vii
Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.

Peak Count Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Date Note (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Signal AM 05/14/19 31.6 C 31.8 C 0.2 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0 66.7 E 75.1 E 54.4 D
2 Signal AM 05/14/19 10.4 B 10.4 B 0.0 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 9.8 A 9.8 A 0.0 11.6 B 11.7 B - -
3 Signal AM 05/14/19 * 15.0 B 15.1 B 0.1 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 * 17.5 B 17.5 B 0.0 29.0 C 29.0 C - -
4 Signal AM 05/14/19 23.3 C 23.5 C 0.2 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 26.0 C 27.4 C 1.4 67.9 E 69.6 E 54.4 D
5 Signal AM 05/14/19 5.4 A 5.3 A -0.1 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 6.2 A 6.1 A -0.1 8.8 A 8.8 A - -
6 Signal AM 05/14/19 22.2 C 22.2 C 0.0 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 29.6 C 29.8 C 0.2 53.1 D 53.8 D - -
7 Signal AM 05/14/19 * 19.5 B 19.5 B 0.0 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 * 20.6 C 20.6 C 0.0 32.0 C 32.0 C - -
Notes:
*
Bold indicates substandard level of service.
1234
2030 General Plan volumes were supplied only for the PM peak hour.Year 2030 conditions intersection level of service results are based on cumulative plus project volumes from the 508 Front Street traffic study.Front Street & Cooper Street1 2 3 River Street & Water Street1 2 3Pacific Avenue/Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street1 2 3 Mitigated Year 2030
Plus Project
Year 2030 Plus
Existing plus Project Project Conditions
River Street & Soquel Avenue1 2 3
Year 2030 no Project
Existing Conditions
Front Street & Soquel Avenue4
indicates the intersection level of service is calculated using the HCM 2000 module with the Synchro software. These intersections have unusual lane geometries that cannot be supported by the Synchro HCM 6th Edition module.Year 2030 conditions intersection level of service results are based on results published in the City of Santa Cruz Critical Intersections and General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes - Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.Year 2030 intersection level of service results for these intersections were not reported in the Critical Intersections and General Plan Buildout document. Volumes at these intersections were used to analyze resulting Year 2030 LOS results using Synchro.Front Street & Cathcart Street4Front Street & Laurel Street4 Incr. in
Avg.

Delay

30.740
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the proposed mixed-use development at 530 Front Street in Santa Cruz, California (see Figure 1). The project proposes to replace the existing office, restaurant, and retail buildings with a eight-story mixed-use development comprised of 4,787 square feet of retail use and 2,078 square feet of restaurant use on the ground and second floor.

The second floor through eighth floor would have 276 residential units, which consists of 116 micro apartments, 53 studio apartments, 102 1-bedroom apartments, and 5 2-bedroon apartments. Parking would be provided via an on-site garage. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2.

Scope of Study
The purpose of the traffic analysis is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Santa Cruz. The traffic analysis includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions and determines the traffic impacts of the proposed mixed-use development on key intersections in the vicinity of the site.

The key intersections are identified below.
 Front Street and Soquel Avenue
 River Street and Soquel Avenue
 Front Street and Cathcart Street
 Front Street and Laurel Street
 Front Street and Cooper Street
 River Street and Water Street
 Pacific Avenue/Front Street and Mission Street/Water Street Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Locally, the AM peak hour of traffic is between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday.

30.741
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
1/2-mile radius
1-mile radius
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Cooper
St
Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
10%
5%
20%
15%
5%
15%
30%
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections

30.742
Figure 2
Site Plan
530 Front Street TIA
Soquel Ave
:9
=3
=3 =3=3
==
=
(
,
6
*)
(
,
6 (
,
6 =<
=<
=<
=<
,854:°9:8++:
9 5
7 ;
+
2 '
<
+
4 ;
+
$D
$
$

$

$

& &'
'
) )
* *
+ +
&
%

$

$
$

$D

(

'&
&

$

$

$

$
$

$

&200(5&,$/ /2%%</($6,1*
75$6+50
(/(&50

$3
0 2&
7&1
2 5$&
</
$3
0 2&
7&1
2 5$&
</
$3
0 2&
7&1
2 5$&
</
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
&$56
/3:3
67$,5
67$,5

(
$'-%/'*

$
$ $% %

:$6+
'2* 0$,1

7(1$1&(
7)0550
6725$*(
6725$*(
*$5$*(
&251(5
3/$=$
3$5.,1* 12
&203$&7
&$521/<

7)0550

&$56
/3:3

5(6285&(

&$521/<
&203$&7
&$521/<
&203$&7
&$521/<
&203$&7

6725$*(
81,76
6725$*(
81,76
6725$*(
81,76

38==/(56<67(0
(93$5.,1*
(9
9(
9(
9(
9(

287'225
/281*(

30.743
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 4
The study also includes an evaluation of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking demand.

Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
 Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at study intersections were based on new traffic counts collected in May 2019.  Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project conditions reflect the projected traffic volumes on the existing roadway network with completion of the project. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic counts the additional traffic generated by the project.
 Cumulative Conditions (PM Only). Cumulative traffic volumes were based on the buildout of the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan. A list of peak-hour traffic volumes in the vicinity was provided by the City of Santa Cruz. The City General Plan was only developed for the PM peak hour, which represents the worst-case analysis. The PM peak hour volumes are typically higher than the AM hour. Cumulative plus project traffic volumes from the 508 Front Street traffic study were used for 3 study intersections: Front Street/Soquel Avenue, Front Street/Cathcart Street, and Front Street/Laurel Street
 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (PM Only). Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by adding the project traffic to the volumes generated by buildout of the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan and the 508 Front Street traffic study. A list of peak-hour traffic volumes in the vicinity was provided by the City of Santa Cruz.

Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above and the traffic impacts of the project. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, field observations, and the City of Santa Cruz. The following data were collected from these sources:
 Intersection traffic volumes,
 Intersection lane configurations, and
 Intersection signal timing and phasing.

Analysis Methodologies
Signalized Intersection Level of Service
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

The City of Santa Cruz evaluates intersection levels of service using the Synchro software, which is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method for signalized intersections. The HCM 6th Edition method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service. The City of Santa Cruz level of service standard for signalized study intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 presents the level of service definitions for signalized intersections.

30.744
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 5
Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Vehicle Queuing
The queuing analysis is used to determine the appropriate storage lengths for the high demand turn lanes where the project would add a substantial number of trips. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:

Probability (X=n) = n e – (
n!
Where:

Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(sec.)
A 10.0 or less
B+ 10.1 to 12.0
B 12.1 to 18.0
B‐ 18.1 to 20.0
C+ 20.1 to 23.0
C 23.1 to 32.0
C‐ 32.1 to 35.0
D+ 35.1 to 39.0
D 39.1 to 51.0
D‐ 51.1 to 55.0
E+ 55.1 to 60.0
E 60.1 to 75.0
E‐ 75.1 to 80.0
F greater than 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10‐16.

The level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.

Level of
Service Description
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most Vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

Operations characterized by good signal progression and/orshort cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

Higher delays may result for fairsignal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poorsignal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

30.745
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 6
Probability (X=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
Average number of vehicles in queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane/signal cycles per hour) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at intersections.

Significant Impact Criteria
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections are based on City of Santa Cruz Level of Service standards. Impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit services were evaluated based on the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines (October 2017) and professional judgment.

City of Santa Cruz Signalized Intersections
According to City of Santa Cruz level of service standard, a development is said to create a significant impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if:

1. The level of service at the intersection drops below its respective level of service standard (LOS D or better) when project traffic is added, or

2. The project traffic together with General Plan traffic would result in a drop below the level of service standard (LOS D). (This is defined as a cumulatively considerable effect), or

3. The project traffic would change the peak hour level of service of a State Highway roadway segment from acceptable operation to deficient operation with the addition of project-generated traffic.

A significant impact at a signalized intersection is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would adequately avoid or minimize an impact to a less-than-significant level.

Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the methods used to estimate project traffic, intersection operations under existing plus project conditions, and the project’s impacts on the existing transportation system. Chapter 4 presents the intersection operations under cumulative conditions. Chapter 5 presents the project’s impacts on transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, site access and on-site circulation, Front Street improvements, and parking. Chapter 6 discusses vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Chapter 7 includes a summary of project impacts and recommended improvements.

30.746
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 7

2. Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Roadway Network
Local roadways in the vicinity of the site include Front Street, Soquel Avenue, River Street, Cathcart Street, Laurel Street, Cooper Street, Water Street, Pacific Avenue, and Mission Street. These roadways are described below.

Front Street is a two- to four-lane arterial street that extends from Mission Street/Water Street in the north to Pacific Avenue to the south. Front Street is oriented in a north-south direction in the project vicinity. Front Street has bike lanes and continuous sidewalks present on both sides of the street. Onstreet parking is permitted on the east side of the street. The prima facie speed limit on Front Street is 25 mph.

Soquel Avenue is a two- to four-lane arterial street that extends from Pacific Avenue in the west to Gross Road from to the east. Soquel Avenue is oriented in a west-east direction in the project vicinity.

Soquel Avenue has bike lanes and continuous sidewalks present on both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited along most of the roadway within the project vicinity. Soquel Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.

River Street is a two- to four-lane arterial street that extends from Highway 1 in the north to Soquel Avenue to the south. River Street is oriented in the north-south direction in the project vicinity. River Street has bike lanes/shared bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on the west side of the street. The posted speed limit on River Street is 25 mph.

Cathcart Street is a two-lane local street that extends from Cedar Street in the west to Front Street to the east. Cathcart Street is oriented in the west-east direction in the project vicinity. Cathcart Street has bike lanes and continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The prima facie speed limit on Cathcart Street is 25 mph.

Laurel Street is a mostly two-lane arterial street that extends from Escalona Drive in the west to Broadway to the east. Laurel Street is oriented in the west-east direction in the project vicinity. Within the project vicinity, there are bike lanes from California Street to Broadway on both sides of the street.

Laurel Street has sidewalks on both sides of the street from Highway 1 to Broadway. On-street parking is prohibited within the project vicinity, and the posted speed limit of 25 mph.

30.747
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 8
Cooper Street is a two-lane local street that extends from Pacific Avenue to Front Street. Cooper Street is oriented in the west-east direction. Within the project vicinity, Cooper Street has sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph.

Water Street is a four-lane arterial street that extends from Front Street/Pacific Avenue in the west to Soquel Avenue to the east. Water Street is oriented in the west-east direction in the project vicinity.

Within the project vicinity, there are sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on Water Street is 30 mph.

Pacific Avenue is a two-lane arterial street from Laurel Street to Cathcart Street. North of Cathcart Street, Pacific Street becomes a one-way street. Within the project vicinity, there are bike lanes throughout the segment and sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 15 mph within the project vicinity.

Mission Street is two- to four-lane arterial street that extends from Highway 1 to Pacific Avenue.

Mission Street is oriented in the west-east direction in the project vicinity. There are bike lanes along Mission Street and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Some parking is provided on the street. The posted speed limit on Mission Street is 25 mph.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities within the study area are in the form of sidewalks and crosswalks that are mostly signalized. Sidewalks are found on both sides of the streets in the study area. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are located at all the study intersections.

Bicycle facilities in the study area include a shared use path, bike lanes and a bike route (see Figure 3).

Shared use paths are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles and pedestrians and are separate from the existing travel lanes. The Santa Cruz Riverwalk (Class I Bikeway) runs along the San Lorenzo River from Beach Street to north of Highway 1. The Santa Cruz Riverwalk is located east of the project site. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs or pavement markers. Within the project study area, bike lanes (Class II Bikeway) are provided on study streets except Cooper Street. River Street South is a designated bike route (Class III Bikeway) marked with “sharrows.”

30.748
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Existing Class I Bike Paths
= Existing Class II Bike Lanes
= Existing Class III Bike Routes
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Cooper
St
Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
1 530 Front Street TIA
Figure 3
Existing Bicycle Facilities

30.749
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 10
Transit Services
Existing transit services near the project site are provided by the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (See Figure 4). The transit service routes that run through the study area are listed in Table 2, including their route description, weekday hours of operation, and commute hour headways. The nearest stop is located adjacent to the project site on Soquel Avenue, providing access to Route 69A and 69W.

Additional bus stops to the other bus routes are located at the Front Street/Soquel Avenue intersection, approximately 250 feet north of the site.

Table 2
Existing Transit Services
Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations (see Figure 5).

Existing peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning-movement counts conducted in May 2019 (see Figure 6). New intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A.

Bus Route Route Description
Closest Stop & Distance to
Project Site
Weekday Hours
of Operation1 Headway1
Local Bus 4 Harvery West/Emeline Front Street/Soquel Avenue,

0.01 mi 7:25 am - 5:45 pm 60 min
Local Bus 10 UCSC Via High; Adheres to UCSC &
Weside School Term Calendar
Front Street/Soquel Avenue,

0.01 mi 7:20 am - 8:00 pm 30 min during school term calendar; 60 min Local Bus 35/35A San Lorenzo Valley (SLV) /
SLV via Scotts Valley Drive
Front Street/Soquel Avenue,

0.01 mi 6:30 am - 11:55pm 30 min
Local Bus 66 Live Oak via 17th Front Street/Soquel Avenue,

0.01 mi 5:55 am - 11:05 pm 60 min
Local Bus 69A Capitola Rd. / Watsonville via Airport B Front Street/Soquel Avenue, at project site 6:45 am - 7:15 pm 60 min
Local Bus 69W Capitola Rd. / Cabrillo / Watsonville Front Street/Soquel Avenue, at project site 6:20 am - 10:20 pm 60 min
Local Bus 71 Santa Cruz / Watsonville Front Street/Soquel Avenue,

0.01 mi 5:30 am - 12:45 am 30 min
Notes:

1. Approximate weekday operation hours and headways during peak commute periods in the project area, as of May 2019.

30.750
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Route 66
= Route 4
= Route 10
= Route 35/35A
= Route 71
= Route 69W
= Route 69A
X = Study Intersection
1/2-mile radius
1-mile radius
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Cooper
St
Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
10%
5%
20%
15%
5%
15%
30%
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 4
Existing Transit Services

30.751
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
1/2-mile radius
1-mile radius
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
10%
5%
10%
25%
5%
10%
25%
10%
4 3
2 1 5
6 7
Front
St
Ave
Soquel
Ave
Soquel
Front
St
St
Cathcart
Front
St
St
Laurel
Front
St
St
Cooper
River
St
St
Water
St
Front
St
Water
River
St
River
St
Pacific
Ave
Pacific
Ave
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 5
Existing Lane Configurations

30.752
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
1/2-mile radius
1-mile radius
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
10%
5%
10%
25%
5%
10%
25%
10%
4 3
2 1 5
6 7
Front
St
Ave
Soquel
Ave
Soquel
Front
St
St
Cathcart
Front
St
St
Laurel
Front
St
St
Cooper
River
St
St
Water
Front
St
St
Water
River
St
River
St
Pacific
Ave
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 6
Existing Traffic Volumes
5(11)
134(165)198(244)
34(143)163(308)33(95)
279(217)
532(414)
91(108)
56(78)
356(517)
13(18)
17(24)
281(339)
62(141)323(544)
32(85)
8(20)
9(15)
230(285)
66(124)
20(35)133(279)18(101)
238(370)
78(107)
50(49)
25(53)
57(160)
23(64)44(185)
65(293)
324(358)
91(122)
135(378)
44(39)
206(320)
23(35)176(352)
50(64)
41(111)
31(95)
186(264)136(316)
2(23)91(255)73(222)
255(224)
770(601)
283(211)
10(38)
323(614)
18(61)119(191) 51(109)
9(11)
126(126)
658(582)
1(1)
88(153)
348(675)
65(143)

30.753
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 14
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions (see Table 3). The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Observed Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions were observed in the field in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect level of service in the field.

Overall, the study intersections operated adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. Field observations showed no operational issues occurred at any of the study intersections.

Avg.

Peak Count Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Date Note (sec) LOS
1 Signal AM 05/14/19 31.6 C
PM 05/14/19 31.3 C
2 Signal AM 05/14/19 10.4 B
PM 05/14/19 9.8 A
3 Signal AM 05/14/19 * 15.0 B
PM 05/14/19 * 17.5 B
4 Signal AM 05/14/19 23.3 C
PM 05/14/19 26.0 C
5 Signal AM 05/14/19 5.4 A
PM 05/14/19 6.2 A
6 Signal AM 05/14/19 22.2 C
PM 05/14/19 29.6 C
7 Signal AM 05/14/19 * 19.5 B
PM 05/14/19 * 20.6 C
Notes:
* indicates the intersection level of service is calculated using the HCM 2000 module with the Synchro software. These intersections have unusual lane geometries that cannot be supported by the Synchro HCM 6th Edition module.

Front Street & Laurel Street
Front Street & Cooper Street
River Street & Water Street
Pacific Avenue/Front Street & Mission
Street/Water Street
Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Existing
Front Street & Cathcart Street
River Street & Soquel Avenue

30.754
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 15

3. Existing Plus Project Conditions
This chapter describes existing traffic conditions with the addition of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project.

Roadway Network
The roadway network under existing plus project conditions would be the same as the existing roadway network because the project would not alter the existing intersection lane configurations.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The rates published for Multifamily Housing – MidRise (Land Use 221), Office Building (Land Use 710), Shopping Center (Land Use 820), and Quality Restaurant (Land Use 931) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed mixed-use project. Based on these rates, the proposed project would generate 1,857 daily trips with 103 trips during the AM peak hour and 155 trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 4).

Trip Adjustments and Reductions
The existing office, restaurant, and retail uses can be credited against the proposed mixed-use development. The existing buildings’ trip generation are based on the average rates published by ITE.

Based on the ITE rates, it is estimated that the existing buildings would generate 888 daily trips with 10 trips during the AM peak hour and 85 trips during the PM peak hour.

The City of Santa Cruz allows a 40 percent trip reduction for mixed-use developments in Downtown Santa Cruz to account for internal capture, walkability, bike-ability, and the existing Metro Transit Center as part of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Amendment (DPA), July 2017. The Santa Cruz

30.755
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 16
Metro Center is located approximately 800 feet south of the project site along Front Street. The Metro Center provides transit service throughout Santa Cruz County via the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District.

Bike lanes and sidewalks are located along Front Street. Thus, a 40 percent reduction was applied to the proposed trip generation estimates.

After accounting for the trips generated by the existing businesses and appropriate trip reductions, the proposed mixed-use project is estimated to generate 581 new daily trips with a net increase of 56 trips in the AM peak hour and a net increase of 42 trips in the PM peak hour.

Table 4
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed development was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses (see Figure 7).

The peak-hour trips generated by the existing and proposed uses were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure, the roadway network connections, and the Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses
Retail1 4.787 ksf 37.75 181 0.94 2 2 4 3.81 9 9 18
Restaurant2 2.078 ksf 83.84 174 - 0 0 0 7.80 11 5 16
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)3 276.0 DU 5.44 1,501 0.36 26 73 99 0.44 74 47 121 Subtotal 1,857 28 75 103 94 61 155
- 40% Reduction for Downtown Area5 (743) (11) (30) (41) (38) (24) (62) Net Proposed Uses 1,114 17 45 62 56 37 93
Existing Uses
Office4 6.4 ksf 9.74 63 1.16 6 1 7 1.15 1 7 8
Restaurants2 8.5 ksf 83.84 712 - 0 0 0 7.80 44 22 66
Retail1 3.0 ksf 37.75 113 0.94 2 1 3 3.81 5 6 11
Subtotal 888 8 2 10 50 35 85
- 40% Reduction for Downtown Area5 (355) (3) (1) (4) (20) (14) (34) Net Existing Uses 533 5 1 6 30 21 51
Net Project Trips 581 12 44 56 26 16 42
Note:

Trip rates for shopping center, restaurant, office, and multifamily housing are from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017.
that the restaurants do not operate during the AM peak hour. Therefore, no trips were added.

3. Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (Land Use 221) average rates expressed in trips per dwelling units (DU) are used.

5. 40% reduction for mixed-use development in Downtown Santa Cruz per Santa Cruz Downtown Recovery Plan Amendment, May 2017.

4. Office Building (Land Use 710) average rates expressed in trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf) are used.

1. Shopping Center (Land Use 820) average rates expressed in trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf) are used.

2. Quality Restaurant (Land Use 931) average rates expressed in trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf) are used. It is assumed Size
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

30.756
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 17
locations of project driveways (see Figure 8). The trips generated by the existing uses were subtracted from the roadway network prior to assigning project trips. It is assumed that all residential trips would enter and exit the project site via a driveway on Front Street.

Intersection Traffic Volumes
Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 9).

30.757
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
1/2-mile radius
1-mile radius
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Cooper
St
Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
10%
5%
10%
25%
5%
10%
25%
10%
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 7
Project Trip Distribution Pattern

30.758
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Cooper
St
Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 8
Net Project Trip Assignment
4 3
2 1 5
6 7
Front
St
Ave
Soquel
Ave
Soquel
Front
St
St
Cathcart
Front
St
St
Laurel
Front
St
St
Cooper
River
St
St
Water
Front
St
St
Water
River
St
River
St
Pacific
Ave
1(1)
4(2)2(1)4(2)
1(3)
1(3)
3(7)
11(4)
4(2)
18(6)11(4)
1(3)
7(14)
1(3)4(8)
3(7)
11(4)
18(6)
1(3)
2(1)
11(4)
4(2)
3(7)
1(3)
2(1)
1(1)

30.759
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 9
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
4 3
2 1 5
6 7
Front
St
Ave
Soquel
Ave
Soquel
Front
St
St
Cathcart
Front
St
St
Laurel
Front
St
St
Cooper
River
St
St
Water
Front
St
St
Water
River
St
River
St
Pacific
Ave
5(11)
135(166)198(244)
38(145)165(309)37(97)
279(217)
532(414)
92(111)
57(81)
356(517)
13(18)
17(24)
284(346)
62(141)334(548)
32(85)
8(20)
13(17)
248(291)
77(128)
20(35)134(282)18(101)
245(384)
78(107)
50(49)
25(53)
57(160)
24(67)48(193)
65(293)
327(365)
91(122)
146(382)
44(39)
224(326)
23(35)177(355)
50(64)
41(111)
33(96)
197(268)140(318)
2(23)94(262)73(222)
256(227)
770(601)
283(211)
10(38)
323(614)
18(61)119(191) 51(109)
9(11)
126(126)
660(583)
1(1)
88(153)
348(675)
66(144)

30.760
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 21
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions (see Table 5). It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project conditions is shown to be better than under no-project conditions. This occurs because the project would result in a reduction in traffic for several of the intersection movements. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

Table 5
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Avg. Avg.

Peak Count Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Date Note (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Signal AM 05/14/19 31.6 C 31.8 C 0.2
PM 05/14/19 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0
2 Signal AM 05/14/19 10.4 B 10.4 B 0.0
PM 05/14/19 9.8 A 9.8 A 0.0
3 Signal AM 05/14/19 * 15.0 B 15.1 B 0.1
PM 05/14/19 * 17.5 B 17.5 B 0.0
4 Signal AM 05/14/19 23.3 C 23.5 C 0.2
PM 05/14/19 26.0 C 27.4 C 1.4
5 Signal AM 05/14/19 5.4 A 5.3 A -0.1
PM 05/14/19 6.2 A 6.1 A -0.1
6 Signal AM 05/14/19 22.2 C 22.2 C 0.0
PM 05/14/19 29.6 C 29.8 C 0.2
7 Signal AM 05/14/19 * 19.5 B 19.5 B 0.0
PM 05/14/19 * 20.6 C 20.6 C 0.0
Notes:
* indicates the intersection level of service is calculated using the HCM 2000 module with the Synchro software. These intersections have unusual lane geometries that cannot be supported by the Synchro HCM 6th Edition module.

Front Street & Laurel Street
Front Street & Cooper Street
River Street & Water Street
Pacific Avenue/Front Street & Mission
Street/Water Street
Existing Existing plus Project
Front Street & Cathcart Street
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
Front Street & Soquel Avenue
River Street & Soquel Avenue

30.761
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 22

4. Cumulative Conditions
This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions.

Peak hour traffic volumes for Cumulative conditions were obtained from the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan (PM peak hour only).

Roadway Network Under Cumulative Conditions
The City has no plans to change the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site.

Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes under cumulative conditions were based on the total trips generated by buildout of the General Plan and the 508 Front Street traffic study. The project is not included in the General Plan buildout. Therefore, to estimate the cumulative plus project volumes, the project trips were added to the General Plan buildout. The following study intersections used the cumulative plus project volumes from the 508 Front Street traffic study:
 Front Street & Soquel Avenue
 Front Street & Cathcart Street
 Front Street & Laurel Street
Figure 10 and Figure 11 shows the cumulative traffic volumes and cumulative with project traffic volumes, respectively.

Volumes under cumulative conditions are presented in Appendix C.

Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that the following intersections would operate under unacceptable level of service conditions during the PM peak hour, both with and without the project (see Table 6):
 Front Street & Soquel Avenue
 Front Street & Laurel Street
The project would add traffic to these deficient intersections, which constitutes an impact according to Santa Cruz standards.

The detailed level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

30.762
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX = PM Peak-Hour Trips
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 10
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
4 3
2 1 5
6 7
Front
St
Ave
Soquel
Ave
Soquel
Front
St
St
Cathcart
Front
St
St
Laurel
Front
St
St
Cooper
River
St
St
Water
Front
St
St
Water
River
St
River
St
Pacific
Ave
21036545
157
827
37 250
1025
157
111393252
58427312
204
934
346
82 1112
62 4
228254
262366202
227
830
195
165
996
29 116569
317805
193
111
46 523243
75649193
496
314
79 70
262
44 79
511
78680
148
148
161445
620
178
602

30.763
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
SANTA
CRUZ
6 7
5 1
2 3
4 Front St
Center St
Pacific Ave
Cedar St
3rd St
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Ocean St
Water St
River St
Soquel Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln St
Washington St
Elm St
Church St
Broadway
Maple St
Barson St
State Rte 1
Mission St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Cathcart St
530 Front Street TIA
Figure 11
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes
4 3
2 1 5
6 7
Front
St
Ave
Soquel
Ave
Soquel
Front
St
St
Cathcart
Front
St
St
Laurel
Front
St
St
Cooper
River
St
St
Water
Front
St
St
Water
River
St
River
St
Pacific
Ave
4 229254
264367204
227
830
198
168
996
29 116576
317809
193
111
48 529247
75652193
510
314
79 70
262
47169
445
627
178
606
79 517
78683
148
148
112397254
58434312
207
934
346
82 1112
62210 365
45 157
828
37 250
1025
158

30.764
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 25
Table 6
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Mitigation Measures
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR has identified several roadway improvements for which the costs would be covered by anticipated future development projects. Estimated engineering costs for these improvements were estimated, and the 530 Front Street’s fair share payment was calculated based on its cumulative impacts caused at the study intersections.

The recommended mitigation measures under cumulative conditions are described below. The mitigated cumulative plus project level of service analysis is shown in Table 7.

Avg. Avg.

Peak Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Note (sec) LOS (sec) LOS
1 Signal AM - - - -
PM 66.7 E 75.1 E
2 Signal AM - - - -
PM 11.6 B 11.7 B
3 Signal AM * - - - -
PM * 29.0 C 29.0 C
4 Signal AM - - - -
PM 67.9 E 69.6 E
5 Signal AM - - - -
PM 8.8 A 8.8 A
6 Signal AM - - - -
PM 53.1 D 53.8 D
7 Signal AM * - - - -
PM * 32.0 C 32.0 C
Notes:

BOLD indicates a substandard level of service.

Front Street & Laurel Street4
Front Street & Cooper Street1 2 3
River Street & Water Street1 2 3
Pacific Avenue/Front Street & Mission
Street/Water Street1 2 3
Front Street & Soquel Avenue4
River Street & Soquel Avenue1 2 3

4. Year 2030 conditions intersection level of service results are based on cumulative plus project volumes from the 508 Front Street traffic study.

Year 2030 no Project
Conditions
Year 2030 Plus
Project Conditions
Front Street & Cathcart Street4

2. Year 2030 intersection level of service results for these intersections were not reported in the Critical Intersections and General Plan Buildout document. Volumes at these intersections were used to analyze resulting Year 2030 LOS results using Synchro.
* indicates the intersection level of service is calculated using the HCM 2000 module with the Synchro software. These intersections have unusual lane geometries that cannot be supported by the Synchro HCM 6th Edition module.

1. Year 2030 conditions intersection level of service results are based on results published in the City of Santa Cruz Critical Intersections and General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes - Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. Project-generated traffic volumes were applied to the Year 2030 GP conditions LOS results to derive the Year 2030 no project conditions LOS results.

3. 2030 General Plan volumes were supplied only for the PM peak hour.

30.765
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 26
Table 7
Mitigated Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Front Street and Soquel Avenue
Mitigation: The significant cumulative impact at this intersection could be mitigated by adding a second westbound left-turn lane. The centerline median would be shifted south, and the east leg would be reduced to one through lane between Front Street and River Street.

The westbound shared through-left lane would be converted into a through-lane. The signal timing and phasing would be optimized.

Avg. Avg. Avg.

Peak Delay Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Note (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 66.7 E 75.1 E 54.4 D
2 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 11.6 B 11.7 B - -
3 Signal AM * - - - - - -
PM * 29.0 C 29.0 C - -
4 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 67.9 E 69.6 E 54.4 D
5 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 8.8 A 8.8 A - -
6 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 53.1 D 53.8 D - -
7 Signal AM * - - - - - -
PM * 32.0 C 32.0 C - -
Notes:

BOLD indicates a substandard level of service.

4. Year 2030 conditions intersection level of service results are based on cumulative plus project volumes from the 508 Front Street traffic study.

Year 2030 no Project
Conditions
Year 2030 Plus
Project Conditions
Front Street & Cathcart Street4

2. Year 2030 intersection level of service results for these intersections were not reported in the Critical Intersections and General Plan Buildout document. Volumes at these intersections were used to analyze resulting Year 2030 LOS results using Synchro. * indicates the intersection level of service is calculated using the HCM 2000 module with the Synchro software. These intersections have unusual lane geometries that cannot be supported by the Synchro HCM 6th Edition module.

3. 2030 General Plan volumes were supplied only for the PM peak hour.

30.766
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 27
Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street
Impact: Although this intersection was not included in this study, the addition of project traffic to this intersection would continue to operate at LOS E during Cumulative Plus Project conditions based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. This constitutes a significant impact according to the thresholds established by the City of Santa Cruz.

Mitigation: The significant cumulative impact at this intersection could be mitigated by the construction of a southbound left-turn lane and removing the existing landscape median.

The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated.

Continuous Class bike lanes and Class II buffered bike lanes would be provided with the restriping of Front Street.

The cost to construct these improvements is estimated to be $169,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study.

30.767
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 28

5. Other Transportation Issues
This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of:
 Potential impacts to pedestrians, bicycles, and transit services  Site access and on-site circulation
 Front Street Improvements
 Queuing Analysis
 Parking
These other transportation issues were evaluated to determine if any deficiencies would exist under project conditions that may not be specifically linked to environmental impact reporting. These may not be considered environmental issues, and may not be evaluated in an environmental assessment, but have been included in the traffic study to meet the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Unlike the level of service impact methodology, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community.

Potential Impacts on Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit The existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the immediate vicinity of the project site provides good connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to various points of interest in the study area, including nearby bus stops on Front Street and Soquel Avenue. In the project vicinity, sidewalks are provided along the project’s frontage on Front Street and Soquel Avenue. The project would remove one existing driveway along Soquel Avenue and widen the sidewalk. Therefore, the project would have a beneficial impact on pedestrian circulation.

The site has very good bicycle access. As described in Chapter 2, bike lanes are provided along all the study streets except Cooper Street and River Street South. River Street South provides a bike route from River Street to Soquel Avenue. The Santa Cruz Riverwalk provides access along the San Lorenzo River for both bicyclists and pedestrians. It is expected that any construction of storm water structures near the shared use path could impact bicycle mobility along the path. A path turnout is required for maintenance of the stormwater structure. Based on the site plan, the project would provide bicycle parking within the garage.

The project site is currently well-served by bus transit. There are seven local bus lines (Route 4, 10, 35/35A, 66, 69A, 69W, and 71) that serve the immediate project area. The bus stops closest to the project site are on Front Street at Soquel Avenue. The bus routes run throughout the day with 30-60 minute headways. The bus services have ample capacity to accommodate the ridership that would be generated by the project.

30.768
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 29
Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for leftturn lanes at intersections where the project would add left-turn movements (See Table 8). This analysis provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at the intersections under existing plus project conditions. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, described in Chapter 1. The following movements were selected for evaluation:
 Front Street and Soquel Avenue – Northbound left turn and Westbound left turn  Front Street and Laurel Street – Southbound left turn and Eastbound left turn  River Street and Water Street – Northbound left turn and Westbound left turn  Front Street and Project Driveway – Southbound left turn/through and Westbound left turn Front Street and Soquel Avenue
The estimated 95th percentile queues at the westbound left-turn lane of this intersection exceeds the vehicle storage capacity during the PM peak hour under all cumulative conditions. The existing left-turn lane provides 200 feet of queue storage per lane and would require 275 feet based on the queuing analysis during the PM peak hour under cumulative plus project conditions. The project would increase the 95th percentile queue for the westbound left-turn lane by 25 feet or 1 vehicle. There is no room to extend the left-turn pocket due to the maximum queue storage reaching to the River Street and Soquel Avenue intersection.

Front Street and Laurel Street
The estimated 95th percentile queues at the southbound left-turn lane of this intersection exceeds the vehicle storage capacity during the PM peak hour under all cumulative conditions. The existing left-turn lane provides 150 feet of queue storage and would require 225 feet based on the queuing analysis during the PM peak hour under cumulative plus project conditions. The project would not increase the 95th percentile queue for the southbound left-turn lane. The Front Street improvements propose to add a two-way left-turn center lane. The center lane could provide additional room for the left-turn pocket.

The estimated 95th percentile queues at the eastbound left-turn lane of this intersection exceeds the vehicle storage capacity during the PM peak hour under all cumulative conditions. The existing left-turn lane provides 100 feet of queue storage and would require 200 feet based on the queuing analysis during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. The project would not increase the 95th percentile queue for the eastbound left-turn lane. There is no room in the median to lengthen the leftturn pocket.

River Street and Water Street
The estimated 95th percentile queues at the northbound left-turn lane of this intersection currently exceeds the vehicle storage capacity during the PM peak hour and would continue to do so under cumulative conditions. The existing left-turn lane provides 100 feet of queue storage and would require 150 feet based on the queuing analysis during the PM peak hour under cumulative plus project conditions. The project would not increase the 95th percentile queue for the northbound left-turn lane.

There is no room in the median to lengthen the left-turn pocket.

30.769
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 30
Table 8
Queuing Analysis
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
A review of the project site plan was performed to determine whether adequate site access and onsite circulation would be provided, using commonly accepted transportation planning principles and traffic engineering standards. This review was based on the site plan prepared by Swenson dated July 29, 2022, shown on Figure 2.

Site Access
Vehicle site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site driveway with regard to stopping sight distance and traffic volumes. The project generated traffic would access the site via a proposed full-access driveway on Front Street approximately 300 feet south of Soquel Avenue.

According to the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan, developments within Downtown Parking District #1 Measurement AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing
Cycle/Delay 1
(sec) 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 93 93 93 93 7.9 8.2 10.8 12.1 Volume (vphpl ) 9 15 119 185 33 95 56 78 31 95 255 224 394 713 0 0 Total 95th %. Queue (veh.) 1 2 6 8 2 5 4 4 2 5 11 10 3 4 0 0 Total 95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 25 50 150 200 50 125 100 100 50 125 275 250 75 100 0 0 Total Storage 400 400 200 200 150 150 100 100 100 100 375 375 300 300 50 50 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N YY YY YY
Existing Plus Project
Cycle/Delay 1
(sec) 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 93 93 93 93 7.9 8.2 10.8 12.1 Volume (vphpl ) 13 17 123 192 37 97 57 81 33 96 256 227 403 732 11 4 Total 95th %. Queue (veh.) 1 2 6 8 3 5 4 5 3 5 11 10 3 4 1 1 Total 95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 25 50 150 200 75 125 100 125 75 125 275 250 75 100 25 25 Total Storage 400 400 200 200 150 150 100 100 100 100 375 375 300 300 50 50 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N YY YY YY
Cumulative
Cycle/Delay 1
(sec) 88 8888 8893 93 8.2 12.1
Volume (vphpl ) 46 248 202 165 111 204 1189 0
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 3 10 9 8 6 9 6 0
95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 75 250 225 200 150 225 150 0
Storage (ft./ ln.) 400 200 150 100 100 375 300 50
Adequate (Y/N) Y NNNN YYY
Cumulative Plus Project
Cycle/Delay 1
(sec) 88 8888 8893 93 8.2 12.1
Volume (vphpl ) 48 255 204 168 112 207 1208 4
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 3 11 9 8 6 9 6 1
95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 75 275 225 200 150 225 150 25
Storage (ft./ ln.) 400 200 150 100 100 375 300 50
Adequate (Y/N) Y NNNN YYY
Notes:
1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections and worst approach delay for unsignalized intersections. 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued. 3 The southbound left-turn/through storage length reflects the distance between the project drivway and Front Street.

WBL = westbound left movement; NBL = northbound left movement; SBL = southbound left movement; EBL = eastbound left movement; SBTH = southbound through movement
Front Street and Soquel
Avenue
Front Street and Project
Driveway
3 River Street and Water
Street

SBL WBL NBL
Front Street and Laurel
Street

NBL WBL EBL SBTH/SBL WBL

30.770
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 31
are permitted to have a maximum of one driveway per property or at a spacing of at least 200 feet and driveway width should be no more than 24 feet. According to the site plan, there is one full-access driveway proposed with a width of 22 feet, which meets the City’s standard.

Project Driveway Access
An analysis of the southbound left-turn movement at the project driveway was conducted to determine if the project would cause any operational issues. The project driveway would be on Front Street approximately 300 feet south of Soquel Avenue. Front Street is a two-way, north-south street with two lanes in the south direction and one lane in the north direction at the project driveway. Front Street is divided by a solid double yellow line. Front Street does not have a left turn lane for the southbound direction for vehicles turning left into the project site. Thus, vehicles turning left would have to stop in the center-most southbound through lane and wait for a gap in the opposing traffic. As shown in Table 4, there would be 12 inbound and 44 outbound trips at the full-access driveway during the AM peak hour, and 25 inbound and 15 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Of the inbound traffic in both peak hours, 9 vehicles would make left turns during the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles would make left turns during the PM peak hour.

The time between arrivals was compared to the critical gap and follow-up times to determine the number of vehicles that could successfully complete the southbound left-turn movement during the AM and PM peak hours. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the minimum gap time required for a vehicle to turn left from Front Street into the project driveway is 4.1 seconds. Subsequent vehicles attempting to make a left turn would require 2.2 seconds in follow-up time in addition to minimum gap of

4.1 seconds. Based on the analysis of northbound left turns, there are sufficient gaps to accommodate up to 1,264 and 1,140 southbound left turns during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The modest project traffic volume would not face any delays in getting into and out of the garage.

The vehicle queuing analysis for the southbound left-turn movement into the project driveway was also conducted. As shown in Table 8, the estimated 95th percentile queue for the vehicles turning left from southbound Soquel Avenue into the project driveway is approximately 75 feet (3 vehicles) in the AM peak hour and 100 feet (4 vehicles) in the PM peak hour. The total storage provided between the project driveway and Soquel Avenue at the inner most southbound lane is approximately 300 feet (12 vehicles). Thus, the southbound left-turn traffic into the project driveway should not impact the two through lanes of traffic along southbound Soquel Avenue.

Sight Distance
The proposed project driveway should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance.

Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at the driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic and exit the site. There are no landscaping features shown on the site plan between Front Street and the driveway. Vehicles using the driveway would have sufficient sight distance in both directions and would be able to see vehicles on Front Street. A pedestrian warning device is recommended at the driveway exit to alert pedestrians of outgoing vehicles.

The project proposes to provide trees along the project frontage on Front Street. There are two trees that would be located close a traffic signal at the southeast corner of the Front Street and Soquel Avenue intersection. These trees could potentially obstruct a driver’s sight distance to see the traffic signals at the intersection. Therefore, it is recommended that these trees be trimmed and maintained to prevent the traffic signals from being obstructed.

On-site Circulation
On-site circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards.

The project would have a full-access driveway on Front Street that leads into the parking garage. In the

30.771
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 32
garage, there would be a drive aisle that leads to the parking spaces. The drive aisle width is shown to be approximately 24 feet. The width of the drive aisle would provide sufficient space for vehicles to back out of the parking stalls. The site plan shows a dead-end parking aisle. Generally, dead-end aisles are undesirable because vehicles finding all parking spaces occupied would need to back out. The project would implement an electronic notification system to indicate vacant spaces within the parking garage. Thus, there would be no reason for a vehicle to enter the dead end aisle unless a space were available.

Bicycle parking is shown in the garage. Long-term bicycle parking is located on the east side of the project site. There also would be a bike café located at the southeast corner of the project site on the second floor for tenants to store and work on their bicycles. A walk path within the garage provides access between the long-term bicycle storage and the bike café.

The project was checked relative to the City’s loading space requirements. According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, off-street loading areas shall be provided for retail uses with 10,000 square feet or more. For retail uses with 10,000 to 24,999 square feet, 1 loading space shall be provided. The project proposes 4,787 square feet of retail use and 2,078 square feet of restaurant use. Since the total commercial use would be less than 10,000 square feet, no loading space is required. For the residential units, loading spaces are not required. However, parking spaces are currently provided in front of the site. Residents can use the parking spaces in front of the site near the lobby/leasing area for unloading/loading.

Front Street Improvements
As mentioned in the previous section, a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Front Street would be implemented that could be used by inbound and outbound traffic from all driveways. The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated.

Front Street, from Soquel Avenue to Cathcart Street, would consist of Class II bike lanes on both sides of Front Street, two southbound travel lanes, one center turn lane, and one northbound travel lane. The southbound travel lanes would merge into a single lane south of Cathcart Street. From Cathcart Street to Laurel Street, Front Street would have Class II buffered bike lanes along both sides, one southbound travel lane, one center lane, and one northbound travel lane. At the Front Street and Laurel Street signalized intersection, the southbound travel lane would widen to provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane with bike sharrow markings.

Figure 12 shows the proposed Front Street plans.

30.772
Figure 12
Proposed Front Street Plans
530 Front Street TIA

30.773
Figure 12 (Continued)
Proposed Front Street Plans
530 Front Street TIA

30.774
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 35
Parking
Vehicle Parking
The proposed project would provide Below Market Rate (BMR) units. According to State Density Bonus Law and the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the project is eligible for a density bonus, concessions/incentives, waivers and reduced on-site parking requirements.

If the units in the development are affordable to lower-income households, except the manager’s unit(s), and the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped guest parking, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit. A development has unobstructed access to a major transit stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments.

The proposed project would provide affordable and lower-income units. In addition, the development is located is located within one-mile of a major transit stop and has unobstructed access to the major transit stop. Thus, State Density Law’s reduced parking ratios apply to the project development, if so requested by the project applicant.

The project would include 116 micro apartments, 53 studio apartments, 102 1-bedroom apartments, and 5 2-bedroom apartments. Thus, under the State Density Bonus Law, the project would need to provide 138 parking spaces.

The project is proposing 181 spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirement. The project proposes to install stacked parking systems in the parking garage for residential parking. The standard parking spaces would be used by the employees of the retail use and guests. It is assumed that some vehicles traveling to this location for the restaurant and commercial uses would utilize the public lots and garages within the area, with the nearest public parking garage located at the northwest corner of Front Street and Soquel Avenue.

Bicycle Parking
According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, bicycle parking facilities are required for new buildings, additions or enlargements of an existing building, or for any change in the occupancy, except when the project property is located within Parking District #1. Since the project is located within Parking District #1, bicycle parking facilities are not required. However, the project provides bicycle parking and follows the bicycle parking requirements from the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The bicycle parking requirement for a multifamily residential use is 1 space per unit with all of the bicycle spaces being long-term bicycle spaces. The project proposes 271 units, with 5 2-bedroom units. Therefore, the project would need to provide 276 long-term bicycle spaces. The bicycle requirement for the restaurant and retail uses is 2 spaces plus 15% of the auto parking vehicle requirement. The project requires 29 vehicle parking spaces for restaurant and retail uses. Therefore, the project would need to provide 6 bicycle spaces. In total, the project would need to provide 282 bicycle parking spaces. According to the site plan, the project proposes to provide 372 bicycle parking spaces.

30.775
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 36

6. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
In accordance with new CEQA guidelines, the City is currently transitioning from intersection LOS to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for CEQA transportation analysis.

A project’s VMT is compared to the appropriate thresholds of significance based on the project location and type of development. When assessing a residential project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of residents expected to occupy the project to determine the VMT per capita. When assessing an office project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of employees. When assessing a retail, the project’s total VMT, as opposed to a per-capita or per-employee VMT metric, is measured. The total VMT for the region with and without the project is calculated. The difference between the two scenarios is the net change in total VMT that is attributable to the project.

To determine whether a project would result in CEQA transportation impacts related to VMT, the City has recommended thresholds for residential, office, and retail projects with local traffic.

The recommended thresholds are as follows:

Residential projects
A project may indicate a significant transportation impact if the anticipated VMT exceeds both 85% of Existing city household VMT per capita and
85% of Existing County household VMT per capita.

Office projects
A project may indicate a significant transportation impact if the anticipated VMT exceeds 85% of the existing County VMT per employee.

Retail projects
A net increase in the VMT rate for a specific use may indicate a significant transportation impact. It is assumed that local serving retail projects tend to shorten trips and therefore reduce VMT.

Other projects
Most VMT falls into the above categories but other projects should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

30.776
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 37
Based on the California T Travel Model, the City daily VMT per capita is 11.04, and the County daily VMT per capita is 15.41. The City VMT per employee is 20.06 and the County VMT per employee is

22.09. Since the City daily VMT per capita (11.04) is less than 85% of the County daily VMT per capita (15.41), it can be assumed that the residential portion of the project will have a less-than significant VMT impact.

30.777
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 38

7. Conclusions
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Santa Cruz. The traffic study analyzed AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven intersections. Project impacts on site access, on-site circulation, and other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment.

30.778
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 39
Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions.

The westbound shared through-left lane would be converted into a through-lane. The signal timing and phasing would be optimized.

30.779
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 40
Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street
Impact: Although this intersection was not included in this study, the addition of project traffic to this intersection would continue to operate at LOS E during Cumulative Plus Project conditions based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. This constitutes a significant impact according to the thresholds established by the City of Santa Cruz.

Mitigation: The significant cumulative impact at this intersection could be mitigated by the construction of a southbound left-turn lane and removing the existing landscape median.

The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated.

Continuous Class bike lanes and Class II buffered bike lanes would be provided with the restriping of Front Street.

The cost to construct these improvements is estimated to be $169,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study.

A pedestrian warning device is recommended at the driveway exit to alert pedestrians of outgoing vehicles.

30.780
530 Front Street Mixed-Use Development July 29, 2022
Page | 41
Parking
The proposed project would provide affordable and lower-income units. In addition, the development is located is located within one-mile of a major transit stop and has unobstructed access to the major transit stop. Thus, the State Density Law’s reduced parking ratios apply to the project, if so requested by the project applicant.

Under the State Density Bonus Law, the project would need to provide 138 parking spaces.

According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, bicycle parking facilities are required for new buildings, additions or enlargements of an existing building, or for any change in the occupancy, except when the project property is located within Parking District #1. Since the project is located within Parking District #1, bicycle parking facilities are not required. However, the project provides bicycle parking and follows the bicycle parking requirements from the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The bicycle parking requirement for a multifamily residential use is 1 space per unit with all of the bicycle spaces being long-term bicycle spaces. The project proposes 271 units, with 5 2-bedroom units. Therefore, the project would need to provide 276 long-term bicycle spaces. The bicycle requirement for the restaurant and retail uses is 2 spaces plus 15% of the auto parking vehicle requirement. The project requires 27 vehicle parking spaces for restaurant and retail uses. Therefore, the project would need to provide 6 bicycle spaces. In total, the project would need to provide 282 bicycle parking spaces. According to the site plan, the project proposes to provide 372 bicycle parking spaces.

30.781
530 Front Street
Traffic impact Analysis
Technical Appendices
July 2022

30.782
Appendix A
Traffic Counts

30.783

SOQUEL AVE SOQUEL AVE FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 FRONT ST & SOQUEL AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
171 305
366
141
394 305
105
107

0.92 N
S
W E

0.72 0.92

0.84 0.82
(306) (480)
(535)
(237)
(175)
(176)
(617) (492) 20018
50 78
238
23 57
25 0
0 133
09230 66 SOQUEL AVE

SOQUEL AVE

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
47 18
14 15
N
S
W E 14 4
6 8
32 15 10 5
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 2 9 4 0 23 5 5 0 0 25 9 0 2 25 5 114 562 0 1 3 6 7:15 AM 0 1 8 3 0 25 7 1 0 2 35 7 0 4 29 2 124 664 0 2 2 3 7:30 AM 0 4 6 5 0 16 9 8 0 0 41 14 0 5 24 4 136 768 1 3 1 2 7:45 AM 0 5 19 5 0 36 26 8 0 4 40 10 0 3 28 4 188 877 4 1 4 5 8:00 AM 0 9 19 6 0 50 14 8 0 3 57 17 0 4 27 2 216 947 0 2 1 9 8:15 AM 0 7 20 4 0 66 16 15 0 3 45 13 0 5 31 3 228 9 8 6 4 8:30 AM 0 6 9 2 0 63 21 13 0 2 74 15 0 6 30 4 245 2 3 5 9 8:45 AM 0 3 9 11 0 59 27 14 0 1 54 21 0 3 45 11 258 3 4 2 16 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 25 53 20 223 74 49 0 0 9 219 58 18 108 20 0 876 Mediums 0 0 3 3 0 13 4 1 0 0 11 6 0 25 0 0 66
Total 0 25 57 23 238 78 50 0 0 9 230 66 18 133 20 947 0

30.784

SOQUEL AVE SOQUEL AVE RIVER ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 RIVER ST & SOQUEL AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:30 AM - 08:45 AM
109 91
415
135 200
368

0.96 N
S
W E

0.80 0.88 0.88
(155) (129)
(605)
(319)
(543)
(231) 44065
91 324
0 0
135
0 0
0 0 SOQUEL AVE

SOQUEL AVE

RIVER ST
14 11
0 N
S
W E
0 0
10 4
1 10
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 20 0 0 0 29 5 0 4 0 5 63 332 0 0 3
7:15 AM 0 0 19 0 0 0 29 6 0 5 0 5 64 418 1 0 5
7:30 AM 0 0 24 0 0 0 30 9 0 6 0 4 73 525 3 0 4
7:45 AM 0 0 33 0 0 0 64 18 0 8 0 9 132 624 1 0 3
8:00 AM 0 0 40 0 0 0 72 17 0 17 0 3 149 659 1 0 2
8:15 AM 0 0 39 0 0 0 81 22 0 14 0 15 171 0 0 2
8:30 AM 0 0 28 0 0 0 90 28 0 13 0 13 172 1 0 4
8:45 AM 0 0 28 0 0 0 81 24 0 21 0 13 167 7 0 5
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 123 0 0 0 304 90 0 62 0 41 620
Mediums 0 0 8 0 0 0 18 1 0 3 0 3 33
Total 0 0 135 0 0 0 324 91 0 65 0 44 659

30.785

CATHCART ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 FRONT ST & CATHCART ST AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
385 313
331 298
40 79

0.90 N
S
W E

0.85 0.88

0.91 (600) (502)
(124)
(75)
(517) (468) 620
0 8
0 32
0 323
0172810 CATHCART ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
3 8 22
N
S
W E
4 4
1 2 16 6
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 8 0 3 0 1 26 0 0 0 45 8 91 420 4 0 2
7:15 AM 0 4 0 0 0 1 41 0 0 0 42 10 98 486 5 6 2
7:30 AM 0 9 0 3 0 2 46 0 0 0 37 6 103 563 6 2 0
7:45 AM 0 6 0 2 0 4 49 0 0 0 54 13 128 651 9 0 0
8:00 AM 0 7 0 1 0 3 68 0 0 0 67 11 157 723 3 2 0
8:15 AM 0 8 0 2 0 4 62 0 0 0 88 11 175 5 0 1
8:30 AM 0 7 0 4 0 2 83 0 0 0 82 13 191 6 1 0
8:45 AM 0 10 0 1 0 8 68 0 0 0 86 27 200 5 4 2
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 7
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 30 0 8 0 14 264 0 0 294 49 0 659
Mediums 0 2 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 26 13 0 57
Total 0 32 0 8 0 17 281 0 0 323 62 723 0

30.786

LAUREL ST LAUREL ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 FRONT ST & LAUREL ST AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
230 281
902
587
455 337
425
571

0.95 N
S
W E

0.88 0.87

0.91 0.95
(403) (471)
(1,488)
(899)
(987)
(655)
(725) (536) 34033
91 532
279
13 356
56 0
0 163
05134 198

LAUREL ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
16 21
19 16
N
S
W E 19 2
14 5
13 3
7 9
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 5 24 1 0 17 61 16 0 0 9 16 0 1 20 5 175 1,219 1 3 1 3 7:15 AM 0 5 44 2 0 36 72 4 0 1 23 14 0 5 26 13 245 1,494 2 2 2 7 7:30 AM 0 6 51 2 0 36 113 15 0 0 25 24 0 4 20 7 303 1,718 5 6 2 3 7:45 AM 0 9 98 5 0 68 176 16 0 1 30 43 0 10 34 6 496 1,894 3 2 5 3 8:00 AM 0 15 86 5 0 65 117 17 0 1 36 47 0 11 41 9 450 1,863 5 7 5 7 8:15 AM 0 18 91 1 0 71 117 32 0 0 26 57 0 9 39 8 469 3 6 5 4 8:30 AM 0 14 81 2 0 75 122 26 0 3 42 51 0 3 49 11 479 5 1 2 1 8:45 AM 0 13 72 5 0 65 119 32 0 1 37 49 0 8 40 24 465 0 8 3 3 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 12
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 55 348 13 274 519 91 0 0 4 129 187 31 150 30 0 1,831 Mediums 0 1 7 0 0 2 13 0 0 1 3 8 2 10 4 0 51
Total 0 56 356 13 279 532 91 0 0 5 134 198 33 163 34 1,894 0

30.787

COOPER ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 FRONT ST & COOPER ST AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:30 AM - 08:45 AM
199 256
217 250
91 67

0.87 N
S
W E

0.74 0.80

0.85 (337) (438)
(99)
(159)
(371) (412) 230
0 41
0 50
0 176
0442060 COOPER ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
54 90 38
N
S
W E
68 22
47 7 24 14
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 13 0 5 0 3 28 0 0 0 32 3 84 368 4 2 0
7:15 AM 0 8 0 7 0 4 34 0 0 0 30 1 84 390 5 7 1
7:30 AM 0 8 0 8 0 5 36 0 0 0 22 5 84 433 9 7 6
7:45 AM 0 11 0 8 0 8 44 0 0 0 42 3 116 504 6 12 8
8:00 AM 0 10 0 12 0 1 55 0 0 0 28 0 106 540 8 16 3
8:15 AM 0 16 0 11 0 11 38 0 0 0 42 9 127 7 26 7
8:30 AM 0 17 0 7 0 12 66 0 0 0 47 6 155 8 19 16
8:45 AM 0 7 0 11 0 20 47 0 0 0 59 8 152 13 26 26
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 50 0 39 0 44 195 0 0 153 22 0 503
Mediums 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 23 1 0 36
Total 0 50 0 41 0 44 206 0 0 176 23 540 0

30.788

WATER ST WATER ST RIVER ST RIVER ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 RIVER ST & WATER ST AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:30 AM - 08:45 AM
166 476
1,308
544
352 353
351
806

0.96 N
S
W E

0.85 0.89

0.80 0.88
(279) (691)
(2,061)
(862)
(1,367)
(526)
(508) (562)
2073
283
770
243
18 323
7 12
3 91
031186 136 WATER ST WATER ST RIVER ST

RIVER ST
16 25
17 8 N
S
W E 11 14
7 10
12 4
4 4
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 20 1 3 14 73 12 0 3 21 18 0 7 10 2 184 1,250 0 3 5 4 7:15 AM 0 2 26 1 1 15 104 30 0 6 27 16 0 10 12 1 251 1,592 1 3 2 2 7:30 AM 0 1 37 3 5 21 147 24 0 6 28 22 0 18 14 2 328 1,872 1 2 2 1 7:45 AM 0 4 76 4 4 49 211 40 0 5 26 31 0 24 12 1 487 2,110 3 6 3 4 8:00 AM 0 0 96 8 4 37 179 74 0 7 48 30 0 20 22 1 526 2,178 1 4 2 2 8:15 AM 3 1 85 3 5 76 175 68 0 7 42 31 0 14 20 1 531 2 7 6 2 8:30 AM 0 3 80 1 1 61 187 74 0 11 57 42 0 22 27 0 566 2 5 4 4 8:45 AM 0 3 62 6 2 69 229 67 0 6 39 33 0 17 22 0 555 3 7 4 5 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 3 7 315 17 229 757 276 12 0 31 182 127 68 86 2 0 2,112 Mediums 0 0 8 1 0 14 12 7 0 0 4 9 4 5 0 0 64
Total 3 7 323 18 243 770 283 31 186 136 73 91 2 2,178 12 0 0

30.789
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 7 FRONT ST & WATER ST AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
5 0
52 69
658
0 1
0 10
55 0
348
0 88
0 0
0447 1190900
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00000000

0.00 0.89 0.84 179 89

0.77 (310) (126)
501
777
(1,304)
(754)
785
362
(1,306)
(549) 1510() (256)

0.00 86
0 (135)
()

PACIFIC AVE WATER ST
FRONT ST PACIFIC AVE WATER ST 0.89
N
S
W E
6 37
9 23 14 23
3 6
4 2 11 12
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
W E
S
N

30.790
Traffic Counts
Interval Westbound
Start Time U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
7:00 AM 0 0 9 3 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 11 6 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 11 11 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 5 14 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 7 10 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 13 11 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 4 0 19 18 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 1 0 13 30 190 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 5 0 88 103 1,109 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 5 0 52 69 658 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
7:00 AM 0 0 6 0 23 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 13 3 15 0 138 905
7:15 AM 0 0 5 0 31 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 15 0 172 1,115
7:30 AM 0 0 6 0 45 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 11 4 18 0 223 1,289
7:45 AM 0 0 20 0 86 0 12 3 0 0 1 0 13 3 28 0 372 1,424
8:00 AM 0 0 21 0 107 0 12 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 18 0 348 1,465
8:15 AM 0 0 17 0 83 0 13 5 0 0 3 0 13 3 31 0 346
8:30 AM 0 0 22 0 86 0 12 2 0 0 1 0 10 0 35 0 358
8:45 AM 0 0 28 0 72 0 18 2 0 0 4 0 16 3 35 0 413
Count Total 0 0 125 0 533 0 81 15 0 0 11 0 87 17 195 0 2,370 Peak Hour 0 0 88 0 348 0 55 10 0 0 9 0 44 7 119 0 1,465

30.791
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Vehicle Type
Westbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lights 5 0 52 69 645 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 5 0 52 69 658 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Total
Eastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 88 0 339 0 50 8 0 0 9 0 38 6 111 0 1,421
Mediums 0 0 0 0 9 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 8 0 42
Count Total 0 0 88 0 348 0 55 10 0 0 9 0 44 7 119 0 1,465

30.792

SOQUEL AVE SOQUEL AVE FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 FRONT ST & SOQUEL AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
415 387
526
386
712 424
277
157

0.91 N
S
W E

0.91 0.90

0.83 0.93
(736) (729)
(966)
(696)
(243)
(504)
(1,343) (805) 350 101
49 107
369
64 160
53 1
0 279
015285 124 SOQUEL AVE

SOQUEL AVE

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
143 49
51 60
N
S
W E 30 19
15 36
74 69 34 26
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 15 31 12 0 70 20 10 0 1 48 25 0 14 61 3 310 1,369 8 23 16 30 4:15 PM 0 8 32 11 0 80 9 11 0 2 81 39 0 22 63 6 364 13 12 17 23 1,510 4:30 PM 0 8 26 16 0 96 18 12 0 1 63 28 0 11 54 9 342 13 6 6 24 1,553 4:45 PM 0 14 41 13 1 99 8 6 0 1 66 26 0 14 56 8 353 1,628 8 11 8 36 5:00 PM 0 6 53 17 0 95 31 19 0 3 81 32 0 27 79 8 451 1,642 5 9 7 39 5:15 PM 0 15 35 21 1 101 26 13 0 6 56 23 0 30 68 12 407 9 7 10 25 5:30 PM 0 15 40 13 0 111 34 9 0 2 56 37 0 19 71 10 417 18 13 13 34 5:45 PM 0 17 32 13 0 62 16 8 0 4 92 32 0 25 61 5 367 13 19 19 30 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 53 159 64 361 107 48 1 0 15 268 119 101 265 35 0 1,596 Mediums 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 17 5 0 14 0 0 46
Total 0 53 160 64 369 107 49 15 285 124 101 279 35 1,642 1 0 0

30.793

SOQUEL AVE SOQUEL AVE RIVER ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 RIVER ST & SOQUEL AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
478 122
480
378 671
543

0.91 N
S
W E

0.89 0.89 0.93
(861) (235)
(898)
(1,252)
(981)
(709) 1850 293
122
358
0 0
378
0 0
0 0 SOQUEL AVE

SOQUEL AVE

RIVER ST
26 18
0 N
S
W E
0 0
9 17 13 5
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 73 0 0 0 78 24 0 63 0 26 264 1,145 6 0 7
4:15 PM 0 0 99 0 0 0 76 21 0 67 0 35 298 1,249 4 0 4
4:30 PM 0 0 70 0 0 0 87 33 0 57 0 43 290 1,292 3 0 7
4:45 PM 0 0 84 0 0 0 71 33 0 62 0 43 293 1,336 4 0 10
5:00 PM 0 0 108 0 0 0 88 37 0 89 0 46 368 1,323 4 0 6
5:15 PM 0 0 90 0 0 0 102 27 0 76 0 46 341 3 0 2
5:30 PM 0 0 96 0 0 0 97 25 0 66 0 50 334 3 0 8
5:45 PM 0 0 89 0 0 0 64 35 0 63 0 29 280 15 0 4
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 371 0 0 0 352 122 0 290 0 182 1,317
Mediums 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 3 19
Total 0 0 378 0 0 0 358 122 0 293 0 185 1,336

30.794

CATHCART ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 FRONT ST & CATHCART ST PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
685 424
564 363
105
165

0.93 N
S
W E

0.96 0.89

0.77 (1,310) (836)
(301)
(203)
(1,121) (745) 1410
0 20
0 85
0 544
0243390 CATHCART ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
22 35 42
N
S
W E
20 15
11 11 20 22
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 13 0 10 0 5 81 0 0 0 127 27 263 15 6 3 1,105
4:15 PM 0 20 0 8 0 11 100 0 2 0 131 22 294 12 3 5 1,152 4:30 PM 0 19 0 9 0 11 78 0 0 0 133 20 270 15 9 1 1,121
4:45 PM 0 15 0 4 0 12 84 0 0 0 135 28 278 1,145 8 6 1
5:00 PM 0 23 0 4 0 6 94 0 0 0 145 38 310 1,153 5 10 8
5:15 PM 0 13 0 4 0 4 66 0 0 0 138 38 263 14 9 4
5:30 PM 0 28 0 6 0 10 71 0 0 0 146 33 294 5 5 6
5:45 PM 0 21 0 6 0 4 108 0 0 0 115 32 286 12 9 3
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 78 0 20 0 22 323 0 0 532 133 0 1,108
Mediums 0 7 0 0 0 2 16 0 0 12 8 0 45
Total 0 85 0 20 0 24 339 0 0 544 141 1,153 0

30.795

LAUREL ST LAUREL ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 FRONT ST & LAUREL ST PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:15 PM - 04:30 PM
546 351
739
856
543 420
613
568

0.97 N
S
W E

0.94 0.88

0.91 0.95
(1,069) (662)
(1,486)
(1,701)
(1,138)
(1,205)
(1,080) (821) 143095
108
414
217
18 517
78 0
0 308
011165 244

LAUREL ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
48 32
26 41
N
S
W E 12 20
12 14
18 30 25 16
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 18 116 6 0 60 93 21 0 0 39 79 0 22 73 39 566 13 11 6 8 2,298 4:15 PM 0 18 141 3 0 58 114 29 0 2 50 64 0 18 67 31 595 10 6 6 11 2,318 4:30 PM 0 23 130 2 0 51 90 21 0 6 35 59 0 19 88 40 564 14 12 8 13 2,317 4:45 PM 0 18 125 8 0 55 103 31 0 0 34 61 0 29 73 36 573 2,316 6 2 5 18 5:00 PM 0 19 121 5 0 53 107 27 0 3 46 60 0 29 80 36 586 2,283 9 5 6 4 5:15 PM 0 15 129 6 0 70 124 22 0 2 23 72 0 30 66 35 594 4 9 10 11 5:30 PM 0 20 121 3 0 42 98 23 0 2 33 71 0 25 86 39 563 4 9 12 11 5:45 PM 0 32 120 6 0 54 106 34 0 3 31 46 0 14 65 29 540 10 10 7 4 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 77 511 18 215 407 105 0 0 11 163 239 93 305 140 0 2,284 Mediums 0 1 6 0 0 2 7 3 0 0 2 5 2 3 3 0 34
Total 0 78 517 18 217 414 108 11 165 244 95 308 143 2,318 0 0 0

30.796

COOPER ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 FRONT ST & COOPER ST PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
387 384
463 359
175
74 0.87
N
S
W E

0.84 0.91

0.93 (745) (741)
(149)
(336)
(878) (687) 350
0 111
0 64
0 352
0393200 COOPER ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
111
220 59
N
S
W E
66 154
34 77 26 33
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 20 0 19 0 8 70 0 0 0 84 6 207 17 47 24 847
4:15 PM 0 19 0 22 0 9 81 0 0 0 79 10 220 19 52 21 905
4:30 PM 0 19 0 19 0 12 71 0 0 0 84 8 213 895 9 43 20
4:45 PM 0 17 0 26 0 17 60 0 0 0 82 5 207 13 44 14 916
5:00 PM 0 21 0 27 0 10 89 0 0 0 107 11 265 21 69 33 921 5:15 PM 0 15 0 31 0 10 66 0 0 0 82 6 210 10 57 21
5:30 PM 0 18 0 23 0 10 80 0 0 0 90 13 234 10 41 25
5:45 PM 0 10 0 30 0 9 85 0 0 0 73 5 212 14 47 31
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 64 0 111 0 38 302 0 0 336 35 0 886
Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 16 0 0 35
Total 0 64 0 111 0 39 320 0 0 352 35 921 0

30.797

WATER ST WATER ST RIVER ST RIVER ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 RIVER ST & WATER ST PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
500 501
1,036
1,167
525 675
713
731

0.95 N
S
W E

0.84 0.95

0.88 0.94
(928) (974)
(1,958)
(2,198)
(1,361)
(1,374)
(999) (1,272) 230 222
211
601
209
61 614
26 15
12 255
095264 316 WATER ST WATER ST RIVER ST

RIVER ST
22 25
23 13
N
S
W E 13 12
10 13
16 6
8 5
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 1 6 144 10 9 43 113 52 0 22 59 57 0 52 70 3 641 2,656 1 0 3 6 4:15 PM 1 9 129 16 6 43 146 55 0 29 61 61 0 42 46 4 648 2,785 4 7 12 5 4:30 PM 3 8 140 10 6 55 144 50 0 24 60 61 0 49 60 3 673 2,895 8 3 9 7 4:45 PM 5 10 125 13 6 55 153 62 0 26 52 63 0 51 68 5 694 2,924 4 10 8 8 5:00 PM 2 6 153 18 3 43 142 56 0 27 77 94 0 72 73 4 770 2,876 2 6 5 7 5:15 PM 4 4 173 17 4 56 163 54 0 23 71 87 0 45 48 9 758 1 2 3 2 5:30 PM 1 6 163 13 2 55 143 39 0 19 64 72 0 54 66 5 702 5 2 3 3 5:45 PM 0 7 161 16 3 51 113 33 0 19 73 71 0 40 54 5 646 3 1 4 5 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 12 25 611 61 200 599 208 15 0 95 260 305 220 253 23 0 2,887 Mediums 0 1 3 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 4 11 2 2 0 0 37
Total 12 26 614 61 209 601 211 95 264 316 222 255 23 2,924 15 0 0

30.798
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 7 FRONT ST & WATER ST PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
11 0
75 40
582
0 1
0 17
126
0 675
0 153
0 0
02881 19100011
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00000000

0.00 0.93 0.96 311 154

0.80 (605) (284)
971
773
(1,368)
(1,839)
709
697
(1,279)
(1,352) 2820() (547)

0.25 85
0 (173)
(1)

PACIFIC AVE WATER ST
FRONT ST PACIFIC AVE WATER ST 0.94
N
S
W E
7 49
21 61 28 21
14 7
6 1 40 21
0 0
0 0
0 0
12 3
9 0
0 0
W E
S
N

30.799
Traffic Counts
Interval Westbound
Start Time U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
4:00 PM 1 0 20 13 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 6 0 11 1 126 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 5 0 15 17 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 5 0 17 11 151 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 3 0 23 9 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 1 0 20 11 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 2 0 15 9 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 5 0 22 13 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 28 0 143 84 1,021 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 11 0 75 40 582 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
4:00 PM 0 0 36 0 152 0 28 3 0 0 7 0 23 6 43 0 430 1,808 4:15 PM 0 0 31 0 151 0 26 4 0 0 2 0 28 9 42 0 440 1,907 4:30 PM 0 0 36 0 156 0 26 5 0 0 3 0 24 8 37 0 460 1,967 4:45 PM 0 0 39 0 147 0 34 4 0 0 4 0 18 5 42 0 478 1,991 5:00 PM 0 0 36 0 170 0 35 7 0 0 3 0 30 8 60 0 529 1,916 5:15 PM 0 0 33 0 178 0 26 2 0 0 3 0 19 9 50 0 500
5:30 PM 0 0 45 0 180 0 31 4 0 0 1 0 14 6 39 0 484
5:45 PM 0 0 25 0 161 0 26 2 0 0 6 0 16 7 33 0 403
Count Total 0 0 281 0 1,295 0 232 31 0 0 29 0 172 58 346 0 3,724 Peak Hour 0 0 153 0 675 0 126 17 0 0 11 0 81 28 191 0 1,991

30.800
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Vehicle Type
Westbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Northeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lights 11 0 75 40 579 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 11 0 75 40 582 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Total
Eastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southeastbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Southwestbound

U HL L BL T BR R HR
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 152 0 669 0 124 16 0 0 11 0 77 27 191 0 1,973 Mediums 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 18
Count Total 0 0 153 0 675 0 126 17 0 0 11 0 81 28 191 0 1,991

30.801
Appendix B
Level of Service Calculations

30.802
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 57 23 238 78 50 9 230 66 18 133 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 57 23 238 78 50 9 230 66 18 133 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 62 25 172 207 0 10 250 72 20 145 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 201 472 195 849 891 44 363 103 121 224 34
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 822 1933 800 1781 1870 1585 40 2564 725 1058 1586 241 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 0 54 172 207 0 176 0 156 20 0 167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 1726 1781 1870 1585 1757 0 1572 1058 0 1827 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 2.4 5.6 6.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 9.5 1.8 0.0 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 2.4 5.6 6.5 0.0 9.7 0.0 9.5 11.3 0.0 8.6 Prop In Lane 0.45 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.46 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 446 0 421 849 891 287 0 222 121 0 258 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.61 0.00 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 0 421 849 891 564 0 462 283 0 537 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.98 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.5 0.0 29.5 15.2 15.4 0.0 40.8 0.0 40.9 46.3 0.0 40.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 3.9 0.6 0.0 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 1.1 2.2 2.7 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.9 0.5 0.0 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.2 0.0 30.1 15.3 15.5 0.0 42.9 0.0 44.9 46.9 0.0 43.3 LnGrp LOS C A C B B D A D D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 114 379 A 332 187
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 15.4 43.8 43.7
Approach LOS C B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.3 18.7 29.0 18.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.4 29.4 24.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 11.7 4.6 13.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 1.8 0.5 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.803
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 160 64 370 107 49 15 285 124 101 279 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 160 64 370 107 49 15 285 124 101 279 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 174 70 259 316 0 16 310 135 110 303 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 148 457 191 658 691 50 590 258 213 437 55
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 662 2040 852 1781 1870 1585 44 2198 961 945 1629 204 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 0 141 259 316 0 246 0 215 110 0 341 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1837 0 1717 1781 1870 1585 1674 0 1529 945 0 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 0.0 7.0 10.7 12.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 11.9 11.2 0.0 16.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.0 7.0 10.7 12.8 0.0 17.1 0.0 11.9 23.2 0.0 16.7 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.63 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 0 385 658 691 488 0 410 213 0 492 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.00 0.37 0.39 0.46 0.51 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 412 0 385 658 691 604 0 511 275 0 612 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.99 0.00 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 0.0 32.8 23.3 23.9 0.0 30.8 0.0 31.1 41.0 0.0 32.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 1.9 0.0 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 0.0 3.2 4.5 5.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 4.5 2.7 0.0 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 35.5 23.6 24.3 0.0 31.6 0.0 32.1 42.9 0.0 35.3 LnGrp LOS D A D C C C A C D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 302 575 A 461 451
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.6 24.0 31.9 37.2
Approach LOS D C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.6 31.4 27.0 31.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 33.4 22.4 33.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.8 19.1 9.4 25.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.804
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
2: Soquel Avenue & River Street S 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 378 358 122 293 185
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 378 358 122 293 185
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 411 389 133 318 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 931 683 231 877
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.49 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 2702 881 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 411 263 259 318 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1777 1712 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 3.1 4.2 4.3 3.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 3.1 4.2 4.3 3.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.51 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 931 465 448 877
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.44 0.57 0.58 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1749 874 842 877
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.0 10.4 10.4 5.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.3 11.5 11.6 6.3 0.0
LnGrp LOS A B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 411 522 318 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 11.5 6.3
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 20.0 12.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 5.6 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.7 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.805
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
2: Soquel Avenue & River Street S 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 135 324 91 65 44
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 135 324 91 65 44
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 147 352 99 71 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 847 655 182 904
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.51 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 2841 762 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 147 226 225 71 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1777 1733 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 1.0 3.5 3.6 0.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 1.0 3.5 3.6 0.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.44 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 847 424 413 904
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.17 0.53 0.54 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1804 902 880 904
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.5 10.5 10.5 4.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.6 11.5 11.6 4.1 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 147 451 71 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.6 11.6 4.1
Approach LOS A B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 20.0 11.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 2.6 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.1 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.806
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist AM
3: Front Street & Cathcart Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 8 17 281 323 62
Future Volume (vph) 32 8 17 281 323 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3338
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3338
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 35 9 18 305 351 67
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 2 18 305 399 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 30 68
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 16
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 21.0 18.0 56.0 34.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 19.8 17.8 54.4 32.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.64 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 368 370 1192 1272
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.00 0.01 c0.16 c0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 25.0 26.8 6.6 18.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6
Delay (s) 25.9 25.1 27.1 7.1 19.1
Level of Service C C C A B
Approach Delay (s) 25.7 8.2 19.1
Approach LOS C A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.807
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist PM
3: Front Street & Cathcart Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 85 20 24 339 544 141
Future Volume (vph) 85 20 24 339 544 141
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3283
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3283
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 92 22 26 368 591 153
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 27 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 5 26 368 717 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 30 68
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 16
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 19.0 18.0 58.0 36.0
Effective Green, g (s) 17.8 17.8 17.8 56.4 34.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.66 0.40
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 370 331 370 1236 1328
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.00 0.01 c0.20 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.30 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 26.6 27.0 6.0 19.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.6
Delay (s) 29.6 26.7 27.3 6.6 20.8
Level of Service C C C A C
Approach Delay (s) 29.1 8.0 20.8
Approach LOS C A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.808
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 356 13 279 532 91 5 134 198 33 163 34 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 356 13 279 532 91 5 134 198 33 163 34 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 387 14 303 578 99 5 146 215 36 177 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 73 703 25 356 675 546 9 467 691 47 507 459
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3127 113 1603 1683 1363 1603 1683 1350 1603 1683 1307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 197 204 303 578 99 5 146 215 36 177 37 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1640 1603 1683 1363 1603 1683 1350 1603 1683 1307 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 7.1 7.1 11.8 20.3 3.0 0.2 4.5 6.2 1.4 5.3 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 7.1 7.1 11.8 20.3 3.0 0.2 4.5 6.2 1.4 5.3 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 359 369 356 675 546 9 467 691 47 507 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.55 0.55 0.85 0.86 0.18 0.59 0.31 0.31 0.76 0.35 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 124 419 430 618 960 777 99 467 691 99 507 459 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.7 22.2 22.3 24.2 17.7 12.6 32.2 18.6 9.7 31.3 17.7 14.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.5 1.3 1.3 5.8 5.5 0.2 50.9 1.7 1.2 22.0 1.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 2.6 2.7 4.7 8.0 0.9 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.8 2.2 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.2 23.5 23.6 30.0 23.3 12.7 83.2 20.3 10.8 53.3 19.6 14.6 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B F C B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 462 980 366 250
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.2 24.3 15.6 23.7
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 22.0 18.4 18.6 4.3 23.6 7.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 18.0 25.0 17.0 4.0 18.0 5.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 8.2 13.8 9.1 2.2 7.3 4.4 22.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3
HCM 6th LOS C

30.809
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 517 18 217 414 108 11 165 244 95 308 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 517 18 217 414 108 11 165 244 95 308 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 562 20 236 450 117 12 179 265 103 335 155 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 105 728 26 280 575 463 19 462 620 128 576 545 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3130 111 1603 1683 1355 1603 1683 1350 1603 1683 1318 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 287 295 236 450 117 12 179 265 103 335 155 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1642 1603 1683 1355 1603 1683 1350 1603 1683 1318 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 11.3 11.3 9.6 16.1 4.2 0.5 5.8 9.0 4.2 11.0 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 11.3 11.3 9.6 16.1 4.2 0.5 5.8 9.0 4.2 11.0 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 372 382 280 575 463 19 462 620 128 576 545 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.78 0.25 0.63 0.39 0.43 0.80 0.58 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 191 476 489 406 727 585 95 462 620 215 576 545 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.0 24.1 24.1 26.8 19.9 15.9 33.0 19.8 12.7 30.4 18.1 13.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 5.8 5.8 10.3 4.3 0.3 29.1 2.4 2.2 11.0 4.2 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 6.5 1.2 0.3 2.4 2.8 2.0 4.6 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 29.9 29.9 37.1 24.2 16.2 62.1 22.2 14.8 41.4 22.4 14.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B E C B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 667 803 456 593
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.7 26.8 19.0 23.6
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 22.4 15.7 19.6 4.8 27.0 8.4 26.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 18.0 17.0 20.0 4.0 23.0 8.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 11.0 11.6 13.3 2.5 13.0 5.5 18.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.2 0.3 2.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C

30.810
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
5: Front Street & Cooper Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 41 44 206 176 23
Future Volume (veh/h) 50 41 44 206 176 23
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 45 48 224 191 25
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 72 60 962 1148 1943 251
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 912 760 1165 1870 3258 409
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 0 48 224 106 110
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1688 0 1165 1870 1777 1797
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.6 0.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.6 0.7
Prop In Lane 0.54 0.45 1.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 133 0 962 1148 1091 1103
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.10 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1036 0 962 1148 1091 1103
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.7 0.0 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.9 0.0 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.2
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 100 272 216
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 2.6 2.2
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 6.1 20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 3.5 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.2 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.4
HCM 6th LOS A

30.811
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
5: Front Street & Cooper Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 111 39 320 352 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 64 111 39 320 352 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 121 42 348 383 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 92 159 743 1056 1845 182
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
Sat Flow, veh/h 603 1042 966 1870 3360 322
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 0 42 348 207 214
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1653 0 966 1870 1777 1812
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 0.6 2.8 1.6 1.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 2.3 2.8 1.6 1.6
Prop In Lane 0.36 0.63 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 0 743 1056 1003 1023
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.06 0.33 0.21 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 933 0 743 1056 1003 1023
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5 0.0 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.1 0.0 3.8 4.1 3.5 3.5
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 192 390 421
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.1 4.1 3.5
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 8.3 20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 5.2 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.4 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.2
HCM 6th LOS A

30.812
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
6: River Street & Water Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 323 18 255 770 283 31 186 136 73 91 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 323 18 255 770 283 31 186 136 73 91 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 351 20 277 837 308 34 202 0 79 99 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 20 609 272 337 1242 554 50 1200 102 670 14
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1827 37 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 351 20 277 837 308 34 202 0 79 0 101 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1864 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 5.9 0.7 9.8 13.1 10.3 1.2 2.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 5.9 0.7 9.8 13.1 10.3 1.2 2.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 20 609 272 337 1242 554 50 1200 102 0 684 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.58 0.07 0.82 0.67 0.56 0.68 0.17 0.77 0.00 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 978 436 708 2172 969 163 1200 272 0 684 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.2 24.9 22.8 25.5 18.1 17.2 31.5 15.2 0.0 30.4 0.0 13.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.9 0.1 5.0 0.6 0.9 14.8 0.3 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 2.4 0.3 4.4 5.0 3.5 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 25.8 22.9 30.5 18.8 18.1 46.3 15.5 0.0 42.1 0.0 14.3 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B D B D A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 382 1422 236 A 180
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 20.9 19.9 26.5
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 26.1 16.4 15.2 5.8 28.0 4.7 26.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 20.0 26.0 18.0 6.0 24.0 4.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 4.6 11.8 7.9 3.2 4.4 2.4 15.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.813
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
6: River Street & Water Street 03/04/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 614 61 224 601 211 95 264 316 222 255 23 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 614 61 224 601 211 95 264 316 222 255 23 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 667 66 243 653 229 103 287 0 241 277 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 54 819 365 287 1284 573 133 865 285 556 50
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.16 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1690 153 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 667 66 243 653 229 103 287 0 241 0 302 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1843 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 13.9 2.6 10.3 11.2 8.4 4.4 5.2 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 13.9 2.6 10.3 11.2 8.4 4.4 5.2 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 54 819 365 287 1284 573 133 865 285 0 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.81 0.18 0.85 0.51 0.40 0.78 0.33 0.85 0.00 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 137 956 426 388 1457 650 251 865 388 0 606 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 28.4 24.1 31.8 19.5 18.6 35.5 24.3 0.0 31.8 0.0 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.6 4.8 0.2 12.2 0.3 0.5 9.3 1.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 6.2 1.0 5.3 4.4 3.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 4.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.2 33.2 24.3 44.0 19.8 19.1 44.8 25.3 0.0 43.8 0.0 23.9 LnGrp LOS E C C D B B D C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 774 1125 390 A 543
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.8 24.9 30.5 32.8
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.5 23.0 16.6 22.0 9.8 29.7 6.4 32.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 19.0 17.0 21.0 11.0 25.0 6.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 7.2 12.3 15.9 6.4 12.3 3.8 13.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.3 0.3 2.1 0.1 1.4 0.0 5.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.814
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist AM
7: Pacific Avenue/Front Street/Pacific Avenue & Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street 03/04/2020 530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL2 WBL WBT WBR SBL2 SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 348 65 0 126 658 1 9 51 119
Future Volume (vph) 88 348 65 0 126 658 1 9 51 119
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1849 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1849 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 96 378 71 0 137 715 1 10 55 129
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 378 71 0 137 716 0 0 65 38
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 34.9 34.9 11.6 38.2 24.2 24.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 34.9 34.9 11.6 38.2 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.46 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 1493 668 248 1634 541 463
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.11 c0.08 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.25 0.11 0.55 0.44 0.12 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 15.5 14.5 33.1 15.0 21.4 21.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 0.1 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.5 0.3
Delay (s) 38.8 15.6 14.5 35.8 15.9 21.9 21.5
Level of Service D B B D B C C
Approach Delay (s) 19.5 19.1 21.7
Approach LOS B B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.815
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist PM
7: Pacific Avenue/Front Street/Pacific Avenue & Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street 03/04/2020 530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL2 WBL WBT WBR SBL2 SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 153 675 143 0 126 582 1 11 109 191 Future Volume (vph) 153 675 143 0 126 582 1 11 109 191
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1854 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1854 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 166 734 155 0 137 633 1 12 118 208
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 734 155 0 137 634 0 0 130 59
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 34.4 34.4 11.5 33.1 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 34.4 34.4 11.5 33.1 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.14 0.41 0.28 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 1504 673 251 1447 527 450
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.21 0.08 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.49 0.23 0.55 0.44 0.25 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 31.6 16.9 14.8 32.3 17.2 22.3 21.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.3 0.2 2.4 1.0 1.1 0.6
Delay (s) 35.0 17.1 15.0 34.7 18.2 23.4 22.1
Level of Service C B B C B C C
Approach Delay (s) 19.6 21.1 22.6
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.816
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj AM
1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 57 24 245 78 50 13 248 77 18 134 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 57 24 245 78 50 13 248 77 18 134 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 62 26 176 212 0 14 270 84 20 146 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 199 467 201 830 871 47 378 116 120 242 36
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 815 1913 823 1781 1870 1585 56 2482 761 1027 1588 239 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 0 54 176 212 0 195 0 173 20 0 168 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1830 0 1722 1781 1870 1585 1735 0 1565 1027 0 1827 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 2.5 5.9 6.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 10.5 1.9 0.0 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 2.5 5.9 6.8 0.0 10.9 0.0 10.5 12.4 0.0 8.6 Prop In Lane 0.45 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.49 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 446 0 420 830 871 303 0 238 120 0 278 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.65 0.00 0.72 0.17 0.00 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 0 420 830 871 558 0 460 266 0 537 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.98 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 0.0 29.5 15.8 16.1 0.0 40.3 0.0 40.4 46.3 0.0 39.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.1 0.6 0.0 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 1.1 2.4 2.9 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.3 0.5 0.0 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.2 0.0 30.1 16.0 16.2 0.0 42.6 0.0 44.5 46.9 0.0 41.7 LnGrp LOS C A C B B D A D D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 115 388 A 368 188
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 16.1 43.5 42.2
Approach LOS C B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.2 19.8 29.0 19.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.4 29.4 24.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 12.9 4.6 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 2.0 0.5 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.817
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj PM
1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 160 67 384 107 49 17 291 128 101 282 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 160 67 384 107 49 17 291 128 101 282 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 174 73 266 327 0 18 316 139 110 307 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 147 452 197 651 684 52 586 262 212 445 55
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 656 2017 878 1781 1870 1585 48 2150 962 936 1632 202 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 0 142 266 327 0 252 0 221 110 0 345 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1838 0 1712 1781 1870 1585 1631 0 1529 936 0 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 0.0 7.0 11.1 13.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 12.3 11.3 0.0 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 0.0 7.0 11.1 13.4 0.0 17.3 0.0 12.3 23.6 0.0 16.9 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.63 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 0 384 651 684 483 0 417 212 0 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.37 0.41 0.48 0.52 0.00 0.53 0.52 0.00 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 412 0 384 651 684 592 0 511 270 0 613 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.99 0.00 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 0.0 32.8 23.7 24.4 0.0 30.6 0.0 30.9 41.0 0.0 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.0 2.7 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 1.9 0.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.0 3.2 4.7 5.9 0.0 5.2 0.0 4.6 2.7 0.0 7.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 0.0 35.6 24.0 24.9 0.0 31.5 0.0 31.9 42.9 0.0 35.1 LnGrp LOS D A D C C C A C D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 305 593 473 455
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.7 24.5 31.7 37.0
Approach LOS D C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.1 31.9 27.0 31.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.4 33.4 22.4 33.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.4 19.3 9.5 25.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.818
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj AM
2: Soquel Avenue & River Street S 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 146 327 91 65 48
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 146 327 91 65 48
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 159 355 99 71 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 851 659 181 903
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.51 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 2847 758 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 159 227 227 71 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1777 1734 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 1.1 3.5 3.6 0.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 1.1 3.5 3.6 0.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.44 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 851 425 415 903
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.19 0.53 0.55 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1802 901 879 903
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.6 10.5 10.5 4.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.7 11.5 11.6 4.2 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 159 454 71 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 11.6 4.2
Approach LOS A B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 20.0 11.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.6 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.1 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.819
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj PM
2: Soquel Avenue & River Street S 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 382 365 122 293 193
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 382 365 122 293 193
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 415 397 133 318 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 939 693 229 874
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.49 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 2716 868 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 415 267 263 318 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1777 1714 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 3.2 4.3 4.3 3.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 3.2 4.3 4.3 3.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.51 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 939 469 453 874
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.44 0.57 0.58 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1743 872 841 874
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.0 10.4 10.4 5.2 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.3 11.5 11.6 6.3 0.0
LnGrp LOS A B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 415 530 318
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 11.5 6.3
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 20.0 12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 5.6 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.7 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.820
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist+Proj AM 3: Front Street & Cathcart Street 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 8 17 284 334 62
Future Volume (vph) 32 8 17 284 334 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3344
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3344
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 35 9 18 309 363 67
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 2 18 309 412 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 30 68
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 16
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 21.0 18.0 56.0 34.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 19.8 17.8 54.4 32.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.64 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 368 370 1192 1274
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.00 0.01 c0.17 c0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 25.0 26.8 6.6 18.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7
Delay (s) 25.9 25.1 27.1 7.1 19.2
Level of Service C C C A B
Approach Delay (s) 25.7 8.2 19.2
Approach LOS C A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.821
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist+Proj PM 3: Front Street & Cathcart Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 85 20 24 346 548 141
Future Volume (vph) 85 20 24 346 548 141
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3284
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3284
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 92 22 26 376 596 153
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 27 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 5 26 376 722 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 30 68
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 16
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 19.0 18.0 58.0 36.0
Effective Green, g (s) 17.8 17.8 17.8 56.4 34.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.66 0.40
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 370 331 370 1236 1329
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.00 0.01 c0.20 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.30 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 26.6 27.0 6.0 19.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.6
Delay (s) 29.6 26.7 27.3 6.7 20.9
Level of Service C C C A C
Approach Delay (s) 29.1 8.0 20.9
Approach LOS C A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.822
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj AM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 356 13 279 532 92 5 135 198 37 165 38 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 356 13 279 532 92 5 135 198 37 165 38 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 387 14 303 578 100 5 147 215 40 179 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 75 705 25 356 674 546 9 464 689 51 509 462
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3127 113 1603 1683 1363 1603 1683 1350 1603 1683 1307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 197 204 303 578 100 5 147 215 40 179 41 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1640 1603 1683 1363 1603 1683 1350 1603 1683 1307 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 7.1 7.2 11.8 20.4 3.1 0.2 4.5 6.2 1.6 5.4 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 7.1 7.2 11.8 20.4 3.1 0.2 4.5 6.2 1.6 5.4 1.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 75 360 370 356 674 546 9 464 689 51 509 462 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.55 0.55 0.85 0.86 0.18 0.59 0.32 0.31 0.79 0.35 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 123 417 427 614 955 773 98 464 689 98 509 462 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8 22.3 22.3 24.4 17.8 12.6 32.4 18.7 9.8 31.4 17.8 14.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.6 1.3 1.3 5.8 5.6 0.2 51.0 1.8 1.2 23.1 1.9 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 2.6 2.7 4.8 8.1 0.9 0.2 1.9 1.8 0.9 2.2 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.5 23.6 23.6 30.2 23.5 12.8 83.4 20.5 11.0 54.5 19.7 14.7 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B F C B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 463 981 367 260
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.4 24.4 15.8 24.2
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 22.0 18.5 18.7 4.3 23.7 7.0 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 18.0 25.0 17.0 4.0 18.0 5.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 8.2 13.8 9.2 2.2 7.4 4.5 22.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C

30.823
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj AM
5: Front Street & Cooper Street 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 41 44 224 177 23
Future Volume (veh/h) 50 41 44 224 177 23
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 45 48 243 192 25
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 72 60 962 1148 1944 250
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 912 760 1164 1870 3261 407
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 0 48 243 107 110
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1688 0 1164 1870 1777 1797
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.6 0.7
Prop In Lane 0.54 0.45 1.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 133 0 962 1148 1091 1103
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.10 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1036 0 962 1148 1091 1103
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.7 0.0 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.9 0.0 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.3
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 100 291 217
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 2.6 2.2
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 6.1 20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 3.5 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.2 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.3
HCM 6th LOS A

30.824
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj PM
5: Front Street & Cooper Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 111 39 326 355 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 64 111 39 326 355 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 121 42 354 386 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 92 159 741 1056 1846 181
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
Sat Flow, veh/h 603 1042 963 1870 3363 320
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 0 42 354 209 215
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1653 0 963 1870 1777 1813
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 0.6 2.9 1.6 1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 2.3 2.9 1.6 1.7
Prop In Lane 0.36 0.63 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 0 741 1056 1003 1024
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.06 0.34 0.21 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 933 0 741 1056 1003 1024
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5 0.0 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.1 0.0 3.8 4.2 3.5 3.5
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 192 396 424
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.1 4.1 3.5
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 8.3 20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 5.2 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 0.4 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.1
HCM 6th LOS A

30.825
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 517 18 217 414 111 11 166 244 97 309 145 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 517 18 217 414 111 11 166 244 97 309 145 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 562 20 236 450 121 12 180 265 105 336 158 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 109 701 25 279 556 447 19 497 648 131 615 580 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3129 111 1603 1683 1353 1603 1683 1354 1603 1683 1323 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 287 295 236 450 121 12 180 265 105 336 158 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1641 1603 1683 1353 1603 1683 1354 1603 1683 1323 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 12.1 12.1 10.1 17.4 4.7 0.5 6.0 9.2 4.6 11.3 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 12.1 12.1 10.1 17.4 4.7 0.5 6.0 9.2 4.6 11.3 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 358 368 279 556 447 19 497 648 131 615 580 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.81 0.27 0.63 0.36 0.41 0.80 0.55 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 180 449 461 428 733 589 90 497 648 225 615 580 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 26.1 26.1 28.5 21.8 17.5 35.0 19.8 12.5 32.1 17.9 13.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.8 8.0 8.0 9.2 5.1 0.3 29.6 2.0 1.9 10.7 3.5 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 5.2 5.3 4.4 7.2 1.4 0.4 2.5 2.8 2.1 4.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 34.1 34.2 37.7 26.9 17.9 64.6 21.8 14.4 42.9 21.4 14.1 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B E C B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 670 807 457 599
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.6 28.7 18.6 23.2
Approach LOS D C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 25.0 16.4 20.0 4.8 30.0 8.9 27.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 20.0 19.0 20.0 4.0 26.0 8.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 11.2 12.1 14.1 2.5 13.3 5.9 19.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.4
HCM 6th LOS C

30.826
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj AM
6: River Street & Water Street 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 323 18 256 770 283 33 197 140 73 94 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 323 18 256 770 283 33 197 140 73 94 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 351 20 278 837 308 36 214 0 79 102 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 20 606 270 338 1241 554 52 1202 102 669 13
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1828 36 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 351 20 278 837 308 36 214 0 79 0 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1864 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 6.0 0.7 9.8 13.1 10.3 1.3 2.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 6.0 0.7 9.8 13.1 10.3 1.3 2.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 20 606 270 338 1241 554 52 1202 102 0 683 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.58 0.07 0.82 0.67 0.56 0.69 0.18 0.77 0.00 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 976 435 707 2169 967 163 1202 272 0 683 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.2 25.0 22.8 25.5 18.2 17.2 31.5 15.3 0.0 30.5 0.0 13.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.9 0.1 5.0 0.6 0.9 14.9 0.3 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 2.5 0.3 4.4 5.0 3.5 0.8 1.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.6 25.9 22.9 30.5 18.8 18.1 46.4 15.6 0.0 42.1 0.0 14.4 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B D B D A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 382 1423 250 A 183
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 20.9 20.0 26.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 26.2 16.4 15.2 5.9 28.0 4.7 26.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 20.0 26.0 18.0 6.0 24.0 4.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 4.8 11.8 8.0 3.3 4.5 2.4 15.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.827
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+Proj PM
6: River Street & Water Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 614 61 227 601 211 96 268 318 222 262 23 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 614 61 227 601 211 96 268 318 222 262 23 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 667 66 247 653 229 104 291 0 241 285 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 54 818 365 291 1291 576 134 862 285 555 49
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.00 0.16 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1695 149 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 667 66 247 653 229 104 291 0 241 0 310 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1844 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 13.9 2.6 10.6 11.2 8.4 4.5 5.3 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 13.9 2.6 10.6 11.2 8.4 4.5 5.3 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 54 818 365 291 1291 576 134 862 285 0 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.82 0.18 0.85 0.51 0.40 0.78 0.34 0.85 0.00 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 136 953 425 387 1452 647 250 862 387 0 603 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.7 28.6 24.2 31.8 19.5 18.6 35.6 24.5 0.0 32.0 0.0 21.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 4.9 0.2 12.8 0.3 0.4 9.2 1.1 0.0 12.1 0.0 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 6.3 1.0 5.4 4.4 3.0 2.2 2.3 0.0 5.2 0.0 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.5 33.5 24.5 44.6 19.8 19.0 44.8 25.5 0.0 44.1 0.0 24.4 LnGrp LOS E C C D B B D C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 774 1129 395 551
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.0 25.0 30.6 33.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.5 23.0 16.8 22.0 9.9 29.6 6.4 32.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 19.0 17.0 21.0 11.0 25.0 6.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 7.3 12.6 15.9 6.5 12.7 3.8 13.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.4 0.3 2.1 0.1 1.4 0.0 5.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.828
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist+Proj AM 7: Pacific Avenue/Front Street/Pacific Avenue & Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street 05/11/2022 530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL2 WBL WBT WBR SBL2 SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 348 66 0 126 660 1 9 51 119
Future Volume (vph) 88 348 66 0 126 660 1 9 51 119
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1849 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1849 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 96 378 72 0 137 717 1 10 55 129
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 378 72 0 137 718 0 0 65 38
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 34.9 34.9 11.6 38.2 24.2 24.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 34.9 34.9 11.6 38.2 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.46 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 1493 668 248 1634 541 463
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.11 c0.08 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.04 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.25 0.11 0.55 0.44 0.12 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 15.5 14.5 33.1 15.0 21.4 21.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 0.1 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.5 0.3
Delay (s) 38.8 15.6 14.5 35.8 15.9 21.9 21.5
Level of Service D B B D B C C
Approach Delay (s) 19.5 19.1 21.7
Approach LOS B B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.829
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exist+Proj PM 7: Pacific Avenue/Front Street/Pacific Avenue & Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street 07/28/2022 530 Front St Synchro 11 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL2 WBL WBT WBR SBL2 SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 153 675 144 0 126 583 1 11 109 191 Future Volume (vph) 153 675 144 0 126 583 1 11 109 191
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1854 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3538 1854 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 166 734 157 0 137 634 1 12 118 208
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 734 157 0 137 635 0 0 130 59
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 34.4 34.4 11.5 33.1 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 34.4 34.4 11.5 33.1 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.14 0.41 0.28 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 1504 673 251 1447 527 450
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.21 0.08 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.49 0.23 0.55 0.44 0.25 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 31.6 16.9 14.8 32.3 17.2 22.3 21.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.3 0.2 2.4 1.0 1.1 0.6
Delay (s) 35.0 17.1 15.0 34.7 18.2 23.4 22.1
Level of Service C B B C B C C
Approach Delay (s) 19.6 21.1 22.6
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.830
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative PM
1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 07/26/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 262 44 496 314 79 46 523 243 193 649 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 262 44 496 314 79 46 523 243 193 649 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 285 48 440 480 0 50 568 264 210 705 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 100 393 69 445 468 49 625 457 245 789 92
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 647 2536 445 1781 1870 1585 32 1301 951 660 1645 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 0 193 440 480 0 457 0 425 210 0 787 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1838 0 1790 1781 1870 1585 754 0 1531 660 0 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 0.0 12.3 29.5 30.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 24.0 33.6 0.0 46.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 0.0 12.3 29.5 30.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 24.0 57.6 0.0 46.8 Prop In Lane 0.35 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.62 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 0 277 445 468 395 0 735 245 0 881 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.99 1.03 1.16 0.00 0.58 0.86 0.00 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 285 0 277 445 468 395 0 735 245 0 881 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.87 0.88 0.00 0.88 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 0.0 48.0 44.8 45.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 22.5 45.2 0.0 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 0.0 13.5 34.3 43.5 0.0 92.8 0.0 1.0 22.4 0.0 10.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 0.0 6.5 17.2 19.4 0.0 17.4 0.0 8.7 7.9 0.0 22.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.6 0.0 61.5 79.1 88.5 0.0 122.7 0.0 23.4 67.6 0.0 38.7 LnGrp LOS E A E E F F A C E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 409 920 A 882 997
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.7 84.0 74.9 44.8
Approach LOS E F E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.6 62.2 23.2 62.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 57.6 18.6 57.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.0 59.6 15.5 59.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.831
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative PM
2: Soquel Avenue & River Street S 07/26/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 602 620 178 445 161
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 602 620 178 445 161
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 654 674 193 484 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 1230 944 270 776
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 2820 780 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 654 439 428 484 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1777 1730 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.4 7.9 7.9 7.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.4 7.9 7.9 7.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.45 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1230 615 599 776
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.53 0.71 0.71 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1549 774 754 776
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.6 10.4 10.4 8.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 2.3 2.4 3.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.0 12.7 12.8 11.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 654 867 484 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 12.8 11.8
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.7 20.0 16.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 9.7 9.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.9 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.832
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 3: Front Street & Cathcart Street 07/26/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 193 111 116 569 805 317
Future Volume (vph) 193 111 116 569 805 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3064
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3064
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 210 121 126 618 875 345
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 95 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 26 126 618 1192 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 30 68
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 16
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 21.0 109.0 84.0
Effective Green, g (s) 31.8 31.8 20.8 107.4 82.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.72 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 375 335 245 1333 1683
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.02 c0.07 0.33 c0.39
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.51 0.46 0.71
Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 47.3 59.9 9.1 24.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 0.4 7.5 1.2 2.5
Delay (s) 58.8 47.8 67.4 10.2 27.5
Level of Service E D E B C
Approach Delay (s) 54.8 19.9 27.5
Approach LOS D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.833
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 07/26/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 996 29 227 830 195 4 228 254 202 366 262 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 996 29 227 830 195 4 228 254 202 366 262 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 1083 32 247 902 212 4 248 276 220 398 285 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 174 1361 40 272 828 674 7 238 425 200 442 494 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.17 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3162 93 1603 1683 1371 1603 1683 1295 1603 1683 1294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 548 567 247 902 212 4 248 276 220 398 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1656 1603 1683 1371 1603 1683 1295 1603 1683 1294 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 35.6 35.6 18.1 59.0 11.2 0.3 17.0 17.0 15.0 27.4 21.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 35.6 35.6 18.1 59.0 11.2 0.3 17.0 17.0 15.0 27.4 21.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 174 688 713 272 828 674 7 238 425 200 442 494 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.80 0.80 0.91 1.09 0.31 0.60 1.04 0.65 1.10 0.90 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 688 713 307 828 674 53 238 425 200 442 494 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 29.6 29.6 48.9 30.5 18.3 59.7 51.5 36.1 52.5 42.7 30.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 76.6 6.5 6.3 27.4 58.6 0.3 64.3 69.1 7.5 92.2 24.0 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.9 14.7 15.1 9.3 36.4 3.6 0.2 11.7 7.9 11.1 14.2 7.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 130.1 36.1 35.9 76.3 89.1 18.6 124.0 120.6 43.6 144.7 66.8 35.3 LnGrp LOS F D D E F B F F D F E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1294 1361 528 903
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.0 75.8 80.4 75.8
Approach LOS D E F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 21.0 24.3 55.7 4.5 35.5 17.0 63.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 17.0 23.0 49.0 4.0 28.0 13.0 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 19.0 20.1 37.6 2.3 29.4 15.0 61.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.9
HCM 6th LOS E

30.834
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative PM
5: Front Street & Cooper Street 07/26/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 148 79 511 680 78
Future Volume (veh/h) 148 148 79 511 680 78
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 161 86 555 739 85
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 208 459 937 1609 185
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Sat Flow, veh/h 836 836 665 1870 3305 369
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 323 0 86 555 409 415
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1678 0 665 1870 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 0.0 3.1 6.7 4.8 4.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 7.8 6.7 4.8 4.8
Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 417 0 459 937 890 904
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.19 0.59 0.46 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 841 0 459 937 890 904
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.2 0.0 7.7 5.6 5.2 5.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.0 0.9 2.7 1.7 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 0.4 1.9 1.2 1.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 8.6 8.4 6.9 6.8
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 323 641 824
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.3 8.4 6.9
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 11.9 20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 7.7 6.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.7 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.8
HCM 6th LOS A

30.835
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative PM
6: River Street & Water Street 07/26/2020
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 1112 62 204 934 346 111 393 252 312 427 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 82 1112 62 204 934 346 111 393 252 312 427 58 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 89 1209 67 222 1015 376 121 427 0 339 464 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 114 1185 528 218 1392 621 139 632 336 466 63 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1612 219 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 1209 67 222 1015 376 121 427 0 339 0 527 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1831 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 30.0 2.6 11.0 21.9 17.0 6.0 10.1 0.0 17.0 0.0 25.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 30.0 2.6 11.0 21.9 17.0 6.0 10.1 0.0 17.0 0.0 25.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 1185 528 218 1392 621 139 632 336 0 529 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 1.02 0.13 1.02 0.73 0.61 0.87 0.68 1.01 0.00 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 1185 528 218 1392 621 139 632 336 0 529 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.5 30.0 20.9 39.5 23.3 21.8 41.1 34.6 0.0 36.5 0.0 32.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.7 31.5 0.1 66.2 2.0 1.7 41.5 5.7 0.0 51.0 0.0 38.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 17.4 1.0 8.7 9.1 6.4 4.2 4.8 0.0 12.0 0.0 16.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.2 61.5 21.0 105.7 25.3 23.5 82.6 40.3 0.0 87.5 0.0 70.2 LnGrp LOS E F C F C C F D F A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1365 1613 548 A 866
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.5 35.9 49.6 77.0
Approach LOS E D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 20.0 15.0 34.0 11.0 30.0 9.7 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 16.0 11.0 30.0 7.0 26.0 7.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 12.1 13.0 32.0 8.0 27.9 6.4 23.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.836
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 7: Pacific Avenue/Front Street/Pacific Avenue & Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street 07/26/2020 530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL2 WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 250 1025 157 0 157 827 37 45 365 210 Future Volume (vph) 250 1025 157 0 157 827 37 45 365 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3517 1853 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3517 1853 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 272 1114 171 0 171 899 40 49 397 228
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 148
Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 1114 171 0 171 936 0 0 446 80 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 6 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.1 34.1 34.1 11.4 28.4 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 17.1 34.1 34.1 11.4 28.4 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.32 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 342 1363 609 228 1128 649 554
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.31 0.10 0.27 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.82 0.28 0.75 0.83 0.69 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 24.4 18.7 37.2 27.8 24.6 19.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.0 3.9 0.3 13.0 7.1 5.9 0.5
Delay (s) 46.1 28.3 19.0 50.1 34.9 30.5 20.2
Level of Service D C B D C C C
Approach Delay (s) 30.4 37.3 27.0
Approach LOS C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.837
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM 1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 262 47 510 314 79 48 529 247 193 652 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 262 47 510 314 79 48 529 247 193 652 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 285 51 448 490 0 52 575 268 210 709 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 104 406 76 436 458 48 605 454 238 787 91
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 642 2514 469 1781 1870 1585 31 1265 950 653 1646 190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 218 0 194 448 490 0 463 0 432 210 0 791 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1838 0 1786 1781 1870 1585 714 0 1531 653 0 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 0.0 12.3 29.4 29.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 24.6 32.8 0.0 47.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 0.0 12.3 29.4 29.4 0.0 57.4 0.0 24.6 57.4 0.0 47.4 Prop In Lane 0.35 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.62 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 0 289 436 458 375 0 732 238 0 878 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.67 1.03 1.07 1.24 0.00 0.59 0.88 0.00 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 297 0 289 436 458 375 0 732 238 0 878 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.88 0.00 0.88 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.8 0.0 47.3 45.3 45.3 0.0 29.8 0.0 22.7 46.1 0.0 28.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.8 0.0 11.9 44.7 56.8 0.0 124.3 0.0 1.1 26.7 0.0 11.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.4 0.0 6.4 18.3 20.7 0.0 19.7 0.0 8.9 8.2 0.0 22.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.6 0.0 59.2 90.0 102.1 0.0 154.1 0.0 23.8 72.8 0.0 39.7 LnGrp LOS E A E F F F A C E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 412 938 895 1001
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.0 96.3 91.2 46.7
Approach LOS E F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 62.0 24.0 62.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.4 57.4 19.4 57.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 31.4 59.4 15.5 59.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.1
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.838
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM 2: Soquel Avenue & River Street S 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 606 627 178 445 169
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 606 627 178 445 169
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 659 682 193 484 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 1236 951 269 775
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.43 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 2828 773 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 659 443 432 484 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1777 1731 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.5 8.0 8.0 7.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.5 8.0 8.0 7.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.45 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1236 618 602 775
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.53 0.72 0.72 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1545 773 753 775
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.6 10.4 10.4 8.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 2.4 2.5 3.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.0 12.8 12.9 11.9 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 659 875 484
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 12.9 11.9
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.8 20.0 16.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 9.8 10.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.9 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.839
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumuatlive+Proj PM 3: Front Street & Cathcart Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 193 111 116 576 809 317
Future Volume (vph) 193 111 116 576 809 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3065
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 3065
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 210 121 126 626 879 345
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 95 0 0 27 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 26 126 626 1197 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 30 68
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 16
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 21.0 109.0 84.0
Effective Green, g (s) 31.8 31.8 20.8 107.4 82.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.72 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 375 335 245 1333 1683
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.02 c0.07 0.34 c0.39
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.51 0.47 0.71
Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 47.3 59.9 9.1 25.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 0.4 7.5 1.2 2.6
Delay (s) 58.8 47.8 67.4 10.3 27.6
Level of Service E D E B C
Approach Delay (s) 54.8 19.9 27.6
Approach LOS D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

30.840
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM 4: Front Street & Laurel Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 168 996 29 227 830 198 4 229 254 204 367 264 Future Volume (veh/h) 168 996 29 227 830 198 4 229 254 204 367 264 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 183 1083 32 247 902 215 4 249 276 222 399 287 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 160 1308 39 272 814 663 7 267 449 200 470 506 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3161 93 1603 1683 1371 1603 1683 1307 1603 1683 1300 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 548 567 247 902 215 4 249 276 222 399 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1656 1603 1683 1371 1603 1683 1307 1603 1683 1300 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 36.6 36.7 18.1 58.0 11.5 0.3 17.5 19.0 15.0 26.9 21.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 36.6 36.7 18.1 58.0 11.5 0.3 17.5 19.0 15.0 26.9 21.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 160 662 685 272 814 663 7 267 449 200 470 506 V/C Ratio(X) 1.14 0.83 0.83 0.91 1.11 0.32 0.60 0.93 0.62 1.11 0.85 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 160 662 685 307 814 663 53 267 449 200 470 506 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.0 31.4 31.4 48.9 31.0 19.0 59.7 49.9 34.4 52.5 40.9 29.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 114.2 8.6 8.3 27.4 65.7 0.3 64.3 40.5 6.2 95.4 17.2 4.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.9 15.5 16.0 9.3 37.4 3.7 0.2 10.4 7.6 11.3 13.3 7.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 168.2 40.0 39.7 76.3 96.7 19.3 124.0 90.4 40.5 147.9 58.1 34.2 LnGrp LOS F D D E F B F F D F E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1298 1364 529 908
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.9 80.8 64.6 72.5
Approach LOS E F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 23.0 24.3 53.7 4.5 37.5 16.0 62.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 19.0 23.0 47.0 4.0 30.0 12.0 58.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 21.0 20.1 38.7 2.3 28.9 14.0 60.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 69.6
HCM 6th LOS E

30.841
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM 5: Front Street & Cooper Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 148 79 517 683 78
Future Volume (veh/h) 148 148 79 517 683 78
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 161 86 562 742 85
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 208 458 937 1610 184
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Sat Flow, veh/h 836 836 663 1870 3307 368
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 323 0 86 562 410 417
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1678 0 663 1870 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 0.0 3.1 6.8 4.8 4.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 7.9 6.8 4.8 4.8
Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 417 0 458 937 890 904
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.19 0.60 0.46 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 841 0 458 937 890 904
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.2 0.0 7.7 5.7 5.2 5.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.0 0.9 2.8 1.7 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 0.4 2.0 1.2 1.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 8.6 8.5 6.9 6.9
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 323 648 827
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.3 8.5 6.9
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 11.9 20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 16.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 7.7 6.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.7 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.8
HCM 6th LOS A

30.842
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM 6: River Street & Water Street 07/28/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 1112 62 207 934 346 112 397 254 312 434 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 82 1112 62 207 934 346 112 397 254 312 434 58 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 89 1209 67 225 1015 376 122 432 0 339 472 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 114 1185 528 218 1392 621 139 632 336 467 62 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1616 216 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 1209 67 225 1015 376 122 432 0 339 0 535 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1832 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 30.0 2.6 11.0 21.9 17.0 6.1 10.2 0.0 17.0 0.0 26.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 30.0 2.6 11.0 21.9 17.0 6.1 10.2 0.0 17.0 0.0 26.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 1185 528 218 1392 621 139 632 336 0 529 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 1.02 0.13 1.03 0.73 0.61 0.88 0.68 1.01 0.00 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 1185 528 218 1392 621 139 632 336 0 529 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.5 30.0 20.9 39.5 23.3 21.8 41.1 34.6 0.0 36.5 0.0 32.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.7 31.5 0.1 70.0 2.0 1.7 43.2 5.9 0.0 51.0 0.0 41.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 17.4 1.0 9.0 9.1 6.4 4.3 4.9 0.0 12.0 0.0 17.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.2 61.5 21.0 109.5 25.3 23.5 84.3 40.5 0.0 87.5 0.0 73.9 LnGrp LOS E F C F C C F D F A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1365 1616 554 874
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.5 36.6 50.2 79.2
Approach LOS E D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 20.0 15.0 34.0 11.0 30.0 9.7 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 16.0 11.0 30.0 7.0 26.0 7.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 12.2 13.0 32.0 8.1 28.0 6.4 23.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

30.843
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumuatlive+Proj PM 7: Pacific Avenue/Front Street/Pacific Avenue & Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street 07/28/2022 530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL2 WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 250 1025 158 0 157 828 37 45 365 210 Future Volume (vph) 250 1025 158 0 157 828 37 45 365 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3517 1853 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3517 1853 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 272 1114 172 0 171 900 40 49 397 228
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 148
Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 1114 172 0 171 937 0 0 446 80 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 6 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.1 34.1 34.1 11.4 28.4 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 17.1 34.1 34.1 11.4 28.4 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.32 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 342 1363 609 228 1128 649 554
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.31 0.10 0.27 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.82 0.28 0.75 0.83 0.69 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 24.4 18.8 37.2 27.8 24.6 19.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.0 3.9 0.3 13.0 7.1 5.9 0.5
Delay (s) 46.1 28.3 19.0 50.1 35.0 30.5 20.2
Level of Service D C B D C C C
Approach Delay (s) 30.4 37.3 27.0
Approach LOS C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

Santa Cruz City CouncilApril 25, 2023

Santa Cruz City Council
April 25, 2023